The Crusades: Why are we still fighting them?

[DiveCon]

GW Bush is considered the First Regent of the Domionist movement.

BS

show some proof
Bush wasnt even close to something i would consider christian

He said during his campaign Christ was his hero and changed his life.

What makes you think he's not a christian?

because i didnt really see any of it in the way he governed/lead his life
but thats me
anyone can make that claim, but you should be able to see some of it in the way that life is lived

 

[DiveCon]

Sarge hates my guts. He isn't getting over it anytime soon.

There is a movement toward a Christian theocracy. The Dominionists envision their Regents in the Government. They considered GW Bush the first Christian regent. The Christian Right has enormous power in the GOP. Sarah Palin's church is part of the New Apostolic Reformation.

I feel more concern about losing freedom to this group than I do about Islam.

I don't know who is telling you this stuff, but I think you really need some new friends or mentors. There are probably few Americans more involved in the Church, Church history, Church trends, religious groups, standard and distorted theologies, than I am for reasons I won't bore you with here. Christians are widely divided among many ideologies ranging from the far Left to the far Right. Most are somewhere in the middle.

I'm not saying there are no Dominionists as you think they are, but I can say with a great deal olf confidence that they are in tiny numbers and have no influence - zero, zip, nada - in the wider Church, in politics, or in government. And I can assure you that neither George W. Bush or Sarah Palin identify with these people in ANY capacity and neither holds a smidgeon of dominionist views.

The closest thing we've ever had to a significant dominionist movement however was the Roman Catholic Church when it was pretty much the only game in town. And even there, its advocates have evolved and learned and progressed to the point they all now pretty much reject government as the way to take dominion over the Earth and, like most Christians, rely on attraction to win the hearts and minds of new converts.

You can't have an estimated 2.5 to 3 billion Christians on Earth without having a few nuts in the midst. To judge the whole by that few, however, is extremely naive, ignorant, and prejudicial.

Most Christians want no more from you than to be a good citizen of your country and hope no more from you than you know the joy and peace they know in Jesus Christ. And if you do not accept their beliefs about that, they will love and accept you just the same.

It seems really ludicrous to me to fear that more than a religion that would imprison you, torture you, chop off your hands or feet or head if you should disrespect it and that intends to put the entire Earth under its authority/

I don't live in a Muslim country. I have nothing to fear from American Muslims. Dominionists, on the other hand, are a scary bunch.

I've read that 35 million Christians hold Dominionist views.

where have you read this?
on ANTI-christian sites?

 

[Foxfyre]

That's what I'm thinking DiveCon. Not only is it ludicrous to imagine there are 35 million Dominionists out there, I'm thinking it would be difficult to find 35 Dominionists among mainstream Christianity period.

That sounds very much like something invented by some anti-Christian type and put out there in stupid land where it gained legs based on nothing and fed by anti-Christian prejudice. Unfortunately, those who don't know any better and who WANT to believe Christianity is evil are more than willing to be gullible about things like that.

I disagree with very much though, DiveCon, that George Bush is not Christian or where you can point to anything in his life that would suggest he is not.

 

[Sky Dancer]

GW Bush is a Christian and was elected by the religious right.

 

[DiveCon]

That's what I'm thinking DiveCon. Not only is it ludicrous to imagine there are 35 million Dominionists out there, I'm thinking it would be difficult to find 35 Dominionists among mainstream Christianity period.

That sounds very much like something invented by some anti-Christian type and put out there in stupid land where it gained legs based on nothing and fed by anti-Christian prejudice. Unfortunately, those who don't know any better and who WANT to believe Christianity is evil are more than willing to be gullible about things like that.

I disagree with very much though, DiveCon, that George Bush is not Christian or where you can point to anything in his life that would suggest he is not.

i believe he used that as a way of gaining political support
i didnt see anything in the way he ran his administration that showed me anything Christian

 

[DiveCon]

GW Bush is a Christian and was elected by the religious right.

sorry, but your feared "Christian right" is either non-existent or such a small minority that they couldn't elect ANYONE

 

[elvis]

GW Bush is a Christian and was elected by the religious right.

Again. Why did McCain/Palin lose, then?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Wing and a Prayer: Religious Right Got Bush Elected - Now They Are Righting Each Other

 

[Foxfyre]

GW Bush is a Christian and was elected by the religious right.

The religious right (meaning people who are religious and also conservative or conservative/moderate) were a significant part of George Bush's base. But then well over 90% of Americans profess belief in some sort of Diety so its pretty hard to put together a conservative base that won't be at least a little bit religious. He was NOT elected by the religious far right as there are too few of them to elect anybody.

You really do need some better sources of information Sky.

George Bush was elected by people who believed in his stated views and who were eager for a more conservative approach to government. Those who voted for him included Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Christians, Atheists, and even Buddhists.

Bush turned out to be less competent in managing his duties that many of us hoped, and he turned out to be far more big government than we every imagined he could be. A good man, and a great President when it came to national security; not so great in some other areas. He turned out to be so socially liberal that he would have been an absolute darling worshipped by the big government Left if he just had had a D instead of an R beside his name.

P.S. America has yet to elect a President who did not claim to be a Christian.

 

[DiveCon]

GW Bush is a Christian and was elected by the religious right.

Again. Why did McCain/Palin lose, then?

well, McCain wasnt exactly the choice for them

 

[DiveCon]

Wing and a Prayer: Religious Right Got Bush Elected - Now They Are Righting Each Other

look at your SOURCE


LOL

 

[Foxfyre]

Wing and a Prayer: Religious Right Got Bush Elected - Now They Are Righting Each Other

Oh God, Sky. You use Common Dreams as a reliable source? Common Dreams, one of the most distorted, poorly researched, anti-Christian, anti-Conservative, dishonest sites on the internet? You sure know where to go for manufactured dirt on just about anybody on the right you want to nail though. You probably like Moveon.org's site, Daily Kos, and MediaMatters too, huh.

 

[DiveCon]

Wing and a Prayer: Religious Right Got Bush Elected - Now They Are Righting Each Other

Oh God, Sky. You use Common Dreams as a reliable source? Common Dreams, one of the most distorted, poorly researched, anti-Christian, anti-Conservative, dishonest sites on the internet? You sure know where to go for manufactured dirt on just about anybody on the right you want to nail though. You probably like Moveon.org's site, Daily Kos, and MediaMatters too, huh.

about on par with worldnetdaily and newsmax
if not WORSE

 

[Sky Dancer]

Try and find an unbiased news source. I mean it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wing and a Prayer: Religious Right Got Bush Elected - Now They Are Righting Each Other

Oh God, Sky. You use Common Dreams as a reliable source? Common Dreams, one of the most distorted, poorly researched, anti-Christian, anti-Conservative, dishonest sites on the internet? You sure know where to go for manufactured dirt on just about anybody on the right you want to nail though. You probably like Moveon.org's site, Daily Kos, and MediaMatters too, huh.

about on par with worldnetdaily and newsmax
if not WORSE

No much worse. Worldnet Daily and Newsmax plus other similar rightwing sites make no pretense about being unbiased or that they don't represent the rightwing or conservative point of view. But both at least do some decent research and they don't deal in flat out intentional distortion. I try not to use those sites as sources much though just because I know they'll be percieved. They are as biased as Common Dreams but in no way as dishonest.

Now some of the rightwing blogs, yeah. They can be really bad and they do make up a lot of sh*t that sometimes makes it into the mainstream. I view that with the same contempt that I view sh*t from the left.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wing and a Prayer: Religious Right Got Bush Elected - Now They Are Righting Each Other

Oh God, Sky. You use Common Dreams as a reliable source? Common Dreams, one of the most distorted, poorly researched, anti-Christian, anti-Conservative, dishonest sites on the internet? You sure know where to go for manufactured dirt on just about anybody on the right you want to nail though. You probably like Moveon.org's site, Daily Kos, and MediaMatters too, huh.

about on par with worldnetdaily and newsmax
if not WORSE

No much worse. Worldnet Daily and Newsmax plus other similar rightwing sites make no pretense about being unbiased or that they don't represent the rightwing or conservative point of view. But both at least do some decent research and they don't deal in flat out intentional fabrication. I try not to use those sites as sources much though just because I know they'll be percieved as unreliable. They are as biased as Common Dreams but in no way as dishonest.

Now some of the rightwing blogs, yeah. They can be really bad and they do make up a lot of sh*t that sometimes makes it into the mainstream. I view that with the same contempt that I view sh*t from the left.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Oh God, Sky. You use Common Dreams as a reliable source? Common Dreams, one of the most distorted, poorly researched, anti-Christian, anti-Conservative, dishonest sites on the internet? You sure know where to go for manufactured dirt on just about anybody on the right you want to nail though. You probably like Moveon.org's site, Daily Kos, and MediaMatters too, huh.

about on par with worldnetdaily and newsmax
if not WORSE

No much worse. Worldnet Daily and Newsmax plus other similar rightwing sites make no pretense about being unbiased or that they don't represent the rightwing or conservative point of view. But both at least do some decent research and they don't deal in flat out intentional fabrication. I try not to use those sites as sources much though just because I know they'll be percieved as unreliable. They are as biased as Common Dreams but in no way as dishonest.

Now some of the rightwing blogs, yeah. They can be really bad and they do make up a lot of sh*t that sometimes makes it into the mainstream. I view that with the same contempt that I view sh*t from the left.

Well name some unbiased news sources then.

 

[DiveCon]

about on par with worldnetdaily and newsmax
if not WORSE

No much worse. Worldnet Daily and Newsmax plus other similar rightwing sites make no pretense about being unbiased or that they don't represent the rightwing or conservative point of view. But both at least do some decent research and they don't deal in flat out intentional fabrication. I try not to use those sites as sources much though just because I know they'll be percieved as unreliable. They are as biased as Common Dreams but in no way as dishonest.

Now some of the rightwing blogs, yeah. They can be really bad and they do make up a lot of sh*t that sometimes makes it into the mainstream. I view that with the same contempt that I view sh*t from the left.

Well name some unbiased news sources then.

totally unbiased??

dont exist
but you can find some that are far less biased than commondreams

even the NYT would be less biased

 

[Foxfyre]

about on par with worldnetdaily and newsmax
if not WORSE

No much worse. Worldnet Daily and Newsmax plus other similar rightwing sites make no pretense about being unbiased or that they don't represent the rightwing or conservative point of view. But both at least do some decent research and they don't deal in flat out intentional fabrication. I try not to use those sites as sources much though just because I know they'll be percieved as unreliable. They are as biased as Common Dreams but in no way as dishonest.

Now some of the rightwing blogs, yeah. They can be really bad and they do make up a lot of sh*t that sometimes makes it into the mainstream. I view that with the same contempt that I view sh*t from the left.

Well name some unbiased news sources then.

You're not looking for unbiased so much as sufficient integrity to report honestly.

It's hard to find any that are not biased one way or the other to some degree. But most of the nation's mainstream newspapers at least have enough integrity, ethics, and incentive to be credible so that they get most of their facts right. They might arrange those facts in a way to distort the impression people get, but the facts are there if you look for them. Most of the network news sites, CNN, Fox News, and even the CNBC and MSNBC will report most of the facts as accurately as they get them, but again you often have to look beyond the twist they put on them to dig those facts out of the impression they hope to leave with their reader or viewer. And those who are decidedly biased may so downplay the more inconvenient facts that it will be necessary to use an additional source or sources to get the whole picture.

And I look to a lot of Canadian and overseas news sources to get information. I figure most of those have less of an ax to grind than some of our homegrown media.

If Drudge puts out one of his rare bulletins before the media picks it up, you can take it to the bank he has his facts straight. I go to Drudge almost every day just to see what the news of the week is likely going to be plus he links such a wide variety of sources on his site its pretty easy to use those to get all points of view on just about any topic. Breitbart is another that does excellent research. I don't think I've ever caught them in a major error. You're safe going to Forbes, several other of the financial publications, and the WashingtonExaminer and Timesonline do a decent job.

Real Clear Politics also provides an excellent collection of current events from a wide variety of perspectives so you can get all sides of every issue.

There are lots of others, but all of these are usually credible sources.

 

[Sky Dancer]

"This Republican party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy",

US Rep Christopher Shays, R CT, (New York Times, 3/23/05)