In God we trust, and so should the President

[firetown]

Are you setting ME up to look like a nutjob?
OK, I'll go for it and then I hide

Who is to say that NOT going to war would have not lead into more disaster. Who is to say that NOT going to war would not have encouraged countries and fascist groups to use that as a motivator to do more?
You are trying to explain world politics with logic, but you are dealing with enemies not following logic.
As to God's will ... I take the good with the bad.
It's His plan and not mine.
People always ask how God can allow so much evil to happen. But my key question to you is who the enemy is. Do you think it's G.W. or do you think that it may have taken a tough guy to deal with tough situations?
And do you believe we should blame that person with the U.S. being in bad shape or should we say it's something we have to get thru together and God willing get out of together?

[kerrin]

No setup. I don't think you are a nut job. In fact I probably thought very similarly to you a matter of years ago.

Who is to say that NOT going to war would not have encouraged countries and fascist groups to use that as a motivator to do more?

The idea of going to war and nation building are two separate ideas. My question to you is about state-building (nation-building) not going to war (regime change). Nation-building being one of the contributing factors to the $10 trillion in debt.

...you are dealing with enemies not following logic

I disagree. They are rational (logical) creatures. Their reasons for what they do are different then ours, but their reasoning is rational (their reasons for acting are not illogical). Their core beliefs about the world (worldview) are also different. Their worldview is perhaps less reasonable then yours or mine (this is another topic entirely). Let me put it to you this way, why is it more rational (logical) for you to believe in a virgin birth giving eternal life then it is for someone to believe that blowing themselves up will result in an award of 70 virgins after death? Which belief is more rational (logical) and why?

As to God's will ... I take the good with the bad.
It's His plan and not mine.

But you are advocating voting for someone who "knows" what God's will is for the U.S. and can lead in that direction. You are starting to sound deterministic as opposed to your earlier statement that "it's all free will."

People always ask how God can allow so much evil to happen.

Not my question at all. In fact I know christian theology very well and don't have this question nor is it part of my questions to you. I understand as it relates to the doctrine of the sovereignty of God, described by reformed theology, the better question is not about evil, but why would a sovereign God allow any good? (You don't need to answer. I'm merely showing I understand the question and answer and it's not part of my questions to you)

Do you think it's G.W. or do you think that it may have taken a tough guy to deal with tough situations?

G.W. is not "the enemy." Within the Republican party it's the neocons and their political philosophies that could be considered an 'enemy' to that parties effectiveness to do good on behalf of the U.S.
G.W. was not a neocon before he became president. He was a true conservative (reference primaries in 1999/2000). His implicit trust of and loyalty to the advisors and people he appointed around him led him down the neocon path and after 9/11 is when he really started listening to them. His value of trust and loyalty could actually be attributed, to some degree, to his christian beliefs.

And do you believe we should blame that person with the U.S. being in bad shape or should we say it's something we have to get thru together and God willing get out of together?

To some degree G.W. is responsible (he was in charge) but in a representative republic we are all "to blame." However, the leadership holds primary responsibility most of which I would place on the neocons and big government democrats currently in power not just G.W.

[firetown]

No setup. I don't think you are a nut job. In fact I probably thought very similarly to you a matter of years ago.
cool


The idea of going to war and nation building are two separate ideas. My question to you is about state-building (nation-building) not going to war (regime change). Nation-building being one of the contributing factors to the $10 trillion in debt.
Nation building vs. going to war go hand in hand when regimes cause the same problems consistently.


I disagree. They are rational (logical) creatures. Their reasons for what they do are different then ours but their reasoning is rational (their reasons for acting are not illogical). Their core beliefs about the world (worldview) are also different. Their worldview is perhaps less reasonable then yours or mine (this is another topic entirely). Let me put it to you this way, why is it more rational (logical) for me to believe in a virgin birth giving me eternal life then it is for me to believe if I blow myself up I will receive 70 virgins when I die? Which belief is more rational (logical) and why?
They are so used to listening to the illlogical. They accept it as normal.


But you are advocating voting for someone who "knows" what God's will is for the U.S. and can lead in that direction. You are starting to sound deterministic as opposed to your earlier statement that "it's all free will."


Someone who bows before God and has "higher goals" if you will.


Not my question at all. In fact I know christian theology very well and don't have this question nor is it part of my questions to you. I understand as it relates to the doctrine of the sovereignty of God, described by reformed theology, the better question is not about evil, but why would a sovereign God allow any good? (You don't need to answer. I'm merely showing I understand the question and answer and it's not part of my questions to you)
I think that ALL things work out for the best of God looking at the big picture, not just all good things.

G.W. is not "the enemy." Within the Republican party it's the neocons and their political philosophies that could be considered an 'enemy' to that parties effectiveness to do good on behalf of the U.S.
G.W. was not a neocon before he became president. He was a true conservative (reference primaries in 1999/2000). His implicit trust of and loyalty to the advisors and people he appointed around him led him down the neocon path and after 9/11 is when he really started listening to them. His value of trust and loyalty could actually be attributed, to some degree, to his christian beliefs.
But you have people joining both parties for the wrong reason. They will always be there, so the President has a job to get his beliefs and convictions put into action by congress.

To some degree G.W. is responsible (he was in charge) but in a representative republic we are all "to blame." However, the leadership holds primary responsibility most of which I would place on the neocons and big government democrats currently in power not just G.W.

He is responsible for many mistakes within the war, which doesn't mean the war in itself was not necessary to begin with.

Mike

[kerrin]

Nation building vs. going to war go hand in hand when regimes cause the same problems consistently.

My problem with the "conservatives" in power is that nation-building was a justification and reason for going to war in Afganistan and Iraq. It was not an outcome of war as you pose in your statement.

Originally Posted by kerrin

...is it more rational (logical) for you to believe in a virgin birth giving eternal life then it is for someone to believe that blowing themselves up will result in an award of 70 virgins after death? Which belief is more rational (logical) and why?

Originally Posted by firetown

They are so used to listening to the illogical. They accept it as normal.

How do you know this is not true about you? How do you know you haven't been listening to "the illogical" and now accept it as "normal?"
By the way you didn't answer my questions.

You said earlier in this thread:

Originally Posted by firetown

It's all free will. You cannot make anybody believe anything.

We (you and I) can agree that we believe Democracy (or representative republic) is the best form of Government. Now, aren't you forcing a belief in Iraq and Afganistan by Nation-building the west's form of government there?

Also, didn't Jesus teach that you should "love your enemies" (Matt. 5:44)? If you are electing a Christian president because he is Christian, wouldn't you want him to do "God's will" and "love your enemies?"

Does loving your enemies include forcing your belief (democracy is the best form of government) on them?

[eternaltraveler]

I think it's important that the words of the American forefathers resonate and "In God we Trust" needs to be upheld.

"in god we trust" became our national moto in 1956.

"Under God" was added to the pledge in 1954.

[eternaltraveler]

What I'm saying is that if a leader makes decisions on his own and does not do God's will, then the country will suffer. And in the case of the U.S. it will effect the world.

God's will ends with planes flying into sky scrapers. I think we need to use something with a bit more sound ethical footing, or at least more consistant.

[m42]

Originally Posted by eternaltraveler

"in god we trust" became our national moto in 1956.

"Under God" was added to the pledge in 1954.

His statement was accurate.

In God We Trust/E Pluribus Unum was first used by our forefathers in 1782.

[eternaltraveler]

Originally Posted by m42

His statement was accurate.

In God We Trust/E Pluribus Unum was first used by our forefathers in 1782.

E Pluribus Unum ("from many, one") was used in 1782 on us currency and was the defacto national motto. This is not true of of "In God we trust".

My sources tell me the first use on any currency was during the civil war period, due to so called increased religious sentiment due to the war.

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-...-we-trust.html

And this was itself drawn from the final stanza of the star spangled banner

O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave![9]

which was not written until 1814 (and a version of it was not the official national anthem until the 30s).

[m42]

I stand corrected.

[John A Roark]

Clearly there is no such thing as the causeless, and thus the case for some higher intelligence than humans that MAY HAVE created the Earth--we just don't know, not for certain.
Belief is one thing, science another. The theory of evolution--yes, it is still a theory--is the best we have been able to come up with after many years of scientific evidence.
Mind you, evolution is NOT incompatible with intelligent design.
"How utterly improbable..."? So you have evidence of some other being in the universe that is indeed more intelligent than Homo Sapiens? Not belief, but evidence?
We wait with bated breath.