[TheRealThing]

I've seen you belly flop from the high dive of arrogance, true enough. I will say this again: Barack Obama was not "my President." You inhabit an "either-or, us against them, me against the world" mindset. I am not the only poster who thinks in your defense of Trump you have often let politics wag your faith. I find you more Jewish polity in mindset than Christian, with the same stiff-necked arrogance.

"Vote for Constantine. He's a friend to us. I know he loves orgies, men and women, but he's in our corner, and by the sword, his triumph shall be ours." Dangerous and dubious reasoning.

Still can't come up with your own material? Got a news flash for you, the Jew is God's chosen people.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Still can't come up with your own material? Got a news flash for you, the Jew is God's chosen people.

Got a news flash for you: God loves the man, woman, and child of Palestine.

Your politics wag your faith. Period.

[TheRealThing]

TRT, I am really doing my best not to be dragged down to your level again but you don't make it easy.

Ronald Reagan considered anybody who agreed with him 80 percent of the time to be an ally. We probably share 90 percent of our political positions, if not more, yet you have continued your personal attacks because I strongly opposed Trump in the primaries (and even took the time to cast a primary vote against him). It speaks volumes about you when a liberal like the Sombrero, who probably disagrees with my political positions 80 percent of the time, consistently shows better manners than you. Most people can disagree without being disagreeable, but you are one of the exceptions.

As for Trump, he is off to a great start. Aside from lying about the size of the crowd at the inauguration, not demanding Comey's resignation, and not asking Sessions to go after Hillary, Trump has far exceeded my expectations so far. However, I never expect anybody to agree with me 100 percent of the time and if I agree with 80 percent of what Trump does, then I will be singing his praises. That's just the kind of guy that I am.

You called me out on whether God installs leaders and then said I was sanctimonious for posting the evidence.

I have taken a pragmatic stance on the Presidency of DJT. Though he will likely be light years better than Obama or Hillary still, he was our only option. That doesn't mean I agree with him about everything, though I did believe he would win. I mean, what does it take Hoot? I already said we're down the drain in the brightest of scenarios outside of national revival. I don't like the way he telegraphs things like not pursuing the people's business in the case of Hillary. I don't like the Comey decision, but I like his cabinet picks and I hope he intends to lean on them heavily.

In the end it came down to Trump or Clinton, and yet the fight is anything but over. Dems are actively demonstrating their particular neuroses, making all manner of threats and running amok and that's a problem whether Republicans have the majority or not. My concern has been for my country only. And though I have hope for the immediate future, we'll need another convincing midterm to shock Dems into focus. There are a lot of judges to appoint and there's a lot of work to be done. The Dems know four years is not enough time and the next four will be nasty. Frankly, even though Trump won, it still feels more like going down fighting than it does winning to me. Only history will validate or disprove my contentions on our national standing. I doubt sincerely the demise of the European Union, but it is possible that the US may get a reprieve.

[TheRealThing]

Got a news flash for you: God loves the man, woman, and child of Palestine.

Your politics wag your faith. Period.

Right, and every last one of them who does not repent and call on the Lord Jesus to save him, will bust hell wide open.


If you were truly saved, you'd know better than to question my sted with The Lord. He died for me, I have bowed before Him in repentance and I trust Him fully to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Right, and every last one of them who does not repent and call on the Lord Jesus to save him, will bust hell wide open.


If you were truly saved, you'd know better than to question my sted with The Lord. He died for me, I have bowed before Him in repentance and I trust Him fully to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day.

Hold on. Suggesting you are allowing your politics to guide your exposition of Old Testament prophecies, etc. is not questioning your salvation, nor your understanding of the salvific work of Christ. Our debate is centered on how separation of church and state operates, Constitutional issues, etc.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Wouldn't it be true to say the same thing of the Israelites who fail to do as you suggest?

[TheRealThing]

Wouldn't it be true to say the same thing of the Israelites who fail to do as you suggest?

Suggesting that politics can guide exposition is absurd.

I shouldn't have answered you in the first place, because you either can't or won't stay on topic and the conversation did not have the first thing to do with the fight between Jews and Arabs. And no I won't hold on. Think or say whatever you want about my faith since it is you who will answer for having done so. Israel was a theocracy, the US was founded on Christian principles. In both cases God expected/expects his own to behave as men who walk in the light. It is ridiculous in my view, to try and separate governance from morality. The founders didn't attempt to do that, and I don't buy for the first second that God would expect us to do that. In fact, those who argue continually for that separation have a very real problem if you ask me.

I believe Mr Obama gave money to those for whom he has sympathy, while he has shown nothing but contempt for Israel. Actions speak louder than words. God loves Palestinians, but Palestinians worship another god while they deny the God of Israel. That's why they've been at war with them in one way or another since the dawn of time. Ishmael was Hagar's son and God made it clear to Abram that this child was not the one promised. The only promise God made to Hagar was to say that she would have a son and that his seed would multiply greatly. God did in no way approve of this, as Sarah immediately realized she'd done wrong in talking Abram into going in to Hagar. But he was to be a wild man, and his descendants are largely wild men. Hence the 10,000 rockets fired into Israel in 2014 and the ongoing willingness to become human bombs. What promise did you think God made to Hagar?

[The Urban Sombrero]

Genesis 21:13
"I will also make a nation of the son of the bondwoman, BECAUSE HE IS YOUR SEED."

Of course politics can shape exposition. Don't be ridiculous.

[TheRealThing]

Genesis 21:13
"I will also make a nation of the son of the bondwoman, BECAUSE HE IS YOUR SEED."

Of course politics can shape exposition. Don't be ridiculous.

I see why you don't do a lot of referencing when posting. The verse above was directed to Abraham. Not Hagar and not Ishmael. Again, what was the promise?

[The Urban Sombrero]

I see why you don't do a lot of referencing when posting. The verse above was directed to Abraham. Not Hagar and not Ishmael. Again, what was the promise?

I figured you would read on a bit. Out of water for herself and the child, Hagar places him under a shrub, goes a short distance away, and weeps and cries out, "Let me not see the death of the boy." The "angel of the Lord" appears and tells her to pick up the child, telling her that God has heard the cries of the child. In verse 18, "I will make him a great nation." Thus, the same promise regarding the lad that God spoke to Abraham.

Try to not read your own posts so closely and merely skim anyone else's. It's unseemly.

[TheRealThing]

I figured you would read on a bit. Out of water for herself and the child, Hagar places him under a shrub, goes a short distance away, and weeps and cries out, "Let me not see the death of the boy." The "angel of the Lord" appears and tells her to pick up the child, telling her that God has heard the cries of the child. In verse 18, "I will make him a great nation." Thus, the same promise regarding the lad that God spoke to Abraham.

Try to not read your own posts so closely and merely skim anyone else's. It's unseemly.

No, you thought you'd answered in what you posted. Once Sarah conceived, Abraham sent Hagar and Ishmael away with not much more than a bottle of water. I'm certain it was one of the hardest things he ever had to do. But then, sin has consequences and these consequences were directly attached to his disobedience in having a baby with Hagar. God had plainly said Sarah would be the mother of the child of promise. Seeing as how you revel in notions of compromise, you no doubt would argue that leniency should have been extended. Sarah and Abraham could have said that they were confused about God's instruction, but then Abraham would not have been worthy of his calling. He knew his error and that God had been clear because, God is of that mindset of which you are so opposed, either or. Judgment had fallen on the house of Abraham, and you can bet it hurt both Sarah and Abraham mightily. See, contrary to the rationalizations so many have about standing at the Lord's judgment bar, there will be no negotiations in the time of Judgment. Only the pronouncement of consequences for disobedience. In fact, one will be unable to utter a single word;

The Marriage Supper of the Lamb---Matthew 22:10-12 (KJV)
10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.

The great nation of Ishmael is excluded from Covenant with God, and as such no more has a part of God's eternal kingdom than does any other lost person. Therefore, the only promise any son of Ishmael might hope to realize is in true repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus.

There was no promise, all God said to Hagar as I pointed out a mere three posts back, (a point BTW you have tried since to commandeer as your own), was that Ishmael's seed would be greatly multiplied. Other than that there is no promise at all. The Arab world is populated with the sons of Ishmael. They are no more blessed or favored by God than are the people of China, (last I checked they were a great nation too, likewise for Russia). The only reason God gives us for making a great (numbers wise only) nation of Ishmael was out of respect for Abraham, his father.

The Abrahamic Covenant was between God and Abraham and was extended for eternity down the rightful blood line of Isaac and the grafted branch only. Genesis 17:19 (KJV)
19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

God's covenant is not with Ishmael, nor are there any promise/promises as could conceivably be differentiated from any nation other than Israel.

[The Urban Sombrero]

No, you thought you'd answered in what you posted. Once Sarah conceived, Abraham sent Hagar and Ishmael away with not much more than a bottle of water. I'm certain it was one of the hardest things he ever had to do. But then, sin has consequences and these consequences were directly attached to his disobedience in having a baby with Hagar. God had plainly said Sarah would be the mother of the child of promise. Seeing as how you revel in notions of compromise, you no doubt would argue that leniency should have been extended. Sarah and Abraham could have said that they were confused about God's instruction, but then Abraham would not have been worthy of his calling. He knew his error and that God had been clear because, God is of that mindset of which you are so opposed, either or. Judgment had fallen on the house of Abraham, and you can bet it hurt both Sarah and Abraham mightily. See, contrary to the rationalizations so many have about standing at the Lord's judgment bar, there will be no negotiations in the time of Judgment. Only the pronouncement of consequences for disobedience. In fact, one will be unable to utter a single word;

The Marriage Supper of the Lamb---Matthew 22:10-12 (KJV)
10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.

The great nation of Ishmael is excluded from Covenant with God, and as such no more has a part of God's eternal kingdom than does any other lost person. Therefore, the only promise any son of Ishmael might hope to realize is in true repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus.

There was no promise, all God said to Hagar as I pointed out a mere three posts back, (a point BTW you have tried since to commandeer as your own), was that Ishmael's seed would be greatly multiplied. Other than that there is no promise at all. The Arab world is populated with the sons of Ishmael. They are no more blessed or favored by God than are the people of China, (last I checked they were a great nation too, likewise for Russia). The only reason God gives us for making a great (numbers wise only) nation of Ishmael was out of respect for Abraham, his father.

The Abrahamic Covenant was between God and Abraham and was extended for eternity down the rightful blood line of Isaac and the grafted branch only. Genesis 17:19 (KJV)
19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

God's covenant is not with Ishmael, nor are there any promise/promises as could conceivably be differentiated from any nation other than Israel.

"There you go again."

You balked and squalled "what did God promise Hagar?"

I replied. I did not suggest the promise of Isaac and Ishmael were the same. I simply stated a promise was made. Further, I suggested the Christ rejecting Israelite stands in the same position as the seed of Ishmael, the point of my original question.

What you did above is what you always do: construct a straw man. As I was merely pointing out that God did indeed make a promise to Hagar.

[TheRealThing]

Let us say Palestinians are the enemy, though as a threat to the United States, they are more irritant than danger. Let us say, also, they are a people who have experienced tremendous suffering and disruption of every day life since 1948. Let us further say they are children born of the slave woman, who was given promises of her own by God. Could the 221 million be viewed as obedience to Christ? The Sermon on the Mount brought to the level of policy? Or is that impossible in the Bible according to TRT and Dallas BaptistLand?

"There you go again."

You balked and squalled "what did God promise Hagar?"

I replied. I did not suggest the promise of Isaac and Ishmael were the same. I simply stated a promise was made. Further, I suggested the Christ rejecting Israelite stands in the same position as the seed of Ishmael, the point of my original question.

What you did above is what you always do: construct a straw man. As I was merely pointing out that God did indeed make a promise to Hagar.

Okay well, you said God made promises to Hagar, inferring somehow that legitimized to some degree the actions of the Arab World against Israel and her allies. They're not innocent victims needing of understanding and thus deserving of another 221 million US tax dollars if you ask me.

All I saw was God telling Hagar (a victim here) that her son would not die, but would live to become a wild man, the first of a great nation of wild men. Ishmael was conceived in Disobedience, and as such has brought much misery and ruin upon the people of Israel. They are the terror merchants of the Middle East. By contrast Isaac was conceived in Obedience, and by his blood line all nations are blessed.

The Amorites followed after the Jews as they wandered the wilderness, murderously preying on the weak or sickly at the rear of the procession. They are of Ishmael's blood line. Upon exiting the 40 years of wandering, God gave the Jew the promised land, but there was some grisly work to do before they could possess it. God told His people to utterly destroy the inhabitants of the land (the great nation Ishmael) and though they did conquer the land, they failed to follow through with God's command to utterly destroy them. Later, God ordered King Saul to utterly destroy the Amalekites, (formerly the Amorites) down to the last man woman and child for their atrocities against the Jew, but he disobeyed too. For this disobedience, God sat him down and raised up King David. And Haman, the descendant of the King of the Amalekites, was the guy who very nearly succeeded in destroying the Jewish nation while in Babylonian captivity as recorded in the Book of Esther. The only use I can see for them is to punish the nation of Israel for continuing disobedience. Across time, no Arab nation has ever recognized God. Nonetheless, some Arabs find their way to forgiveness and become the sons of God.

God did tell Hagar that her son would not die but would live to become a great nation. I've always seen that as more of a curse than a blessing or a promise.

[Black Bear Dad]

You all are too smart for me. lol I'm a Christian man, and I voted for Trump.

That's all I have to say about that.

[WideRight05]

[Image: https://bearingdrift.com/wp-content/uplo...p-cult.jpg]

[WideRight05]

[Image: https://www.nbc.com/sites/nbcunbc/files/...vver_2.jpg]

[TheRealThing]

What a day. Heard the President lay out his immediate, if long overdue, upliftingly conservative agenda. Mike Pence was next to speak and brought the Republican conference, and me, to cheers. I didn't know that Mr Pence took his oath of office on Reagan's Bible, (he'd asked for it to be sent from the Reagan Library). I also did not know that Reagan took his oath of office based on a Scripture verse particularly esteemed by Mr Pence and one which I have posted on this forum now for years.
2 Chronicles 7:13-14 (KJV)
14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

Now friends, that will preach.

Next was Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May. If she is to be believed, thanks to America's November 8th rejection of liberalism and embrace of conservatism as overseen by Republicans and one DJT, the free world are tasting the first breath of fresh air after 8 long years of liberal stagnation. And further, that Great Britain was proudly ready to stand in lockstep with this newly revitalized America. Here, here!

[Granny Bear]

Trump had 2 Bibles, the Lincoln and one he had as a child.

I noticed the Bible on top was opened, and I've tried to find where it was opened to, but can't find anything.

[TheRealThing]

Trump had 2 Bibles, the Lincoln and one he had as a child.

I noticed the Bible on top was opened, and I've tried to find where it was opened to, but can't find anything.

Couldn't find anything either. There was an article by Holly Meyer predicting both Bibles would be closed during Trump's oath but he must have changed his mind.

[vector]

Couldn't find anything either. There was an article by Holly Meyer predicting both Bibles would be closed during Trump's oath but he must have changed his mind.

Matthew 24:24

[TheRealThing]

^^ I despise, therefore I am.


I will never understand why the left has so much support among common Democrats. Since the days of FDR, the single greatest aligning factor between the middle class and the Democrat Party has been their shared commitment to fostering the well being of labor, specifically union labor. The benefits of which are supposed to trickle down to all those who work with their hands, union or not. Unions took tremendous loses under the last administration, there is no question about that. The only question as I alluded to above, is why as at the same time their bank accounts are bouncing off the zero mark, that the rank and file continue to believe Dems are their saviors? I don't get it.

This week a Republican President met with labor heads from across the land representing of every category. All of those leaders emerged extremely optimistic about the support Mr Trump will extend to labor. So straighten me out here, since labor has been on it's ear for 8 years owing to a floundering US economy, ghost town manufacturing and energy sectors, a Trillion dollar trade deficit, and non-existent construction projects which support the building trades, what are you so concerned about?

Build American/buy American doesn't sound so bad to me. Nor does a trillion dollar infrastructure investment (that will actually go to infrastructure), the return of US auto manufacturing jobs, hundreds of thousands of truck driving jobs, a revived energy sector, and all the rest. It is way past time for labor to realize that supply and demand drives the engine of the American middle class, not tough sounding union rhetoric, contracts, and the threat of strike. I am all for union labor and collective bargaining but in the absence of work, contracts and bargaining cannot take the place of that phone call asking a union brother to report for work.