I took the post about how awful McCain is off the blog today. Had to.
I have to focus. Right after being slightly sick, that is. I have to suck it up, try to smile, and hope McCain was only kidding on so many of his positions over the years….because now he needs to beat Hillary or Obama. And we ….well, we……..um, we…….need to…….we need……………to help………………….him. ouch.
My apologies to my talented friend, Priscilla, who had written the anti-McCain piece. To her credit, she is the one who emailed me today saying “You may want to pull my article off your blog. As much as I've enjoyed the geez! spotlight, don't you think we have to get on board the McCain train?”
So, it’s gone from geeZ! I can do that, other small bloggers can do that, nobody will notice, but here’s the problem, the huge problem I foresee; What about Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Rush, Michelle Malkin? What about Ann Coulter, who went so far as to say she’d campaign for HILLARY if McCain was nominated?
What now, Conservatives? WHERE do we go from here?
I’ll tell you where THE LEFT goes! If they have bat brains (do they?), they are going through hours and hours of talk radio show audio as I type this and they’re recording slam after slam of McCain, WITH THE REASONS Conservatives don’t like him! Oh, yes, there’s all kinds of stuff there, well documented! The airwaves were rich with that for the last few months.
When McCain finally gets the official RNC nod (and let’s face it, it’s their nod, not ours! THEY and the media..left and right…got rid of Thompson, Romney, Tancredo, etc., not US)…after he’s the nominee, guess what the Left will go to. The Tape. Hours of it.
How’s Ann Coulter going to write articles before November 8 about her candidate, McCain? Impossible. What’s Laura Ingraham going to tell her listeners? “Hold your nose like his mother said, and vote McCain!”? There’s a rousing endorsement, huh? or could she say "Yes, I KNOW I said that then, but that was then………oh, he still feels that way? Oh. Uh..” How can she do that and still have a shred of dignity? "I can't stand the bum..VOTE FOR HIM!" How will all these people maintain a modicum of believability? And how can Conservatives win an election without them?
We don’t need my little blog, but WE NEED THEM! Right?
Or, maybe lefties hate us SO much they’ll vote for the guy we can’t stand just to tick us off? Think they hate us more than they want Hillary or Obama in there? No, they hate us a lot, but not this much. I don’t think so, anyway.
Priscilla wrote that ‘we have to get on board the McCain train”. She’s right, but I’m thinking that train’s going to be driven by Keith Olbermann and others, right into a brick wall. Of course, if Olbermann’s on it, I’d start to feel a little bit better. After the crash.
You tell ME. How are Conservatives going to hide their disdain for the guy they’re now touting with all that evidence Hillary and Obama's people have? WOW. Some fancy footwork required here. Help me out, what do you think? IS there a chance? Please tell me I'm missing something...............z
83 comments:
Well.... there's always his running mate choice.
Huck didn't fold yet. Perhaps on his way to CPAC, Straight Talk told him he could no longer honor their deal.
Here is how I feel at the moment:
Barring the remote possibility that Huckabee somehow gets the nod, I feel that we should in no way compromise conservative principles.
I will not say I like McCain.
He may be SLIGHTLY more conservative than the Dems, but not by much, and frankly, he's only maybe capable of beating Hillary. If Obama gets the nod, it's over. Not a shot in hell.
So will I vote for him? Maybe. I might have to drink a bottle of whiskey straight first, so it seems a little prettier than I know it truly is.
Write-in? Third party? Maybe.
I know I won't be voting Dem! LOL!
As for talk show hosts, Hannity did a complete 180 the very day after the Florida primary, if I'm not mistaken. Rush and Laura are conservatives, as is Beck, so I don't see them carrying water for McCain, and I don't blame them. They have their credibility and dignity at stake.
Besides, two years of Obama or Hillary practically guarantees a GOP Congress. Two years of McCain will have conservatives staying home and we wound up stuck with another Dem Congress.
Perhaps this cloud has a silver lining?
I'm thinking that the leadership of a country can be a blessing from G*D, or a judgment. In this case...
As I said at Beaker's site, I'll vote the ABC, Anybody But Clinton. mccain is a disaster, hillary would be an abomination!
tmw
you shouldn't allow others to dictate how you run your blog.
i don't like mccain't and i'm certainly not afraid to say it.
i might find myself hanging with coulter and beck come election day.
don't you find it highly 'spicious that mccain't just HANDED wv to the huckabilly?
the next election will bring u.s. exactly what we deserve.
deaner: Huck? Can you imagine anyone who's said "We have to bring America to Jesus" winning? Imagine what the Left will say if he was nominated? They're SO nice about him now..but just wait. I mean, I happen to agree with him, but....
Brooke; there isn't enough booze to make him palatable!!, but you're right, we'll have to suck it up (literally and figuratively!)....even Huck wants to educate illegals' kids free, doesn't he? that's scary to me....Third party sounds nice, but hasn't a chance in hell, you know that! And I wish I shared your optimism about two years of HIll or Obama. My feeling is Americans are so weakened by entitlement promises that they'll LOVE either of these two. Until they learn that that "Change" took FAR more 'change' in quarters and nickels and BILLIONS than we have, huh? glad to see you here!
Nanc...I still feel we have to gather ourselves together and prevent Socialist -Lite from getting nominated..which is O or Hillary. It's all we have!! Darn. I find it HIGHLY suspicious what happened in WVA...VERY suspicious. That's why I think the RNC has selected McCain...and the media on both sides...they love him. UNTIL he's definitely got the nomination.
here's my dilemma: I don't think ANY Conservative can win anymore. sad, isn't it?
TMW.........right. ABC it is. Boy, holding our noses to vote has taken on new meaning.
Thanks for posting everyone; I really am glad to hear these opinions. Lots to think about.
Well, I tell you what.
Right now, there is no problem , and here is why:
McCain knows , oh yes he knows, where he has to go and start making peace.
Right now, McCain has to suck it up.
So, on the one hand you can say that all the gripes are right out there, like a big honey do list.
That is a good thing.
Let me say this, the McCain article was great.
Nothing wrong with being honest and having opinions.
But opinions are one thing now and here it is:
1. Barak Hussein Obama does not know his butt from a hole in the ground when it comes to foreign policy.
2.Obama votes present at lots of other important votes.
Purely calculated in my opinion, and also, because he does not know his butt from a hole in the ground, and he is empty.
3. No matter what else I might think about John McCain, I know he is not afraid of making someone mad.
If he wants something, he will go do it, anyhow.
4. McCain went to the Cpac thing today and started, so I say he knows what everyone thinks.
5. Hillary. Hillary???
Do you really and truly intend to just not vote and hand things over to Hillary or Obama?
THAT is a solution because you don't like the outcome of something?
Life is not fair, and sometimes you have to get on with what you got.
Now, I am a conservative person on lots of things, and I did not want John McCain for president, but he is going to be the man and I will support him now, because that is , like it or not the RIGHT thing to do and because I owe it to the men and women in the field of battle to do that.
Give my precious over to Obama or Hillary? Are you nuts?
NEVER.
And this so called reasoning of having Hillary or Obama making a Conservtive victory in the distant future more possible???
Oh yes, that sure worked in 2006 didn't it?
It sure worked in 1992 too. 1996.
Talk about lame candidates all you want, I am sure there are lots of Democrats that aren't that thrilled with their choices either but they look at the big picture.
Lots of people just sat on the sidelines when George Washington needed troops and help, too.
Well, eventually the Revolution got done, the war for independence was won.
Sitting out is not an option, only dedication to winning is right now.
For all I know, it might be the last election any of us live to see .
Did you ever think of that?
Discretion is the better part of valor, my gosh, look at Romney today...he showed courage and selflessness and tried to put the greater good ahead of himself and I am sure there will be comments of oh, he just decided to quit losing money.
So be it.
Some people have to learn you don't always get all of what you want, that is how the game of life is sometimes.
There is NO perfect candidate and Reagan was pretty good but he had his flaws,too.
Now please...unite , or we will fall.
wvdardottr
I pulled Priscilla's terrific article because she asked me to and I agreed with her; I published it because it was strong and honest, but as Pris realized before I did, we have to band together now, we don't need anti-MCCain anymore. As much as both of us don't like McCain, we need to get behind him (of course, getting behind him conjures up ideas of pushing him over a CLIFF, but...I digress!! ha!)
The reason behind pulling it got me thinking about the point of writing this latest article here, the "really terrible thought" I wanted help from all of you on here in the comments!
Imagine how the leftist media will use all the pre-primary anti-McCain stuff we Conservatives have posted BIG TIME against him WITH THE 40% of independents this country has! WHICH IS FINE if you are one of those who thinks staying home Nov 8 is a good thing. I sure don't.
West Virginia DAR Dottr......you're right. We have to get behind him.
Here's the quote I feel sums up this situation: "To avoid situations in which you might make a mistake may be the biggest mistake of all"
I have a differnt spin on it. Hillary = McCain. Who is left who can beat Hillary? Obama. I am a died in the wool conservative republican, however I truly believe it is time for change. McCain and Hillary will say or do anything to get elected (McCain loses). I sense that Obama might be at least somewhat sincere. This might be the chance to actually bring some optimism into American political life. To be blunt, maybe it's time to take out the trash. Who knows who it will be but there is surely an optimistic charmismatic young conservative republican who should have been in the contest this time that will be in the contest for sure next time. The sensible thing looking back would have been to run Condi Rice which I advocated last August. She is a candidate with the right views who can win.
i was behind this last president and when i began to see just what he was made of and tried to tell others, i'd get e-mails telling me i shouldn't be so harsh.
so now, of late, i've found myself apologizing for my vote for him - and never intend on doing that - ever - again.
barry g. - she would never get my vote after the potholes to peace plan - that and she's a united presbyterian - they practice replacement theology, have suggested divestment from israel and i cannot look G-d in the eye knowing i'd voted for her - it's bad enough to have to tell him i voted for bush...
Pris, is right...as she always is. Time to yank all the anti-McCain stuff and get aboard the train...
Here's my 2 cents. All of my favorite commentators; Rush, Levin, Sean, Laura, ALL went overboard these past weeks in their trashing of McCain. They spent too much effort kicking McCain and not enough building Romney.
Yes, McCain has a lot of really dumb positions and we all know what they are. No point in discussing them further. But it's simply wrong-headed to call him a liberal. His voting record is out there for all to see. Taken on whole, it's better than you think it is. Don't argue with me on this subject because the facts are in my favor.
Regarding his speech today, I thought it was a good FIRST step in reconciling with conservatives. One of the female pundits on Hannity & Colmes tonight said it best, something along the lines of "It was a good first date. I'm not ready to marry the guy but I'll go out on a second date". That about captures it.
McCain still has some work to do to unite the party. But it's time to quit crying in our beer and vigorously help McCain defeat Obama, Hillary and the Democrats.
Do it for your country.
Mike
are the trains running on time, mike?
Sorry, I just never did see four or five votes that were not even ALL bad in my Republican opinion, is ALL THAT STUFF...It was the same four or five votes out of a twenty year career as a Republican. I thought it was sad and pathetic of the far right at the time, and now, of course, they will reap what they have sown.
I still say that the Rush and Ann is all about them thinking NONE of the candidates could beat the Dems post the Bush presidency...and rather than fight, they think that laying down and pretending to have some strategy about oh, it'll work to our advantage in 2012, is nothing but lame tail between their legs, fearing outright loss, rather than well thought out theory.
I'll tell you what. If the conservative bloc does sit out the vote...I will NEVER vote Republican again..I will champion third party all the way...and I think countless others like me will as well.
We did our part for the party all those years, and let the hard right dictate, and they can't carry any water? Fine. I don't need them. Willing to put their party and principles BEFORE the good of the country at a time of war? I'd like to put Xs on thier rooftops quite frankly.
Just my sentiments on the issue.
Pati
Z
Much of the furor at John McCain stems from the immigration bill. Overlooked in the bill were some very
needed improvements that would move the US policy from family based to vocational based. There was alot of good in that bill that was over looked.
McCain propsed the troop surge ahead of the Bush Administration.
He is more often then not a moderate and far preferable to yet another Clinton debacle. How many years must we endure Ruth Bader Ginsberg on the High Court.
I will have to link this blog later
Z-
I don't think that conservatives have any reasons to reconcile with McCain. Personally, I agree with Rush Limbaugh's assessment: If the country is going to suffer for 4 years under an imbecile, let it be an imbecile from the other party.
Another option is this: convince all the conservative primary voters from the remaining states to skip their state's primary. Let McCain see in raw numbers that he has to bow to the conservative wing of the party if he wants to get elected. Even then, we know from his record, that once in office, he'll do what he wants anyway.
And finally, all this is irrelevant unless the Dems fragment over race/gender with their nominee. If all of Obama's supporters, for example, refused to vote for a Hillary nominee that would help McCain but the raw numbers from each primary show Dems outvoting the GOP 2 to 1. Our party members are tired of sending the same people back to Washington to sit in different chars (to quote Romney). If they are lukewarm in the primaries, do you think they will turn out in November? If they do turn out, will they be enough to counter the groundswell of voter support that Dems have gained during the last 7 years? I think not.
We will do better standing by conservative principles and calling out every politician who leads the country astray (from either party). Let me give you an example: If you were going to try to stop the spread of illegal prostitution, would you do better by dressing like a hooker and stopping one "john" at a time or standing on the hilltop outside of town and calling people to church? Dress like a prostitute and you may save one person at a time but it'd take a lot of convincing. Stand with a megaphone and marquee on the hilltop and as people become disillusioned with the street corner, they already know where to turn for something different.
We can't win by acting like liberals - the only reason they have such a motivated electorate is because they package their platform as being in complete opposition to conservatism.
I'd love to be wrong, but I just don't see McCain offering hope from the hilltop.
well I think deleting it might seem a little dishonest.. I think it better to be transparent.
But, I deleted it to make my point. And because Priscilla, my friend who wrote it, asked me to, Elbro.
I would NEVER delete anything I or anybody else wrote because people didn't agree with it or didn't like it!
The point is we will have to come together and delete the anti-McCain stuff, written, spoken on Talk Radio, etc.
As much as I agree with some of what all the comments say here, not all, I still think we can't hand America to the Socialist-Lite bunch running on the other side. This might not be the time to teach the RNC a lesson.
America's not as strong as it's been in the past because of the liberal indoctrination in our colleges, the media, etc., and four years of a Dem pres alongside a Dem Congress could be lethal...or at least create an America we won't recognize and I think I speak for us all that we want America of our forefathers back!
Where do we go from here?
I think the answer is easier than you imagine. You climb aboard the train.
Everyone realizes that the RNC is a coalition, and not an idealogical monolith. There are social-conservatives and economic-conservatives. There are pro-choice and pro-life Republicans. There are religious evangelicals, agnostics and atheists.
So what is it about McCain that you DO like. I like his stance in the WoT. So I'll laud his tremendous foresight and visionary support of Gen. Petreaus' plan.
As for the pundits who pooh-poohed McCain... they will either back-track or stick to their guns. Even if they stick to there guns, they're still useful as "attack dogs" against the Left (but I'd advise them to NOT continue to badmouth McCain or they will likely encounter direct market retaliation... a "turning-off" by punditry consumers).
I remember when we invaded Iraq. Up until the 1st day of the war, I argued against invasion based upon any other moral premise than Iraqi violations of the '91 Peace Treaty. But from the moment we went to war, I saluted and did everything in my power to ensure victory/success. Just like Lindberg and the "America First" people did at the outbreak of WWII. It's called "loyalty".
Does it take away from your credibility? Only if you deny your initial misgivings. The pundits would be best served if they prompltly confess their initial misgivings and then state their reasons for overcoming them. And so when the Left attacks their (the pundit's) credibility in the future (as they undoubtedly will), they (the pundits) are prepared with a response (as I'm sure they all will be).
Hey, the pundits on the Left are going to have their own 'splainin' to do before the DNC's contest is over.
As for all you "reluctant" Republicans out there... I don't expect you to become a McCain lover/ advocate overnight. But there IS something you can still do to help and remain loyal to the conservative cause regardless of whether or not you support John McCain... ATTACK A LIBERAL!
But do me a favor. From today forward, STOP badmouthing him! I tell everbody McCain isn't perfect, but perfection (Romney/ Giuliani/ etc.) is no longer an option. I tell them that I disagree with McCain on many issues, but still feel he is the "best" of the options that actually ARE on the table.
btw - I wouldn't feel too bad about deleting a post or two. I BURN ALL mine!!!
Every argument has a "context". And since that "context" varies, my posts lose their relevance. I'm not a post-modernist de-contextualizer and dis-simulation expert (as most Alinskyites are). I prefer to argue dialectically with my opponent, and not an image or misrepresentation of "myself in another context". In the context of alternatives... an anti-McCain post is a reasonable thing. In the absence of viable alternatives, perhaps its' "reasonableness" becomes less evident and the good gardener weeds them out. ;-)
Plato, "Phaedrus"
PHAEDRUS: You mean the living word of knowledge which has a soul, and of which the written word is properly no more than an image?
SOCRATES: Yes, of course that is what I mean. And now may I be allowed to ask you a question: Would a husbandman, who is a man of sense, take the seeds, which he values and which he wishes to bear fruit, and in sober seriousness plant them during the heat of summer, in some garden of Adonis, that he may rejoice when he sees them in eight days appearing in beauty? at least he would do so, if at all, only for the sake of amusement and pastime. But when he is in earnest he sows in fitting soil, and practises husbandry, and is satisfied if in eight months the seeds which he has sown arrive at perfection?
PHAEDRUS: Yes, Socrates, that will be his way when he is in earnest; he will do the other, as you say, only in play.
SOCRATES: And can we suppose that he who knows the just and good and honourable has less understanding, than the husbandman, about his own seeds?
PHAEDRUS: Certainly not.
SOCRATES: Then he will not seriously incline to 'write' his thoughts 'in water' with pen and ink, sowing words which can neither speak for themselves nor teach the truth adequately to others?
PHAEDRUS: No, that is not likely.
SOCRATES: No, that is not likely--in the garden of letters he will sow and plant, but only for the sake of recreation and amusement; he will write them down as memorials to be treasured against the forgetfulness of old age, by himself, or by any other old man who is treading the same path. He will rejoice in beholding their tender growth; and while others are refreshing their souls with banqueting and the like, this will be the pastime in which his days are spent.
beamish left a very interesting link at curtains on my "mitt quits" post and i'm just too lazy to go get it right now - it involves mccain't and the shemale.
getting ready to listen to wc and aow's radio show - should be a very good one today.
you can always smell burnin' F.I.G.'s at farmers...
I don't see that asking Z to remove my article in the name of cohesion among conservatives, as dishonest. I asked her, by the way, to remove it only if she was agreeable in doing so, and with the knowlege the final decision was hers.
I wrote the article in the hopes of having an influence on someone who was undecided about their choice in the Primary.
Once it became clear that McCain would be the nominee, I believed the content of the article while I believe it to be true, would ultimately represent a stance which would leave us working at cross purposes in the general election.
Regardless of how anyone else feels, I can only represent myself, and while I am disappointed at the result of the primaries I have to face reality.
For me, it comes down to the most important issue of our time. We are at war. It remains clear to me that neither Hillary nor Obama will remain on the offensive against our enemy. John McCain will.
Given that reality, I cannot in good conscience simply sit by passively, and bow out of this election. I refuse to do that.
There are no guarantees that the process we engage in, in America, will always satisfy us or go our way. God knows I've experienced this more than once in my lifetime.
The war we wage against a ferocious enemy, will not wait four years while we hope for a more desireable candidate, who may or may not emerge.
So, It is my belief that John McCain is superior to the alternatives, if we are to ultimately prevail in this war.
The other issues that are of great importance, such as illegal immigration, will require our vigilance and participation as it has up to this point.
It is my hope that, rather than tear our conservative contingent apart, we take a moment to realize that cutting off our nose to spite our face, will accomplish nothing and can be downright dangerous if we willingly allow the leftists to take control of our country.
I will go to the polls in November, and vote for the best choice available. John McCain.
Pris
Z-
Just wanted to swing by again and leave a link to an article about the McCain problem.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MonaCharen/2008/02/08/why_they_cant_vote_for_mccain
Some allude to the fact that McCain only differs with traditional conservatives on a few key votes. That is misleading - dangerously misleading.
Sorry - the link didn't post correctly.
The article is at townhall.com by Mona Charen, posted 02/08/2008 and titled Why They Can't Vote for McCain
You can get to it by searching under "columnists" then clicking her name.
The point is we will have to come together and delete the anti-McCain stuff, written, spoken on Talk Radio, etc.
I think you can support him and not be in favor of support all of his ideas...he/we/the country don't just need a bunch of yes men
What we have here is a failure to communicate...LOL
Those who are saying vote for McCain are not saying it FOR the party, they are actually prioritizing COUNTRY before PARTY...those who advocating a boycot on election day, are of the reverse opinion which is that preserving the Party is paramount.
With regards to all the hyperbole from the talking heads, I heard something interesting on Bill OReilly last night, and thought I'd share it.
Ann Coulter was exposed last night on Bill O'Reilly. Apparently, back at the beginning of the campaigns she was asked if McCain won the Republican nomination if she would vote for him. Ann's answer back then? Yes. Interesting, given her stance on McCain now. Her most recent article just another McCain slash job and another intimation for voters to vote Democrat. Which brings me to another big story issue recently.
Hillary Clinton's campaign, it is said, received $5 million from the private account of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Could that be,that funds were need to buy a secret weapon? I find it odd that right around the time that Hillary's campaign starts to go south, Ann started to become more shrill about McCain. Let's see, right around the time that Hillary almost lost New Hampshire and had to do some fast acting quick, McCain scored his first win of delegates. Could it have been then, that Hillary decided it might be prudent to approach Ann with a proposition? And, consider too, the more ardent stance that HIllary has decided to take against illegals. No longer willing to consider giving them Driver Licenses, not this week anyway, and she even supported the idea of a caller in the CA debate that the influx of illegals is hurting the African American community by undercutting wages in construction and other blue collar jobs. Is she setting herself up to be the 'best' Democrat for conservatives not happy with McCain's immigration policy? Let's face it. She'll never be as tough as McCain on immigration, but neither Ann nor conservatives need bother themselves with details like that. Hillary can offer them a little promise that if they vote for her, immigration won't be as bad as it would be with Barak. And, whether Hillary stays true to her current stance on immigration or not, Ann will still have lots of material for the next four years; Hillary will have the WH back, and conservatives will stew and wait in earnest for the next election when, having 'taught their party a lesson in control', they will swoop victorious back into power, both over the party and of the WH.
You know the more I think about it, it's the only thing that makes sense. I mean, Ann would never flip flop on an issue so important. This is tantamount to a change in position on abortion or a vote against tax cuts for her. Opinion IS her world, analyzing politicians and knowing their records is second nature to her...she certainly knew all this stuff about McCain at the time she told Bill O'Reilly she would vote for him. I know she did, because I can recall her articles on each issue as it came up. So, why the flip flop? There must be a rationale. And a detente between these two nemises is one that I think warrants some consideration. Think of how each one probably thinks they're truly getting over on the other. Hillary thinking that she has tricked Ann into thinking she'll be tough on immigration so she can win her support, and Ann knowing that she doesn't care at all about immigration; she was going to vote for Hillary anyway...this way, she can wallow in visions of Hillary's shock and horror while reading the first vindictive article Ann writes about her supposed comrade in arms. When you think about it, they're truly made for each other.
I can't think of any other reason that Ann, so critical of others who flip-flop, would suddenly find McCain SO liberal that she can't vote for him; especially, since she already had all the same information on McCain when she answered Bill O'Reilly. Can you?
Pati
Well, Pati! I'm eager to hear what the others here think of your post. You make a lot of sense; the fact that Ann once said she would vote for McCain and now is so adamant against him is fascinating and lends itself to exactly what you're suggesting. Politics is ugly, that's for sure...I can't IMAGINE any real 'deal' between Ann and Hillary, but...stranger things have happened, I'm sure.
Farmer John, Priscilla, DARDottr, Brooke...most of us, I guess; My feeling is that FJ's right "we have to get on the train"...even if we have to drink. A LOT, as brooke suggests!!
I do worry a lot about the IMMIGRATION ISSUE Beak brings up. Beak, McCain's too soft there, in my opinion. BUT Beak is right about the Supreme Court. That's an enormous issue where we'd do better (even if only a little) with McCain than with Hillary or Obama, right?
SO, when you're drinking to get through this mess, drink a Cosmopolitan, good Southern Bourbon, a gin martini, or an American beer.
Margaritas? not so much. If you get my drift! ole.
oops.
Z
I was certainly joking about the Ann/Hillary alliance. LOL
However, it is true that Ann Coulter said she would vote for McCain,not more than a year ago...so I think it is a fair question to ask her why the flip-flop and trying to divide the party all of a sudden? She certainly knew all there is to know about McCain then...so why the change to this hyper-mania, I'm going to campaign for Hillary instead? It is not credible, not remotely. And I think we should be holding her feet at least as close to the fire as she is trying to hold the party...
Pati
Come on, Norwegianwood...I love thinking of an Ann/Hillary Alliance. As Unholy an alliance as I can think of!
Pati, I think you're really reaching on this idea that the Clintons bought off Ann Coulter.
In the first place, Ann is worth millions in her own right. Secondly, while she can be outrageous, she impresses me as being painfully honest.
Most importantly, I don't think Ann is that stupid.
Her readership and following is very conservative. If anything as untoward as what you suggest were true, and found out, she would lose that following permanently. There is a life after the election.
While that following would not be happy if she supports Hillary, they're not happy with McCain either and would forgive her, believing it's another Coulter in-your-face point: Lose now, win in four years. I don't agree with it, but possible.
Seems to me about the time you say Ann became more shrill, McCain had recovered his stride and was making unexpected gains.
We could just as easily say that the Clintons dumped money into Huckabee's campaign to marginalize Thompson, and later Romney.
In any case, it seems unfair at the least to make such a serious allegation against Ann based merely on conjecture. It's one thing to call her wrong headed, another to call her corrupt.
I really think it's time we all come to terms with what is. How we got here is of no consequence now. The best we can hope for now is a knock-down drag-out between Hillary and Obama at the Dem convention.
Pris
Pati, you must have posted your remark about joking while I was writing mine.
Sorry, I didn't pick up that you were joking! Please overlook my admonition and I'll overlook that you sure sounded serious to me.
Pris
Hey, Prisc...NW made sense, didn't she! She had me going, too.
And, by the way...someone who shall remain nameless and screen nameless DOES hypothesize that Huck's taking bucks from the Clintons...with just as clear and apparent reasoning as the excellent stuff NW brought up about Hillary and Ann! Yup.
Z, I just heard an audio last night of Ann saying if McCain picks Thompson or Romney as running mate she could probably vote for him.
That being said, when push comes to shove, while I enjoy Ann and her shenanigans and spunk, she won't have any effect on this election, one way or another.
On a lighter note, when Bill Clinton was reelected Ann said women shouldn't have the vote, and I said I'd turn in my gender card. That was an attempt at humor on my part, and no doubt on Ann's as well.
Pris
From a Z Friend...another point of view:
"There is no problem here. Coulter, Limbaugh and several others mentioned have little sway with liberals and other non-conservatives and if anyone quoted them as being against McCain it would help him. Hannity and others more pragmatic – and maybe even Limbaugh, will in the end be pragmatic and arrive at the conclusion that he is the better choice and rally around him, while saying, if they must, that he wasn’t their first choice. All this will be understood in the context of time and what the RNC is able to harvest re the criticism heaped on Billary during the Democratic contest, a far richer harvest. And when they get into earmarks and past records – Hoohah what a harvest."
Z's friend sent me another email today:
"You might want to include this, that I was going to pass on to you. Last night I had Hannity and Combs on radio while driving home. Hannity said make no mistake, between McCain and the democrats I am going to strongly advocate McCain."
Z's point is that Hannity will have SOME FANCY DANCING to do when the Left's touting Hillary or Obama and showing nothing but Hannity and Ann and Malkin and Ingraham audio or video saying why THEY DO NOT LIKE McCAIN BUT ASKING US TO VOTE FOR HIM! not a great selling point for the Republican nominee...not when we're trying to get Republicans out to vote. for him. (gag)
But, Z's friend has a point..perhaps nothing the Left can do to champion Hillary will be good enough. If it's Barak "CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE...I'm not sure WHAT change, but.."Obama, whole different picture.
pris, you're right...; how much effect will Ann really have on the election? Maybe only to thrill Colmes that he can CONSTANTLY remind her what she'd said (and most everyone else on the Right)about McCain and "How do you possibly expect ANYONE to follow your advice now after what you'd said..he hasn't CHANGED, HAS HE?" oy.
What Now. OK. We didn’t get the whole loaf. I cried when my guy withdrew. . . . Now for a show of hands: How many will vote for stale Clinton/Obama crumbs by not voting for McCain’s half loaf?
Worse. Please don’t let friends suffer from The Samson Complex. You know, the apocalyptic minded who’s going to bring down the whole house to fix it. “I’m going to vote for a leftist so people can really see how bad they are. Four years of that will wake America up!”
Sure. Hillary helped bring us the ‘94 congress. I’ll give you that. How about our big cities? Has a generation of appalling leftist mismanagement brought them ‘round? Michigan?
Worst. Third party? First, let’s thank Ross Perot voters for Bill Clinton – and his wife even being where she is now. Then say goodbye to the Supreme Court for a generation.
Is anybody’s hand still raised? No? Good! We can stop sitting on them now. Let’s get those hands out and put them to work for John McCain.
Our choice is not between the worst and the ideal best. Our choice is between the worst and the better. Please don’t let wanting the best become the enemy of getting the better.
Don't worry Pris. All's well. LOL
Here's my take on recent events: of course, this was written before I heard that Thompson decided to back McCain..that may change somethings, I don't know. Unless, I hear the conservative pundit perspective change quite a bit, this would be my advice, and why, to McCain.
Apparently, Howard Dean of the DNC says that he's just Bush in a different suit. LOL While his own party is saying he's a liberal Democrat. Sounds like he's in Bill O'Reilly's world where everyone's a critic who views him through their own prism.
I did see an interesting piece with Newt Gingrich last night though, when speaking with Laura Ingraham. Newt indicated that, of course, he will vote for McCain versus a Hillary or Obama in the general election. But, as he pointed out, there is no reason for conservatives to think that voting him into office means that they have to walk in lock step with him, or that they shouldn't or couldn't challenge him in those areas that they might find disagreement on an issue. He said, had more of that been done with Bush, the climate for Republicans might not be what it is today. I guess he put into words what I've been trying to express all along.
When Republicans did not like the McCain/Kennedy immigration Bill that Bush was supportive of ...they rallied and they killed the Bill. What makes them think that they would have any less power to do the same under a McCain presidency? A vote for McCain is NOT a vote to set aside your principles and to just let McCain willy-nilly do as he please. Anymore than happened with Bush on the Harriet Miers appointment or on immigration.
Under a Clinton or Obama presidency, however, they forego ALL of that power...and cede it for the following four years. Whether that four years involves appointments of judges or immigration law or the birth of a new beauracracy of Universal Healthcare...they will have little or no influential power over the president or the congress because the supportive accollades of their constituencies will far outway that of the disgruntled and minority Republicans. The Dems will feel that they have a mandate going in, and they will take full advantage of it.
Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity seem to have backed off from their labelling McCain as liberal as well. Now he's a moderate who still needs, however, to convince them of his conservatism. But at least the rhetoric seems to have simmered a bit. We'll see how long it lasts and, more importantly, what tight rope walking skills McCain has.
In the general he will have to fight off the Democratic party trying to label him a Bushie who offers either more of the same or worse a return to the Reagan years...in other words 'travelling backward in time.' While at the same time he'll be needing to prove his hard right bonafides to the conservative base. Talk about your dilemmas.
I think Dick Morris is correct. And you're not going to like it, but I think it's actually true. I think that the turn out for Republicans has already been abysmal, and with the threats from many conservatives it will prove to be even less energetic in the general. And the hard left will never, ever vote for McCain. So, I would advise him, rather than courting the right and trying to energize those who don't really want to be energized by him anyway, that he should try to appeal to the centrist voters in the moderate, independent, and libertarian sectors. That will give him the greatest promise of support over all to win the office. Conservatives have already stated they want nothing to do with him, and I don't think he has any reason to believe that will change, no matter what he does or says. So, why even try to cator to them, at the risk of turning off the moderates, independents, and libertarians who have already demonstrated alot of support for and energy for him?
That would be my take anyway.
(In case, ya'll haven't caught on, I'm pretty ticked at the conservative right. LOL)
P
Hey Pati..I think the independents are what the RNC hopes will go for McCain. Did you know FORTY PER CENT of AMERICA calls itself INDEPENDENT? I had no idea it's that high but that made me come to your conclusion. The RNC figures McCain will get a LOT of Republicans/Conservatives/Libertarians...and a lot of Independents. maybe. And yes, we absolutely can walk out of step with McCain and make him see things our way if he's elected (which I still think would be a miracle).
Deborah, welcome to geeZ! I am all over your post like WHITE ON RICE as they say. We have to remind people of the SUPREME COURT when they start talking about not voting. These are the people who REALLY care about reversing Roe v Wade and getting a marriage amendment, this is the farther Right....SO, how can THEY, of all groups, NOT vote for a president who at least MIGHT give us strict constructionist judges!? nuts isn't it? There could be TWO new justices in the next four years!
Well, so many great comments on this, I'm thrilled...and SO glad to have yours among them.
z
Hello Deborah. Nice to meet you!
"Worst. Third party? First, let’s thank Ross Perot voters for Bill Clinton – and his wife even being where she is now. Then say goodbye to the Supreme Court for a generation."
I am not kidding when I say I will NOT, ever, vote with the Republican ticket if conservatives pull their shenanigans and sit out this vote...I will vote EVERY third party, AND encourage it to reclaim OUR Republican party in the same manner it was born. It existed BEFORE conservatives every merged and their hoity, haughtiness this election may cost us our international credibility, and put us in greater danger and create beauracracies that we will NEVER get rid of. They will NEVER have my support again, just to prove to them that they didn't own the party now, anymore than they ever have...they've just dictated to it for so long, they forgot. I'm fed up to my eye teeth with the conservative bloc. I was a Republican BEFORE I was even a Chritian and it had NOTHING to do with abortion, gay marriage, or immigration: it had everything to do with the HISTORIC principles of the party: small government, government OUT of personal issues; freedoms and equality to everyone, and most decisions are best made closer to home...THAT'S Republicanism. Conservatives can try til they're blue in the face to say otherwise. But they NEVER could get anywhere without OUR party, and going it alone they WON"T in four years if they sit out and hang us out to dry this time..I'm dead cold serious about that. I know LOTS of Republicans who feel just the same way.
They may have bitten off a little more arrogance than they have the ability to support.
that's my opinion anyway.
Pati
What's arrogant about refusing to vote for someone who supports the murder of babies and gay marriage or open immigration? Am I missing something? NW may be right about what the Republican Party is SUPPOSED to be for, but there is a reason now why we are in the position of having to vote about "personal issues" and that's because the other side has been cramming them down our throats.
Anyway, I'm not voting. There's nothing out there a Christian can rightly support -- because of the direct violation of Christian values -- and I think we deserve what we're about to get whoever it is.
So paint your X on my roof NW. In fact I wouldn't mind checking out soon because of what is coming down the pike no matter who we get into office.
Hi Pati. I'm a Reagan conservative. Let's give people a chance to calm down and consider their options and the consequences to our nation if they passively sit by and usher in Hillary or Obama.
Nothing is more important than the war against the Islamists. Nothing. People need a little time to get past their disappointment. Conservatives are good Americans, and will do what's best for the country in the long run.
The enemy will not take a four year time-out. In fact they will increase their intimidation and try to pressure a new administration into bending to their will. Appeasement will not work, nor back room deals & buy-offs.
The new President will be tested, as has every President going back to Reagan.
Illegal immigration is an important issue. It cannot be separated from the War on Terror. Open doors are an invitation to disaster, and we can't afford this dual track of fighting in the ME, and open borders on the homefront. We have a right to expect security on our borders.
I agree with you that we know the left will not get the job done, and with McCain we have a chance, and can have some influence. And, he will fight the war.
Pris
Hi Connie.
Just want to say that the President has almost no effect on the abortion issue. With the exception of judicial appointments that issue is moot. I do understand McCain is pro-life so I don't quite understand your reticence.
For that matter the President has no influence on the gay marriage issue either. In fact I'm not aware that McCain supports gay marriage.
Finally Connie, since you know it's the other side cramming all this down our throats why are you opting out of the fight?
It's extremely important we remain unified. So, when the shouting's done, and I hope that's soon, we have alot to do.
To elect a Commander in Chief willing to fight for America, and at home to keep the grassroots fires burning on immigration and the culture war which does exist and must be fought as well.
Nice to see you here, Connie.
Pris
Connie,you know I love you...but, yeah, I'll put an X on your house, you betcha. My husband is slotted to be in Iraq through April of 09. Which means, that those conservatives who sit out the vote and let either Hillary or Barak in as CiC to start the dangerous redeployment of troops, an action that will embolden the enemy there, puts my husband and thousands of others at a greater risk of injury or death. So, yeah...I'll take it very personally. That you or anyone else, would put those guys, my guy, at such a risk over a gross misconception that somehow the President of the US is mandated to protect and assert Christian values rather than to uphold the Constitution which expressly states that he is NOT to promote any religion, is tremendously shocking and disappointing to me.
We ARE a Christian nation, but we are NOT a nation of Christians. It would do the conservative bloc good to remember that. Where in the Constitution does it state that the President of the US is to promote the moral doctrine of the Christian faith?
I agree with John McCain on the gay marriage issue. He said he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, but that the nation is divided on the issue and that it should remain with the states. Point to the Amendment in the Constitution that says he is wrong on that issue...oh, that's right. You can't because it isn't there. If it requires that an Amendment be added, then currently it IS unConstitutional.
We're supposed to be the party who doesn't believe the Constitution is a living document that needs to be altered in anyway, shape or form. (Other than the repeal of Amendments that have been added post the first 10...like the 14th and 16th specifically.)
Christians need to understand that it is not the gov't or the president who needs to fight the culture war. That's our job. Until we accept that it's our OWN failures in spreading the gospel, dealing with hunger, dealing with inner city family and drug problems, providing after school programs for kids with working moms and dads, teaching reading and english to immigrants, providing marriage counseling...all things the church has turned away from, it will continue to grow worse. Our churches build and provide for their OWN congregations and they lock their doors at night, and then wonder why their influence on the community is fading...since when is that the President's fault or job to fix?
These are dangerous times. And the war we are in was declared by people who have stated it's a religious war. But OUR religious folk have decided they will allow a surrender to those extremists because they have decided that the guy who is winning the nomination for the party willing to fight is not St Paul.
I'm sorry. I don't see that as a job requirement for a country that allows freedom of religion; even the freedom to not have a religion, and certainly the freedom to not have any religion or morality shoved down onto the populace via the government. It is the antithesis of what this country was founded on. God gave us the freedom to choose Him. And God gave us this country founded on the belief that it was God's will that ALL men make that decision for themselves.
Gay marriage, abortion, prayer in school, the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse...none of these are the realm of the President, but ONLY the upholding of the Constitution and the defense of this nation.
Matter of fact, the argument could be made that if you don't like the influence McCain has already had legislatively, the best thing you could do is elect him president. He'll have much less ability there to affect you in the future.
Ronald Reagan had an easy time bringing down the iron curtain, but no success bringing down the Dept of Ed which was only four years old when he promised to dismantle it. If conservatives sit out the vote, they are ELECTING to have Universal Health Care. A decision to 'not have a say' IS a decision to let others have your say. And knowing, as the conservatives do, what the Dems plan are, means they will be complicit in bringing in Universal Health Care. It will NEVER die. Surrender to the extremists in their religious war with us; immigration policy they say they can't abide, and higher taxes that will threaten our economy.
I sure don't want to listen to a peep from anyone who didn't raise their voice to vote about the outcome of their silence. Nope. They want to be silent at election time. Let them remain silent.
All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to stand by and do NOTHING. That's what a conservative boycott is...doing NOTHING. And, knowing what the outcome will be, it's the same as pulling the lever to vote YES for all of those things. That's a fact.
Perhaps because none of the candidates suited me in whole, I came much earlier to the conclusion that in any case, they all beat out the Dems on very big issues: the war, the right justices, no universal health care, taxes...and, as Newt Gingrich pointed out, we'll have more influence in areas of disagreement if it's our guy IN OFFICE then we can hope to have otherwise.
I'd like to say, I respect your position Connie, but that would be a lie, and I know you would not want me to do that. I respect that you have a right to your position, and that is as far as I can go. I cannot respect a decision to not participate, especially when there is so much riding on this election...for the country, and for me in a manner that hits very, very close to home. So, forgive my lack of empathy for your unhappiness over the nominee.
Pati
Hello Pris,
I wasn't thinking of McCain although I probably don't know enough about his stand on the Christian issues, I was just responding to Norwegianwood's slam at the Christian right, as if our concerns don't belong in her party. Maybe I didn't understand her rightly either. From what I understand of McCain he considers people who oppose open borders to be UnAmerican.
I suppose I'm over the top as far as a political perspective goes any more. Our present miserable situation is God's judgment on the nation. It just keeps getting worse. 9/11 was certainly God's judgment but nobody noticed except a very very few pastors who preached on it. I've thought that since it happened but today I read a blog that agrees with me and says the repercussions are continuing in the form of economic disaster. I think he's right.
Repentance is called for when a nation faces judgment, but instead of repentance we got a lot of macho chest-beating on the right. Maybe our war is doing sort-of OK, which shows God hasn't yet completely thrown us over, but it's not doing great, and the very fact that the Left is so opposed to it is judgment on the nation. I don't see that another war-oriented leader is going to do us any good. Human solutions are useless if God is not on our side and He's not any more.
Islam attacks us and what happens? Islam becomes popular and PC protects it while Christianity is loudly denounced, a formula for undermining the nation if there ever was one. We are overrun with illegals dragging down the economy and the culture and what happens? Our political leaders support them, another formula for undermining the nation. These developments are so perverse they have to be supernatural. I think they show God's hand against the nation. I think no matter who we get it's going to get worse in these directions. Politics is in God's hands, it's not in ours.
Yes, I'm sure this is a very unpopular view here. Me, I'm going to be praying for revival and mercy on the nation, though I really think we've crossed the line and we're not coming back. I suppose maybe it would mean more if I got out there and supported McCain and he won? Could be. I'm not sure I can find Christian grounds for doing that but I can think about it at least. If he's really unequivocally pro-life and anti gay marriage that's a start. The idea being that if we get McCain the handwriting on the wall would be more evident. Maybe. I can give it a thought at least.
Well, NW, you are right that I would not want you to pretend to respect my position when you obviously don't. Love you too and all that, since you are a Christian sister, but that's about all we're going to agree on.
All I really have to say is that God is over the Constitution and over the President. Anyone who knows the Word knows that nations answer to Him, and that human instrumentality isn't worth beans if He is against us, and the signs are getting louder every day that that's the case, as I just wrote to Pris.
Leaving gay marriage to the states is no doubt more Republican than letting the federal government decide it, but you know very well that all states are going to be obliged to validate any state's decision to legalize it. In any case, allowing it at ALL, NW, at ALL, anywhere on US soil, is a slap in God's face in the name of the entire United States.
As is abortion, for which we are now already coming under judgment with more to come. And so very many other ways this nation is a slap in His face, screamingly so for decades now. I'm not compromising with any of this any more. It may not be the province of the Constitution but it is the province of God and therefore the province of a Christian.
Also, there is something outrageously absurd about giving ordinary human beings as much responsibility as you do, as Pris does, as our very system of government does, in this feverish demand that we all get out and vote or else. I'm not taking the guilt and though I'll peep all I want, you don't have to listen.
I'm not saying anybody has to believe as I do, I'm not saying the Constitution says anyone has to believe as I do, all I'm saying is that my obligation is to God before my country. If He allows Islam to overrun us, that's judgment against His own church for our very failure to put Him above politics.
Your husband is not in danger from what human beings do, NW. Your prayer for him is a thousand times more protection than anybody's vote. He's in God's hands, not ours.
I'm not sure how my email got posted instead of my name, so I'm trying another post to find out if there's something I didn't do right.
Now it wants a URL. Good grief. I give up.
Connie
Hi Pris,
I appreciate that you think the rhetoric ought to calm down...but, uh, that's what I was trying to say months and months ago while they continued to spew it all out there...and, now so many claim that they'll just sit it out...largely because of all the venom that has been put out there about McCain, painting him as a liberal...and I should still remain calm? I should not respond to the outcome of what I was trying in a 'calm' manner back then, with the harshest criticism and the expression of disdain that I feel about what the conservative pundits have managed to bring about?
That's just not me, Pris. I was on these blogs, making cogent arguments in nicey nice, reasonable talk and they were just rabid and deaf, repeating the mantra from the shills: he's a liberal; he's a RINO; I could never vote for him...blahblahblah
Did you see Kemp on H&C the other night? Reminding Hannity of how the conservative bloc didn't like Reagan early on too? How they were scathing about him? And, that they were doing the same thing with McCain who has a 100% rating on prolife votes; a 100% rating on never voting to raise taxes; on voting in strict constructionist justices...Hannity says "Who are you saying was doing that?" LOL Right. Kemp called him on it. And what does Hannity try to pull? Tries to say he's been 'fair' and has always given McCain credit for those things!!! HUH?? Really? All I heard was his litany of things supposedly proving McCain was not a conservative. From what I can tell between that night and tonight, Hannity has been getting 'called' on the affect of his and the other pundits rabid attacks on McCain that in NO WAY were 'fair and balanced.' Especially, as Kemp said, you're talking about a career wherein there have been literally thousands of votes, and they kept talking about just a few over and over. Ann out there saying vote Hillary. They were sooo effective, contrary to what you stated you thought they'd be, that now they're trying to back pedal. Oh, Ann's flipped again...yipppeee. Too little, too late.
I stand by MY principles too. And by my comments. If they sit it out Pris, I'll do everything I can to see to it that the bloc is not successful for a very long time, by voting and supporting every third party that will split the vote. Because, quite frankly, all will have already been lost. We will already be saddled with Universal Health care, and we will already have SURRENDERED the war. So, what would be the point of worrying over the split. Let them have their principles, and I'll work at building up the Republican principles under a third party without them.
The time to speak out with rational argument was then, when it was very lonely for people like me. The damage has been done, and I don't think it's me that needs to be reasonable now. Now is putting it all on the table time: I call their bluff. It's do or die time...and if they sit out the vote, it truly is the death of the coalition for me and hundreds of thousands like me.
I don't see it as either Republican or Christian to sit by and let evil prosper, and that's what a conservative boycott amounts to. I think putting self and party before country is actually MORE reflective of the culture of the "What about me? I have a right to feel good about myself" they say they're against than is doing the heavy lifting and intraspection they need to be doing. By heavy lifting I mean getting behind the guy who will MOST meet the Republican ideals and ward off the move left, no matter if he's your favorite. And by intraspection, I mean accepting that the culture war is one they're losing in their homes, their communities, and their churches and that expecting the President or government to promote or to force thier ideals onto the public just makes them the same as the libs only with a different list of demands. That's not the Republican way. So, I ask, if they don't believe in the Republican ideals, what have they been doing on the ticket all these years?
The nicey, nice, kiss and makeup talk needs to be done BY the conservatives in my book. Were I McCain, I would continue to court the centrists and independents that have brought him this far. The conservatives can do the sucking up, or boycott...but if they called me and my credentials into question like the conservatives have done to McCain, I'd tell them to take a hike.
Sorry, I can't buy into we all need to make up...I think they need to vote or not, but I don't want to hear a peeep, not one, out of those who choose to remain silent now.
(They really, really have me angry, Pris. And I can't fake it, and play like it doesn't matter to me. I've got too much on the line...a husband who's service and risk of life so they have the freedoms like the privilege to vote, and they would abstain? Knowing it puts him and all those troops in GREATER danger? Sorry, that's unforgiveable, unforgiveable..)
Pati
Nice to meet you wallsong2003. We apparently have a wholly different understanding of God and what He expects of us.
I see little difference in my reading of the Bible between gays who practice their behavior with or without the recognition of the government. With Christianity came INDIVIDUAL relationship with God. And, I quite frankly, can find nothing in the New Testament that would lead me to believe that He would find recognized unions somehow MORE of an abomination than He finds them without that recognition. And I don't agree with your assessment of the states granting it in large number.
Currently, more than 11 states already have legislation stating that they will NOT recognize it. But, certainly, it is activity that has been going on since TIME...why would God suddenly decide to hold a nation accountable for the private, individual choices of a few which has been going on since Biblical times? That is an absurd reading of the Bible in my view.
In addition, with regards to abortion, which I agree is murder, born of a misreading of the Constitution...but, McCain HAS a 100% prolife voting record and has already stated that he will select strict constructionist justices should that opportunity arise. So, again, I don't see why you would sit by and allow people who are PRO abortion be in a position to select PRO Roe v Wade Justices, thereby insuring that the law will stand, rather than voting for McCain...that makes NO sense either.
You recall the story of the two sisters, Martha and Mary...YOU are worried about the little details which actually have more to do with the shortcomings of the Christians and the churces in terms of the current cultural situation, and are ignoring the religious battle at hand...You say 'Leave it to God.' I say, that's a cop out...God has ALWAYS used man to bring about HIS will. He called on people throughout the Bible to fight against evil, and Islam is precisely that battle. I think He will find those who were willing to stand by and let that evil grow when HE has empowered them with the means to demolish it, both through spreading the gospel AND in actual battle to be of the 'tepid' church in Revelation. I don't want to be that tepid Christian.
God expects US to do things with the talents and the blessings He has poured onto us. Sitting by when He has blessed you with a government of 'the people' and allowing those who you KNOW will promote those very things you say you are against is 'burying your talent' in my opinion. He expects that we do as we are supposed to do. If you are upset about abortion and gay marriage, get out there in the area that DOES matter and IS Constitutional...in your communities, in your homes, in your churces...if the church was doing what it was supposed to do...we would BE a nation of Christians and neither of those practices would even BE an issue...don't fault the government for what it is YOUR and MY responsibility to uphold and promote. That's what you are doing. You are like the man who says I'm not going to listen to the warning siren, or the radio broadcast, or the weather men who have been monitoring a storm and are now warning me to leave ..."I'm going to stay put. God will protect me." .....What do you think ALL of those WARNINGS were! THAT was God protecting you.LOL Because they come from the body and the technology of a man, doesn't mean that they were not PROVIDED by God.
Sitting passively and saying God will take care of all, determining that NO action is necessary on your part is a serious misreading of ALL the messages of the Bible in my opinion. So, yes, we disagree not only on politics but on WHAT it MEANS to be a Christian.
Yes, God is omnipotent. Yes, God already KNOWS what will be...that doesn't let YOU off the hook..not even close. And I am very sorry for you if you think it does.
My husband will have my prayers, everyday; just as he does now. But, just as God blesses a woman with a child, knowing in advance that she is going to neglect that child and bring about its death, His foreknowledge that it will all occur does not EXCUSE the woman of her SIN...not one iota. And, that is what it sounds to me that you are trying to do. Excuse your inaction by saying "It's in God's hands..."
God bless you, wallsong2003. I think that you are in desparate need of it.
norwegianwood
Here I went to all that lengthy explanation, when Martin Luther King Jr. put it very succinctly. (Stole this from a post on the fpm board on an unrelated topic.)
"In the end it will not be the words of our enemies that we remember, it will be the silence of our friends."
Perfect.
Pati
Norwegianwood/Pati: You might put your energy to better use by really talking up McCain's conservativeness -- with quite a bit more patience. It's true that I've trusted in many sources about him -- not Rush or the pundits but Christian sources -- and if they are wrong then it would be good to know it. I haven't taken the time to study him carefully, but you are someone who studies political issues very thoroughly. Instead of ranting and raving, there's your job for the next few months.
There is a HUGE difference between sin that is private and sin that is validated by government. The latter makes government complicit. The OLD Testament is still our guide to God's judgment of nations. What the LEADERS do is how the nation is judged. Individuals will also be judged individually.
I did NOT say "Leave it to God." You seem to be purposely misreading me. I will not put myself in the position of OPPOSING God. If I don't have a choice that supports His will I'm not voting. There are two senses of "God's will," the first what He approves, the second His sovereign power over everything. You are right, God will certainly bring about His will in the second sense through human instrumentality one way or another -- including Islam, including the Left -- but it will not go well with those who act against His will in the first sense.
Be careful who you lecture, NW. I was one of the first at FPM and elsewhere to call it like it is about Islam, when everybody else was still rationalizing it PC style as just another religion blah blah blah and following Morgaan around as if she had a clue. I've done my duty.
Now, if saving McCain's image is your duty, do it.
Connie
And by the way, NW, I agree completely about the failure of the churches. I believe the church in America is also under God's judgment -- PRIMARILY under God's judgment. We're a fat church that doesn't look or act any different than the rest of the culture. But you have no idea what I do or don't do about this.
Connie
And I have to say it again: Stopping Islam is not possible at this point by political means. I said why I think that is so: America is under judgment. What we do politically is not going to stop God's judgment against America. 9/11 struck the symbols of our wealth and the symbol of our military. Judgment is coming against our economy AND against our military. How we vote is not going to do anything about this. Only a nation on its knees in repentance can have an impact. Is John McCain the man who will call for a day of national repentance as some of our Presidents of the past did? I wrote to Bush a couple of times, begging him to give up the idiotic Roadmap to Peace in the Middle East which only puts Israel at the mercy of implacable enemies, and asking him to follow his predecessors in calling for a day of repentance. Get McCain to announce he will do that and I'll vote for him.
Connie,
9-11 was God's judgement on this nation? So, in your eyes, the victim is the perpetrator?
And when Pearl Harbor was bombed, what evil had we committed to deserve that fate?
When Hitler stormed Europe with his evil, what horror had they committed to deserve God's judgement in so terrible a fashion?
When Stalin murdered millions, what evil had his people done to deserve such a fate?
You would blame the victims of evil acts instead of the evildoers, and lay those acts at God's feet.
So, in your desire to find a reason for these evils, you find a handful of pastors to listen to, instead of placing the blame on those who committed those acts.
Pastors are men, Connie, like any other men, they are not infallible. There seems to be a great desire on the part of many, religious or not, to blame America for 9-11 instead of the true evildoers.
Those who claim piety, seem to think they have a special insight into God's intentions, but, for me, God helps those who help themselves. He is not a micro-manager. We are here to meet the tests of life, and choose our own paths to do so.
It seems to me, if we countenance evil, and do not confront it, and beat it back, indeed destroy it, we have failed the test, and we will be consumed by it.
You, of course will believe what you want, and this is your right. I too, am a Christian, and I pray as well. I pray for our country, for my family, for strength, and for those who are in harm's way like Pati's husband.
However, prayer is not enough. We are not here merely to sit by and watch, while others risk their lives or die every day to protect us. We surely are not here to make that effort more difficult.
We have a political decision to make. We can't afford to do nothing and depend on the fates to protect us. We're here for a reason, not as spectators, but as participants in our own destiny.
Pris
Connie, thought wallsong2003 was a different poster...my bad. You must feel especially attacked by me. ;)
Perhaps you missed the part where I stated that I have been ALL over the blogs with all types of informational sources MORE well-rounded than what the media would have you to believe. If you like, when I have MY computer where all that is saved, I will post it...yet again. It would seem to me, however, if I were going to hold judgement over another, I would have made the effort myself.
I do not believe that we are still under the Old Testament which was basically a foretelling of Christ right through the ressurrection. I believe that brought us TO individual relationship with God rather than holding us under nations. It's an honest disagreement, I suppose. But what you yet seem unable to conceive is that a vote for McCain is not a stamp of approval on him as a Christian. Were the choice right NOW between Obama and Stalin...I would NOT elect to be silent, but would not hesitate to cast a vote for Obama in the hope that my right to vote for him might protect at least that right to vote again when maybe the choices were better. You also seem to refuse to acknowledge that you refusal to vote IS a vote, a vote that elects allowing others to speak for you. A kind of 'in your face God' with the gift of liberty and voice that HE has provided you. One of His greatest blessings to YOU. And you basically say, yeah, no thanks. That's my opinion.
I do not agree AT ALL that 9/11 was God's punishment. Where is your evidence of that? It was an act of religious war that finally woke us up to the reality that a religion born of oppression, deceit, and loathing for all of God's creation was not one we should have been conveying any measure of respect but should instead have been persecuting aggressively since their FIRST attack against us. I don't think if I become deathly ill because of an illness I refused to acknowledge for what it was is a punishment from God...it's the natural progression of the disease..period. WE should NEVER have accommodated such an evil, tyrannical joke of a religion. Never. AND, we should have been doing a MUCH BETTER job at spreading the GOOD WORD, rather than luxuriating in our golden buildings and our finery.
Fact is there are two options for the leadership of this country: Democratic ticket or Republican ticket. One side will promote an environment MORE closely in line with where you think the country ought to go...I still see NO logic in not voicing an opinion on it, but letting others make the call. Do you think THAT alleviates any 'guilt' from you?
When I have access to my other computer I will be happy to provide you with plenty of information to at least give you a better perspective of the man. I know I would not want to be judged or labelled by four of five selective things I've done in my life, would you?
Pati
" Connie,
9-11 was God's judgement on this nation? So, in your eyes, the victim is the perpetrator?"
Hi Pris. Well, this could get us into theological questions that are over our heads, but I think it's fair to say that you are asking the question the wrong way. Would it be right to say that Sodom and Gomorrah were the innocent "victims" of their destruction by God? Do you think that Israel did not deserve to be taken captive into Babylon? If we didn't have the Bible to explain it to us we might find all God's judgments to be unfair suffering by innocent victims, but since we do have His word it is a very reasonable conclusion to draw that disaster is usually judgment. Probably always. However, as Jesus said about the fall of the tower of Siloam, it would be a big mistake to think those who died in a particular disaster deserved it any more than the rest of us. We may deserve it even more but our time has not yet come. Self-righteousness is the biggest sin in the whole Bible I think, thinking we are innocent and don't deserve judgment.
If we know anything from the Bible it's that God is in charge of all things, although today's church seems to want to take His sovereignty away from Him. But nothing happens without His willing it. The OT is one lesson after another about God's hand in history. Were Adam and Eve the innocent victims of God's punishment? Did they not deserve to be driven out of Eden? The entire world was "victimized" by the Flood of Noah. But of course many deny that that even happened, let alone that the entire world deserved it if it did.
I would never claim to know of a precise sin that deserves a precise judgment-- the OT shows that the causes often accumulate for centuries before the judgment comes, but there is always plenty of sin in the world and it eventually does bring judgment. I happen to think we could easily make a list of the reasons America is due judgment just from the last fifty years of growing sin against God in the nation and as a nation.
Sometimes God allows evil for reasons that are completely beyond our ability to figure out, but it would be a BIG mistake to ever think there is such a thing as an innocent victim in God's perspective. The Bible is very clear about that. Christians have been tortured over the centuries too, starting with Nero, but the Christian response is supposed to be to love your enemies, bless your persecutors and not seek revenge, that's God's prerogative.
That's about individuals of course, and I usually think nations are not judged quite the same way but I'm not completely sure these days. At least the OT is clear that disaster on a nation IS judgment and it should be an occasion for repentance and seeking the reasons for it. Certainly we grieve for our lost and must comfort the suffering -- all that is also commanded by God. And seeking redress in the world -- well, that's more iffy, not necessarily wrong but iffy -- one of those things I haven't settled in my mind yet. In any case, repentance would be better. All I know is that disaster IS judgment and we don't usually tend to respond to it in a godly way. We wrongly see ourselves as innocent victims.
"When Hitler stormed Europe with his evil, what horror had they committed to deserve God's judgement in so terrible a fashion?"
Hitler was a type of Antichrist. In the case of Antichrist the greater sin is the people who followed him because they are heaping up final judgment on themselves when they come to face God, in a far worse way than they ever could have inflicted. Far far better to be killed by him than to have joined him.
"When Stalin murdered millions, what evil had his people done to deserve such a fate?"
Same as with Hitler, but you can't ever say that nobody deserves anything in this world. We're all born sinners. If you don't believe the Bible you may think there is such a thing as a good person, but a real understanding of the Bible doesn't allow that thought. However, death is not the worst thing that can happen to anyone. The Final Judgment will be that for those who have rejected God. As Jesus said, offenses must come, but Woe to those by whom they come.
BUT, antichrists are God's instruments too. Islam may yet give us a doozy of an antichrist figure, although of course Bin Laden himself comes close. The right response to horrible events is ALWAYS repentance and seeking the cause of God's judgment. That's the SAFEST response too. Submission to God will bring protection from God. The absolutely worst thing we can do is self-righteously declare ourselves innocent, and march off to punish those who have wronged us without consulting Him about it.
"You would blame the victims of evil acts instead of the evildoers, and lay those acts at God's feet."
No, I simply know that nothing happens without God and I know what the Bible says about it; I also know and trust that the evildoers will be repaid by God. He may use us to do that or He may not. At present I believe the evil acts were done as a warning to us that we should be heeding and taking seriously before we think of punishing our enemies.
"So, in your desire to find a reason for these evils, you find a handful of pastors to listen to, instead of placing the blame on those who committed those acts."
Not at all. I do not let the Muslims who committed the atrocity of 9/11 off the hook, nor do those pastors I found, but most of all God doesn't. I know they are in terrible fear in the presence of God right now. I was among the first to say islam is an evil religion and that it was Islam that attacked us on 9/11, not a supposedly unIslamic "terrorism," and I wrote Bush saying that he was only going to bring disaster on us by naively calling Islam "a religion of peace."
"Pastors are men, Connie, like any other men, they are not infallible. There seems to be a great desire on the part of many, religious or not, to blame America for 9-11 instead of the true evildoers."
Yes the Left have their own nasty accusations to make, but don't let them deflect you from the truth by misrepresenting its source. There were VERY few pastors who said anything at all about 9/11 as God's judgment. I think I found a total of four around that time, I've since found a few more. But the big name Christians of the time were saying mealymouthed sentimental nonsense and wondering why along with everybody else. I was SO glad to find a few who preached it was judgment because I myself knew it was judgment, and they made good use of the scriptures to teach that, while the rest of the churches and the nation at large were demanding that "God bless America" and being perplexed about why He would allow this to happen and not getting true biblical answers.
"Those who claim piety, seem to think they have a special insight into God's intentions, but, for me, God helps those who help themselves. He is not a micro-manager. We are here to meet the tests of life, and choose our own paths to do so."
Pris, you need to know the God of the Bible. He gave us the Bible so that we could know Him. There is no other way of knowing God's intentions and He wants us to know them. That's why He gave us His word. "God helps those who help themselves" is almost the opposite of what He reveals of Himself. The more we depend upon Him the more power we have for good, and otherwise we have none.
I don't claim any personal special understanding of my own, just an honest attempt to understand scripture as it presents itself. Your vision of God is not biblical. But then neither is that of half the churches in the nation. But we need the Biblical perspective more than we need anything else right now. If we don't understand who God really is by His own revelation to us then we are going to go on fighting battles He hasn't authorized in ways He hasn't authorized them and end up even more perplexed by continuing disasters just as the nation was at 9/11.
"It seems to me, if we countenance evil, and do not confront it, and beat it back, indeed destroy it, we have failed the test, and we will be consumed by it."
That sounds good, but unfortunately God may see the situation a bit differently. America itself is now full of evil of its own, we may still be the Good Guys in our kindness to the rest of the world but we are now rotten at the core in our own culture, and it is very likely that God will simply not be with us in our effort to "confront... beat it back [and] destroy" the evil you have in mind.
That is what got me started thinking along these lines in the first place, the awareness that we haven't been succeeding but WE'VE been getting beaten back bit by bit. That led me to recognize that God is not with us. OUR ENEMIES ARE GROWING IN INFLUENCE AND POWER, AND THAT CAN ONLY BE GOD'S JUDGMENT and if so there is NOTHING we can do to fight it except repent of OUR sins.
God brought very evil nations against the Israelites when His own people transgressed. He brought idolatrous heathen nations against them. There is nothing to say He wouldn't do that with Islam against us. He's already doing it, and against Europe for sure. Enemies in our midst is one of the forms of judgment as God spelled it out in the Law He gave the Israelites through Moses.
"You, of course will believe what you want, and this is your right."
I try to believe what the Bible teaches and to stay away from my own personal feelings about things.
"I too, am a Christian, and I pray as well. I pray for our country, for my family, for strength, and for those who are in harm's way like Pati's husband."
Good, that is something we all should do, and I do too.
You should also be praying that the nation will repent, and in fact we should all be repenting on behalf of the nation in our prayers, as Daniel did on behalf of Israel in his prayers in the OT.
"However, prayer is not enough. We are not here merely to sit by and watch, while others risk their lives or die every day to protect us. We surely are not here to make that effort more difficult."
Please understand the context here. IF GOD IS AGAINST US WE CAN DO NOTHING no matter how good you may think our efforts are. WE WILL NOT SUCCEED. That is the point of everything I'm saying. If we knew we were acting in His will then our actions would be blessed by Him. We do NOT want God against us but it looks to me like He is!
"We have a political decision to make. We can't afford to do nothing and depend on the fates to protect us. We're here for a reason, not as spectators, but as participants in our own destiny."
It's right to participate in politics when there is a clear direction to take. I'm not sure there is one right now, and in that case it's not "doing nothing," it's obeying God. I'm going to rethink McCain but that's the best I can say. I have the feeling that anything we do right now may be against God and I don't want to be there myself.
James says to count it all joy when we encounter trials...
so if it is indeed judgement than would you then say that everything bad that happens to an individual is also a judgement?
I suppose there are times when God is judging us as individuals but then you'd have to ignore other times in the Bible where trials etc. were used simply to bring glory to God.
Remember the blind man that Jesus healed...there were those who blamed his blindness from birth on his parents sin...but Jesus told them he was blind to bring glory to God.
While I think there are times when God does bring judgement, discerning those times can be the tricky part.
No problem, NW/Pati, I figured it out that you didn't know who I was. Poor wallsong though.
I'm going to do my own research on McCain since I haven't really done much, and I'm sure you've been doing your bit. I was only saying stick to that and don't fly off the handle at people who have a different point of view.
Anyway, yes, we have a disagreement about some things. Jesus' coming brought salvation to those who believe but the OT still stands as God's revelation of how He works in the world and among the nations. We are told in the NT that the OT is given to us for our admonition. We should therefore know it well and understand God's ways from it.
We are also told that Jesus did not come to end the Law. The Law is still in operation on all who haven't taken refuge in Christ. The Law still condemns sinners and will condemn them in the end if they do not repent. The whole world is under God's wrath, Paul says in Romans, and we too once were, as he says in Ephesians. Jesus took the punishment for our sins so that the Law will not punish us in the next life, but it is still going to punish all who deny Him and reject His offer.
Again, WE aren't under the Law, but nations are and everybody not saved is. America is.
I just made my case to Pris that 9/11 was God's judgment, so if you aren't convinced I probably am not going to convince you by saying more.
If you believe in a truly all-powerful God there's no way to believe He DIDN'T have anything to do with it, and if He didn't, where does that leave us anyway? Completely at the mercy of the forces of evil. If evil can happen and He not be able to stop it then we can't ever count on His protection, can we? The churches are failing people by not making these things clear.
But I think I'm going to stop yammering so much at this site and start my own blog to get all this said as I feel it really needs to be said.
My only concern is where God's will is. I voted for Bush and wish I hadn't. I'm trying to listen to God this time.
"Were the choice right NOW between Obama and Stalin...I would NOT elect to be silent, but would not hesitate to cast a vote for Obama in the hope that my right to vote for him might protect at least that right to vote again when maybe the choices were better."
I'm sure that can be done in good conscience and I wouldn't try to talk you out of it. I'd just point out that if God is bringing judgment against a nation, He can use either Stalin OR Obama and He's the one who determines how the vote count will go and who is elected anyway. And if He's bringing judgment and we keep on ignoring that, you can be sure there isn't going to be a better choice next time.
"You also seem to refuse to acknowledge that you refusal to vote IS a vote, a vote that elects allowing others to speak for you."
I figure if I don't have a vote I can make in good conscience (remember I'm going to rethink it) God will elect whom HE wants in office anyway. Whoever we get is from HIM. I truly believe that. I'm also painfully aware of the hatred between the two halves of this nation these days. They are my "fellow Americans" too and logically speaking why shouldn't their will prevail over mine? I'm sure this is a bit strange sounding and it's strange sounding even to me because it's a very new feeling I've been having lately. It's very sad to me that I have to think of their vote as evil, and it's all the worse when I can only think of mine as a bit less evil. I'm sure that's very odd sounding and I haven't figured it all out myself, and may still reverse my thought about it, but it's about my growing disaffection with democracy. But that's a lot more yammering I'm not going to do here.
"A kind of 'in your face God' with the gift of liberty and voice that HE has provided you. One of His greatest blessings to YOU. And you basically say, yeah, no thanks. That's my opinion."
You seem to have put God's blessings ahead of God here. You are thinking from the bottom up rather than the top down. If the nation is under His judgment I expect McCain to be an instrument of his judgment no less than Hillary or Obama. Do I want to vote for an instrument of His judgment at all?
Possibly I guess. Elijah after all prayed that God would bring famine against Israel for their sins, as He had promised in the Law of Moses.
Hello Elmer's Bro
Yes, Christians are to learn to respond to every kind of suffering with thanks and rejoicing. Hard to do but He gives the strength.
I have questions myself about the cause of everything bad that happens to individuals. We see in the OT the consequences of individual sin in some cases, such as a few times in David's life for instance. But as you say, Jesus did teach that there are different reasons for suffering, and God's being glorified in our patient suffering, or in our healing in the case of the blind man, may be it. And some people seem to suffer more for fewer sins than others, and the wicked seem to get away all the time with their sins and so on -- scripture also teaches that. And we can also inherit sins and judgment from earlier generations. We may never know why most things happen to us, so I agree that discerning such things is beyond us, and I wouldn't even try in the case of an individual. I do often think I have a sense of why some bad things happen to myself however, what I did to deserve them. Even in that case the Christian's job is to thank God and bless our enemies and so on. Or ask Him to please help us try to do so since I hardly ever get that far myself.
But I don't think there are such questions when it comes to nations. Disaster just is judgment.
I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, discerning the difference is where we might differ slightly.
If you believe in a truly all-powerful God there's no way to believe He DIDN'T have anything to do with it, and if He didn't, where does that leave us anyway?
...if for no other reason than that the victims are not the perpetrators that one might identify.....
I don't believe every disaster is a judgement from God but can also be the result of the natural laws that He put in effect. Do those natural laws always have a moral effect?
Lee Strobel also made a case that pain etc is a proof that there is a God. This was also coincide with the blind man that Jesus healed, they are meant to point people to God.
We must remember that while the Creator made natural and moral evil possible by granting us freedom of choice, it was humanity that actualized that evil. We can’t put this on the Master’s table.
I think the problem some Christians have of certain views when it comes to these issues it that they seem fatalistic.
Why pray if God's decided? Why vote if God's decided?
This came from a pastor who ministered to families of 9/11:
I don't think we can infer from prosperity that God is pleased with us, nor can we know from disaster that he is displeased with us.
In Romans 1:18ff Paul hints that the worst punishment may be to get the happy life you want! That way you never wake up to your pride, self-righteousness or need for him.
On the other hand, Luke 21:16-19 is a remarkable assertion that God's loving protection of his people does not mean exemption for suffering. Jesus says, "They will put some of you to death. All men will hate you because of me. But not a hair of your head will perish." This is startling to us.
We would think that 'not a hair of your head will perish' must mean that we can't be attacked and killed, but that is not so. Jesus is saying that God exercises the most detailed and loving control of our lives ("not a hair"), and that in the broad scope of things every event works out for our good and his glory (Romans 8:28). But our life-plan may still include terrible tragedy, just as did Jesus' life plan. (Why should servants be above their master?)
We learn that we cannot be sure that disasters imply divine judgment nor that prosperity implies divine approval. So how can we know whether God is displeased with America or not? The only way to know that for sure is to consult the Scriptures and its standards.
But this does not mean we cannot 'hear God's voice' in a time of tragedy. We can. Jesus was also asked whether certain corporate and personal tragedies were "judgments" of God. In Luke 13he was asked if a massacre and (ironically) a falling tower were signs of God's judgment on those killed. His answer was an unequivocal "no", but he added cryptically "you yourselves should repent".
That fits with C.S. Lewis' famous statement that "in prosperity God whispers to us, but in adversity he shouts at us." God speaks to us in all troubles. So what is God saying in times of tragedy and suffering? I think the message is different depending on how touched you are by the disaster.
Jesus was himself the victim of a hostile, physical attack. I don't think you will really be able to handle the brutality of life either with
a) a general God who has not suffered, or with
b) a universe without any God in it at all. Both of those options bring no consolation. If there is no God, then even your outrage is trivialized. This is just the way life is. There is no justice.
C.S. Lewis pointed out that times of war or disaster don't really increase the amount of misery and death in the world, but they concentrate it and wake us from our illusion that life is manageable.
"If we had foolish hopes about human culture, they are now shattered. If we thought we were building up a heaven on earth, if we looked for something that would turn the present world from a place of pilgrimage into a permanent city satisfying the soul of man, we are disillusioned, and not a moment too soon. In ordinary times only the wise realize it. Now (in war-time) the stupidest of us knows it." (C.S.Lewis, "Learning in War-Time")
A pastor friend preaches at a church other than my own but I have gone there about 3 times in the last 8 months or so. One Sunday, he talked about bad things happening in our lives and how people don't like to consider satan...some churches are very uncomfortable discussing satan, even. It's almost old fashioned, he reminded us, to think satan's still around doing really bad things to us, etc.
He talked about how God is in total charge, even when we're suffering..and aren't we GLAD he is! what made such an impact was "YOu can blame the devil, but remember God is in charge.....and wouldn't you RATHER that he is, even in the terrible times, knowing that somehow things will work for his good purpose?" We may never see the good..but....
it made an impact on me. Yes, even if things are VERY rough, it's sure a comfort knowing HE is in control and not satan!
well, I've probably over simplified, but ...I hope you get what I mean.
Sometimes, like during this election, it sure is hard to see God's hand in it. Or even in our country.
EVerybody's making good and interesting points here...thanks.
No, Jesus did not say the fall of the tower of Siloam was not judgment, He said, as I already mentioned in a previous post, that its victims were not worse sinners than anyone else:
"There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And Jesus answered and said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? 3 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish."
Yes, you're right, EB, people can fall into a fatalistic mental set over these ideas, but nothing really changes with the knowledge that God is in charge of all things unless we think too hard about it, because we aren't able to grasp it. I'm NOT saying I won't vote because I'm leaving it to God as NW thought; that's not my reason. My reason is that I don't want to vote against my conscience. That's a simple reason, not involving questions of determinism and all that. We vote when we believe we should vote, we pray because God commands us to pray, nothing really changes unless you give yourself a mental charleyhorse thinking too hard about it.
I'm not talking about individuals. I never said anything about the particular individuals who died in 9/11 and I wouldn't even guess about that. Some were miraculously saved from death; certainly some were saved for eternity, and some weren't. There is every kind of story there and all you can say is that we all die sometime. All I'm ever talking about is the sins of the corporate nation, the attack on the corporate nation and its effects on the corporate nation, and that means all of us.
I think it's something like this: Denying God's sovereignty causes us to shrink God down to our size and creates problems on some questions such as understanding God's judgments, but it's best to leave it alone when it comes to practical life actions or you'll drive yourself crazy.
Bottom line: Scripture tells us God is in charge of calamity:
Amos 3:6: If there is calamity in a city, will not the Lord have done it?
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things.
Sure, there are natural laws that God set in motion, but if you think God can't control them for His own purposes then you don't believe He's truly omnipotent.
Yes, it's the evil or sin in the human race that determines the calamity from our side, as the reason for the calamity. God doesn't just whimsically send calamity, it's His righteous judgment based on sin brought into the world at the Fall in Eden. And yes, COMMITTING evil such as flying the planes into the WTC is going to be judgment against the flyers too, because it increases THEIR judgment (increased sin in a nation is also a form of judgment against that nation because it degrades us and invites more judgment); and yes, committing such evil will also be punished in turn.
But I hate getting this far into these questions. They are too complicated for us to sort out. Scripture says simply that God is in charge of everything, as in the verses I quote above, and we shouldn't strain our brains trying to figure it all out. It's like the Trinity. We can't comprehend it but the source of it is in scripture.
Again, I DO think we can judge from disaster on a nation that God is judging that nation, abut I'm not saying anything about individuals because we are all born into sin and inherit sin and commit sin and we are told not to judge one another.
That sums it up nicely Z!
Boy, the Amos and Isaiah scripture you posted are pretty compelling, Wallsong!
Glad you liked my point the pastor brought up. I did, too.
Well, we surely can't solve the disagreement here about God's judgment, but it SURE has made one heck of a great conversation and some sensational comments!
I like Corrie ten Boom's illustration of a piece of embroidery.
We as humans, who are finite and limited, only see the back side of the embroidery, all we see are the tangles and snarls and knots and tails to nowhere.
When we go Home to HIM, HE will show us the other side, where the red of suffering makes a glorious sunrise, the green of envy is the grass, trees and bushes, the blue of depression and despair are the clear skies and peaceful lakes...all we can do is obey and know that it will be right in HIS Hand.
As for mccain, I do not like or trust him, but hillary would be a catastrophe and abomination, obama has some baggage that I don't trust! I don't trust huckabee either!
Who do I vote for? ABC, Anyone But Clinton...
...while holding my nose. The choices are garbage or sewage...
Good morning, G*D bless and Maranatha!
tmw
Which I will have no illusions to be shattered!
Which "means" I will...OY, haven't finished my coffee yet! Can you tell?
tmw
i'm going to continue with my "stop her" campaign and worry about our side come election day - have you seen the posts that cube and farmer have up on obama?
I'm not disagreeing with you. Yes God allows disasters that are a result of our fallen nature and as a corporate judgement. I think it's presumptuous of us to think that God would allow said disaster in every instance as a judgement
Why does God allow earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, tsunamis, typhoons, mudslides, and other natural disasters? The late 2004 tsunami tragedy in Asia, Hurricane Katrina in 2005 in the southeastern United States, and the 2006 mudslides in the Philippines have many people questioning God’s goodness. It is distressing that natural disasters are often termed “acts of God” while no “credit” is given to God for years, decades, or even centuries of peaceful weather. God created the whole universe and the laws of nature (Genesis 1:1). Most natural disasters are a result of these laws at work. Hurricanes, typhoons, and tornados are the results of divergent weather patterns colliding. Earthquakes are the result of the earth’s plate structure shifting. A tsunami is caused by an underwater earthquake.
The Bible proclaims that Jesus Christ holds all of nature together (Colossians 1:16-17). Could God prevent natural disasters? Absolutely! Does God sometimes influence the weather? Yes, see Deuteronomy 11:17 and James 5:17. Does God sometimes cause natural disasters as a judgment against sin? Yes, see Numbers 16:30-34. The book of Revelation describes many events which could definitely be described as natural disasters (Revelation chapters 6, 8, and 16). Is every natural disaster a punishment from God? Absolutely not.
In much the same way that God allows evil people to commit evil acts, God allows the earth to demonstrate the consequences sin has had on Creation. Romans 8:19-21tells us, “The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.” The fall of humanity into sin had effects on everything, including the universe we inhabit. Everything in Creation is subject to “frustration” and “decay.” Sin is the ultimate cause of natural disasters just as it is the cause of death, disease, and suffering.
So, we are back to where we began. We can understand why natural disasters occur. What we do not understand is why God allows them to occur. Why did God allow the tsunami to kill over 225,000 people in Asia? Why did God allow Hurricane Katrina to destroy the homes of hundreds of thousands of people? What we can know is this…God is good! There are many amazing miracles, in instances of natural disaster, that occurred - preventing an even greater loss of life. Natural disasters cause millions of people to reevaluate their priorities in life. Hundreds of millions of dollars in aid is sent to help the people that are suffering. Christian ministries have the opportunity to help, minister, counsel, pray - and lead people to saving faith in Christ! God can, and does, bring great good out of terrible tragedies (Romans 8:28).
Connie,
Back in the day, nations lived by the religious followings of their leaders...that SIMPLY is not true with the US, and never has been. The same is true with the entire East. Even in England where they have a state 'church' it is NOT the mandated leadership on religious matters of the people. So, we will simply have to agree to disagree on that.
Jesus' mandated much stricter the OT, he said that if you lusted in your heart you had already committed aldultery..that was NOT the case under the OT. This is because as our OWN responsible believers, we need to be that much more careful about where our emotions would want to tempt us.
Yes, the admonitions remain, but not the view on nations, I simply disagree. Back then, the nations were led in their spiritual walk by that national leadership, and that simply is not the case anymore, but it is an individual walk, and that came about due to Christ.
I do not accept that all bad or natural disasters are God's judgement either. I believe that certain things are brought about by man, and can be altered...that God knows WHAT will happen, does not mean that He is orchestrating everything. I HAVE to believe this Connie, in order to believe that my belief and my faith are MY choice. If God was active in ALL that I do or that others do, then NONE is choice, and NONE makes any sense about the God I know and LOVE. So, yes, we will have to disagree. I am not open to the teachings of just anyone on that perspective: again, I have my own CHOSEN leadership on that path, and MY own reading and interpretations of the Bible that lead me on MY path.
My anger with regards to those pundits and those who have listened to them, is due in large part to my being out there months ago, when they were doing all their slash job, trying to get folks to read up on their own. I was totally discredited, told I was being naive and foolish, by folks who had not bothered to check the facts of the man's background on their own. So, yes, it is very frustrating for me, because I saw this very thing coming and was not given much credibility or consideration. And with so much riding on it for me personally, I take it very very seroiusly. So, if you felt personally attacked, my apologies. As to my opinion of those who would sit out the vote...I don't change that one iota.
I am still on my son's computer, without access to my other materials. But whether you look on your own or not, I will post links here when I can.
Pati
nanc..Farmer's piece is excellent. What's a 'cube'?
Pati, We choose Him, yes...but He knows every hair on our head, before we're even thought of by our parents, remember that Scripture? He likes to see us come to Him, he wants us to seek Him. But, He's got it all wrapped up, in my opinion! ..he just wants to watch and see our faith. my opinion...
Elbro...your last ten lines say it all..exactly what I think.
I'm thinking of taking all this to my own blog but I can't do it yet. It seems to be too much for this site. But for now I do have an answer although I don't suppose I'll persuade anyone.
Why is it "presumptuous" to think all disasters are God's judgment? It seems to me to follow from His word and from our knowledge that He is omnipotent and good. If He's omnipotent but doesn't control the disasters then it's as if He just hurts innocent people for His own pleasure or for no reason. Is there some problem with thinking that God might have brought a destructive tsunami against an idolatrous heathen nation? Why? Isn't His word clear that He will eventually bring judgment against all nations that do not honor Him? Do you want to deny that New Orleans is/was a city full of all kinds of offenses against God? Why?
Why is it so hard for people to understand that God DOES punish sin? Didn't He give us enough clear warning in the Old Testament? Didn't He explain Himself clearly enough? Weren't His commandments clear enough? Weren't the consequences for failure to obey the commandments clear enough? Didn't He show that He judges ALL nations, and didn't He give His reasons in the case of those reported in the Old Testament?
If people question God's goodness as a result of this, that's not God's fault, that's the fault of those who don't teach God's true nature clearly. God CLEARLY condemns sin in His word. He doesn't mince words. He says IF THIS THEN THAT. God's goodness is in His longsuffering, in His patience, in His allowing the sun to shine and the rain to fall on the unjust as well as the just. He waits years, generations, centuries, before bringing His judgments. He gives people time. He sends missionaries, He sends preachers. Are they listened to? Still, He waits. He has not left us without explanation. When He finally brings judgment it can't be said there was no warning. But people do not repent.
Christians do not seriously carry the gospel to unbelievers either. The goodness of God does not tolerate sin forever, and what's really presumptuous is that His people sometimes act like they think He does, and they are even offended when He does what He has clearly warned He will do. Whose fault is that? Goodness doesn't compromise with unholiness. Preaching the gospel has to start with preaching judgment or what is there to be saved from?
Do you really think that God doesn't have His hand on the tectonic plates? That He can't direct a hurricane or temper its speed and power? These things obey laws, yes, but since destruction IS the result of sin as you say, then the destruction is going to be aimed at sin. We may not be able to see the cause, but I think from scripture we can infer that there is a cause.
God IS good. Yes, His people go to the aid of the suffering as He commands us to do. Yes, He allows miracles and helpful interventions in time of suffering. All that is true and yet He also brought the disaster and He's going to bring worse because we don't repent. That "frustration and decay" in nature is the result of sin. It's judgment in itself. Death is the wages of sin. Corruption is the fruit of sin. If you'd rather see it as more mechanical than directed by God, you still have to recognize that it is a product of human sin and is therefore judgment against us. There seems to be an aversion to the idea that God DOES bring particular judgments against particular sin. Why is everyone so offended at that idea? WE may not always know why, certainly not with individuals, but in the case of America in general, and New Orleans in particular and a heathen Asian nation why on earth should there be any doubt why? I don't get it. Our sins stink in this nation. New Orleans is known for its sin. The Mardi Gras alone condemns it. And we KNOW that God isn't going to tolerate idolatrous religions forever either.
Romans 8:28 is a promise to "those who love God and are the called according to His purpose" not to anyone else. Yes, Christians provide aid to the suffering and God allows great blessings in the midst of disaster. That does not in any way change the fact that He judges sin and if people do not repent, more judgment is on the way.
How often do Christians ever talk about this? How often are people seriously exhorted to repent? More often aren't they just told God is this nice guy who has a nice plan for their lives and wants them to be happy? That's a false gospel and it's contributed to the miserable condition of today's America.
Yes, God ISN'T given credit for His goodness to people. TEACH them that. Teach them that He has been kind to them for years although they have done nothing to deserve it, have sinned in His face, violated His Law though they have considered themselves innocent and deserving of comfort instead of judgment, complained about everything, etc. etc. etc. That certainly describes me before I was saved and it describes the whole human race and it REALLY describes the whole nation of America these days.
Connie
Sorry I'm getting too wordy and repetitive and I'm still not getting it said but I'm now too tired to clean it up.
Hey Z,
Nothing you said is contrary to what I said, matter of fact, it is precisely what I said.
LOL
He expects for us to ACT...that was my point. And every bad act in the world is not a result of His judgement.
Pati
Connie,
It seems to me that the topic has gotten way off track. Had I wanted a theological debate, I would have sought one out.
I don't mean, in anyway, to disparage your well intended discussion, except to say that it presumes that I either lack knowledge or have incorrect teaching with regards to MY walk. I respectfully disagree, and would prefer to debate the actual topic.
I neither need nor do I desire to have a debate on the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of my belief or my walk with God.
If you choose to believe that 9/11 was an act of God, that is your right. I still do not see how that belief in anyway comports with not electing to vote, which was the topic of conversation which seems to have veered way off course.
Pati
My last post was directed to Elmers Bro, not you, NW. I left your post unanswered as it was clearly a final statement. And I do plan to take all this elsewhere since this isn't the site for it and yes it got far off topic.
Connie
But I do believe you have had some bad teaching.
C
Connie,
And I will choose to take that last comment, in the 'well-intended' vein, that I am sure it was expressed.
:)
Pati
Connie,
I know that you said you were going to research on your own. If you are still interested, I liked this link because it provides ALL of his statements on the floor of the Senate, press releases etc...I think it gives at least the FULL commentary on any of his votes, rather than the selective pieces that the pundits would try to use to suggest an overall view.
Not to mention that he has a 100% record for never voting to RAISE taxes, and on PRO life votes.
http://mccain.senate.gov/public/
Pati
Well Z I'll tell you what I'm gonna do. We have two STERLING conservative Reps here in NE FL in John Mica and Ander Crenshaw. I'll do what I can to help their campaigns, including walking door to door or making phone calls. Their loss would be HUGE! As for McCain, I'll vote for him and that's it. The party gets NOTHING from me as long as he's at the helm. This was ORGANIZED and it pisses me off!
Morgan
Morgan hits on a VERY important point: I'd almost forgotten it in the discussion here....and that's the way the RNC PROCLAIMED McCAIN THE NOMINEE. The way the media got rid of Thompson, Giuliani and Romney, too. How many times did you hear a Conservative friend say "I'd vote for Thompson, but he doesn't have a chance!" SAYS WHO??
ABC FOX NBC CBS CNN...oh, yes.
Still. We have to vote for the chump. Then we have to start taking things into our own hands. We need to influence like we did the amnesty vote...like the guy on the top article on my home page...PEOPLE POWER!
Do you really think that God doesn't have His hand on the tectonic plates? That He can't direct a hurricane or temper its speed and power?
Never said he didn't, it's a straw man.
The question is whether He uses that direction in every instance as a means of judgement.
such as in Amos:
When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it? (Amos 3:6, NIV)
Amos 3:6 uses the same word, râ‛âh, referring to calamity or disaster. the context (a disaster happening to a city) does not refer to moral evil.
Hi Elmers Bro:
I was answering your seeming to say that there is such a thing as a natural or any other kind of calamity, or any kind of event at all for that matter, that is not controlled by God but is random or something like that. If you didn't disagree with me about that I'm sorry I apparently misunderstood. I was first saying that if God is truly sovereign and omnipotent then all things are directed by Him. And if anything is directed by God then He would of course have a moral objective for how He directs it, whether for good or for evil, wouldn't He? I don't see a scriptural basis for any other way of looking at it myself.
Hello again elmer's brother:
I understand that the sovereignty of God is hard for people to accept. I may find some of it hard to grasp but I think we have to accept it based on scripture even if we can't grasp it. If you are interested, A W Pink's book The Sovereignty of God is online at:
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Sovereignty/sovereignty.htm
In chapter 11 he quotes a few verses to add to the Amos and Isaiah verses:
He hath done whatsoever He hath pleased" (Ps. 115:3). "For the Lord of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and His hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?" (Isa. 14:27). "And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and He doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay His hand or say unto Him, What doest thou?" (Dan. 4:35). "For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen" (Rom. 11:36).
By the way, I'm sorry if you took offense at the style of my long post, which it seems you might have. I sometimes have a polemical style but I don't mean to be critical, it's more to dramatize a point.
Connie
no offense taken at all...not at all and if I have offended I didn't mean to
this seems to me to be the same issue that others have (if you boil it down) about the doctrine of 'election'
our choosing Him or Him choosing us
Because the natural finish of one end of the argument IS fatalistic
Do you think that the Bible records all the natural disasters that occured during its writing or just the ones that God may have used as judgements?
EB: Yes, it's the same as the doctrine of election, which also has a scriptural basis but tends to get people entangled in deterministic nightmares. But that's because of the weakness of human intellect. Some have said that both are true, God is in complete control and we are completely responsible for our actions. I think that sums it up. From our point of view of course we must act, we must seek God, we must obey, and we ARE responsible for our actions, but there are times when it is very comforting to know that nothing at all can happen to us without God's control. No, it's not fatalistic, that's just where our nondivine minds take us if we think it to death.
When it comes to disasters, it's not quite the same thing, is it? There either God is in control or mindless nature is or evil is.
Your question gives me two alternatives I don't agree with. No, I don't think the Bible records all the disasters that occurred, and no, I don't think those that are recorded were the only ones God used as judgments. I believe that EVERYTHING is done by God, as Pink argues in that book I linked, based on scripture.
By the way, if you have an interest in discussing Christian doctrine in general, I started a "forum" a few months ago where I occasionally discuss Christian topics. It's more of a blog and few others have posted because I have a particular objective, first of all trying to answer evolution. But I've also had an ongoing discussion with an old liberal Christian antagonist from the evolution site my blog is addressed to. Anyway you can take a look and see if it interests you. It would be nice to have some real debate there eventually. So far I've tended to attract creationists who only want to preach how evil the evolutionists are and I don't want that sort of thing. If you understand some of the scientific issues involved in that debate or know anybody else who does and would like to get into the discussion that would be great too. Anyway, it's at
http://forums.delphiforums.com/faithtalk1/start
Post a Comment