I would like to see Obama at the supermarket someday. I would like to ask him personal questions regarding his beliefs.
You are worried about Obama but you elected 2 Bushes??
- Thread starter David161099
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Wowa Obama cult??now I have personally looked it up there are several websites which proclaimed all of the presidents the Anti Christ. ( even Ron Paul)yet He seems to have the characteristics. his connection to islam, his mesmorizing speeches, his fan base.I mean It seems as if my soul wants to put total trust in this guy.ScaryI pray to God that hes just a really really good politicianand not one of the antichrists which Jesus warned us about.Or the very Man of sin himself.Its far-fetched, but theres a possibility. the day is coming where even the elect will be fooled. "Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one."And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints...." Ephesians 6:10-18 God give us the strength and the wisdom to proclaim your word in the last days and resist the evil one.Amen
(Two;38700)
This is ridiculous speculation on a lot of peoples part......think about it. he has to be a US citizen or he could not run for president. No I think Obama is just different and gives people hope for the future. What difference would it make if he was a Muslim? One man does not run this country Congress has the final say. The constitution was written that way in order to prevent a dictatorship pr one man rule.
Excellent point many do not consider.Bush is just a scape goat.He is only one third of our government.You have to deal with the Congress and the Supreme Court.For a majority of his administration the SC has been run by liberals and he played hell to get 2 conservitives onboard and they are still not true conservitives.He also had to combat a congress that had just enough liberal and traitorous concervatives to undermine anything he tried.Obama may not have the same problem.If the Court is liberal,and the Congress is liberal,then he will not have any fight to be concerned with.Bush was doomed from the beginning and has had to do some distasteful things just to get his job done on a minute level.With all the flipfloppers he was surrounded by,Clinton and Obama amongst them,he had to be careful of who to trust.
This is ridiculous speculation on a lot of peoples part......think about it. he has to be a US citizen or he could not run for president. No I think Obama is just different and gives people hope for the future. What difference would it make if he was a Muslim? One man does not run this country Congress has the final say. The constitution was written that way in order to prevent a dictatorship pr one man rule.
Excellent point many do not consider.Bush is just a scape goat.He is only one third of our government.You have to deal with the Congress and the Supreme Court.For a majority of his administration the SC has been run by liberals and he played hell to get 2 conservitives onboard and they are still not true conservitives.He also had to combat a congress that had just enough liberal and traitorous concervatives to undermine anything he tried.Obama may not have the same problem.If the Court is liberal,and the Congress is liberal,then he will not have any fight to be concerned with.Bush was doomed from the beginning and has had to do some distasteful things just to get his job done on a minute level.With all the flipfloppers he was surrounded by,Clinton and Obama amongst them,he had to be careful of who to trust.
(kriss;38815)
I luv ya to wakka
What do you guys think of this article is Obama the Messiah? http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=...ew&pageId=57090
Obama blows nose crowd goes crazyhttp://bluecollarrepublican.com/blog/?p=72
I luv ya to wakka
Obama blows nose crowd goes crazyhttp://bluecollarrepublican.com/blog/?p=72
(RobinD69;39030)
(Two;38700)
This is ridiculous speculation on a lot of peoples part......think about it. he has to be a US citizen or he could not run for president. No I think Obama is just different and gives people hope for the future. What difference would it make if he was a Muslim? One man does not run this country Congress has the final say. The constitution was written that way in order to prevent a dictatorship pr one man rule.
Excellent point many do not consider.Bush is just a scape goat.He is only one third of our government.You have to deal with the Congress and the Supreme Court.For a majority of his administration the SC has been run by liberals and he played hell to get 2 conservitives onboard and they are still not true conservitives.He also had to combat a congress that had just enough liberal and traitorous concervatives to undermine anything he tried.Obama may not have the same problem.If the Court is liberal,and the Congress is liberal,then he will not have any fight to be concerned with.Bush was doomed from the beginning and has had to do some distasteful things just to get his job done on a minute level.With all the flipfloppers he was surrounded by,Clinton and Obama amongst them,he had to be careful of who to trust.It's true that we have to be careful...and make a right decision. It's not safe to have a Muslim or any other religion to run for president. I rather see a Christian by faith running for President... There is no rule in this world for a Muslim to run for president if he is already an american citizen...I may be slow on political stuff here, but I hate politics with a passion... it's so easy to get confused here on this stuff...JagLovest ye in Christ Yahshua, Lord and Saviour of the world.
(Two;38700)
This is ridiculous speculation on a lot of peoples part......think about it. he has to be a US citizen or he could not run for president. No I think Obama is just different and gives people hope for the future. What difference would it make if he was a Muslim? One man does not run this country Congress has the final say. The constitution was written that way in order to prevent a dictatorship pr one man rule.
Excellent point many do not consider.Bush is just a scape goat.He is only one third of our government.You have to deal with the Congress and the Supreme Court.For a majority of his administration the SC has been run by liberals and he played hell to get 2 conservitives onboard and they are still not true conservitives.He also had to combat a congress that had just enough liberal and traitorous concervatives to undermine anything he tried.Obama may not have the same problem.If the Court is liberal,and the Congress is liberal,then he will not have any fight to be concerned with.Bush was doomed from the beginning and has had to do some distasteful things just to get his job done on a minute level.With all the flipfloppers he was surrounded by,Clinton and Obama amongst them,he had to be careful of who to trust.It's true that we have to be careful...and make a right decision. It's not safe to have a Muslim or any other religion to run for president. I rather see a Christian by faith running for President... There is no rule in this world for a Muslim to run for president if he is already an american citizen...I may be slow on political stuff here, but I hate politics with a passion... it's so easy to get confused here on this stuff...JagLovest ye in Christ Yahshua, Lord and Saviour of the world.
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 12
- 0
- 65
Let me give a little lesson here in civics if there is no candidate that I like----I have been known to walk into a voting booth, pull the curtains shut with the lever, and simply open the curtains again without pulling any candidates' levers. This way I can say that:1. I truly voted, and2. I did not put the *bleep* in the Whitehouse.I generally vote Libertarian if I can, and this year I actually switched parties so that I could vote Ron Paul in the primaries (since he ran on the Republican ticket), but it looks dismal. So considering the present candidates, I may just play my curtain games again. If only more people would do that, it would send a message.
(Wakka;38687)
The thing is that he proclaims to be a Christian, but he supports homosexuality and abortion. What other lies could he be hiding?
Bush ran on an anti-abortion platform to suck up to conservative Christians and abortions actually increased in his years in office. Bush made his faith an issue in the campaign then proceeded to bomb civilians in Iraq. Sorry they were just casualties of war that they did not ask for or in the end merit since they did not ask for Saddam to be thrown out and there were not WMDs or al Qaeda cells in Iraq. Now there are al Qaeda cells in Iraq. I guess that is progress.Can you believe anything about any politician? That is the problem. You are expecting them to be something else. Barak Obama is a consummate politician. He is a formidable orator. Beyond that he is the same as every other politician. They say what they need to say to get your vote or tell you what you want to hear. They have no intentions of delivering. It is all a game.Americans take politics as a bloodsport. They think it is real, but it is no more real than pro wrestling. It is a form of entertainment. They know it, but you don't.Don't get me wrong. Clinton wants to win as much as Obama or McCain. However, none of them expects to make a change. They merely want to be a headliner instead of being in the chorus. It is for their vanity that they run and it should be for your viewing pleasure and nothing more.All three candidates are acceptable to the establishment. Of the three Obama is the closest to the values of Wall Street. He is the most pro-establishment candidate.Whether he is Muslim of Christian is irrelevant. He is not running to be your pastor. If he is elected he will represent all Americans, gay, straight, white, black, Hispanic, Christian, Muslim or atheist. To be a leader you must bring agreement and develop consensus. This has been the failure of the Bush administration. He said that he was an uniter and proceeded to be a divider.I could say similar things about McCain or Clinton. They will have to find a way to resolve the immense problems that America faces. No matter what happens the leader will have a formidable task.Elections are all carefully scripted. Each speech is written by a speech writer. Each person has advisers that are trying to get them elected. The politician, him or herself, is a commodity. He or she is being sold just like anything else. He or she is little more than a talking head. They represent the people who gave them tens of millions of dollars. Those people are taking a risk in backing that candidate, but they manage risk. They back more than one horse and the people who back various candidates have more in common with each other that you would expect. They are basically one people believing in the same vision of America. It is a vision that sees them keeping what they have and possibly getting more, even if you have to do with less."It makes no difference who you vote for - the two parties are really one party representing four percent of the people" Gore Vidal
The thing is that he proclaims to be a Christian, but he supports homosexuality and abortion. What other lies could he be hiding?
Bush ran on an anti-abortion platform to suck up to conservative Christians and abortions actually increased in his years in office. Bush made his faith an issue in the campaign then proceeded to bomb civilians in Iraq. Sorry they were just casualties of war that they did not ask for or in the end merit since they did not ask for Saddam to be thrown out and there were not WMDs or al Qaeda cells in Iraq. Now there are al Qaeda cells in Iraq. I guess that is progress.Can you believe anything about any politician? That is the problem. You are expecting them to be something else. Barak Obama is a consummate politician. He is a formidable orator. Beyond that he is the same as every other politician. They say what they need to say to get your vote or tell you what you want to hear. They have no intentions of delivering. It is all a game.Americans take politics as a bloodsport. They think it is real, but it is no more real than pro wrestling. It is a form of entertainment. They know it, but you don't.Don't get me wrong. Clinton wants to win as much as Obama or McCain. However, none of them expects to make a change. They merely want to be a headliner instead of being in the chorus. It is for their vanity that they run and it should be for your viewing pleasure and nothing more.All three candidates are acceptable to the establishment. Of the three Obama is the closest to the values of Wall Street. He is the most pro-establishment candidate.Whether he is Muslim of Christian is irrelevant. He is not running to be your pastor. If he is elected he will represent all Americans, gay, straight, white, black, Hispanic, Christian, Muslim or atheist. To be a leader you must bring agreement and develop consensus. This has been the failure of the Bush administration. He said that he was an uniter and proceeded to be a divider.I could say similar things about McCain or Clinton. They will have to find a way to resolve the immense problems that America faces. No matter what happens the leader will have a formidable task.Elections are all carefully scripted. Each speech is written by a speech writer. Each person has advisers that are trying to get them elected. The politician, him or herself, is a commodity. He or she is being sold just like anything else. He or she is little more than a talking head. They represent the people who gave them tens of millions of dollars. Those people are taking a risk in backing that candidate, but they manage risk. They back more than one horse and the people who back various candidates have more in common with each other that you would expect. They are basically one people believing in the same vision of America. It is a vision that sees them keeping what they have and possibly getting more, even if you have to do with less."It makes no difference who you vote for - the two parties are really one party representing four percent of the people" Gore Vidal
(Dunamite;39146)
Bush ran on an anti-abortion platform to suck up to conservative Christians and abortions actually increased in his years in office. Bush made his faith an issue in the campaign then proceeded to bomb civilians in Iraq. Sorry they were just casualties of war that they did not ask for or in the end merit since they did not ask for Saddam to be thrown out and there were not WMDs or al Qaeda cells in Iraq. Now there are al Qaeda cells in Iraq. I guess that is progress.Can you believe anything about any politician? That is the problem. You are expecting them to be something else. Barak Obama is a consummate politician. He is a formidable orator. Beyond that he is the same as every other politician. They say what they need to say to get your vote or tell you what you want to hear. They have no intentions of delivering. It is all a game.Americans take politics as a bloodsport. They think it is real, but it is no more real than pro wrestling. It is a form of entertainment. They know it, but you don't.Don't get me wrong. Clinton wants to win as much as Obama or McCain. However, none of them expects to make a change. They merely want to be a headliner instead of being in the chorus. It is for their vanity that they run and it should be for your viewing pleasure and nothing more.All three candidates are acceptable to the establishment. Of the three Obama is the closest to the values of Wall Street. He is the most pro-establishment candidate.Whether he is Muslim of Christian is irrelevant. He is not running to be your pastor. If he is elected he will represent all Americans, gay, straight, white, black, Hispanic, Christian, Muslim or atheist. To be a leader you must bring agreement and develop consensus. This has been the failure of the Bush administration. He said that he was an uniter and proceeded to be a divider.I could say similar things about McCain or Clinton. They will have to find a way to resolve the immense problems that America faces. No matter what happens the leader will have a formidable task.Elections are all carefully scripted. Each speech is written by a speech writer. Each person has advisers that are trying to get them elected. The politician, him or herself, is a commodity. He or she is being sold just like anything else. He or she is little more than a talking head. They represent the people who gave them tens of millions of dollars. Those people are taking a risk in backing that candidate, but they manage risk. They back more than one horse and the people who back various candidates have more in common with each other that you would expect. They are basically one people believing in the same vision of America. It is a vision that sees them keeping what they have and possibly getting more, even if you have to do with less."It makes no difference who you vote for - the two parties are really one party representing four percent of the people" Gore Vidal
You can either represent God in office and glorify Him in everything you do, or you can fail, and be a sinner.I'm sorry, but the only reason for our existence is to glorify God, and by supporting gays and abortionists we only put ourselves in Satan's side. All this pro-gay and pro-abortion stuff will only create a bad name for Christianity, and will most likely develop anti discrimination laws that would label Christian beliefs as wrong.
Bush ran on an anti-abortion platform to suck up to conservative Christians and abortions actually increased in his years in office. Bush made his faith an issue in the campaign then proceeded to bomb civilians in Iraq. Sorry they were just casualties of war that they did not ask for or in the end merit since they did not ask for Saddam to be thrown out and there were not WMDs or al Qaeda cells in Iraq. Now there are al Qaeda cells in Iraq. I guess that is progress.Can you believe anything about any politician? That is the problem. You are expecting them to be something else. Barak Obama is a consummate politician. He is a formidable orator. Beyond that he is the same as every other politician. They say what they need to say to get your vote or tell you what you want to hear. They have no intentions of delivering. It is all a game.Americans take politics as a bloodsport. They think it is real, but it is no more real than pro wrestling. It is a form of entertainment. They know it, but you don't.Don't get me wrong. Clinton wants to win as much as Obama or McCain. However, none of them expects to make a change. They merely want to be a headliner instead of being in the chorus. It is for their vanity that they run and it should be for your viewing pleasure and nothing more.All three candidates are acceptable to the establishment. Of the three Obama is the closest to the values of Wall Street. He is the most pro-establishment candidate.Whether he is Muslim of Christian is irrelevant. He is not running to be your pastor. If he is elected he will represent all Americans, gay, straight, white, black, Hispanic, Christian, Muslim or atheist. To be a leader you must bring agreement and develop consensus. This has been the failure of the Bush administration. He said that he was an uniter and proceeded to be a divider.I could say similar things about McCain or Clinton. They will have to find a way to resolve the immense problems that America faces. No matter what happens the leader will have a formidable task.Elections are all carefully scripted. Each speech is written by a speech writer. Each person has advisers that are trying to get them elected. The politician, him or herself, is a commodity. He or she is being sold just like anything else. He or she is little more than a talking head. They represent the people who gave them tens of millions of dollars. Those people are taking a risk in backing that candidate, but they manage risk. They back more than one horse and the people who back various candidates have more in common with each other that you would expect. They are basically one people believing in the same vision of America. It is a vision that sees them keeping what they have and possibly getting more, even if you have to do with less."It makes no difference who you vote for - the two parties are really one party representing four percent of the people" Gore Vidal
You can either represent God in office and glorify Him in everything you do, or you can fail, and be a sinner.I'm sorry, but the only reason for our existence is to glorify God, and by supporting gays and abortionists we only put ourselves in Satan's side. All this pro-gay and pro-abortion stuff will only create a bad name for Christianity, and will most likely develop anti discrimination laws that would label Christian beliefs as wrong.
(Wakka;39198)
You can either represent God in office and glorify Him in everything you do, or you can fail, and be a sinner.I'm sorry, but the only reason for our existence is to glorify God, and by supporting gays and abortionists we only put ourselves in Satan's side. All this pro-gay and pro-abortion stuff will only create a bad name for Christianity, and will most likely develop anti discrimination laws that would label Christian beliefs as wrong.
1.) "You can either represent God in office and glorify Him in everything you do, or you can fail, and be a sinner:" Fallacy of bifurcation - presenting an argument as if there are only two choices.2.) "the only reason for our existence is to glorify God:" Fallacy of Composition - just because the only reason for Christian existence is to glorify God, does not mean it is the only reason for everyone's existence.3.) "by supporting gays and abortionists we only put ourselves in Satan's side. All this pro-gay and pro-abortion stuff will only create a bad name for Christianity, and will most likely develop anti discrimination laws that would label Christian beliefs as wrong:" Multiple fallacies. Primarily the slippery slope fallacy (the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises) - there is absolutely no proof, nor does it necessarily follow, that supporting gay-rights and abortion will lead to anti-discrimination laws "that would label Christian beliefs as wrong." Again, this is certainly not the only thing wrong with the last portion of your post, but it is the easiest for you to understand.
You can either represent God in office and glorify Him in everything you do, or you can fail, and be a sinner.I'm sorry, but the only reason for our existence is to glorify God, and by supporting gays and abortionists we only put ourselves in Satan's side. All this pro-gay and pro-abortion stuff will only create a bad name for Christianity, and will most likely develop anti discrimination laws that would label Christian beliefs as wrong.
1.) "You can either represent God in office and glorify Him in everything you do, or you can fail, and be a sinner:" Fallacy of bifurcation - presenting an argument as if there are only two choices.2.) "the only reason for our existence is to glorify God:" Fallacy of Composition - just because the only reason for Christian existence is to glorify God, does not mean it is the only reason for everyone's existence.3.) "by supporting gays and abortionists we only put ourselves in Satan's side. All this pro-gay and pro-abortion stuff will only create a bad name for Christianity, and will most likely develop anti discrimination laws that would label Christian beliefs as wrong:" Multiple fallacies. Primarily the slippery slope fallacy (the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises) - there is absolutely no proof, nor does it necessarily follow, that supporting gay-rights and abortion will lead to anti-discrimination laws "that would label Christian beliefs as wrong." Again, this is certainly not the only thing wrong with the last portion of your post, but it is the easiest for you to understand.
(I can Kant! Can you?;39313)
1.)Fallacy of bifurcation - presenting an argument as if there are only two choices.
It's the truth. God commands us to glorify him. You have a choice not to, but you'll 100% die in your sins and go to the lake of fire.
2.) "the only reason for our existence is to glorify God:" Fallacy of Composition - just because the only reason for Christian existence is to glorify God, does not mean it is the only reason for everyone's existence.
It's not only for Christians. Everyone aught to glorify God.
3.) "by supporting gays and abortionists we only put ourselves in Satan's side. All this pro-gay and pro-abortion stuff will only create a bad name for Christianity, and will most likely develop anti discrimination laws that would label Christian beliefs as wrong:" Multiple fallacies. Primarily the slippery slope fallacy (the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises) - there is absolutely no proof, nor does it necessarily follow, that supporting gay-rights and abortion will lead to anti-discrimination laws "that would label Christian beliefs as wrong." Again, this is certainly not the only thing wrong with the last portion of your post, but it is the easiest for you to understand.
California is already doing it.
1.)Fallacy of bifurcation - presenting an argument as if there are only two choices.
It's the truth. God commands us to glorify him. You have a choice not to, but you'll 100% die in your sins and go to the lake of fire.
2.) "the only reason for our existence is to glorify God:" Fallacy of Composition - just because the only reason for Christian existence is to glorify God, does not mean it is the only reason for everyone's existence.
It's not only for Christians. Everyone aught to glorify God.
3.) "by supporting gays and abortionists we only put ourselves in Satan's side. All this pro-gay and pro-abortion stuff will only create a bad name for Christianity, and will most likely develop anti discrimination laws that would label Christian beliefs as wrong:" Multiple fallacies. Primarily the slippery slope fallacy (the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises) - there is absolutely no proof, nor does it necessarily follow, that supporting gay-rights and abortion will lead to anti-discrimination laws "that would label Christian beliefs as wrong." Again, this is certainly not the only thing wrong with the last portion of your post, but it is the easiest for you to understand.
California is already doing it.
(David161099;39385)
Has Bush glorified God? (Above his Skull and bones buddies?)
I don't think he has.
Has Bush glorified God? (Above his Skull and bones buddies?)
I don't think he has.
(Wakka;39345)
It's the truth. God commands us to glorify him. You have a choice not to, but you'll 100% die in your sins and go to the lake of fire.It's not only for Christians. Everyone aught to glorify God.California is already doing it.
1.) It is commonly accepted in Theology and Philosophy that free will (i.e. choice) only exists when there is more than one reasonable alternative. In the situation that you have created, there is only one reasonable option (glorifying God), as no reasonable person would choose to "go to the lake of fire." Therefore, no choice exists, and your argument again fails.2.) The word you are looking for is "ought," which is categorical. "Aught" is an archaic term that means "anything." Beyond that, you have simply repeated your previous argument, and are still committing the fallacy of composition; however, you are also now using circular reasoning: our only purpose is to glorify God...because everyone ought to glorify God. Strike two.3.) What law has California passed that makes light of Christianity? Give specific examples, and reasons for your thoughts, don't just say "California is doing it," and expect me to take your word for it. Again, you are proving, indeed you are saying, very little. And I'm afraid that's strike three. You're outta there!
It's the truth. God commands us to glorify him. You have a choice not to, but you'll 100% die in your sins and go to the lake of fire.It's not only for Christians. Everyone aught to glorify God.California is already doing it.
1.) It is commonly accepted in Theology and Philosophy that free will (i.e. choice) only exists when there is more than one reasonable alternative. In the situation that you have created, there is only one reasonable option (glorifying God), as no reasonable person would choose to "go to the lake of fire." Therefore, no choice exists, and your argument again fails.2.) The word you are looking for is "ought," which is categorical. "Aught" is an archaic term that means "anything." Beyond that, you have simply repeated your previous argument, and are still committing the fallacy of composition; however, you are also now using circular reasoning: our only purpose is to glorify God...because everyone ought to glorify God. Strike two.3.) What law has California passed that makes light of Christianity? Give specific examples, and reasons for your thoughts, don't just say "California is doing it," and expect me to take your word for it. Again, you are proving, indeed you are saying, very little. And I'm afraid that's strike three. You're outta there!
If any Christian Thinks one Man or President, Kings etc. can give a Nation Hope. I feel sorry for you, because the Only Person that can give us Hope is Jesus Christ. People will then say, let's be superficial here for a moment, HOW BOUT NO! This Reminds me of When Israel wanted a King, They Chose Samuel over God. I'm glad to be an American, I'm can truly say I hate how this Government is ran. AND WE ARE NEAR THE END TIMES, there is truly no point in voting or debating which candidate is Best. LOOK UNTO JESUS CHRIST!
(I can Kant! Can you?;39408)
1.) It is commonly accepted in Theology and Philosophy that free will (i.e. choice) only exists when there is more than one reasonable alternative. In the situation that you have created, there is only one reasonable option (glorifying God), as no reasonable person would choose to "go to the lake of fire." Therefore, no choice exists, and your argument again fails.2.) The word you are looking for is "ought," which is categorical. "Aught" is an archaic term that means "anything." Beyond that, you have simply repeated your previous argument, and are still committing the fallacy of composition; however, you are also now using circular reasoning: our only purpose is to glorify God...because everyone ought to glorify God. Strike two.3.) What law has California passed that makes light of Christianity? Give specific examples, and reasons for your thoughts, don't just say "California is doing it," and expect me to take your word for it. Again, you are proving, indeed you are saying, very little. And I'm afraid that's strike three. You're outta there!
Stop being a smart mouth. You understood what I meant. God want's us to glorify Him. We do have a choice to not do it. But it wouldn't be wise to not glorify Him.That law is SB 777.
1.) It is commonly accepted in Theology and Philosophy that free will (i.e. choice) only exists when there is more than one reasonable alternative. In the situation that you have created, there is only one reasonable option (glorifying God), as no reasonable person would choose to "go to the lake of fire." Therefore, no choice exists, and your argument again fails.2.) The word you are looking for is "ought," which is categorical. "Aught" is an archaic term that means "anything." Beyond that, you have simply repeated your previous argument, and are still committing the fallacy of composition; however, you are also now using circular reasoning: our only purpose is to glorify God...because everyone ought to glorify God. Strike two.3.) What law has California passed that makes light of Christianity? Give specific examples, and reasons for your thoughts, don't just say "California is doing it," and expect me to take your word for it. Again, you are proving, indeed you are saying, very little. And I'm afraid that's strike three. You're outta there!
Stop being a smart mouth. You understood what I meant. God want's us to glorify Him. We do have a choice to not do it. But it wouldn't be wise to not glorify Him.That law is SB 777.
(Wakka;39432)
Stop being a smart mouth. You understood what I meant. God want's us to glorify Him. We do have a choice to not do it. But it wouldn't be wise to not glorify Him.That law is SB 777.
After official review, the ruling on the field stands: Wakka has still not adressed the problems in his argument.
Stop being a smart mouth. You understood what I meant. God want's us to glorify Him. We do have a choice to not do it. But it wouldn't be wise to not glorify Him.That law is SB 777.
After official review, the ruling on the field stands: Wakka has still not adressed the problems in his argument.
To defend Bush, the Iraqi people did ask for Sadam to stopped and they prove this with the trial that took his life.Bush bombed specific target planted with civilian to get global sympathy for the Iraqi government. Remember Clinton bombed an asprin factory.WMDs were not found or have not yet been found is irrelevant considering a fleet of semi truck crossed the border into Syria just hours before we attacked and the Syrian government refused to allow us to invade from their border after agreeing to aide us in any way they could.Majority of the Intellegence reports in the possesion of our government which led to the invasion of Iraq was from the previous administration and was taken as authoritive because of Sadams refusal to cooperate with the UN.There is much more that the anti Bush spin doctors dont want you to know if you are willing to actually search for the truth rather than believe the media hype.
Similar threads
