wxzc iplzn spvji zrxta

wxzc iplzn spvji zrxta

wtzh

fqjtu

fqjtu

epja jvwsq sdgvi

epja jvwsq sdgvi

fuczgkd qsxwd gmvr

Michael Bertaut - but can you imagine anyone in Congress applying "What would Jesus do?"

Perhaps that is why we should heed “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21).

Of course, I use this expression in the context of the separation of church and state and that the laws of men prevail on earth, while God will meet out justice in the hereafter. I suspect you may not hold such an interpretation. Regardless, I'm much more concerned with the our own laws than with Gods.

To: Maurie Beck:

Good Point, when I posted that a "Pure" Christian was unelectable, I left that way too wide open for interpretation. I simply meant someone who doesn't just espouse Christianity in the pew, but who allows the teachings of Jesus to guide every action he takes, both in and out of office.

Not to sound trite, but can you imagine anyone in Congress appying "What would Jesus do?" effectively throughout the negotiations process to get other representatives lined up behind a favorite bill to benefit his home state? The deals and compromises would be undoable to that "Pure" Christian.

That's what I meant. Hope that helps...

KTF!...mrb

Link to Lamis Adoni's answer to postglobal's question:

"Militants holding Pakistan's Red Mosque vowed to fight to the death this week -- and many of them did. What is the attraction to martyrdom?"

End Occupation or Kill the Occupier?

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/lamis_andoni/2007/07/end_occupation_or_kill_the_occ.html

Professor Berlinerblau:

As a born-again, spirit-filled, Mennonite-member of a charismatic/evangelical/liturgical parish newly associated with The Church of Nigeria (Anglican), am I more receptive to believing a politician's "heartfelt" reversal of policy?

First of all, I tend to think of policy changes as having mind-change components as well as heart-change components. Three of the four components of comprehensive policy analysis (the concept that stuck with me from an introductory course in policy analysis) have to do with the mind and a fourth component has to do with the heart. Additional facts and/or additional consideration of the facts can lead a person (including a politician) to new descriptive, predictive and/or prescriptive conclusions. The change in heart would have its effect on normative conclusions.

As a personal example, two years after I was born again, I changed my mind about abortion. Upon becoming born-again, I had a heart change to value life. However, I was pro-choice because it seemed to me that life began at birth and I valued freedom as well as life. Then I read about the reraction of John the Baptist (prior to his birth) to the presence of Jesus (soon after his conception) and realized a new fact (life begins prior to birth). In this case, my policy change resulted from a new fact being considered in the descriptive analysis (a mind-based component) while the normative analysis (a heart-based component) hadn't changed.

Getting back to your question about receptivity, my born-again experience does make me more receptive to the possibility of a politician having a heartfelt reversal of policy. However, I also recognize that a politician could change his/her mind without a change in heart. Further descriptive analysis (understanding the facts), predictive analysis (modeling/simulating causes and effects), normative analysis (evaluating based on values) and prescriptive analysis (choosing effective courses of actions) could lead a politician to different policy conclusions even without a value change.

Of course, when you referred to "heartfelt", you might have simply meant that the politician was being sincere or emotional about the policy change. Among post-moderns and others, sincerity and having emotional content often is considered to give validity to a policy position. "If I feel strongly about something then it must be the right thing to do (and you shouldn't argue with me about it)." I don't particularly care how strongly someone feels about a position (that's not a major part of my normative analysis, even though it does figure into my prescriptive analysis of what actions to propose given the motives of other policy actors).

I hope that these thoughts add to the discussion.

Sincerely,
Neal Bliven
Hoya Temp

Oldhonkey,

"In high tech, a flipflop is an electronic device that changes its state back and forth -- up to a billion times in one second."

A billion times a second? I'm an old computer technician, and granted, I've been out of touch for a long time, but... a BILLION times a second? I think I need to see the documents on that.

Evangelical Christians are like sheep who believe their shepards can do no wrong. If Dobson says support Romney, they don't care if Romney is a nazi, Dobson said to support him and Dobson speaks for God. Look at their alliegence to Cheney. It doesn't matter what he does, God gave his puppet Bush to the world to bring on the final times. This is why they and the politicians they manipulate are such a danger to our democracy.

I think the thing with evangelicals is that they have been convinced, and then meticulously trained, to worship the concept of BELIEVING and be suspicious of the concept of THINKING. Once they believe, it is a badge of honor for them to continue to believe regardless how much refutation of their belief is presented. It's scary -- but it sure has worked for the GOP. How else do you explain "Christians" lined up behind war, torture, lies, criminal behavior, destruction of the environment, and politicians who are constantly caught with their zippers down while they espouse "family values." Give me old-fashined THINKING any old day. GOP cult-religionism has just about ruined this country.

ThinkAboutIt: Stop being redundant. Every single human being will be judged by God in Christ. And they will be judged by the way they judge others. God hears and writes down our thoughts so no one will get off the hook.

Actually, the Bible instructs us to judge people by their DEEDS, and not their words.

Flipflopping and hypocrisy are exactly what the Bible is referring to...

Is there no wonder so many Evangelical leaders do not emphasis the verse: "And ye shall know them by their fruits" to their flock???

Their "FRUITS" are a failed war in Iraq and a Right Wing President who lied to get us into it; horrific environmental degradation; massive deficits; and a social policy that favors the super rich and condemns the poor. All the Republican candidates I have seen (with the exception of the Libertarian from Texas) are following GW Bush down this path.

Oh, but we're supposed to judge them by their... words and not their deeds... they have probably reframed the Bible by now...

Will the flock even notice

Actually, the Bible instructs us to judge people by one's DEEDS, and not their words.

Flipflopping and hypocrisy are exactly what the Bible is referring to...

Is there no wonder so many Evangelical leaders do not emphasis the verse: "And ye shall know them by their fruits" to their flock???

Their "FRUITS" are a failed war in Iraq and a Right Wing President who lied to get us into it; horrific environmental degradation; massive deficits; and a social policy that favors the super rich and condemns the poor. All the Republican candidates I have seen (with the exception of the Libertarian from Texas) are following GW Bush down this path.

Oh, but we're supposed to judge them by their... words and not their deeds... they have probably reframed the Bible by now...

Will the flock even notice?

I live in the South, amongst a population thick w/ the Born Again experience. It is not an intellectual phenomenon, but a behavioral one, even psychological. A fantastic marketing scheme as well, given the manner in which it is applied by evangelicals to absolve serial sinners of personal error. The pastor/flock symbiosis amounts to a sanctified cop-out - they never have to evolve (perish the thought!) mature, and take responsibility - just keep getting reborn. Useful technique for manipulating citizens in our political culture, too. No wonder our nation's Founders insisted on the Establishment Clause. Too bad it didn't take.

Mike Bertaut:"I believe, as I posted yesterday in my "mediocrity" post, that no pure Christian is electable.

I hate to think what your definition of a "pure" Christian might be? God save us.

By the way, I'm sure your "pure" Christian is at least slightly more electable than an atheist or agnostic.

Bahnsen - Christians should be the group best able to sort truth from lies, but in today's world of apostate churches ignoring God's Word for satan's excrement, the church is usually easier to deceive than the average confused atheist or agnostic. At least the avowed atheist is not completely self-deceived.

My my my Miss Maggie, Satans excrement no less. I'm glad to hear that us confused atheists are not as likely as Christians to be completely self-deceived. How generous of you. Of course, your statement contradicts your first sentence about Christians being best able to sort truth from lies. I guess your point is that there are so many erroneous versions of apostate Christianity running around, each with its own truth claims, that an atheist can at least dismiss all of them as delusional, even the one that is the "truth", what ever that is. I wonder if you and Mark Bertaut share the same "one true faith" or whether you might eye each other as apostate and Satan's excrement?

By the way, I'm not an "avowed" atheist. I'm the real deal. I must say though, that I'm a god fearing atheist, because if I'm wrong (Pascal's wager), it's gonna get toasty.

What does an evangelical say when he has an orgasm inside a male hooker or a young child? Does he make the same type of remarks as Senator Mark Foley (Republican, Florida). "Hey Jeb! Got a ruler handy?" Or does he simply quote from the bible or The Passion of the Christ? Senator Vitter (R) has followed in the footsteps of many evangelical preachers. In fact when asked about his performance during Katrina, he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman.. Katrina. I have no recollection of screaming quotes from The Passion of the Christ while climaxing in her. Fredo (Republican, Texas) can vouch for my memory and he is the nation's chief law enforcement officer so he looks into a lot of Americans bedrooms (Democrats)."

The hazards of magical thinking: once you believe a silly thing, you are predisposed to believe ANY silly thing.

eGGhEAD Theology is what ruined this country. They are unaware of matters of the heart.

Well, I posted here yesterday I thought but it didn't make it up...

Is that because I linked to some other stuff not related to the thread? I'm cool with that.

The long and short of what I said is that many US Xtns have a theology that is very dualistic, in the Greg Boyd "Myth of a Christian Nation" sense. This tends to discourage them from building up strong/deeper disciplines for political deliberation/activism. It is this lack of discipline that is the problem, not the prominence of the concept of conversion in their theology. Though, no doubt such a concept is used to spin machiavellian shifts among politicians.

I think this tendency among US Xtns is more due to the historical form of Xty, which accomodated itself to the Enlightenment/Nationalism and what-not of its age in order to survive, that was predominant than anything intrinsic to Xty.
dlw

Yes, Repentence reminds you and those around you that you still need a Savior. FOREVER I NEED JESUS!

Skeptimal:

If the Holy Spirit is IN a Christian they will not CONTINUE to sin day after day week after week month after month year after year without change. Only the world thinks they are perfect. I haven't met a Born Again Christian yet who thinks they are. Repentence is the lifestyle of a Christian. The world doesn't think they have to repent.

"I believe, as I posted yesterday in my "mediocrity" post, that no pure Christian is electable. Our system forces too many compromises on them to hold their values closely and dearly. In fact, its a reflection on the electorate, that although claims to be mostly Christian, is not secure enough in their faith to preach it to others, let alone assure them that it is correct."

As this apostate nation now stands, I completely agree with you.

In regard to the original question posed in this blog, Christians should be the group best able to sort truth from lies, but in today's world of apostate churches ignoring God's Word for satan's excrement, the church is usually easier to deceive than the average confused atheist or agnostic. At least the avowed atheist is not completely self-deceived.

Here is the great need for politicians to flip to this time!
In science and business America is a great nation. But as a human society America is in serious decay.
Lack of self-discipline, responsibility and truthfulness is destroying American society and therefore the nation.
Someone else is always to blame for every single fault, large and small.
Truth is compromised by diverting the topic and ignoring the lack of truth.
You cannot have freedom without self-discipline, responsibility and truthfulness to others, to the nation and to your inner self.
American society is dying.
Again, FREEDOM IS IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT REASONABLE SELF_DISCIPLINE, RESPONSIBILITY,AND TRUTHFULNESS.
Yet we keep pushing freedoms in everything to the point of permissiveness, including violence, sex, corruption and lax treatment for criminals.
Yet at the same time we all refuse responsibility - everything is someone else's fault.
Yet at the same time we ignore lies promises, and corruption.
And at the same time we keep demanding less and less self-discipline less and less responsibility and less and less truthfulnees.
Politicians need to set an example for the people.
Science and intellect are great for discovering and talking but there is no doing, no action. WE need religion for action.
The only action now is concerning sex, violence, lies corruption etc. and they will never create a great nation.

Heythere said: "Being Born Again is NOT a change of mind. A Born Again Believer is one who has literally died and been created in Christ a NEW CREATURE."

He is a new creature, that is, until he "backslides," has an affair, steals from his company, lies to take a country to war, or whatever other offense. Then when he gets caught, he can flip-flop back to his "literal death and recreation" again and go on telling everyone else they should be punished if they don't obey rules he won't obey himself.

Give us a break, Heythere.

Karen: As he as stated, Romney changed his position on abortion back when he was a governor because of the debate regarding stem cell research. He saw the impact that Roe v. Wade had on the mentality of people regarding human life and that is why he changed his position. He had made a campaign promise not to change the status quo before that epiphany, and to keep his word to the people who voted him in, did not push a pro-life agenda until his term had run-out. That is a pretty good showing of integrity if you ask me.

Heythere: Despite the nickname Mormon's have been given, the name of their church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. In all of their services and teachings, everything is done in the name of Jesus Christ, never in the name of Mormon, Joseph Smith, Gordon Hinckley or anyone else. Get to know the Mormons and you might be surprised at the things you "know" they believe.

What religion is a president who claims the path to a lasting peace is war or the path to a democracy neccesitates war if needed. Its certainly not the
Christianity I know and love and that which I received from Jesus the King of Peace.

But the operative phrase the Lord Jesus used was, "In My Name." Mitt Romney cannot do anything is Jesus Name. He does everything in the Mormon name as the Catholics do everything in the Pope's name ect. And literally casting out demons as they did then (not like the moneygrubbers of today) was an act of power. A recognition of the Authority of the Name of Jesus that even the spirit world HAD to obey. Not simply doing a good for the goods sake. The verse you are trying to use has no validity in this discussion ESPECIALLY regarding Romney.

DCWill: no I don't think that someone has to leave the political arena for three years to be believed on a change of mind but in the case of Romney, how can we not be skeptical given the circumstances of his "change of heart"?
If a politician changes his/her stand on something based on a change in knwoledge or new facts emerging or even a religious conversion, I can totally understand that. But in the case of Romney, he was a devout mormon before and after and no new facts have emerged about abortion. Hence the credibility problem in my opinion.

Doesn't Mark 9:39 teach us that we can at least acknowledge good done by people who are not of our same faith?

Not in the name of religion. What does light have in common with darkness? "If the light in you be darkness HOW GREAT IS THAT DARKNESS!" The Lord Jesus said that.

In high tech, a flipflop is an electronic device that changes its state back and forth -- up to a billion times in one second. Even Mitt Romney is not quite there yet.

Is there not any kind of happy medium, between sticking to your so-called convictions forever in the face of overwhelming negative evidence (W), and repeatedly changing your whole political act based on what the polls say about your constituents (Mitt Romney)?

Because someone who is Born Again can't respect another person's accomplishments, qualifications and ideas because of their religion?

Being Born Again is NOT a change of mind. A Born Again Believer is one who has literally died and been created in Christ a NEW CREATURE. I know it to be true. I can't explain it to a non believer only that they can experience it too. Romans 10.9-10. So the article's writer using the Born Again experience to ask the question, "Can Mitt Romney be believed?" is based on a false premise. Mitt Romney is a Mormon. True Born Again Christians CANNOT seperate his Mormonism from their acceptance of him on any subject. To do so is a worse hypocricy than the abortion issue.

Karen:

So you are saying that you would rather a politician remove themselves from the political arena for more than 3 years, then change a position, then wait another undisclosed amount of time before rejoining the political process to have experienced a genuine change? Or would you rather they change but not tell anyone until after the election has happened?

I would just like to know exactly how a politician can go about changing how they feel on an issue without being a politically expedient flip-flopper.

Talleyrand said that politics is the art of lying. That pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?

As a christian, I do believe that change can happen and be genuine. I also very much want our elected leaders to change their opinions based on fact (sorely lacking in current administration as it would rather change the facts). But when the changes always happen at the eve of an election, I would be a fool not to question them. Romney may have flipped but not flopped but he has flipped too many times in too few years and too close to election time for any suggestion of genuine change.

I think the born-again Christians will accept a change in policy, as long as it is a change by a person of faith and it is a change in the "right" direction. Giuliani, not known for being religious, wouldn't be believed as easily.

Also, if Romney or the other religion candidates suddenly took a left-leaning position on an issue like abortion or gay rights, they'd be be accused of apostasy.

What is infuriating, however, is the hypocrisy when it comes to flip-flops in a politician's personal life. Christians will accept multiple affairs and crimes from Republican politicians like Gingrich, DeLay, Vitter and the rest as long as they repent afterward and speak the right religious words. Odd that this same forgiveness isn't extended to a Baptist Democrat, Bill Clinton.

I find it amusing that the term, "flip-flopper" is being applied to Romney. While it is true that he has changed positions on some stances, he has not then changed back to previously held positions.

By definition a flip-flop means a change and a return, something which has not happened with Romney.

I also find it interesting that people, politicians especially, are not allowed to change their opinion on anything otherwise this label is applied to them. I would much rather have a person who is willing to constantly evaluate his/her own ideas, instead of stubbornly holding to beliefs thought to be perfect and correct.

People accuse President Bush of refusing to change his views or listen to anyone on his policies, yet at the exact same time criticize Mitt Romney for for changing an opinion and stance because of later information and more experience.

Which is it you want? We could actually listen to what others say instead of just assuming we know why they are acting the way they are.

I find it amusing that the term, "flip-flopper" is being applied to Romney. While it is true that he has changed positions on some stances, he has not then changed back to previously held positions.

By definition a flip-flop means a change and a return, something which has not happened with Romney.

I also find it interesting that people, politicians especially, are not allowed to change their opinion on anything otherwise this label is applied to them. I would much rather have a person who is willing to constantly evaluate his/her own ideas, instead of stubbornly holding to beliefs thought to be perfect and correct.

People accuse President Bush of refusing to change his views or listen to anyone on his policies, yet at the exact same time criticize Mitt Romney for for changing an opinion and stance because of later information and more experience.

Which is it you want? We could actually listen to what others say instead of just assuming we know why they are acting the way they are.

I believe that Xians are pre-disposed to taking myth as fact. They do so with their faith, which is based on supernatural beliefs (magic, if you will) and the lives of legendary (ie: non-historical) Biblical personages. In this country, they do so with their politics as well...though I've never understood why so many Xians habitually side with the anti-humanitarian platform of the Republics while railing against the share-the-wealth policies of the Dems.

I have a difficult time believing that the Biblical Jesus would have anything but contempt for today's Republic Party and its policies.

So, yes, the born-agains will buy Romney's flip-flops lock, sock and barrel. A leopard doesn't change its spots.

There are two sides of this coin that vary based on how you define the term "representative democracy".

1. Some of our elected representatives believe that their job is to represent the best interests of their constituency. By this rationale, their "flip flopping" is expected as the needs/wants of the voters shift.

2. Some (most) of our representatives believe that they were elected because of what they believe in and their election is essentially a blank check - wholesale permission to vote their conscience. In this situation, "flip flopping" is dangerous because it violates the unwritten contract between the voters and the elected official.

The flaw here is that neither option 1 or option 2 are adequately suited to meet the needs of such a large government structure. George Bush is an excellent example of option 2. Even though the vast majority of the population disagree with his positions, he insists on pursuing his own agenda.

What this situation recognizes is the need to make an adjustment to our electoral process. In the past, option 2 worked great when a significant number of voters were uneducated, uninformed, and uninterested in the issues of the day. Today, this situation is very different and the system should be updated to reflect it.

What an ironic turn of phrase:

"Are evangelical voters more likely to accept Romney’s change as genuine, as Pauline in its sincerity? "

Having recently read the Book of Mormon (and I thought the Christian Bible had some hard to believe stuff in it!) one should note that there is no reference to St. Paul or any of his letters in it that I could recall. Odd, isn't it?

I do consider myself a Christian Orthodox, but more in the Anglo-Catholic than Protestant-Evangelical sense, and I can say definitively that I do think that Romney genuinely flipped and flopped based on what he needed to do to get elected. The fallacy of the current argument is that he actually held the original positions to heart in the first place.

It may very well be that he adopted his pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage stance to get elected in Mass. Now that the stage has changed, the lines of the play must change as well. It pays to know one's audience.

I believe, as I posted yesterday in my "mediocrity" post, that no pure Christian is electable. Our system forces too many compromises on them to hold their values closely and dearly. In fact, its a reflection on the electorate, that although claims to be mostly Christian, is not secure enough in their faith to preach it to others, let alone assure them that it is correct.

So in effect, your cynicism is important for your job, well placed, and shared by me.

KTF!....mrb

"most conspicuous and widely discussed flip flop of this election season is probably that of former Massachusetts governor, W. Mitt Romney"

Correction: Romney has flipped -not flopped..