posted on May, 10 2004 @ 04:07 PM
TC and Infovacume, and all
You both brought up in your posts, that my post is judging Mr. Bush. I am assuming you are implying, that to bring up these facts about him is
not the Christian thing to do? I beg to differ on this point of view. I am not judging Mr. Bush the person, I am however judging his actions. There is
a big difference between judging the person and judging their actions. His actions are what I have a problem with. Especially when it reflects on
fellow Christians/Americans, and how we are being portrayed by him to the world. Evangelicals tend to believe that judge not lest ye be judged, means
to be blind to everyones actions and not say anything negative about them. Especially if it is a "fellow Christian". Unless of course they are
gay/lesbian, do "drugs" etc., then it's ok. They also tend to believe that if the action serves the better good, then it's ok. It doesn't matter
what havoc it causes, just as long as the ends justify the means. (This is in line with TC's comment on all of the "good" Rev. Graham has done.) It
is also in line with Bush's response to not finding any WMD's in Iraq. His response to this criticism is basically so what, we got rid of Sadam
didn't we? As long as the ends justify the means.
Judge not lest ye be judged, means not to be prejudiced or hold grudges, because of someones actions. When someone does something to harm
another, the reaction tends to be either revenge or prejudice. Revenge is wrong, because it keeps the negative cycle alive. You can exact your
revenge, but that revenge may cause another reaction. You can be prejudiced against that person, but being prejudiced against them means that you
don't listen to them, or help them etc.. They are basically dead to you, or written off. This is wrong, because there is no forgiveness, compassion,
or understanding. It puts the other person on a level that is less than you, and leaves no way to reconcile even if they are truely sorry for their
actions. So prejudice is judgement, and also keeps the negative cycle alive. If you forgive someone, you drop the prejudice/revenge/anamosity you have
toward them, that was caused by their actions. I.E. recognizing they too have free will, and may not choose the same path again in the future.
The problem is, until the person asks for forgiveness, or acknowledges his/her actions were wrong in the first place. There is no way of knowing
if they would do it again or not. Evangelicals are proponents of the "forgive and forget" philosiphy. Yet there is no where in the Bible that says
you are to forget anything. To forget the action, is to doom yourself to the same cycle repeating itself. Especially if the person responsible for the
action doesn't see, or want to see the error in their actions. Every person has free will, to include Mr. Bush. He can change his ways today,
tomorrow, or never. It is all up to him. So while I don't support the actions he has chosen to take, I do realize he too can be born again (change
his ways) at any time, and hope for it. The problem with Mr. Bush currently, is when people call him on anything. He is arrogant, and doesn't see any
problems that need to be discussed. He was asked three times in his news conference, if he thought he had made any mistakes as president in all of
this. He couldn't think of one. I fear people who are so arrogant, as to not learn from their mistakes. Or worse yet, can't think of any.
As a Christian, I feel it is an obligation to defend exactly what a Christianity is. Being that Mr. Bush claims to be a Chrisitian. It is
important to keep the facts straight. By Mr. Bush professing to be a Christian, he has set himself up to be an example of what Christians are/believe.
People who are not Christians, could be lead to believe that this is how Christians think, and act. In my opinion this has been a detriment to the
Christian faith, not an effective recruiting tool. Evangelicals believe that being a Christian, is to ask Jesus into your heart. Believing he is the
son of God, and died for your sins. Once you have done that, you are "saved". They even believe that once you are "saved", you are saved forever.
They drive this point even further, by saying man is human, to sin is human nature. Or good deeds don't get you into Heaven, etc..
This philosiphy is not Christian doctorine. A Christian, IS someone who asks Jesus into their heart. But it is more then just the physical act.
Being a Christian requires that the person see the error in their ways, giving them the desire to be more Christ like. Why do you think it is
described as being "born again", if there is no change in how you live/think etc.? Being a Christian is following Christs teachings, and adapting
them into your being. It all boils down to how you interpret the teachings. Evangelicals believe that asking Jesus into your heart, is just that.
Praying and asking him to come into your heart. A Christian believes that asking Jesus into your heart = adopting his teachings/mindset ect.. It is
the persuit of trying to become more like Christ on a day to day basis. The only way you become more Christ like, is to analize your actions and see
if they are in tune with his teachings. If you don't analize your actions, or are unwilling to. It is very difficult to see any errors, or make
changes to be more Christ like. So true Christians shouldn't take offense to other Christians trying to point out their short-comings. They should
view it as help, not a judgement. If they were truely being judged, the effort wouldn't be made to help them see in the first place. They would just
be prejudiced against, and considered a bad seed that will always be a bad seed. So what should a Christian do? Try to help a brother see the error in
his ways. Or lets his brother do whatever he desires, wheither they are Christian principles or not? To say that I am judging Bush, makes as much
sense as to say that the courts are anti- Christian. What would Jesus do, not say anything?
So to set the record straight:
-It was Bush who started a pre-emptive war.
Ignoring God's power to touch mans heart, to save them, to show them the error in their ways.
-This took troops away from fighting terrorism in Afganistan and elsewhere.
-Bush said that God changed/saved him.
So why didn't he think God can change/save Sadam? Rather then letting Sadam have free will which God gave every human, we played God, and made the
decision out of "fear".
-Bush said "he used chemical weapons on his own people". Never mentioning where he got the chemicals from in the first place. Or that they were
Kurds that were trying to overthrow Sadams government. If we had a group of people in our country that were trying to take over, do you doubt we would
use weapons against them? Or how about all of the Depleted Uranium we scattered across Iraq TWICE.
-"We liberated people that were oppressed by a brutal dictator". "He tortured his own people".
So isn't it kind of ironic we are later caught torturing Iraqi people in the same facility?
-Then after no WMD's are found, it's written off like it never mattered in the first place.
-Such and such number of people were killed by that government.
How many Iraqi's have we killed now "liberating" them? That's right, we don't keep track, because it's just colateral damage. We care enough to
liberate them, but not if they get killed in the process? Or how about all of the Iraqi military we have re-hired to help us. Aren't they the ones
that carried out Sadams bidding, that we were speaking out against in the first place?
-Before the invasion, France was the holder of several of the oil contracts in Iraq.
Were we liberating Iraq from France, or Saddam? I'm confused as to why France no longer has those contracts. ;-)
-It was Bush who proposed the Faith Based Initiative, that is giving money only to "christian" organizations.
-It is Bush who took the election to the Supreem Court, rather then waiting on God's will to be revealed.
If he were truely a man of faith, wouldn't he have faith that through the re-count he would have won the election? Especially if he truely believed
he was destined by God to be president? Not to mention his brother being the govenor of the state, an elected Republican. Why did he have to
circumvent the process, it's not like the re-count was Al Gore's fault. What also is amazing to me, is that taking it to the Supreem Court must have
been quite the risk! Either way it was a 50/50 chance he would win right? ;- ) So why go the Supreem Court route? Apparently Bush thought presidents
should be elected by the Supreem Court, and not by the people. How else is there to interpret it?
-Jesus said "love your enemies as yourself". Also that "a wealthy/rich man has the chances of getting into Heaven, as a camel does of getting
through the eye of a needle". Do I really need to say more? Bush should just take off his sheeps clothing, and tell the world he's a Zionist. At
least he would be being honest about that.