George W. Gore

[Revmitchell]

Having betrayed Republicans on all other key issues from education to immigration, the announcement that George W. Bush intends to introduce global warming legislation should come as no surprise.


http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200804/COM20080414e.html

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Yup. A final slap to the people that put him in.

 

[Palatka51]

And the sell out is complete.:tonofbricks:

 

[HisWordIsTruth]

Pretty harsh words to be speaking of the person God Himself chose to put in office. Sounds to me like you all ought to be taking a direct swipe at God Himself seeing as He is the one that put him there knowing full well what he was going to do once he got there.

I think we ought to tread EXTREMELY lightly when speaking ill of God's will. Matter of fact I'll just say we ought not speak against it at all. :thumbs:

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Hmmm, should Joseph have submiited to King Herod, and turned the infant Jesus over ? After all, God put him in charge.

 

[Revmitchell]

Looks like Jason Jump is back again in common form

 

[HisWordIsTruth]

Hmmm, should Joseph have submiited to King Herod, and turned the infant Jesus over ? After all, God put him in charge.

Comparing apples and oranges. Speaking "ill" of someone that God has chosen and not turning over someone to be killed is not even remotely close to the same thing. Besides they were told to flee with the child.

 

[HisWordIsTruth]

Looks like Jason Jump is back again in common form

revmitchell what are you talking about? Do you have a hard time being put on the spot so all you can do is accuse someone of something.

What does that even mean that "Jason Jump" is back again. I can only assume that's not a good thing .

It amazes me that folks can't deal with their beliefs, but they immediately go on the attack. Pretty sad. <personal attack deleted - LE>

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Comparing apples and oranges. Speaking "ill" of someone that God has chosen and not turning over someone to be killed is not even remotely close to the same thing. Besides they were told to flee with the child.

So let me get you straight, disobeying a law is OK, but critisizing a leader isn't ? They disobeyed a law, no matter how you slice it. And according to what you have said, condescendingly, I may add, God put people in charge. So you are not making any sense.

By yer same charge, since God calls people to pastor, who are you to question that ?

 

[poncho]

Wouldn't it be a sin to put a public servant on the same level as God? Maybe God is testing us with George W. Bush to find out just how much corruption we'll stand for.

Deep questions.

Anyways, get used to it brothers and sisters because the Bush administration is probably about the best form of government we're going to be seeing from now on. I think.

We'll be looking back at the Dubya years like they were the good ole days.

 

[LadyEagle]

Moderator Note: Please stay on topic. Please refrain from personal attacks and inuendoes - which are against the board rules. Your cooperation is appreciated.

Lady Eagle

 

[HisWordIsTruth]

So let me get you straight, disobeying a law is OK, but critisizing a leader isn't ?

Depends. If the law you are asked to keep is in direct violation of the Word of God then yes disobeying a law is more than okay, it is demanded. Are we to follow man or are we to follow God?

Just because God put the man in charge doesn't mean we are to blindly follow them if they tell us to do something that would violate what God has told us to do or not to do.

By yer same charge, since God calls people to pastor, who are you to question that?

Not every pastor that is pastoring is called by God to do so. Surely you don't think that do you? You think the pope is "called" of God?

Anyone can "say" they are called by God to pastor, but I don't see any Scripture where it says that God "does" place pastors into churches. I may be wrong, but I've never seen it before.

And we have clear Scripture telling us that we are to "test" everything with what Scripture says. So if a pastor is telling us to believe something or do something or not do something that directly violates God's Word then we are not commanded to follow that person.

I think "saved" people's interest in politics is merely a lack of faith in God's Word. He said He will raise up the leaders He will raise up and that He will bring them down when the time comes.

So I'm not sure why folks are actively trying to subvert the will of God. Take for example Jimmy Carter. From a purely "secular" persepctive the US would have been MUCH better without Jimmy Carter. However that is EXACTLY the person that God wanted to be POTUS at that time.

The same could be said of Bill Clinton in that "evangelicals" fought hard to have someone else besides Bill Clinton elected. And they are fighting equally as hard if not harder to have anyone but Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama elected.

But in the end it's not going to matter who votes for who. God will raise up the EXACT person He wants to be in that office despite your votes. So if that is the case, and it is according to Scripture, why not just sit back and see who it is that God selects instead of actively trying to help.

God doesn't "need" our votes. Nor do I find anywhere in Scripture where God "wants" our votes.

 

[Palatka51]

Pretty harsh words to be speaking of the person God Himself chose to put in office. Sounds to me like you all ought to be taking a direct swipe at God Himself seeing as He is the one that put him there knowing full well what he was going to do once he got there.

I think we ought to tread EXTREMELY lightly when speaking ill of God's will. Matter of fact I'll just say we ought not speak against it at all. :thumbs:

It is God's will that we chose every four years who should represent us. George Bush is not directly responsible to God for governance, he is responsible to us. We the People are in the position of power and we are responsible for who we have placed in power. If in the case of a revolution and a despot is in power by usurping that power from us then he would be held in direct responsibility to God.

 

[HisWordIsTruth]

It is God's will that we chose every four years who should represent us.

What Scripture and verse would that be found in exactly?

George Bush is not directly responsible to God for governance

Really? So George Bush is not going to have to give an account to God one day for how he ruled?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

HWIT, I don't see you mentioned in scripture, so I have to assume God is going to call who he wants, and he won't run it by you, first.

Second, due to the first response on your last post, I'm going to assume yer not serious, and are only here to argue. I don't expect that I will waste much time conversing with you.

 

[Palatka51]

So I'm not sure why folks are actively trying to subvert the will of God. Take for example Jimmy Carter. From a purely "secular" persepctive the US would have been MUCH better without Jimmy Carter. However that is EXACTLY the person that God wanted to be POTUS at that time.

The same could be said of Bill Clinton in that "evangelicals" fought hard to have someone else besides Bill Clinton elected. And they are fighting equally as hard if not harder to have anyone but Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama elected.

It is because of these two men that we have the problem of terrorism today. We are paying the price for having had them as POTUS. Jimmy Carter did nothing but set back and say that the Supreme Court has decided on abortion and that is now the law of the land. It is he that pulled the rug out from under the Shaw of Iran. It was Bill Clinton that had the chance to get Osama Bin Laden but was to busy with interns.

Again we the people have elected them and we are responsible. It is the blood of our fine young men that is being shed for our misjudgments.

 

[poncho]

We don't get to choose our leaders. We get to pick between the upper crust's favorites.

 

[Palatka51]

We don't get to choose our leaders. We get to pick between the upper crust's favorites.

Non-the-less we choose from whom we've been handed.

 

[poncho]

Non-the-less we choose from whom we've been handed.

I didn't. I chose the right man for the job. Now I get to watch you all pick from the lesser of two tyrants, again. Of course it doesn't have to be that way.

 

[HisWordIsTruth]

HWIT, I don't see you mentioned in scripture, so I have to assume God is going to call who he wants, and he won't run it by you, first.

You are correct. I am not mentioned in Scripture. And yes God can call whomever He wants. That's my WHOLE POINT. Why do you think He needs to run His servant through an election where Bro. Curtis gets to approve or disapprove?

Come on now . . .

Nowhere did I say God had to run His choice through me. That's exactly what I am taking a stand against.

Second, due to the first response on your last post, I'm going to assume yer not serious, and are only here to argue.

Well I "think" you are talking about my request for a Scripture chapter and verse where it is God's will for us to choose our leaders every four years. And if that is the case, I'm dead serious. Where does God say it is His will for "us to chose". I find that nowhere in Scritpure.

I don't want to "argue". I just want folks to look at what Scripture "actually says", not what we "want" it to say.

There is nowhere in Scripture that mandates us to have a part in choosing our leaders. Again if one votes against God's elect how can that be seen as anything other than open rebellion against God's will. That's not a "good" thing.

If we are actively trying to derail the will of God we can't just think that God is going to "wink" at that injustice and say oh well you gave it the old college try.

I don't expect that I will waste much time conversing with you.

Well when we look at what Scripture "actually says" conversations get rather short sometimes.