| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/20/2006 06:04:58 PM · #51 |
Wow, can't believe this is being brought up so long after it happened. I read through most of this and didn't realize till I saw mk's post that this is way way old. Oh well.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2006 02:59:26 PM · #52 |
I had to say what I thought--it's a free country right? (: Or is it only free for democrats and liberals to speak their mind. If you are a Christian--heaven forbid that you say what you think 'cause suddenly it's against the law....Nothing wrong with posting what I believe.
-Nathan21 |
|
|
|
11/21/2006 03:10:14 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by nathan21:
So, at one time, BJU was involved in the KKK, but that was many years ago.
|
Originally posted by nathan21:
BJU does--it has for over 80 years now--the CREED has not changed (little rules have based on social changes).
|
I can't keep up. Has it fundamentally changed or not ?
|
|
|
|
11/21/2006 04:31:20 PM · #54 |
The Creed has not changed--this is the Biblical stance of the school on issues such as Christ, his death, his ressurrection, his virgin birth, the truth of the Bible, saved by faith, etc.
Little rules have changed due to changes in social norms in our country. This is not the creed-it's not fundamental to the basic beliefs of Christianity. The University makes it clear that some rules are just there to maintain order in the school, not based on Biblical standards. It's like a "waiting list" that you would find in a Christian restaurant....this is to maintain order (so not everyone runs in at once), not because of a Biblical belief. Obviously, the school doesn't expect students to obey every rule once we leave. Certain rules are only there to keep order within the school grounds.
Finally, the KKK has nothing to do with either of these categories. The KKK is a mistake made by the founders that has been corrected for several years now. Have you ever done something stupid, realized it was stupid, and then changed it. Would you like people to keep bringing up what you did was stupid. As we can see, this doesn't relate to the school rules--but to a completely different category.
Hope this clears things up Gordon. Have a great day.
-Nathan21
Message edited by author 2006-11-21 16:37:41. |
|
|
|
11/21/2006 04:41:24 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by nathan21:
The Creed has not changed--this is the Biblical stance of the school on issues such as Christ, his death, his ressurrection, his virgin birth, the truth of the Bible, saved by faith, etc.
Little rules have changed due to changes in social norms in our country. This is not the creed-it's not fundamental to the basic beliefs of Christianity. The University makes it clear that some rules are just there to maintain order in the school, not based on Biblical standards. It's like a "waiting list" that you would find in a Christian restaurant....this is to maintain order (so not everyone runs in at once), not because of a Biblical belief. Obviously, the school doesn't expect students to obey every rule once we leave. Certain rules are only there to keep order within the school grounds.
Finally, the KKK has nothing to do with either of these categories. The KKK is a mistake made by the founders that has been corrected for several years now. Have you ever done something stupid, realized it was stupid, and then changed it. Would you like people to keep bringing up what you did was stupid. As we can see, this doesn't relate to the school rules--but to a completely different category.
Hope this clears things up Gordon. Have a great day.
-Nathan21 |
 Thanks Jacko, love this one.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2006 11:32:39 AM · #56 |
I don't understand why religous people approve of Bush. Everything he does is selfish and borderline evil. He has turned war into big profits for his friends, while we pay $3 a gallon for gas, his friends and family profit. He doesn't respect all americans (homosexuals, prochoice supporters, anti war etc...)
I am not religous, but it is my understanding that the basics really boil down to love and respect for each other.
That letter was amazing...what a narrow view of the world. At least the country has spoken loud and clear about their approval of this president's agenda and administration. House and Senate are controlled by democrats, its just a matter of waiting a few more years until the white house is also controlled by a democrat.
I cannot imagine what any president will have to do in the future to take the crown of worst president in history from W. |
|
|
|
11/22/2006 12:23:38 PM · #57 |
I'd like to insert one quote from William Shakespeare (as it will be hard to denounce him as a liberal or a dirty democrat, although some will inevitably try to do so):
âThe devil can quote scripture for his own purposes.â
What we have here (in this part of the world) is people interpreting the bible as they see fit. The Bible is a marvelous piece of art, intended for clergy to apply to real life and convince the weak-minded (borrowed this phrase from Jedi religion) that the path they are showing them is God's path.
One needs not to read past the ten commandments to see that waging war and killing people abroad is against the Bible. You need to read some more into it, and combine different proverbs to find the justification for doing so.
We need more Jedi. |
|
|
|
11/22/2006 12:55:00 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
I don't understand why religous people approve of Bush. Everything he does is selfish and borderline evil. He has turned war into big profits for his friends, while we pay $3 a gallon for gas, his friends and family profit. He doesn't respect all americans (homosexuals, prochoice supporters, anti war etc...)
I am not religous, but it is my understanding that the basics really boil down to love and respect for each other. |
From your post, it appears that you are just like the President - that is, it seems that you don't respect all Americans either. The tone of your post suggests that you don't respect the President, and don't respect those who share his beliefs about homosexuality, abortion, war, etc.
If you believe what you understand the basics really boil down to, why is it that your post doesn't seem to demonstrate love and respect for the President?
|
|
|
|
11/22/2006 01:30:32 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
I'd like to insert one quote from William Shakespeare (as it will be hard to denounce him as a liberal or a dirty democrat, although some will inevitably try to do so):
âThe devil can quote scripture for his own purposes.â
What we have here (in this part of the world) is people interpreting the bible as they see fit. The Bible is a marvelous piece of art, intended for clergy to apply to real life and convince the weak-minded (borrowed this phrase from Jedi religion) that the path they are showing them is God's path.
One needs not to read past the ten commandments to see that waging war and killing people abroad is against the Bible. You need to read some more into it, and combine different proverbs to find the justification for doing so.
We need more Jedi. |
Ah, but one DOES need to read past the ten commandments to see that waging war and killing people abroad is not necessarily against the Bible. There is no need to read into it and no scripture combinations are needed. Deuteronomy 20, verses 1-5 ( just 15 chapters past the ten commandments in Deuteronomy 5 ) says quite clearly:
"When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the LORD thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And it shall be, when ye are come nigh unto the battle, that the priest shall approach and speak unto the people, And shall say unto them, Hear, O Israel, ye approach this day unto battle against your enemies: let not your hearts faint, fear not, and do not tremble, neither be ye terrified because of them; For the LORD your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you."
If scripture quote Moses ( who also delivered the ten commandments ) as saying that GOD would fight for the Israelites when they went to battle against their enemies, then it seems a stretch to conclude that waging war was against the Bible.
But, you are quite correct on two counts: the devil can, indeed, quote scripture for his own purposes; and people do, indeed, interpret the Bible as they see fit. |
|
|
|
11/22/2006 01:38:39 PM · #60 |
Ron,
I think that we completely agree here (!)
My intention was not to prove that waging war is against the Bible, but only to point out that you can selectively pick and choose parts of it to support your viewpoint.
But once you agree that both good and bad guys can quote the Bible to their benefit, how does one decide whom to follow? One answer only: based on your own conscience, common sense, and love for humanity. But one has to have those to begin with...
|
|
|
|
11/22/2006 02:34:58 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Ron,
I think that we completely agree here (!)
My intention was not to prove that waging war is against the Bible, but only to point out that you can selectively pick and choose parts of it to support your viewpoint.
But once you agree that both good and bad guys can quote the Bible to their benefit, how does one decide whom to follow? One answer only: based on your own conscience, common sense, and love for humanity. But one has to have those to begin with... |
Very well said.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2006 02:37:36 PM · #62 |
| Borat rather have sexy time. |
|
|
|
11/22/2006 02:42:28 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I'd like to pose a serious question to those who "have a real problem" with the letter from Bob Jones III to President Bush.
The question is, apart from stating his opinions ( which we SHOULD all be entitled to do, wouldn't you agree? )what specifically do you find wrong with what he espouses?
Is it wrong to request that the President be as clear as a trumpet?
Is it wrong to request that the President not equivocate?
Is it wrong to request that the President honor the Lord?
Is it wrong to request that the President appoint conservative judges ( conservative as in judging in accordance with the Constitution as it is written, not as it has been previously interpreted )
Is it wrong to request that the President exercise strong leadership with the Congress? And if it's because Bob Jones III adds "in passing legislation that is defined by biblical norm" then I would ask
Is it wrong to request that ANY President refrain from persuing an agenda based on his own principles?
Is it wrong to request that the President make a difference?
Is it wrong to request that the President do right?
I'm curious as to just what it is that is really raising such an outcry. |
What's raising such outcry is that the letter is basically a racist, hate filled pile of garbage. I'm saddened that you can't see that!!! |
|
|
|
11/22/2006 03:07:12 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by pix-are:
Originally posted by RonB:
I'm curious as to just what it is that is really raising such an outcry. |
What's raising such outcry is that the letter is basically a racist, hate filled pile of garbage. I'm saddened that you can't see that!!! |
Thanks for your post. It made me re-read the letter to see whether, after two years, I might be able to "see that" in another reading. Unfortunately, I found that I couldn't.
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point out specifically one or two portions of the letter that are racist and hate-filled. I'd appreciate it.
Message edited by author 2006-11-22 15:08:22. |
|
|
|
11/22/2006 03:35:59 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Jacko:
Borat rather have sexy time. |
He is a very sexy man, lots of ladies everywhere.
Borat
edit: Borat link
Message edited by author 2006-11-22 15:42:09.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2006 03:38:03 PM · #66 |
Just popping in to echo ursula and say that there are serious, devout Christians who roam the earth who do not agree with Bob Jones or George Bush.
CS Lewis, a beloved Christian figure of the 20th century may have hit the nail on the head...
"We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive."
C. S. Lewis
My sincere prayer is that we make progress as soon as possible. |
|
|
|
11/22/2006 03:42:55 PM · #67 |
Ron,
You are right, I do not love or respect the president. In fact, I feel the complete opposite of him. As for people who do support/respect him and his views, I respect them. I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion and beliefs until they are the leader of the United States.
He is supposed to represent the people, and it has been proven via the recent elections that he is not representing the people, he is pushing his own agenda.
I don't even have a problem with the Bob Jones. I disagree with his views and I think he is kind of a nut, but he is entitled. I don't have a problem with him because he can write a million letters to presidents, but he has no power. He does not have the power to make/change laws, declare war, shred foreign relations. He is just some guy who runs a college. |
|
|
|
11/22/2006 03:50:14 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by Jacko:
Borat rather have sexy time. |
He is a very sexy man, lots of ladies everywhere.
Borat
edit: Borat link |
Btw, isn't he getting sued?
|
|
|
|
11/22/2006 03:56:36 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by Jacko:
Borat rather have sexy time. |
He is a very sexy man, lots of ladies everywhere.
Borat
edit: Borat link |
Btw, isn't he getting sued? |
Who by ? Bob Jones :)
|
|
|
|
11/22/2006 06:23:37 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
Ron,
You are right, I do not love or respect the president. In fact, I feel the complete opposite of him. As for people who do support/respect him and his views, I respect them. I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion and beliefs until they are the leader of the United States.
He is supposed to represent the people, and it has been proven via the recent elections that he is not representing the people, he is pushing his own agenda. |
Then it is the people who have changed, not the President. He has the same agenda today that he had in 2004, when the people affirmed that he represented them by voting to re-elect him to a second term after they had had the opportunity to observe him for four years.
But I have a question. If the Democratic Congressional victories of 2006 prove, as you say, that the President is not representing the people, then the Republican Congressional victories in 1994 must have likewise proven that the President ( Clinton, at the time ) was not representing the people. And if that were so, then what did he do differently in the next two years to earn re-election? Or was it, once again, that the people changed, and not the President? Or, could it possibly be that the 2006 elections do NOT prove that the President is not representing the people, as you say they do, in which case the 1994 elections likewise did not prove that Clinton was not representing the people. |
|
|
|
11/22/2006 07:01:54 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by RonB:
But I have a question. If the Democratic Congressional victories of 2006 prove, as you say, that the President is not representing the people, then the Republican Congressional victories in 1994 must have likewise proven that the President ( Clinton, at the time ) was not representing the people. And if that were so, then what did he do differently in the next two years to earn re-election? Or was it, once again, that the people changed, and not the President? Or, could it possibly be that the 2006 elections do NOT prove that the President is not representing the people, as you say they do, in which case the 1994 elections likewise did not prove that Clinton was not representing the people. |
Power corrupts, or so the saying goes. The backlash of both the 1994 and 2006 elections represent the people "cleaning house". We all know neither party has a monopoly on integrity. As unimpressed as the public is currently with GWB, they are even less impressed with Congress which is currently led by the conservatives.
You are also being pretty petty when you say people "affirmed that he represented them by voting to re-elect him to a second term". I don't know which election you were watching, but wasn't it a nail biter in its closeness? The only election which was closer would be the one that got GWB elected the first time.
And don't think this is coming from some dyed-in-the-wool liberal. I will welcome ANY change after GWB. If Giuliani runs on a moderate platorm, I'd be happy to elect him. That being said, if Obama runs on a moderate platform, I'd like to see him elected too.
Either way, I'd also like to see the congress controlled by the party opposite the president. If I learned anything in the last 6 years, it is that bad things happen when the government is controlled by people who all have the same ideas. I'd wager the dems could screw it up just as bad if they gain all the control. The only thing going for them is it will take some "undoing" of their friends across the aisle. So for a while it will seem like they are actually making progress. But never fear, they will tear right through that golden middle and keep on chugging past...
Message edited by author 2006-11-22 19:06:36. |
|
|
|
11/22/2006 07:12:01 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If Giuliani runs on a moderate platorm, I'd be happy to elect him. That being said, if Obama runs on a moderate platform, I'd like to see him elected too. |
"Likeability" as what will win the '08 election, IMO assuming of course the most likeable doesn't get smeared to death in the primaries.
If you had these candidates running who do you think would win (forgetting everything you know about them):
- John Edwards running under a moderate platform
- Robert Bork (the ex-SCOTUS candidate) running under a moderate platform.
Message edited by author 2006-11-22 19:12:56. |
|
|
|
11/22/2006 07:16:25 PM · #73 |
| I'm guessing Bork is the wrong answer... |
|
|
|
11/24/2006 11:01:24 AM · #74 |
Ron,
Good points. All I really have on that is the situations seem to be a bit different. GW took office and the country was attacked. There was an overwhelming amount of immediate patriotism and support, and we were soon launched into war all over the world. To me, the people believed him for the first term enough to even give him a second term, by a very narrow margin. The people wanted to believe in a time of war the president was going to protect us and make the situation right. He didn't do that, he claimed "mission accomplished" in Iraq about two years ago. He lied to everyone. He used his war time presidency to promote what he wanted to do by telling the american public it was the best way to keep us safe from terrorism. He paralyzed this country in fear. All the while his closest circle were becoming rich and more powerful. People became fed up and the congressional elections were the first time people could stand up and do something significant. I would go out and say that right now, anyone could run under the democratic ticket and win presidency.
As for Clinton, I can't explain why under his presidency the republicans took control. I do know that the people really liked him regardless of his lude behavior. He is thought to be one of the better presidents this country has had, and if he could run, he probably could get elected again. Don't think you could say the same of W. |
|
|
|
11/24/2006 02:24:28 PM · #75 |
Part of Ws and Republican unpopularity these days is conservatives like myself believing they aren't conservative enough. We think he has partnered with the Liberals, like education, which should be a state issue not national.
He has only used his veto power once and we should have vetoed many spending bills. We also are POed about other Republicans spending too much of our tax dollars and not cutting government waste. We think W should veto bills with waste like a bridge to nowhere in Alaska or any of Senator "x-KKK" in W. Va.
We would vote for almost any republican (except McCain) because we like the great tax cuts, the economy is doing wonderful, we have record high employement, we haven't been attacked in this country (where other countries who even appose the Iraq war have been), and many other items.
So, we are also looking forward to 2008 elections to win back the Senate and House and maintain the Presidency. Go Newt...
Message edited by author 2006-11-24 14:30:16. |
|
