Hucks Army - Faith. Family. Freedom. [Grassroots] JOIN HUCKS ARMY | GET INVOLVED | FUNDRAISING | LINKS | LEADERSHIP | ABOUT
It is currently Sat Dec 07, 2019 8:48 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 165 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 4:57 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
And I did not miss your words that you were not going to get into a theology argument - does that mean that you expected me not to respond or something?

You are correct that the response I gave you is not the best out there, though I can't help but laugh at the irony that you consider it scripted, considering that those are simply the verses that came most readily to my feeble mind as I sat at the computer because I had neither the time nor the energy to do anything resembling research last night. I do sincerely thank you for letting everyone else know that there is far more & far better to it than what I provided.

I hereby publicly acknowledge that you are not impressed or persuaded by what I wrote, and I hope that the reassurance on that score will allow you sufficient comfort to let it go now?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 10:59 pm 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:49 pm
Posts: 641
Location: Loganville, GA
Likes: 0
Liked: 11
Well, for someone who was berating me for inflammatory language, that seemed to be a bit snarky. ;)

I never said you couldn't respond. I said that I didn't raise the point to get into an argument. No more and no less. YOU are the one who assumed that I was implying people who disagreed with me were going to Hell. I simply said it was important to me that you realize that my theology--whether right or wrong--doesn't imply that at all, so you ought not attribute it to me. That you think my theology is wrong is neither here nor there. That you raised some of the standard verses that people raise is neither here nor there. That scholars who debate these issues in great detail have put forward compelling cases that go beyond the mere prooftexting you offered is neither here nor there. It's all neither here nor there because I'm not interested in a debate.

I stated my view not to defend it, but to let you know WHAT I believe only so that you would not read my statements in a context they were not intended. You have the freedom to state what you believe and even say why you think I'm wrong. That obviously doesn't oblige me to say anything other than, "I understand you disagree. I feel no need to defend my position in this setting." And I don't.

All I ask, again, is that you don't attribute a theological position to me I do no hold and thereby read implications out of statements I make that are not there.

God bless

_________________
To Give a Reason for the Hope - a practical, twelve week, online series to help Christians effectively defend and share their faith.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 12:18 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
No, what you read in my opening was definitely influenced by exasperation, but it was a snark free post.

Yes, as I said, you made your desire not to argue theology very plain the first time so I am at a loss as to why you have stated it a 2nd & now a 3rd time. It should have come as no surprise to you that I would respond.

So I responded & then you seemed to feel that it necessary to re-state once again that (a) you didn't want to argue, (b) that the Scripture verses I raised had no effect on you, and (c) that I should keep my flawed theology away from you.

Which left me (& now again leaves me) to ask myself in puzzlement, if he/she does not wish to argue theology, (a) why does he/she lob a couple of theological grenades rather than simply & charitably (or at least diplomatically) stating a difference of opinion & (b) why does he/she keep coming back to reiterate that he/she does not wish to argue even while reinforcing other previously lobbed statements?

Therefore I will now put it to you, what is it that makes you feel you must continue to respond to me even though you do not wish to?



Post by QuoVadisAnima Liked by: neptune28
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:38 am 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:19 pm
Posts: 1044
Likes: 8
Liked: 208
I will say that so far those that have been named to the Super Committee don't exactly inspire a lot of confidence. In all reality though I don't think it really matters who was appointed since its been destined for gridlock from the very beginning anyway. If they do come up with something it will only be accounting gimmicks and cuts that happen so far into the future that it won't matter.

I believe those who were the heart of all the grassroots unrest over the last couple of years leading into the 2010 election wanted to see real leadership. I think most like myself do understand politics, and we do understand you can't get everything, but its also true that you get significantly less when you have weak leadership going in. As I shared in my earlier post, the Republican leadership has been running scared from the beginning. They're so paralyzed with fear over the possibility of getting blamed for anything bad that they end up doing nothing.

I think the special election in New York scared them because the Ryan budget was used to beat the Republican over the head. But that race should not have been seen as some kind of barometer for where Americans are at. The Republican was a weak spokesperson, and there was a third party candidate. Also it was a district that had barely gone for Republicans in 2010 and should not have been seen as some kind of bellwether.

Americans are looking for leadership, and I believe they're looking for someone to tell them the truth. But you've got to do it from a position of confidence. I think Scott Walker (Governor of Wisconsin) is one of the best examples I've seen. Chris Christie gets all the headlines, but I'm more impressed with Walker (on fiscal issues) then just about anyone else right now. He's stood up and told the truth and said this is where we're going like it or not. He seems supremely confident that no matter how unpopular something may seem in the near-term, he will be vindicated in the long-term by the results. And he's doing all of this in a blue state. The lesson is that if you look like you know what you're doing, and you've got a clear vision of where you're going then people will follow.

I am as strong as anyone on moral and social issues, but I am troubled by Christians who do not see the significance of fiscal issues. I sincerely believe that the greatest moral threat we face in America is greed. The big banks and greedy investors literally took our economy to the brink in 2008, and it was all about their bottom line. They then turned around and threatened Americans to either make up for their losses and underwrite their bad decisions through TARP or they would sink the economy. These same big money interests control the establishment side of both political parties.

I have read early American history from sources in the early to mid 1800's, and I've read extensively on James Madison. Madison was one of the biggest proponents of keeping government small because he knew that if government got big then it would seek to control the lives of the people, and their freedoms and liberties would be lost. In his battles with Alexander Hamilton he saw Hamilton and his allies push two things almost from the beginning to increase the size of government to gain more control of the people. Hamilton wanted a larger and more long-term national debt, and he wanted a national bank. He knew that if you had a bigger debt spread out into the next generations then you could dictate tax policy which in turn could be used to control behaviors. I have not had time to study all of the impacts of a national bank, but this is one area where I agree with Ron Paul and others who wanted to get rid of the Federal Reserve. I'd just do it a lot more slowly and over time.

I really think Christians need to wake up politically. The establishment Republicans have been playing us since the early days of the Christian Coalition. They figured out that if you tell Christians you're against Abortion and for prayer then they'll go all in for you. Of course they never intend to do anything on these issues, and these kinds of issues come up rarely in Congress anyway. In the meantime they get elected with our help and end up doing whatever the major political power players want them to do. They are threatened by grass roots movements. Do you really think the Club For Growth threw all that money out to stop Huckabee in 2008 because they were afraid of his stands on Abortion and Gay Marriage? Of course not. He was an outsider that the big money players couldn't control.

I'm glad Christine O'Donnell challenged the establishment in Delaware even if she did lose. We need more to challenge the establishment candidates in primaries. I sincerely hope there are plans to challenge Boehner and McConnel along with a whole host of others. I don't care if there are some losses in the short-term such as we had with O'Donnell. This is a long-term war and not a short-term battle. What good does it do to send people to Washington who just end up caving in on deals and going about business as usual? Yes I know we need to learn some lessons from 2008 like running better candidates, and of course it helps if you don't run TV ads that start with "I'm not a witch." :D

We just need to keep fighting.



Post by WalterCan Liked by: justgrace
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:53 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
As conservatives we need to draw together, attack the problems, and seek and encourage the best possible leadership. We need to hold accountable those we have elected. And if they do not keep their promises or won't listen to the people, we can find better leaders.

There are many words of wisdom in WalterCan's comments...

WalterCan wrote:
I will say that so far those that have been named to the Super Committee don't exactly inspire a lot of confidence. In all reality though I don't think it really matters who was appointed since its been destined for gridlock from the very beginning anyway. If they do come up with something it will only be accounting gimmicks and cuts that happen so far into the future that it won't matter. [Grace here: Let's pray that the credit downgrading will serve as a wake-up call and change this--or we elect new leaders...]

I believe those who were the heart of all the .grassroots unrest over the last couple of years leading into the 2010 election wanted to see real leadership I think most like myself do understand politics, and we do understand you can't get everything, but its also true that you get significantly less when you have weak leadership going in. As I shared in my earlier post, the Republican leadership has been running scared from the beginning. They're so paralyzed with fear over the possibility of getting blamed for anything bad that they end up doing nothing.
["Perfect love casts out fear."]

I think the special election in New York scared them because the Ryan budget was used to beat the Republican over the head. But that race should not have been seen as some kind of barometer for where Americans are at. The Republican was a weak spokesperson, and there was a third party candidate. Also it was a district that had barely gone for Republicans in 2010 and should not have been seen as some kind of bellwether.

Americans are looking for leadership, and I believe they're looking for someone to tell them the truth. But you've got to do it from a position of confidence. I think Scott Walker (Governor of Wisconsin) is one of the best examples I've seen. Chris Christie gets all the headlines, but I'm more impressed with Walker (on fiscal issues) then just about anyone else right now. He's stood up and told the truth and said this is where we're going like it or not. He seems supremely confident that no matter how unpopular something may seem in the near-term, he will be vindicated in the long-term by the results. And he's doing all of this in a blue state. The lesson is that if you look like you know what you're doing, and you've got a clear vision of where you're going then people will follow.

I am as strong as anyone on moral and social issues, but I am troubled by Christians who do not see the significance of fiscal issues. I sincerely believe that the greatest moral threat we face in America is greed.[/b] [Grace here: We sometimes forget the 10th Commandment, which is causing the riots in London: "You shall not covet your neighbors house, etc."]The big banks and greedy investors literally took our economy to the brink in 2008, and it was all about their bottom line. They then turned around and threatened Americans to either make up for their losses and underwrite their bad decisions through TARP or they would sink the economy. These same big money interests control the establishment side of both political parties.

I have read early American history from sources in the early to mid 1800's, and I've read extensively on James Madison. Madison was one of the biggest proponents of keeping government small because he knew that if government got big then it would seek to control the lives of the people, and their freedoms and liberties would be lost. In his battles with Alexander Hamilton he saw Hamilton and his allies push two things almost from the beginning to increase the size of government to gain more control of the people. Hamilton wanted a larger and more long-term national debt, and he wanted a national bank. He knew that if you had a bigger debt spread out into the next generations then you could dictate tax policy which in turn could be used to control behaviors. I have not had time to study all of the impacts of a national bank, but this is one area where I agree with Ron Paul and others who wanted to get rid of the Federal Reserve. I'd just do it a lot more slowly and over time.[The regulation of banks today shows the Hamiltonian effect. Regulations, rules, ownership, inspection, throwing out farmers for one "bad year." The stacks of forms and agreements we must sign for a farm loan, for example, have grown to a stack almost an inch high. In our parents or grandparents day, signing a single page and a handshake were good enough collateral. Of course, the banker knew the farmer and who was honest and trustworthy.]

I really think Christians need to wake up politically. The establishment Republicans have been playing us since the early days of the Christian Coalition. They figured out that if you tell Christians you're against Abortion and for prayer then they'll go all in for you. [This is one thing that worries me a little about Gov. Perry hosting the prayer call (I loved it) right before the Straw Polls in Iowa. I have a Christian friend who says we must have him for President because she believes he is the only Christian running!]Of course they never intend to do anything on these issues, and these kinds of issues come up rarely in Congress anyway. In the meantime they get elected with our help and end up doing whatever the major political power players want them to do. They are threatened by grass roots movements. Do you really think the Club For Growth threw all that money out to stop Huckabee in 2008 because they were afraid of his stands on Abortion and Gay Marriage? Of course not. He was an outsider that the big money players couldn't control.[Although I do think that they are all about finance and marginalize those who think things like family and "life" issues are rather immaterial.]

I'm glad Christine O'Donnell challenged the establishment in Delaware even if she did lose. [I felt the same way, although she embarrassed herself and us, at least she was more courageous than most of us to try.] We need more to challenge the establishment candidates in primaries. I sincerely hope there are plans to challenge Boehner and McConnel along with a whole host of others. I don't care if there are some losses in the short-term such as we had with O'Donnell. This is a long-term war and not a short-term battle. What good does it do to send people to Washington who just end up caving in on deals and going about business as usual? Yes I know we need to learn some lessons from 2008 like running better candidates, and of course it helps if you don't run TV ads that start with "I'm not a witch." :D

We just need to keep fighting.



(Apologies to WalterCan for tampering with his text, above. The bold letters, the LARGE headings, and the comments in red are mine.--justgrace)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 165 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
POWERED_BY