Voters for Peace

[poncho]

To bad they haven't been living up to their oath and protecting the constituion of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. While our military is busy chasing foreign enemies our domestic enemies have wrapped themselves in our flag and are busy destroying our republic our constitution and our sovereignty with impunity.

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by poncho:
To bad they haven't been living up to their oath and protecting the constituion of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. While our military is busy chasing foreign enemies our domestic enemies have wrapped themselves in our flag and are busy destroying our republic our constitution and our sovereignty with impunity.

Yep, we should go after those as well but that's another story.

 

[poncho]

Doing the first duty (protecting the constitution) has been replaced by the later that's the real story.

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by poncho:
Doing the first duty (protecting the constitution) has been replaced by the later that's the real story.

"... I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic ... I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same ..."

It's all important!

 

[poncho]

A dilemma then, how can one do his first duty to protect and defend the constitution of the United States while doing his second duty following the orders of a POTUS that uses legislation, EXO's and helps to empower unelected international bodies that seek to undermine it?

 

[hillclimber]

Originally posted by KenH:
Jesus' kingdom already exists. It's called the church.

The U.S. has no business starting a war of aggression. Our military should only be used in self-defense of our nation.

Jesus' Kingdom is future, This age of grace is seperate, unprophecied and temporary. After it's mission is accomplished, the Kingdom will come.

And and our military IS only used in defense of our nation. You're still beating the wrong drum.

 

[hillclimber]

Originally posted by poncho:
To bad they haven't been living up to their oath and protecting the constituion of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. While our military is busy chasing foreign enemies our domestic enemies have wrapped themselves in our flag and are busy destroying our republic our constitution and our sovereignty with impunity.

Poncho, you are on their team and are a cheerleader.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by hillclimber:
Jesus' Kingdom is future, This age of grace is seperate, unprophecied and temporary. After it's mission is accomplished, the Kingdom will come.

Your position is not supported by Scripture, hillclimber.

Fortunately, our disagreement on this subject is irrelevant to being saved.

 

[hillclimber]

My position is totally supported in Scripture. You simply "choose" to ignore sound doctrine. I've seen it proclaimed here and you scoff. You choose not to search out these truths, so, if I'm right, you are not receiving the rich blessings of understanding. Rich and bounteous it is, and with this understanding comes soooo much.
Fortunately, our disagreement on this subject is irrelevant to being saved.
Are you sure? On what does your salvation depend?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by KenH:
Jesus' kingdom already exists. It's called the church.

The U.S. has no business starting a war of aggression. Our military should only be used in self-defense of our nation.

Honest question:

Where would you rather those wars of self-defense take place? Kirkuk... or Ken's house?

It is unrealistic with the technology of this day to think you can protect your populace without pre-emptive aggression against threats.

Now you may argue that we shouldn't do it anyway... but as harsh as this may sound, I would rather fight terrorists in their homelands than in ours.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Where would you rather those wars of self-defense take place? Kirkuk... or Ken's house?

Iraq was not a threat to the United States in March 2003.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by hillclimber:
You simply "choose" to ignore sound doctrine.

Ignoring your eschatology, hillclimber, certainly does not equate to ignoring sound doctrine. Ignoring your eschatology is to ignore false teaching.

I am trusting in the finished work of Christ Jesus on my behalf for salvation. How about you, hillclimber?

 

[hillclimber]

I guess your in then. Same here. I just wish you could see the WHOLE truth. At least more than you currently see.

 

[KenH]

I wish the same for you, brother. I haven't given up on you yet.

 

[hillclimber]

We are not in the millinial Kingdom, prophecied in olden days. We do not enjoy universal peace, where no weapons are needed. The lion isn't laying down beside the lamb. etc, etc. We are in God's universal Kingdom where Satan is still the god of the earth.

Our difficulties are a result of not seperating the prophecied Kingdom, with Christ as King, from the kingdom of today. The Kingdom foretold in prophecy is absolutely not in effect today. It was about to be installed at the end of Christs earthly life and the four gospels were introducing it. That Kingdom was rejected by the unbelief of Israel. It, the prophecied Kingdom, was set aside, and thankfully replaced by an UNPROPHECIED Kingdom in which we dwell today. It is the body of Christ.

Because of failure to rightly divide scripture, you are trying to drag promises given to Israel, into todays Church body, our kingdom today. We live in a totally unprophecied period where the apostle Paul received the progressive revelation for Body truth in this age of Grace. When you take prophetic scriptures and try to fit them into todays body church, great error results and confusion reigns.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Where would you rather those wars of self-defense take place? Kirkuk... or Ken's house?

Iraq was not a threat to the United States in March 2003. </font>[/QUOTE]That isn't what the Intelligence delivered to the President said. It said he had secret WMD's and a potential cooperative relationship with al Qaeda.

The later according to the latest information releases is probably more true than was previously thought.

We also know that Saddam was interested in sponsoring terrorism against the US by proxies.

However, what we now have is US Forces engaged with al Qaeda on the ground in Iraq. Is that better in your opinion than having al Qaeda engaged with the US populace on our own soil?

 

[saturneptune]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Where would you rather those wars of self-defense take place? Kirkuk... or Ken's house?

Iraq was not a threat to the United States in March 2003. </font>[/QUOTE]That isn't what the Intelligence delivered to the President said. It said he had secret WMD's and a potential cooperative relationship with al Qaeda.

The later according to the latest information releases is probably more true than was previously thought.

We also know that Saddam was interested in sponsoring terrorism against the US by proxies.

However, what we now have is US Forces engaged with al Qaeda on the ground in Iraq. Is that better in your opinion than having al Qaeda engaged with the US populace on our own soil? </font>[/QUOTE]Brought to you by the same people that brought you uncontrolled borders, record deficits, WMD's, NAFTA, arab control of ports, etc, etc, etc, stay tuned for the next exciting episode.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Is that better in your opinion than having al Qaeda engaged with the US populace on our own soil?

Since the Bush administration has refused to fulfill its constitutional duty to protect our borders how do you know that al Qaeda is not on our own soil?