[Bob Seger]

Since Obama, before leaving office, just had to flip the bird one last time at Israel, is it time for Trump to withdrawal the United States from the U.N.? Hopefully, The President will take a wrecking ball to the U.N. building send that collection of dumbasses packing back to where ever it is that they came from..

[Hoot Gibson]

Withdrawing from the U.N. is long overdue. I don't think that it will happen, but we can always hope. Short of withdrawing, it would be great to see us evict them from the U.S. and reduce our financial support for the organization. This country does not get much of a return on its investment in the U.N.

[TheRealThing]

Since Obama, before leaving office, just had to flip the bird one last time at Israel, is it time for Trump to withdrawal the United States from the U.N.? Hopefully, The President will take a wrecking ball to the U.N. building send that collection of dumbasses packing back to where ever it is that they came from..

We can only hope. We Americans pay dearly for the privilege of housing the foreigners of the UN like royalty, so that they can be pampered in luxury while they dictate compromises in US sovereignty for their own benefit. It's ridiculous.

I understand the concept, which was to provide a national forum for the heads of state to air concerns and grievances in hopes of avoiding armed conflict. Unfortunately, the formation of the UN could not change the nature of men. And armed conflict therefore, has continued to plague mankind as literally millions have died in war since it's inception anyway. But there are other dangers associated with the UN as they have become increasingly frustrated with their rightful role as world forum. They wanted the authority to enforce their resolutions too, and because our own legislators are loathe to usurp the power of the people, our president conspired with UN officials to form a secret police agency known as The Strong Cities Network.
EXCERPT---
"The United Nations is a sharia-compliant world body, and Obama, speaking there just days ago, insisted that “violent extremism” is not exclusive to Islam (which it is). Obama is redefining jihad terror to include everyone but the jihadists. So will the UN, driven largely by the sharia-enforcing Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the pro-Islamic post-American President Obama, use a “global police force” to crush counter-jihad forces?"
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...sm-in-u-s/

As I have posted out in the past, US enemies using their posts at the UN have tried for years to pose sanctions and influences (such as gun control on US soil) which are designed to erode this nation's sovereignty. Further, it would not be much of a stretch in my mind, to assume that any viable world governing effort would use the UN as a kind of launching pad, and that would include that of the anti-Christ. Again, information is power and thanks to rabid liberals this country has gone over the top to be open. Way too open as for example, China's military modernization features fighter aircraft that look exactly like our own.

I hope Trump lands on them too Bob. The US blood and treasure required to win WW2 and establish order among the nations, is through stupidity and naiveté being frittered right back into the hands of our sworn enemies.

[The Urban Sombrero]

"Sworn enemies"

Would this include Vladimir Putin, or no?

[The Urban Sombrero]

It would seem the UN is in the hands of the permanent members of the security council... Veto status and all...France, China, Russia, United Kingdom, United States.

[Bob Seger]

The United Nations serves no purpose to the United States. All it has become is an extension of the liberal movement that seeks to weaken the prowess of the United States and it's sovereignty, in which the U.S. taxpayer has funded to it's own camouflaged demise....I think that Trump will make it abundantly clear to these rinky dink hangers on countries that we have protected and supported for all these years, that we drive the train from now on..You are either with us, or you do the best you can, and of course, good luck...You've been cut out of the will...I think that Trump's approach will be that, "All deals from this point on need to be made in a one on one basis with the U.S. Government"...Period!!

[The Urban Sombrero]

The United Nations serves no purpose to the United States. All it has become is an extension of the liberal movement that seeks to weaken the prowess of the United States and it's sovereignty, in which the U.S. taxpayer has funded to it's own camouflaged demise....I think that Trump will make it abundantly clear to these rinky dink hangers on countries that we have protected and supported for all these years, that we drive the train from now on..You are either with us, or you do the best you can, and of course, good luck...You've been cut out of the will...I think that Trump's approach will be that, "All deals from this point on need to be made in a one on one basis with the U.S. Government"...Period!!

The UN was established to prevent another worldwide conflict like WWII. So far, so good.

I know that dominionists have a certain direction they are seeking to take the United States. However, it is hard for me to reconcile "We the boss. Follow or be left behind" with the Spirit of Christ, who forsook his rights to bring peace. It seems to me that if our policy is always "America first," that isn't consistent with the Christ dominionists claim to serve.

[Bob Seger]

The UN was established to prevent another worldwide conflict like WWII. So far, so good.

I know that dominionists have a certain direction they are seeking to take the United States. However, it is hard for me to reconcile "We the boss. Follow or be left behind" with the Spirit of Christ, who forsook his rights to bring peace. It seems to me that if our policy is always "America first," that isn't consistent with the Christ dominionists claim to serve.

Oh, Pleeeeaaaase!!

We have to be "The Boss" if there is to ever be world peace...It's the weak and naïve that think otherwise.


Peace through strength!!

[TheRealThing]

The UN was established to prevent another worldwide conflict like WWII. So far, so good.

I know that dominionists have a certain direction they are seeking to take the United States. However, it is hard for me to reconcile "We the boss. Follow or be left behind" with the Spirit of Christ, who forsook his rights to bring peace. It seems to me that if our policy is always "America first," that isn't consistent with the Christ dominionists claim to serve.

One wonders why you chose a 'retread' like Urban Sombrero, when The Eveready Troll would have been so much more apropos. The UN, outside of US insistence, has done absolutely nothing to prevent any sort of war at all. They're a bunch of power hungry wannabes on the order of any borderline personality type. We should no more cede sovereignty over our laws and national defense to such bozos, anymore than we should over our personal checking account. Such stupidity from the secular perspective, is the zenith of liberal lunacy.

But now we get into matters which are significantly more weighty, that being practical spirituality. Christ forsook no rights to bring peace. This earth has rarely known peace, in fact, the specter of war has plagued man from his inception to what will soon be his earth shaking climax. And was it not the archangel Gabriel himself who spoke of Christ as being The Prince of Peace Who would come to earth in order to at last bring peace at the end of time?
[B]Daniel 8:25 (KJV) [/B]
25 And through his policy (an evil king under the power of antichrist) also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

Nowhere do the Scriptures suggest that God's people are meant to serve the heathen. We are, as were the Jews, to be a separate people. Sanctified to do God's work. The Old Testament example: beginning in Ezra Chapter 9, verse 1, we see the account of this very situation. Ezra a high priest of Israel, was still in Babylon getting ready to return to Jerusalem from the captivity. When he got word back that the Jewish people had 'blended' for lack of a better term, with the peoples of the land. He tore his clothes and plucked out his beard in despair. They were not called to blend, they and we are to remain separate, though accessible in order to hold up that high standard of Jesus Christ.

The New Testament example: 1 Peter 2:9 (KJV)
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

We are to be called out of the darkness which is the domain of men. The state of man is that they are fallen, separated from God because of their sin. In the same way we are to be separated from them, by virtue of our salvation. We cannot function as salt and light by blending. If we blend, all that is accomplished is to give the lost a reason to point to our own failings to honor Christ with our lives because we are no different than they.

As I have said, America was blessed because of a founding and an adherence to the things of God. Once we began to turn our backs on Him, He began to withdraw His blessing until as we see now, small out of the way towns are being sued by the ACLU for crosses on Christmas trees. Satan is behind such ridiculousness, and those of Christ should reject the cloak of dignity you would confer upon all those who pursue their father's business. Matthew 12:34 (KJV)
34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆️⬆️

Dominionist from start to finish. I fear that you know the words but not the tune, a sort of misplaced triumphalism upon an earthly state.

Your constant "retread" go to is as tiresome as it is irrelevant. Though "do not lord it over" be the admonition for leadership, you sprinkle this and sprinkle that to arrive at dominionism.

A thumb in the eye and a boot on the throat may satisfy a certain impulse in carnal man, but it is not the Spirit of Christ. The UN is not a perfect organization, nor even a competent one at times, but its stated purpose in 1945 continues to operate successfully.

[TheRealThing]

⬆️⬆️

Dominionist from start to finish. I fear that you know the words but not the tune, a sort of misplaced triumphalism upon an earthly state.

Your constant "retread" go to is as tiresome as it is irrelevant. Though "do not lord it over" be the admonition for leadership, you sprinkle this and sprinkle that to arrive at dominionism.

A thumb in the eye and a boot on the throat may satisfy a certain impulse in carnal man, but it is not the Spirit of Christ. The UN is not a perfect organization, nor even a competent one at times, but its stated purpose in 1945 continues to operate successfully.

You are a retread, self confessed, and a troll. And as such, said admission though the high point of your post, was nothing more than a denial of the truth. And unfortunately things only went south from there, as substance nonetheless took a nose dive. The people in the UN are no friends of this nation but then, why argue the point with somebody who plays devil's advocate at every opportunity?

I suppose if I had to come up with an oxymoron for you, it would be that you are a liberal preacher. I mean, it's one thing to revise history to suit the liberal palate, (which is what you're attempting to do with your defense of the UN, while at the same time you condemn and besmirch the record of your own nation). It is however, nothing short of blasphemy to try to revise the character of Christ to suit the liberal palate. Don't try to tell us what the spirit of Christ is, when you cannot even substantiate the lie you've already put out there when you said that Jesus gave up His rights to bring peace to the world. A world which save for a few short years, has been ablaze with war since the day He went back to sit at His Father's right hand. What rights did He give up?

Dems are so steeped in identity politics, that when pinned down in debate their only alternative is the double down. I got that. It is still laughable to read the stuff you go on about. It takes more than a clever term or a tag to distract me there Sombrero. You like to claim the spiritual high ground, while at the same time attempting to berate me in accusing me of being too consumed by things which are spiritual. Hence your use of the tag---Dominionist, which is BTW a leftist Christ denying slur for Christians. The founders were certainly no less consumed, as the record is replete. We are a nation founded on spiritual truths, and you are a denier of same.

The only thing at which the UN has been successful, is in siphoning off billions of US tax dollars to use against, you guessed it, the US and her allies. But by all means, let's keep the place going. All we have to do is put people in office who are smarter than 5th graders and after all, it is best to keep one's friends close and his enemies closer.

[The Urban Sombrero]

🔼🔼

You can't help but build straw men I guess. Christ gave up his rights to bring salvation. A true leader does not parade around demanding his rights, according to Christ.

Dominionism is an overlay of belief foisted upon the United States through erroneous use of Scripture. To disagree with that overlay is not to deny Christ. To argue that Deism influenced the Founding of America is not to deny Christ. UNLESS, you are putting what you believe as co-equal to Christ, or the United States as co-equal to Christ.

As for a confession of being a retread, or being a retread? All your fantasy. Not an ounce of reality in it.

As for being a "troll," you must go by your own definition.

[Bob Seger]

Hard core liberal, Alan Dershowitz, yesterday, made the statement that Barack Obama will go down as the worst foreign policy president in US history.

[Bob Seger]

The Israelis claim to have "rock solid" evidence that Barack Obama was personally responsible for leading the fight and using his influence to sponsor all of this, with proof to be revealed soon.

[The Urban Sombrero]

The Israelis claim to have "rock solid" evidence that Barack Obama was personally responsible for leading the fight and using his influence to sponsor all of this, with proof to be revealed soon.

Dershowitz is a hard core Zionist, a fact that has been proven by his words and deeds over and over again.

Must the United States support Israel no matter its course of action? I'm not necessarily talking about this particular resolution where we abstained, but as a general principle?

When Christ predicted the destruction of Israel by the Romans, was that an act of betrayal?

[The Urban Sombrero]

Oh, Pleeeeaaaase!!

We have to be "The Boss" if there is to ever be world peace...It's the weak and naïve that think otherwise.


Peace through strength!!

Would you have supported a 25 to 50 year commitment of troops in Iraq?

Is it more accurate to say that ISIS filled a void created by the withdrawal of US troops, or that the overthrow of Sadaam Hussein, minus an effective post overthrow plan, put tensions between Sunni and Shii'a on high boil?

I don't disagree with a "peace through strength" mindset. However, restraint and wisdom are not inconsistent with that concept.

[TheRealThing]

����

You can't help but build straw men I guess. Christ gave up his rights to bring salvation. A true leader does not parade around demanding his rights, according to Christ.

Dominionism is an overlay of belief foisted upon the United States through erroneous use of Scripture. To disagree with that overlay is not to deny Christ. To argue that Deism influenced the Founding of America is not to deny Christ. UNLESS, you are putting what you believe as co-equal to Christ, or the United States as co-equal to Christ.

As for a confession of being a retread, or being a retread? All your fantasy. Not an ounce of reality in it.

As for being a "troll," you must go by your own definition.

Nor obviously, can you help but mimic my vocabulary, writing style and use of analogy. Case in point; early on in our discussions you brought up Roger Williams. Having at some point shot down your attempt to graft the life of Williams into the revisionist fold, I suggested you might want to find another straw man to hide behind. Since then you can't use the expression often enough.

Right, you know that He gave up His rights, it's just that you can't name what those rights were. Got it. But let me get this straight. You can just jump up with another clever term, like indentured servitude, reconstructionism, dominionism or otherwise for lack of an adequate defense, do a complete sidestep in declaring a perfectly legitimate argument to be a straw man, and that is supposed to do what? How do you hope to persuade somebody when you can't even define what you're even saying?

Dominionism - Just as in the case of your use of invisible Scriptures to support your favorite heresies; You would again rob God of His just due in the form of thanks for His blessings upon this land in denying our Christian heritage citing instead deism, for which there is no evidence. Now I might not normally make a faith based argument to demonstrate a point. However you claim spiritual insight as a Christian, even though my efforts to 'talk shop' with you are usually directed right back at me in the form of scoffing contempt. We share almost no spiritual common ground. That's a pattern with you, lack of accuracy shall we say? What was it you said to me again, "Your constant "retread" go to?" When the real truth is that I had only said it once to you prior to this thread. Please, use the search tool to look it up. But then facts are such bothersome things in factual debate, right?

You say attributing our founding to deism rather than the truth, which is that we are founded upon the principles of Christianity, does not deny Christ which is of course, not true. If you ask me we saw exactly the same thing in the following discourse,
Luke 11:14-15 (KJV)
14 And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered.
15 But some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils.

You would attribute God's blessing to who then, since according to the Scriptures all good things come from Him; James 1:16-17 (KJV)
16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.
17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Whether one speaks of nature, politics (the governance of men) or spiritual issues, it is blasphemy to deny God His due even in the face of the all powerful mitigations of the liberal imagination, those being in your case essential liberty and deism. Both of which deny Christ His rightful place. Without Him and His minute by minute control over creation, the laws of nature and thus the entire universe would instantly deteriorate into chaos and destruction. Deism is the ultimate denial of the power of God which is why it is so favored by the liberal. The liberal BTW, would much rather place his faith in the rock that he can reach out and touch, rather than the God Who created the rock. That is the deist's unfortunate failing and frankly all who cannot or will not cede to God His rightful place as Creator. Essential liberty on the other hand, is just a matter of making an artful dodge. I would boil the notion down to the default position of the PeeWee Herman school of debate, "I know you are but what am I?" There is no winning a debate with people who are proud deniers of Christ, because all truth for them is by necessity relative.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆️⬆️

You posit it as if it is either deism or "truth"... This is a misleading either/ or fallacy, and characterizes much of your in-print worldview.

"He left the glory of heaven, knowing his destiny" goes the song. "He was not ashamed to call us his brethren" suggests the epistle. I would suggest that is ultimate Power laying down rights and serving. What would you call it?

The experience of Roger Williams is illustrative of the need for paying attention to essential liberty and freedom of conscience, to say nothing of separation of church and state.

We both look to Christ for forgiveness of sins. We both look to Christ for the ultimate renewal of all things. We disagree on the eschatalogical significance of the United States, and on the role of civil government in certain areas and issues. When the trumpet sounds, everything we are debating here will fall away.

[Bob Seger]

Is this all just an internet act that you put on, Geraldo?

[Bob Seger]

Dershowitz is a hard core Zionist, a fact that has been proven by his words and deeds over and over again.

Must the United States support Israel no matter its course of action? I'm not necessarily talking about this particular resolution where we abstained, but as a general principle?

When Christ predicted the destruction of Israel by the Romans, was that an act of betrayal?

Do what??

Who cares if Dershowitz is a "hard core Zionist" or not?...He was talking about everything Obama has done since he has been in office....As in, foreign policy has been a total disaster.

[Bob Seger]

Would you have supported a 25 to 50 year commitment of troops in Iraq?

Is it more accurate to say that ISIS filled a void created by the withdrawal of US troops, or that the overthrow of Sadaam Hussein, minus an effective post overthrow plan, put tensions between Sunni and Shii'a on high boil?

I don't disagree with a "peace through strength" mindset. However, restraint and wisdom are not inconsistent with that concept.

25-50 years? Just numbers you are pulling out of thin air?

There is way more to a failed administration foreign policy failure than Iraq.

[The Urban Sombrero]

25-50 years? What are you talking about?

Would you have supported a decision to leave significant ground troops in Iraq for 20 years?

[TheRealThing]

⬆️⬆️

> You posit it as if it is either deism or "truth"... This is a misleading either/ or fallacy, and characterizes much of your in-print worldview.

> "He left the glory of heaven, knowing his destiny" goes the song. "He was not ashamed to call us his brethren" suggests the epistle. I would suggest that is ultimate Power laying down rights and serving. What would you call it?

> The experience of Roger Williams is illustrative of the need for paying attention to essential liberty and freedom of conscience, to say nothing of separation of church and state.

> We both look to Christ for forgiveness of sins. We both look to Christ for the ultimate renewal of all things. We disagree on the eschatalogical significance of the United States, and on the role of civil government in certain areas and issues. When the trumpet sounds, everything we are debating here will fall away.

> Well now see, therein lies the bulk of your confusion. All of your 'suggesting' is IMHO not the way God intends. He says let your no be no and your yes be yes. No suggesting with regard to Him or His Word. So it is not much of a leap of faith for me to believe His Word is devoid of suggestion. In fact, I believe God hates suggestion, otherwise known as mealy mouthing.
Revelation 3:16 (KJV)
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Deism is a lie, so yeah, it's either deism or truth.

> I would call Him the Suffering Servant, very God and very man. But I still don't know what rights you think He gave up in order to fulfill His Father's charge as The Savior of His people. He never stopped being God, and He never stopped being God's Son. And was it not He Who said the following?
Matthew 26:52-53 (KJV)
52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

Jesus gave up the comforts of heaven, not any rights, not any authority, and certainly not His birthright. I am reconciled to God the Father, by Christ His Son, Who paid my sin debt on the cross. The way I see it Christ is my Brother, Savior and Mediator. I am washed in His shed blood as it was He that died on the cross. But it is through His sacrificial death on the cross that men live. So He retained His rights in my view, but gave up something much more precious, that being His life.


> It is incredible to me that you on the one hand choose to cite Roger Williams, who history teaches fled his homeland to get away from the Church of England, while you deny America's historical station in her leading role of spreading of the Gospel. Who in your mind took the leading role in the last two and a half centuries if not the US?

> LOL, I don't agree with what you say we don't agree about. I have argued that it has been the role of government in our day which has denied the Godhead, the very Godhead BTW under which our government was born. Man, in the persons of activist judges, legislators, and in some cases even bureaucrats, have by misuse of the authority of office attempted to usurp the authority of God. (Such as in the case of the SCOTUS' foolhardy validation of homosexuality) As at one time American officials freely acknowledged that our system of laws are founded on Christian principles, now we see, thanks to the ridiculous 1947 born distortions of the time honored concept of separation of Church and State, a complete denial that very foundation. Hence among other things the anarchy, rioting, violence, arson and lawlessness we now see nearly every day in this country.

Right, the last trump will sound and then the judgment. The consequences of which however, will never fall away and are well worth the time to understand. It will be either an eternity with The Father, or an eternity separated from Him in everlasting torment. The key to all of this is in getting it right this side of the judgment, using the only thing we brought into this world, which is the power to choose. There will be no excuses, no argument, and no do overs.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Do what??

Who cares if Dershowitz is a "hard core Zionist" or not?...He was talking about everything Obama has done since he has been in office....As in, foreign policy has been a total disaster.

Simply because "Israel is doing it" is not sufficient reason to support it. Dershowitz thinks Israel does no wrong. On the other hand, Israel is surrounded by groups that deny its right to exist. I personally think continual settlement expansion is a form of "male dog pee on tree," and undermines peace; however, I certainly understand Israel's absolute commitment to its people's security.

The Urban Sombrero comes from a Seinfeld episode. That is its lone significance.

[TheRealThing]

The Israelis claim to have "rock solid" evidence that Barack Obama was personally responsible for leading the fight and using his influence to sponsor all of this, with proof to be revealed soon.

Well, I sure don't blame them for not bothering to give it to this administration. I hope we take the annual 8 billion we waste giving to the UN and use it for military upgrades.

[TheRealThing]

Would you have supported a decision to leave significant ground troops in Iraq for 20 years?

I know I would have. The region would be infinitely more stable. Russia's occupation of Syria would not have happened, and now if we have to go in, we either have to take on Russia or wait for them to clear out, which I sincerely doubt they ever will at this point.

What would it have hurt to have a major force stationed in Iraq? Our troops would have benefited immensely from the training and experience, ISIS would not have 'inherited' our military hardware, and no force in their right mind would have dared try us. Leaving Iraq in a huff was just another in a long line of major Obama blunders.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I know I would have. The region would be infinitely more stable. Russia's occupation of Syria would not have happened, and now if we have to go in, we either have to take on Russia or wait for them to clear out, which I sincerely doubt they ever will at this point.

What would it have hurt to have a major force stationed in Iraq? Our troops would have benefited immensely from the training and experience, ISIS would not have 'inherited' our military hardware, and no force in their right mind would have dared try us. Leaving Iraq in a huff was just another in a long line of major Obama blunders.

I see your point. I think the tough thing would have been a constant drizzle of flag-draped coffins, which tends to erode support state side pretty quickly.

[The Urban Sombrero]

> Well now see, therein lies the bulk of your confusion. All of your 'suggesting' is IMHO not the way God intends. He says let your no be no and your yes be yes. No suggesting with regard to Him or His Word. So it is not much of a leap of faith for me to believe His Word is devoid of suggestion. In fact, I believe God hates suggestion, otherwise known as mealy mouthing.
Revelation 3:16 (KJV)
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Deism is a lie, so yeah, it's either deism or truth.

> I would call Him the Suffering Servant, very God and very man. But I still don't know what rights you think He gave up in order to fulfill His Father's charge as The Savior of His people. He never stopped being God, and He never stopped being God's Son. And was it not He Who said the following?
Matthew 26:52-53 (KJV)
52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

Jesus gave up the comforts of heaven, not any rights, not any authority, and certainly not His birthright. I am reconciled to God the Father, by Christ His Son, Who paid my sin debt on the cross. The way I see it Christ is my Brother, Savior and Mediator. I am washed in His shed blood as it was He that died on the cross. But it is through His sacrificial death on the cross that men live. So He retained His rights in my view, but gave up something much more precious, that being His life.


> It is incredible to me that you on the one hand choose to cite Roger Williams, who history teaches fled his homeland to get away from the Church of England, while you deny America's historical station in her leading role of spreading of the Gospel. Who in your mind took the leading role in the last two and a half centuries if not the US?

> LOL, I don't agree with what you say we don't agree about. I have argued that it has been the role of government in our day which has denied the Godhead, the very Godhead BTW under which our government was born. Man, in the persons of activist judges, legislators, and in some cases even bureaucrats, have by misuse of the authority of office attempted to usurp the authority of God. (Such as in the case of the SCOTUS' foolhardy validation of homosexuality) As at one time American officials freely acknowledged that our system of laws are founded on Christian principles, now we see, thanks to the ridiculous 1947 born distortions of the time honored concept of separation of Church and State, a complete denial that very foundation. Hence among other things the anarchy, rioting, violence, arson and lawlessness we now see nearly every day in this country.

Right, the last trump will sound and then the judgment. The consequences of which however, will never fall away and are well worth the time to understand. It will be either an eternity with The Father, or an eternity separated from Him in everlasting torment. The key to all of this is in getting it right this side of the judgment, using the only thing we brought into this world, which is the power to choose. There will be no excuses, no argument, and no do overs.

The SCOTUS said that equal protection under the law applied to homosexuals. To me, that decision does not enter the "Is it sin or is it not" debate. It is a decision based on what merits equal protection for a citizen.

I realize your literalism, but "suggest" was simply a mode of speech. Straining gnats is no better than building straw men.

"Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others." Phillipians 2:4. Not a bad philosophy for responsible foreign policy, and what I am talking about in "Do not lord it over."

This nation grants the Church tremendous latitude and freedom, with no persecution to speak of in any real sense. Our Constitution has protected that to this point. Our Founders protected religion without imposing it. Our Founders embraced Christianity without mandating it. Our Founders desired morality, without always modeling it, as they were human and not gods. Our Constitution, in my view, gives wide latitude, and recognizes that one man's pursuit of happiness might well offend another, or even God, but such is the permissive will of God, and such is Constitutional democracy.

[TheRealThing]

The SCOTUS said that equal protection under the law applied to homosexuals. To me, that decision does not enter the "Is it sin or is it not" debate. It is a decision based on what merits equal protection for a citizen.
I realize your literalism, but "suggest" was simply a mode of speech. Straining gnats is no better than building straw men.

"Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others." Phillipians 2:4. Not a bad philosophy for responsible foreign policy, and what I am talking about in "Do not lord it over."

This nation grants the Church tremendous latitude and freedom, with no persecution to speak of in any real sense. Our Constitution has protected that to this point. Our Founders protected religion without imposing it. Our Founders embraced Christianity without mandating it. Our Founders desired morality, without always modeling it, as they were human and not gods. Our Constitution, in my view, gives wide latitude, and recognizes that one man's pursuit of happiness might well offend another, or even God, but such is the permissive will of God, and such is Constitutional democracy.

That rationalization did not work out too well for Pilate now did it? He could not wash his hands of responsibility, and libs will not be able to hide behind the straw man set up by the laws of men be it via the SC or otherwise.

As to the rest, even if our Constitution guaranteed US citizenry the right to challenge God's law, (the height of ridiculousness) that would not be a defense at the judgment which is just as real a force as government. But in fact the Constitution does not give us the latitude as you put it, to disobey or rebel against God at all. Only by twisting what is otherwise the very clearly set forth intent of the founders can your absurd stretches of those truths be made. This country is not nor has it ever been a constitutional democracy. That is the liberal's attempt to revise our founding. A democracy is ruled by the will of the majority. We are rather a republic and as such are ruled by the Constitution.

My guess is for example, that you would set aside the function of the electoral college without a second thought. Such actions are characteristic of a democracy where the majority always rules. In our case it is the constitution that limits power in our representative form of government, often to protect the individual's rights against the desires of the majority. This is why your argument about Hillary winning a majority of the vote, other than the fact that said majority comes from only California, is so troubling. You talk big, but you know little.

But as to your view of foreign policy. So you will very merrily dismiss God's impact on our founding in favor of deism, but you will nonetheless insist we make foreign policy based on Philippians 2? I suppose if the US was to go to war with North Korea for example, for launching a nuclear device against our homeland, that you would insist on getting off a flotilla of humanitarian aid to the people of North Korea in response, that about right? Who needs an army or a national defense strategy?:dudecomeon:

[TheRealThing]

I see your point. I think the tough thing would have been a constant drizzle of flag-draped coffins, which tends to erode support state side pretty quickly.

Which would have been almost nonexistent by comparison to the number of shooting deaths and gunshot wounds recorded over the same period in Chi-Town.