[Travis]

Originally Posted by CallingTheKtulu

So, the Old Testament does not still apply then?

Of course it does. Paul is explaining the way it has always been--that all Israel is not God's Israel and its New Testament applications now that the Gentiles have been grafted in to true Israel. Read on and he gives the example of Jacob and Esau to support his claim that all Israel (Jews) are not Israel (God's chosen people).

[Jas de F]

Originally Posted by Rockboy

Listen. Are you aware of the killing fields in Iraq? The mass murders and rapes? The fear? The threat that Iraq might have WMDs? Iraq was a horrible regime under Saddam, and they were a threat to America

Listen.

Are you aware of the fact that 40 to 45 million unborn babies have been slaughtered in the U.S. in the past 31 years? These babies have been slaughtered with government approval, government funding, and oftentimes government encouragement.

You advocate military action against Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator who slaughtered various of his people. At the most, he was responsible for some 250,000 or so murders...and so you believe he had to go.

I've always believed in taking care of my own country's problems before I take care of those of other countries (which is one reason I give more money to missionaries inside the U.S. than I do to those in, say, Africa). For one thing, it's the old removing the log from your eye before you deal with the speck in your neighbor's eye thing.

Tell me...why do you think military action was justified to end legalized and government-funded murder in a country halfway around the world but you aren't advocating military action to end the incomprehensibly huge government-funded slaughter that takes place here in your own country.

[Drew Peterson]

Originally Posted by Rep Me

Listen.

Are you aware of the fact that 40 to 45 million unborn babies have been slaughtered in the U.S. in the past 31 years? These babies have been slaughtered with government approval, government funding, and oftentimes government encouragement.

You advocate military action against Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator who slaughtered various of his people. At the most, he was responsible for some 250,000 or so murders...and so you believe he had to go.

I've always believed in taking care of my own country's problems before I take care of those of other countries (which is one reason I give more money to missionaries inside the U.S. than I do to those in, say, Africa). For one thing, it's the old removing the log from your eye before you deal with the speck in your neighbor's eye thing.

Tell me...why do you think military action was justified to end legalized and government-funded murder in a country halfway around the world but you aren't advocating military action to end the incomprehensibly huge government-funded slaughter that takes place here in your own country.

Very true.

[H.M. Murdock]

Originally Posted by Rockboy

Ooooooooooohhhhh. More U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq than all the people dead from homicides in Rochester , NY last year too.
Listen. Are you aware of the killing fields in Iraq? The mass murders and rapes? The fear? The threat that Iraq might have WMDs? Iraq was a horrible regime under Saddam, and they were a threat to America

Hrmm... seems to be a misunderstanding. I was trying to say that more people die in DC per year than the operations in Iraq. I am aware of the killing fields, WMD threat, etc.

The soldiers all volunteered. They were aware of the risk, and they still joined the American military.

Um, if you don't support that statement, it can't be regarded as fact.

1: He is not an economist. Let's face it, if you're not an economist, then you will not be able to do anything advantageous for the economy on purpose. The complication of the American economical setup is enough to warrant a President all of its own.
2: He's Texan. What do they know about politics? But seriously, he is, as we have seen, a practical person. Politics require impracticality and great patience, which Bush does not have. This doesn't mean he's unfit for his office, it simply means he's not too bright about international politics, from what he has displayed.

I've always believed in taking care of my own country's problems before I take care of those of other countries (which is one reason I give more money to missionaries inside the U.S. than I do to those in, say, Africa). For one thing, it's the old removing the log from your eye before you deal with the speck in your neighbor's eye thing.

I agree. I think. The operations in Iraq were needed (they've been needed for quite a while now.), but it is possible to do something as small as that and still achieve things in the "homeland". I'm a pro-lifer, and believe abortion is wrong, any way you put it. But to ignore international threats just to deal with an issue isn't very smart.