The Boos have helped us!

[lilymc]

Well, I'm not an expert.

But something is happening here, has been happening. And I think rev 9 might have a better understanding of it that I do.

Back not too many years ago, "must protect Israel" did not appear on lists of top tenets of Christianity. This is fairly recent, I think.

People base that on Genesis 12:3, but the disagreement within Christianity is what "Israel" really refers to. The physical nation of Israel (even if they reject God) or the 'church' meaning followers of Christ worldwide. Also, I think that Christians have differing ideas on what it means to bless or "support" Israel. Anyway, I think someone else can probably explain all of it better than I can.

I think they're called "Pharisees." (neoconned "christians," if at all)

Exactly. I have seen and experienced that, unfortunately, with a couple neocon (yet professing christian) guys that I know from other forums. The crazy thing is, they think *I'm* the blind one, but to me it's so clear that they have been blinded by lies, so it's very frustrating. I guess I need to just pray for them, and not waste too much time arguing with them.

 

[LEK]

After the SC debate where Ron Paul got 89 seconds - at the post-debate gathering - Ron Paul asked the crowd, "How do you cheer murder?" in reference to the drone killing of an American. I'll bet he is wondering what kind of people reside in this state.

I live in SC - not everyone is like that crowd (which I think was instructed to boo anything RP said).
What fuels people here to agree to act that way is their unhealthy obsession with GW Bush's "get them before they get us" foreign policy.
It is a twisted, ungodly form of faith cloaked in christianity (little 'c').

God will not be mocked - Ron Paul has nothing to worry about when defending the Truth.

I am proud to support such a godly man.

 

[Revolution9]

Eh, I think it's important to know what the enemy is saying.

Giving him a listener is giving him a platform to shoot his lying piehole off from. No listeners == no radio show == no enemy to refute BS from.

Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

I'm not an expert on Christianity. What denominations are we talking about that are doing the booing? If I would guess, it would be the newer ones. It appears that the specifics of Christianity have changed since about 1947. Are big nondenominational churches where this comes from?

Rent movie theatres. Show The Passion.

I suspect the Baptists to be the emanators of this heresy. They have a system where anyone can become a pastor and from the mouths of Baptists I hear alot of Old Testament mixed in with their doctrine. Just as the Catholic church was infiltrated by pedophiles to trash its good name the powers and principle Jesus warned of have infiltrated what could have been a big threat to denominational Christianity and sent it down the path of heresy. That means they do not understand or abide by the New Testament. Judeo-Christianity is an oxymoron and is a trojan horse. Christianity does not center around Mosaic or Noahhide law. It is by the grace of God one lives and dies. I am not saying that all Baptist denominations are as I stated prior, but anytime something socially atrocious and in the public eye occurs associated with Christianity it always seems to be some Baptist minister blowhard and their fanatical congregation trashing the good tenets of Christianity and they rarely mention the New Testament in their Bible thumpage..It is always Old testament avengelism.

HTH
Rev9

 

[A. Havnes]

This is the response I got from a friend of mine when I stated my disgust for the booing of the golden rule. This is coming from a Newt supporter, but she also likes Santorum. I couldn't believe she said it....Here is the response I got - "I don't think RP was booed on the issue of the Golden Rule, he was booed because his policies are so divergient with most of the audience. I don't think anyone on that stage wants war with Iran-- but they do understand, unlike RP-- that Iran will only back off when they are facing power. Many of us believe that RP supports a position that will keep us as weak as Obama. Do you seriously wonder what will happen if we take a weakened position with the Middle East? It is only from a position of strength, that we will have peace"

I guess I just have to accept the fact that I'm not going to win her over to the RP camp. Frustrating.

1. Iran is doing what it's doing as a form of defense. Think about it, they started working towards nuclear power, it got spun around to, "They wantz to nuke every1!" They refused to allow outside countries enrich their uranium, so in came the sanctions, which is basically an act of war. Every move since then has been a defensive move on their part, not an offensive move. If anything, our actions will cause an eruption of violence, not a backing down of Iran.

2. There's peace in the Middle East? What is your friend on? She believe that our presence there keeps things peaceful? What about the CIA coup in 1953? What about radicalizing Islamist extremists to oust the Soviets, or supporting Hussein during a time when we felt we needed an anti-Iran government in the ME?

 

[Original_Intent]

I suspect the Baptists to be the emanators of this heresy. They have a system where anyone can become a pastor and from the mouths of Baptists I hear alot of Old Testament mixed in with their doctrine. Just as the Catholic church was infiltrated by pedophiles to trash its good name the powers and principle Jesus warned of have infiltrated what could have been a big threat to denominational Christianity and sent it down the path of heresy. That means they do not understand or abide by the New Testament. Judeo-Christianity is an oxymoron and is a trojan horse. Christianity does not center around Mosaic or Noahhide law. It is by the grace of God one lives and dies. I am not saying that all Baptist denominations are as I stated prior, but anytime something socially atrocious and in the public eye occurs associated with Christianity it always seems to be some Baptist minister blowhard and their fanatical congregation trashing the good tenets of Christianity and they rarely mention the New Testament in their Bible thumpage..It is always Old testament avengelism.

HTH
Rev9

Oh! Oh! But what about the Barbary pirates! Proof that Islamaphobia is justified! (Sorry, cube mate is listening to Glenn Beck who is talking ad nauseum about the Barbary Pirates to prove that the Muslims started all the trouble. "The Barbary Pirates was the first war ourside of U.S. territroy that we engaged in! Bad Muslims! Baaaad Muslims!

 

[jbuttell]

Guys, the debate last night was FANTASTIC for us. An LDS friend of mine just said he would never support Romney because of his stance on the NDAA...

Yep, I totally agree. That was moment was a gem. That's going to haunt him going forward. He's firmly on record. Most people don't even know what the NDAA is, but that'll change.

 

[Lucille]

Ron Paul Addresses Boos From South Carolina GOP Debate

Ron Paul is pushing back against critics of his "Golden Rule" in foreign policy and questioned those who booed him at Monday's GOP presidential debate.

Speaking in Spartanburg, S. C. Tuesday afternoon, Paul referenced America's threats of an oil embargo on Iran.

"This is why I bring up the "the golden rule" if we don't want people to ban oil imports to our country, why should we do that to another country," said Paul adding "I don't know why that is such a negative term for people to boo that. "

Paul also said that America needs to do away with the idea that it will only talk to nations it deems as perfect adding only until America is itself perfect can it make such judgments.

Paul's willingness to stand up for what he believes in when it comes to U.S. involvement in foreign countries hurt him repeatedly in Monday's debate...

Standing up for what he believes in...hurt him repeatedly? He was applauded repeatedly as well.

 

[parocks]

Perhaps it comes from the Everson SCOTUS ruling which was also in 1947.

Thats basically where the onus came off of govt not being involved in public displays of religion to the point where now govt had to PREVENT public displays of religion, lest they be accused of "establishing" religion.

Its a terrible ruling IMO and flies against the Constitution.

Righto. "Respecting the establishment of relgion". "the establishment of religion" by the states has to be ok, else there wouldn't be a an amendment saying that Congress should pass no law respecting it (the establishment of religion).

 

[virginiakid]

People base that on Genesis 12:3, but the disagreement within Christianity is what "Israel" really refers to. The physical nation of Israel (even if they reject God) or the 'church' meaning followers of Christ worldwide. Also, I think that Christians have differing ideas on what it means to bless or "support" Israel. Anyway, I think someone else can probably explain all of it better than I can.



Exactly. I have seen and experienced that, unfortunately, with a couple neocon (yet professing christian) guys that I know from other forums. The crazy thing is, they think *I'm* the blind one, but to me it's so clear that they have been blinded by lies, so it's very frustrating. I guess I need to just pray for them, and not waste too much time arguing with them.

This is probably the easiest thing to prove, but yet many who call themselves Christian rarely have an understanding of who is and who isn't a Jew. We know that in the old testament, God chose the Israelite for Christ to come through. Hence the many wars that took place. Those wars were an effort to protect the seed for which Christ was to be born. Doing research in the OT would prove this and prove the coming of the Messiah. Now Jesus comes, he performs miracles, and yet many in physical Israel rejected him. The problem was they were looking for Christ to set up a physical kingdom when all along, Christ's kingdom was spiritual-that is in heaven. So Christ dies for all. Now remember, the Pharisees and Sadducee at that time were saying that the blood of Jesus should be on their hands. But yet, God still gave them a chance, when they totally rejected Jesus, the gospel was going out to the gentile, and in 70 AD physical Israel was destroyed. Therefore, any Jew today who claims to be a physical Jew would not be such because to be a physical Jew you have to prove your lineage back to Abraham, and none are able to do so. Okay...When Christ died, the New Testament came into effect. In Hebrews it talks about the Old vs New. In Galatians it says that we have been clothed in Christ and because of that we are all (that is those who have been saved) of Abraham's seed. WE are spiritual Jews in a spiritual kingdom. In Galatians it continues to state that since we are all one in Christ there is no Jew, no Greek, no male, no female, because we are all one. Christ intent was to never set up a physical kingdom in Jerusalem, that is why he told Pilate, "My Kingdom is not of this world, if it were, my people would have fought for me." But he did set up the spiritual Jerusalem which we can all be a part of. In other words went from physical Israel in the OT to spiritual Israel in the NT.

Oh one last thing, in Galatians it also states that the OT was a school master in that it taught us, but the NT perfected it and that we are now under the law of liberty. For if one were to be at fault on one rule in the OT, he would be guilty of the whole law, but if one were to mess up in the NT, we have an advocate with the Father. But the scriptures also say that we should not go on sinning, because if you do, there will no longer be an advocate for you. So be careful.

 

[James Madison]

People base that on Genesis 12:3, but the disagreement within Christianity is what "Israel" really refers to. The physical nation of Israel (even if they reject God) or the 'church' meaning followers of Christ worldwide. Also, I think that Christians have differing ideas on what it means to bless or "support" Israel. Anyway, I think someone else can probably explain all of it better than I can.

In Paul's letter to the Galatians he explains the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham through Jesus Christ. God kept His promise to Abraham and Israel.

Rev9 is right. Reading the Old Testament is key to better understanding God's plan. But to place it above the New Testament is theologicallly absurd.

 

[Voluntary Man]

People base that on Genesis 12:3, but the disagreement within Christianity is what "Israel" really refers to. The physical nation of Israel (even if they reject God) or the 'church' meaning followers of Christ worldwide. Also, I think that Christians have differing ideas on what it means to bless or "support" Israel. Anyway, I think someone else can probably explain all of it better than I can.

Genesis 12: 3 "And I will bless them that bless thee [Abraham], and curse him that curseth thee [Abraham]: and in thee [through Abraham's descendent Jesus Christ] shall all families of the earth be blessed."

God was speaking specifically to Abraham (still Abram). Remember, Abraham is also the father of the Muslims/Arabs, if you want to interpret this verse in the same way the Israeli lobby promotes.

The line of Israel, however, did not begin until Jacob. It is clear to me, as it should be to all Christians, though, that God is referring to His Son, as both the blessing of all mankind, and as the fullfilment of His covenant with Abraham. To deny this is to embrace a false christianity, where God has a separate plan of salvation for "Israel"; if that were true, why did God send the Messiah to and through Abraham's line, through Jacob (Israel), as He promised?

Looked at properly, there are pre-Messianic and post-Messianic Jews; Christians are post-Messianic Jews, or religious/spiritual Jews, who have accepted the Messiah. Pre-Messianic Jews are still living in denial, and the modern state of "Israel" is a manifestation of that denial.

If you need further evidence of this, accepting the blood of Christ makes all Christians descendents of Abraham.

 

[jmdrake]

From my Facebook page:

My friend: He seems sincere, but I just cant get behind this guy.
Sunday at 10:20pm · Like

John Drake: Well the great thing about individualism is that we can all come to our own decisions and each in our own time. Eight years ago I was staunchly supporting John Kerry and couldn't imagine getting behind any republican. It was John Kerry's speech to the DNC where he tried to "out Bush Bush" and push for an even greater expansion of the Patriot Act that made me start to rethink things.
Monday at 12:48pm · Like

My friend Well...he's winning me over in this debate ...

Enough said!

 

[seawolf]

How can any Ron Paul Supporter possibly stay with the Republican Party after the August National Convention if Ron Paul is not the Standard Bearer.

I along with hundreds of thousands of the Ron Paul Nation will not be a part of a Party that puts a Neo-Con War Happy Politican at its head.

Let's pray that the Crowd Monday Night, which Reuters Reported was made up of mostly Tea Party Convention Attendees, does not represent the Party of Lincoln.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

The neocons are in emergency damage control mode all over he internet trying to explain 'how the golden rule doesn't apply.' It may be a good idea when we run into those people to poke them and make their desperation even MORE ridiculous.

 

[lilymc]

Genesis 12: 3 "And I will bless them that bless thee [Abraham], and curse him that curseth thee [Abraham]: and in thee [through Abraham's descendent Jesus Christ] shall all families of the earth be blessed."

God was speaking specifically to Abraham (still Abram). Remember, Abraham is also the father of the Muslims/Arabs, if you want to interpret this verse in the same way the Israeli lobby promotes.

The line of Israel, however, did not begin until Jacob. It is clear to me, as it should be to all Christians, though, that God is referring to His Son, as both the blessing of all mankind, and as the fullfilment of His covenant with Abraham. To deny this is to embrace a false christianity, where God has a separate plan of salvation for "Israel"; if that were true, why did God send the Messiah to and through Abraham's line, through Jacob (Israel), as He promised?

Looked at properly, there are pre-Messianic and post-Messianic Jews; Christians are post-Messianic Jews, or religious/spiritual Jews, who have accepted the Messiah. Pre-Messianic Jews are still living in denial, and the modern state of "Israel" is a manifestation of that denial.

If you need further evidence of this, accepting the blood of Christ makes all Christians descendents of Abraham.

You don't have to convince me, I was just responding to the guy who asked, "where did this protect Israel belief come from?" I don't agree with those who have that neoconned view, and as someone else said, I think it is absurd how some seem to put the Old Testament above the New. In fact, a guy I know recently justified his pro-war views by indirectly pointing to the God of the Old Testament. I will find his post to me on another forum, and post it here. I wasn't even sure how to respond to him, I've been trying to get my thoughts in order and put it into words, so I can reply to him.

 

[Voluntary Man]

You don't have to convince me, I was just responding to the guy who asked, "where did this protect Israel belief come from?" I don't agree with those who have that neoconned view, and as someone else said, I think it is absurd how some seem to put the Old Testament above the New. In fact, a guy I know recently justified his pro-war views by indirectly pointing to the God of the Old Testament. I will find his post to me on another forum, and post it here. I wasn't even sure how to respond to him, I've been trying to get my thoughts in order and put it into words, so I can reply to him.

Please share.

 

[lilymc]

Please share.

Here is his latest post:

I eagerly await for Lily to tell the LORD that He was a "neo-con", "war-mongering", imperialistic dick for leading the Israelites into an "unjust war" against the people who lived in the land of Canaan and the neighboring lands.

 

[Salvial]

I reckon this has caused a lot of self-reflection in quite a few republicans.

 

[Voluntary Man]

Here is his latest post:

​

Here is his latest post:

​

Does that guy profess to be a Christian, because he isn't. What he is suggesting is blasphemy.

We are bound by commandments. The Golden Rule is Christ's commandment. God is bound by no commandments, as the Creator and Proprietor of the universe. If God chooses to end my life tomorrow, it is Just, because I am His. If you end my life, you have sinned; it's a matter of property rights.

If we ignore the commandments by which we are bound, as God's creations, and instead mimic God, we have committed blasphemy. The commandments are not optional, and mimicking God is not an option.

He really should spend less time reading the National Review, and spend more time reading The Bible.