This may sound really weird to you guys. But I'm just wondering who you guys think would be a better President if they were alive today? George Washington or Abraham Lincoln?Let me know what you think...
Who would be a better President Washington or Lincoln?
- Thread starter christlovesu2
- 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!
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 12
- 0
- 65
I'll give my personal opinion. I think Washington by far would be better than Lincoln. Had it been the other way around, God would have made "Lincoln" the father of this country. Frankly, I do not even like Lincoln, but Washington reminds me of my maternal Grandfather. He keeps my mouth in check.Washington was so pious that if somebody cussed, he'd look at them with those eyes you see in the portraits and firmly say to them, "You talk like that and call yourself a Christian?" Makes me ashamed at times. But I love him for that.All US presidents have ties to European royalty. One person asked in a forum if we escaped from a monarchy, then why are the US presidents descended from them? The answer is simple (to me at least). If you hold British-Israel beliefs like I do, God promised a descendant of King David to rule over his people Israel. The Queen is from King David over Britain (which is the lost tribe of Ephraim). Likewise we the people here in the US just have a desire in our genes so-to-speak to vote in royalty. Barack Obama and John McCain both have the same Scottish King in their ancestry---- they are distant cousins. As much as I love Ron Paul, he does not have royalty that I can find and I can see why he is not popular (even though he is popular with me and I'd vote him in)Followers of George Washington wanted to make him King of this new nation, but he turned down that title.
tomwebster
New Member
- Dec 11, 2006
- 2,041
- 107
- 0
- 76
(tim_from_pa;55546)
... Barack Obama ... have the same Scottish King in their ancestry....
Document please
... Barack Obama ... have the same Scottish King in their ancestry....
Document please
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 12
- 0
- 65
Tom, it's all over the Internet. Here's just one of many examples:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...al-lineage.htmlNow don't think that just because I said that royalty was over the people of Israel that I endorse them. People on Christian forums confuse the elect of grace with the elect of race. But royalty has to do with race.It is possible and very biblically sound to emphatically state that in the case of the latter, just because God elected them and blessed them does not mean they are not children of hell. They can be just as lost as any Gentile. Likewise, it is possible to preach the gospel and have some saved by it, but the preacher still goes to hell. Demons are that way, too, and could win some to the kingdom. They believe, but do not have faith.I just want to distinguish grace and race here.
tomwebster
New Member
- Dec 11, 2006
- 2,041
- 107
- 0
- 76
"God promised a descendant of King David to rule over his people Israel."tim,I am in agreement with this statement you made; I was not questioning any part of our post. I just wanted documentation that Obama fit. The web site does not convince me that Obama is of the same bloodline. I wish they would have spent as much time on Obama as on McCain.
(tim_from_pa;55548)
Tom, it's all over the Internet. Here's just one of many examples:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...al-lineage.htmlNow don't think that just because I said that royalty was over the people of Israel that I endorse them. People on Christian forums confuse the elect of grace with the elect of race. But royalty has to do with race.It is possible and very biblically sound to emphatically state that in the case of the latter, just because God elected them and blessed them does not mean they are not children of hell. They can be just as lost as any Gentile. Likewise, it is possible to preach the gospel and have some saved by it, but the preacher still goes to hell. Demons are that way, too, and could win some to the kingdom. They believe, but do not have faith.I just want to distinguish grace and race here.
I don't like the sound of it at all (the one being highlighted. Even though it reminds me of James 2:19... It's like saying Satan can win some children to the Kingdom of God for Christ when we know Lucy can't do that. That is a very disturbing feeling and thought.
Tom, it's all over the Internet. Here's just one of many examples:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...al-lineage.htmlNow don't think that just because I said that royalty was over the people of Israel that I endorse them. People on Christian forums confuse the elect of grace with the elect of race. But royalty has to do with race.It is possible and very biblically sound to emphatically state that in the case of the latter, just because God elected them and blessed them does not mean they are not children of hell. They can be just as lost as any Gentile. Likewise, it is possible to preach the gospel and have some saved by it, but the preacher still goes to hell. Demons are that way, too, and could win some to the kingdom. They believe, but do not have faith.I just want to distinguish grace and race here.
I don't like the sound of it at all (the one being highlighted. Even though it reminds me of James 2:19... It's like saying Satan can win some children to the Kingdom of God for Christ when we know Lucy can't do that. That is a very disturbing feeling and thought.
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 12
- 0
- 65
Ah, Superjag, I said "could" not "would".Don't underestimate Satan and his demons. They know the truth. The difference is faith. When James said that the devil believes and trembles, he used the word "pistis", that is incorrect so-to-speak. If the devil and his demons believed as in faith, they'd hang their being on the promises of God, but they don't. They are opposed. But anything can preach the truth of God and that source may not be saved.Proof of that is in Balaam's jackass. The dumb donkey talked and prophesied the true word of God, but we know that animals cannot be saved, as they do not have spirits as we do. Romans 8 hints that animals will be restored with the manifestation of the sons of God as will creation, but they are dependent on that and do not have the option as we humans do right now to believe.Yes, this gets uncomfortable when I say that your local evangelist can convert some but he himself is lost. This is clearly the case where God uses the jackass for His glory---- I'm not sure the demons know what they are getting into as God outsmarts them.
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 12
- 0
- 65
(tomwebster;55549)
"God promised a descendant of King David to rule over his people Israel."tim,I am in agreement with this statement you made; I was not questioning any part of our post. I just wanted documentation that Obama fit. The web site does not convince me that Obama is of the same bloodline. I wish they would have spent as much time on Obama as on McCain.
I did not take for one minute that you were questioning my statement as we believe the same. As for the grace and race part, I want ALL our readers to know where this is coming from.
"God promised a descendant of King David to rule over his people Israel."tim,I am in agreement with this statement you made; I was not questioning any part of our post. I just wanted documentation that Obama fit. The web site does not convince me that Obama is of the same bloodline. I wish they would have spent as much time on Obama as on McCain.
I did not take for one minute that you were questioning my statement as we believe the same. As for the grace and race part, I want ALL our readers to know where this is coming from.
(tim_from_pa;55553)
Ah, Superjag, I said "could" not "would".Don't underestimate Satan and his demons. They know the truth. The difference is faith. When James said that the devil believes and trembles, he used the word "pistis", that is incorrect so-to-speak. If the devil and his demons believed as in faith, they'd hang their being on the promises of God, but they don't. They are opposed. But anything can preach the truth of God and that source may not be saved.Proof of that is in Balaam's jackass. The dumb donkey talked and prophesied the true word of God, but we know that animals cannot be saved, as they do not have spirits as we do. Romans 8 hints that animals will be restored with the manifestation of the sons of God as will creation, but they are dependent on that and do not have the option as we humans do right now to believe.Yes, this gets uncomfortable when I say that your local evangelist can convert some but he himself is lost. This is clearly the case where God uses the jackass for His glory---- I'm not sure the demons know what they are getting into as God outsmarts them.
Thanks, I needed a laugh. (not to say it in a bad way, but good way) Because I find it humourous to see God using an animal to prophecy True Word of God. Thanks I feel much better.
Ah, Superjag, I said "could" not "would".Don't underestimate Satan and his demons. They know the truth. The difference is faith. When James said that the devil believes and trembles, he used the word "pistis", that is incorrect so-to-speak. If the devil and his demons believed as in faith, they'd hang their being on the promises of God, but they don't. They are opposed. But anything can preach the truth of God and that source may not be saved.Proof of that is in Balaam's jackass. The dumb donkey talked and prophesied the true word of God, but we know that animals cannot be saved, as they do not have spirits as we do. Romans 8 hints that animals will be restored with the manifestation of the sons of God as will creation, but they are dependent on that and do not have the option as we humans do right now to believe.Yes, this gets uncomfortable when I say that your local evangelist can convert some but he himself is lost. This is clearly the case where God uses the jackass for His glory---- I'm not sure the demons know what they are getting into as God outsmarts them.
Thanks, I needed a laugh. (not to say it in a bad way, but good way) Because I find it humourous to see God using an animal to prophecy True Word of God. Thanks I feel much better.
Washington, hands down. Lincoln was probably one of the worst Presidents when you look at it from a Constitutional standpoint. Washington was one of that special breed of men with honor. I think he had a pretty good head on his shoulders from what I know of his life.
Hey guys,If it was up to me, I think I would have to go with Washington!I actually found a website that is doing this big discussion on this topic called www.nowdebatethis.com.You should check it out! It's cool to see people's responses.
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 12
- 0
- 65
I have to say something funny here. I like Washington so much that the other day I printed out a good quality picture of him and then framed him and hung him up on the wall. I'm waiting for my wife to comment on him hanging there. It's on a side wall and up high so he's not overly obvious. I'm wondering how long it will take before she notices him hanging there. (It's kinda spooky. It's one of those portraits where the eyes look like they are following you.)
(tim_from_pa;55546)
All US presidents have ties to European royalty.
As do very many Americans and English speaking people in general. Since British royalty, that were not next in line to the throne, were not adverse to marrying commoners, English royal blood was dispersed through the general population. I’ve seen estimates that in the UK alone something like 3,000,000 are direct descendants of King Edward III. Bear in mind that the UK’s entire population is only something like 60,000,000.
Likewise we the people here in the US just have a desire in our genes so-to-speak to vote in royalty.
Then what on earth was Clinton?
Followers of George Washington wanted to make him King of this new nation, but he turned down that title.
When was Washington ever offered the title of king? What is your source for this claim?
All US presidents have ties to European royalty.
As do very many Americans and English speaking people in general. Since British royalty, that were not next in line to the throne, were not adverse to marrying commoners, English royal blood was dispersed through the general population. I’ve seen estimates that in the UK alone something like 3,000,000 are direct descendants of King Edward III. Bear in mind that the UK’s entire population is only something like 60,000,000.
Likewise we the people here in the US just have a desire in our genes so-to-speak to vote in royalty.
Then what on earth was Clinton?
Followers of George Washington wanted to make him King of this new nation, but he turned down that title.
When was Washington ever offered the title of king? What is your source for this claim?
(Denver;55564)
Washington, hands down. Lincoln was probably one of the worst Presidents when you look at it from a Constitutional standpoint.
Why? What did Lincoln do that was so horrible?
Washington, hands down. Lincoln was probably one of the worst Presidents when you look at it from a Constitutional standpoint.
Why? What did Lincoln do that was so horrible?
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 12
- 0
- 65
When was Washington ever offered the title of king? What is your source for this claim?
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5593
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 12
- 0
- 65
As do very many Americans and English speaking people in general. Since British royalty, that were not next in line to the throne, were not adverse to marrying commoners, English royal blood was dispersed through the general population. I’ve seen estimates that in the UK alone something like 3,000,000 are direct descendants of King Edward III. Bear in mind that the UK’s entire population is only something like 60,000,000.
So..... You say 1/20? Yes, then I agree that some presidents would then be connected to royalty. However, all of them? Let's do a simple statistics experiment here. Try to flip about 40 heads in a row.... Heck that's only 1/2 instead of 1/20. Come back to me when you accomplish this feat. I'll see you in 10,000,000 years.
So..... You say 1/20? Yes, then I agree that some presidents would then be connected to royalty. However, all of them? Let's do a simple statistics experiment here. Try to flip about 40 heads in a row.... Heck that's only 1/2 instead of 1/20. Come back to me when you accomplish this feat. I'll see you in 10,000,000 years.
(tim_from_pa;56069)
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5593
The question I asked you also goes for CATO as well: What is the source of the claim?I have 40 credit hours in history courses (to go with my bachelor’s degree in biology) and I have read American history on my own for over 30 years. I have never seen it claimed, until now, that Washington was ever offered a throne.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5593
The question I asked you also goes for CATO as well: What is the source of the claim?I have 40 credit hours in history courses (to go with my bachelor’s degree in biology) and I have read American history on my own for over 30 years. I have never seen it claimed, until now, that Washington was ever offered a throne.
(tim_from_pa;56070)
So..... You say 1/20? Yes, then I agree that some presidents would then be connected to royalty. However, all of them? Let's do a simple statistics experiment here. Try to flip about 40 heads in a row.... Heck that's only 1/2 instead of 1/20. Come back to me when you accomplish this feat. I'll see you in 10,000,000 years.
On what do you base this “all of them claim”? BTW: I have not found any indication that William the Conqueror had any blood kinship with the House of Wessex; he had no hereditary right to the throne of England. The same goes for the Danes who occupied the throne just prior to Edward the Confessor. And the only blood claim that Harold II may have had to the throne of England is based on conjecture and not documented evidence. So how did any of these kings fulfill prophecy?
So..... You say 1/20? Yes, then I agree that some presidents would then be connected to royalty. However, all of them? Let's do a simple statistics experiment here. Try to flip about 40 heads in a row.... Heck that's only 1/2 instead of 1/20. Come back to me when you accomplish this feat. I'll see you in 10,000,000 years.
On what do you base this “all of them claim”? BTW: I have not found any indication that William the Conqueror had any blood kinship with the House of Wessex; he had no hereditary right to the throne of England. The same goes for the Danes who occupied the throne just prior to Edward the Confessor. And the only blood claim that Harold II may have had to the throne of England is based on conjecture and not documented evidence. So how did any of these kings fulfill prophecy?
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 12
- 0
- 65
BTW: I have not found any indication that William the Conqueror had any blood kinship with the House of Wessex; he had no hereditary right to the throne of England. The same goes for the Danes who occupied the throne just prior to Edward the Confessor. And the only blood claim that Harold II may have had to the throne of England is based on conjecture and not documented evidence. So how did any of these kings fulfill prophecy?
European royalty has ties to Judah, especially Zarah-Judah, and also lineages to King David.The throne to England also has lineages from Zedekiah, the lineage of King David thru the Irish, then Scottish and then British kings when it was overturned 3 times (c.f. Ezekiel 21:27)I'm sure God is watchful enough for the right lineage to inherit it even if you are not confident of that.
European royalty has ties to Judah, especially Zarah-Judah, and also lineages to King David.The throne to England also has lineages from Zedekiah, the lineage of King David thru the Irish, then Scottish and then British kings when it was overturned 3 times (c.f. Ezekiel 21:27)I'm sure God is watchful enough for the right lineage to inherit it even if you are not confident of that.
(tim_from_pa;56101)
European royalty has ties to Judah, especially Zarah-Judah, and also lineages to King David.The throne to England also has lineages from Zedekiah, the lineage of King David thru the Irish, then Scottish and then British kings when it was overturned 3 times (c.f. Ezekiel 21:27)I'm sure God is watchful enough for the right lineage to inherit it even if you are not confident of that.
Your documentation for this is what? British royalty used to claim descent from Wootan. In the absence of documentable evidence, anyone can claim anything.
European royalty has ties to Judah, especially Zarah-Judah, and also lineages to King David.The throne to England also has lineages from Zedekiah, the lineage of King David thru the Irish, then Scottish and then British kings when it was overturned 3 times (c.f. Ezekiel 21:27)I'm sure God is watchful enough for the right lineage to inherit it even if you are not confident of that.
Your documentation for this is what? British royalty used to claim descent from Wootan. In the absence of documentable evidence, anyone can claim anything.
Similar threads
- Poll
