Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

A question for all you McCain supporters...

Status
Not open for further replies.
the posts for McCain are strong valid points. Now short reasons why I plan to vote republican.
1. I will never vote for someone that has never served for are great country! The word is "our", not are! Look it up! BTW, Bush never served OUR great country either...did ya vote for him?
2. Obama wants us to leave war in iraq an go to afghanistan the day he hits office. You think gas prices are bad now watch what effect this has! citation please? Obama simply said we were attacked by Al Queda and Bin Laden, not Iraq (truth!) and that we need to find THEM!
3. I agree that we need to move back to afghanistan but the timeline planed by McCain seems to be more intelligent. McCain stated we may be in Iraq for another 100 years....some timeline! He also said the draft may be needed again! You want to be drafted? I dont want my kids drafted when they come of age.
4. Does anyone know who Obama worships? Why don't you look that up. Yeah, he goes to a UCC church. United Church of Christ = Christian. They have a great commercial out now using the finger saying "Here is the steeple and here is the church, look inside and see ALL the people!" Yes, church should be open to ALL.
5. Obama`s VP choice told McCain he wished to run with him. Maybe he'd do anything to get that VP slot but still worth looking into.
6. McCain has already been I a very high position. He knows that gas problems are not the focus. If we don`t take control now of the housing and business market we will hit the next great depression. The bailout should go only to the plan. Don`t touch it. Obviously, you dont know a darn thing about McSame. He nearly lead us down this road before with his good friend and crook, Charles Keating. In March of this year, McCain stated AGAIN that DEREGULATION was the key to turning around the economy. Without regulations and regulators, the corrupt CEOs suck our money away and we, the tax payers, pay out BILLIONS on the recovery/bailout. Look at the Keating Five video (13 mins long) to learn the truth behind that mess. McCain was squarely in the middle!
7. McCain wants to add to the bailout giveing more money to the plan. Who will pay for this EXTRA 300B ?? US! The only way to do that is to raise taxes, which the GOP lies to you, saying they wont raise taxes. Remember Bush I..."read my lips, no new taxes" What did he do? He raised the OLD taxes. HAHA gotcha!

Well I could go on but I don`t like to attack the defenceless.
Defenseless = Palin

Really folks, you ALL should watch the Keating Five video. History is repeating itself with the bailout situation and McCain is smack dab in the middle of both episodes. McCain has no plan!

http://mccainkeatingfive.com/?p=33


Keith
 
I don't know if Johnny covered this or not but the Democrats are trying to lift the ban on Partial Birth Abortion.

If you don't know what that is, look it up, it's basically murder.
 
Like jkwarrior, I am pretty much a one-issue voter. But while his is the right-to-life, mine is the right to keep and bear arms. In my opinion, an armed citizenry is the final check on a tyrannical government, the final defense against oppression. It is also a fundamental tenet of my self-sufficient mindset, in that I do not rely on the government to protect me on the individual level, similar to how I do not rely on the government to provide my health care coverage. Senator Obama began his politic ascension in Chicago, one of the USA's hotbeds of gun control, and has the anti-2nd amendment voting record to show it. Senator McCain, while certainly not my first choice for president, is a decorated war hero with a solid pro-2nd amendment voting record.

My cold, dead hands.

S.

http://www.gunowners.org/mcgungrab.htm

John McCain Is A Liberal Gun Grabber

by
Pastor Chuck Baldwin
As published at NewsWithViews

The last thing we need is another liberal neocon in the White House. If the Presidency of George W. Bush proved anything, it proved the hazard of electing phony Republican conservatives. At least one is able to clearly see a liberal for what he or she is when they have a "D" behind their name. But put an "R" behind the name and suddenly their liberal, Big-Government, anti-freedom agenda is barely recognized, which makes a liberal Republican much more dangerous than a liberal Democrat.

Let me say it straight out: a John McCain Presidency would be far worse than a Barack Obama Presidency. With a Democrat in the White House, conservatives and Christians suddenly find their principles and are able to offer resistance. Put a Republican in the Oval Office, however, and those same people become blind, deaf, and dumb to most any principle they profess.

Nowhere is McCain's chicanery and duplicity more jeopardous than in the area of the right to keep and bear arms. On issues relating to the Second Amendment, John McCain is a disaster! For example, the highly respected Gun Owners of America (GOA) rates McCain with a grade of F-. McCain's failing grade is well deserved.

John McCain sponsored an amendment to S. 1805 on March 2, 2004 that would outlaw the private sale of firearms at gun shows. According to GOA, the provision would effectively eliminate gun shows, because every member of an organization sponsoring a gun show could be imprisoned if the organization fails to notify each and every "person who attends the special firearms event of the requirements [under the Brady Law]."

John McCain also sponsored an Incumbent Protection provision to the so-called "Campaign Finance Reform" bill, which severely curtails the ability of outside groups (such as GOA) to communicate the actions of incumbent politicians to members and supporters prior to an election.

The GOA report of the 106th Congress reveals that out of 15 votes relating to the right to keep and bear arms, Senator John McCain voted favorably only 4 times. Put that into a percentage and McCain's pro-Second Amendment voting record is a pathetic 27%.

In addition, GOA warns that John McCain supported legislation that would force federal agents to increase efforts in arresting and convicting honest gun owners who may inadvertently violate one of the many federal anti-gun laws, which punish mere technicalities, such as gun possession.

For example, if John McCain's proposed legislation were to become law, a gun owner who travels with a gun through a school zone or who uses one of the family handguns to go target shooting with a 15-year old could be sent to prison. And a person who uses a gun for self-defense could be sent to prison for a mandatory minimum of five years.

But there is so much more to the McCain madness.

Former California State Senator H.L. "Bill" Richardson wrote this about John McCain, "He's [McCain's] proven his dislike for conservatives and would gut us at every opportunity.

"Why do I say that? Because of three decades of experience as a Republican California Senator and a fifty year activist in the conservative movement. I have first hand, in-their-face experience with elitist RINO's (Republican in Name Only) office holders. They are biblically ignorant, power hungry, status seeking egotists who have no difficulty aiding their liberal Democrat colleagues whenever their arms are politely twisted. The one thing they have in common with liberal Democrats is their dislike for all conservatives, especially those who are Bible-believing. McCain, as president, would stifle the voices of elected Republican leaders and try to legislate the conservative movement out of existence."

Senator Richardson went on to say that he would in no way vote for John McCain, if indeed McCain is the Republican nominee (which he obviously will be).

I wonder how many gun owners and other professing pro-freedom Americans have already fallen victim to McCain's phony conservative campaign? Do they not realize that they are giving a rope to the hangman? And that they--conservatives and gun owners--are the ones who McCain will send to the gallows? What is wrong with the American people these days? Have they not been betrayed enough by these phony conservative Republicans?

For example, President George W. Bush recently nominated Michael Sullivan to be Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Sullivan is one of the nation's most rabid anti-gunners. GOA's Larry Pratt describes Sullivan as being "as anti-gun as Ted Kennedy." Honest gun owners, lawful firearms dealers, and law-abiding gun show operators could have no worse enemy within the federal government than Michael Sullivan. We could expect no worse from Hillary Clinton. And a John McCain Presidency would doubtless give us more of the same.

Regarding the Second Amendment, the American people have no better friend than Ron Paul. He has a 20-year proven track record of fidelity to the right to keep and bear arms. The GOA rates Congressman Paul with a grade of A+. According to GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt, Ron Paul has been a leader in the fight to defend and restore the Second Amendment. He has sponsored legislation to repeal the following: the Brady law; the requirement to lock up your guns; the law permitting the U.S. to be part of the U.N (which, among other attacks on American freedoms, seeks to ban privately transferred firearms); participation in UNESCO; federal prohibitions on any pilot wishing to carry a handgun to and in his cockpit; and the so-called "assault weapons" ban (prior to its sunsetting in 2004).

Ron Paul has also sponsored legislation requiring states to treat the concealed carry permit of one state the same as they do that state's driver's license. Dr. Paul also opposes a national ID card, which would be a tool of government to identify gun ownership.

Gun owners (along with conservatives and Christians of all sorts) should be ashamed of themselves for allowing an angry, gun-grabbing liberal such as John McCain to become the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee, while rejecting the candidacy of one of America's most principled pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-Constitution, and pro-freedom legislators of this generation: Congressman Ron Paul.

I say again, the last thing we need is another liberal neocon in the White House. John McCain may have an "R" behind his name, but he is just another establishment liberal: one America cannot afford.



Spotter, like any intelligent voter, you've actually researched the one issue that matters to you, and you found this site http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm and you read not just the article above, but the other dozen or so related to McCain and Gun Ownership. You've been to the other sites that scream for McCain's head after he backstabbed the NRA in Arizona over Gun Shows and advocacy restrictions.

My step-father, a Yuma, AZ gun collector a Federal Firearms License holder and dealer, hates McCain with a passion.

He votes Libertarian, because that party are strict constitutionalists, including unwavering and unconditional support of the second amendment...unlike McCain who has flip-flopped on gun issues for political expediency and gain when it has suited him in his career.



Same site, different article


John McCain's Gun Control Problem
by John Velleco
Director of Federal Affairs

In 2000, Andrew McKelvey, the billionaire founder of monster.com, threw a sizable chunk of his fortune into the gun control debate.

It was shortly after the Columbine school shooting. Bill Clinton was in the White House and gun control was daily front-page news. McKelvey wanted in.

He started out contributing to Handgun Control Inc., which had since been renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. But while he agreed with their gun banning goals, McKelvey thought the way they packaged their message was too polarizing.

"I told them that Handgun Control was the wrong name. I thought what they were doing was great but I thought it could be done differently," McKelvey said.

So McKelvey struck out on his own and formed Americans for Gun Safety. Although AGS shared almost identical public policy goals as other anti-gun groups, McKelvey portrayed the group as in the 'middle' on the issue and attempted to lure pro-gun advocates into his fold.

To pull it off, he needed a bipartisan coalition with credibility on both sides of the gun debate. On the anti-gun side, the task was easy. Most of the Democrats and a small but vocal minority of Republicans supported President Clinton's gun control agenda.

Finding someone who could stake a claim as a pro-gunner and yet be willing to join McKelvey was not so easy. Enter Senator John McCain.

McCain's star was already falling with conservatives. He had carved out a niche as a 'maverick' as the author of so-called Campaign Finance Reform (more aptly named the incumbent protection act), which was anathema to conservatives but made him a darling of the mainstream media.

Gun owners were outraged over CFR, but McCain still maintained some credibility on the gun issue.

Earlier in his career, McCain had voted against the Clinton crime bill (which contained a ban on so-called assault weapons), and he did not join the 16 Senate Republicans who voted for the Brady bill, which required a five-day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun.

But as he ramped up for his presidential run in 2000, McCain, expanding on the 'maverick' theme, staked out a position on guns far to the left of his primary opponent, George W. Bush.

McCain began speaking out against small, inexpensive handguns and he entertained the idea of supporting the 'assault weapons' ban. His flirtation with anti-Second Amendment legislation quickly led to a political marriage of convenience with McKelvey.

Within months of the formation of AGS, McCain was featured in radio and television ads in Colorado and Oregon supporting initiatives to severely regulate gun shows and register gun buyers. Anti-gunners were ecstatic to get McCain on board.

Political consultant Scott Reed, who managed Bob Dole's presidential campaign in 1996, hoped McCain would "bring a conservative perspective to the gun debate."

The ads not only pushed the anti-gun show measure in those two states, they also served to undermine the efforts of gun rights activists who were furiously lobbying against the same type of bill in Congress.

"I think that if the Congress won't act, the least I can do is support the initiative in states where it's on the ballot," McCain said in an interview.

At the time still a newcomer to the gun control debate, McCain said, "I do believe my view has evolved."

McCain continued to pursue his anti-gun agenda even after his presidential run ended, and the next year he and McKelvey made it to the big screen.

As moviegoers flocked to see Pearl Harbor, they were treated to an anti-gun trailer ad featuring McCain. This time the Senator was pushing legislation to force people to keep firearms locked up in the home.

"We owe it to our children to be responsible by keeping our guns locked up," McCain told viewers.

Economist and author John Lott, Jr., noted, "No mention was ever made by McCain about using guns for self-defense or that gunlocks might make it difficult to stop intruders who break into your home. And research indicates that McCain's push for gunlocks is far more likely to lead to more deaths than it saves."

Also in 2001, McCain went from being a supporter of anti-gun bills to being a lead sponsor.

Pro-gun allies in Congress who were holding off gun show legislation -- which would at best register gun owners and at worst close down the shows entirely -- were angered when McCain teamed up with Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and introduced a "compromise" bill to give the issue momentum.

"There is a lot of frustration. He has got his own agenda," one Republican Senator told Roll Call.

After September 11, 2001, McKelvey and McCain, now joined by Lieberman, had a new angle to push gun control.

"Terrorists are exploiting the gun show loophole," AGS ads hyped. McCain and Lieberman hit the airwaves again in a series of radio and TV spots, thanks to McKelvey's multi-million dollar investment.

A Cox News Service article noted that, "The ads first focused on gun safety but switched to terrorism after Sept. 11. Americans for Gun Safety said the switch is legitimate."

However, Second Amendment expert Dave Kopel pointed out that, "the McCain-Lieberman bill is loaded with poison pills which would allow a single appointed official to prevent any gun show, anywhere in the United States from operating."

Ultimately, the anti-gun legislation was killed in the Congress and AGS fizzled out and disappeared altogether. The issues for which McKelvey spent over $10 million are still in play, however, and John McCain remains a supporter of those causes. In fact, as recently as 2004, McCain was able to force a vote on a gun show amendment.

In the post-Columbine and post-9/11 environments, the Second Amendment was under attack as never before. Pro-gun patriotic Americans who stood as a bulwark to keep the Congress from eviscerating the Constitution were dismayed to look across the battle lines only to see Senator McCain working with the enemy.

John McCain tried running for president in 2000 as an anti-gunner. This year it appears he is seeking to "come home" to the pro-gun community, but the wounds are deep and memories long.
 
Defenseless = Palin

Really folks, you ALL should watch the Keating Five video. History is repeating itself with the bailout situation and McCain is smack dab in the middle of both episodes. McCain has no plan!

http://mccainkeatingfive.com/?p=33


Keith

Yes I'm glad you oppose me law man now that some one is doing that I'm gonna swing back.

the posts for McCain are strong valid points. Now short reasons why I plan to vote republican.
1. I will never vote for someone that has never served for are great country! The word is "our", not are! Look it up! BTW, Bush never served OUR great country either...did ya vote for him?No! I didn't vote bush! What does that have to do with the argument.

2. Obama wants us to leave war in iraq an go to afghanistan the day he hits office. You think gas prices are bad now watch what effect this has! citation please? Obama simply said we were attacked by Al Queda and Bin Laden, not Iraq (truth!) and that we need to find THEM!Who just announces who we are going to attack and when this can make us look like a tyrant to other countrys.

3. I agree that we need to move back to afghanistan but the timeline planed by McCain seems to be more intelligent. McCain stated we may be in Iraq for another 100 years....some timeline! He also said the draft may be needed again! You want to be drafted? I dont want my kids drafted when they come of age. McCain stated this in therory. Obama said last night in the new debate that he wants to go back to afghanistan and "find people however we must to fight." To me that is the draft so your voting for the draft with him. I've listened to the debates and all the arguments before you decided on Obama. McCain never mentioned a draft. How does it feel now that i twisted Obama's words not good is it?

4. Does anyone know who Obama worships? Why don't you look that up. Yeah, he goes to a UCC church. United Church of Christ = Christian. They have a great commercial out now using the finger saying "Here is the steeple and here is the church, look inside and see ALL the people!" Yes, church should be open to ALL.Senator Obama lived in Indonesia from the ages of 6 to 10. Senator Obama practiced Islam daily at Meteng Primary school, where he was registered as a Muslim.

5. Obama`s VP choice told McCain he wished to run with him. Maybe he'd do anything to get that VP slot but still worth looking into.Wow you didn't argue this one!

6. McCain has already been I a very high position. He knows that gas problems are not the focus. If we don`t take control now of the housing and business market we will hit the next great depression. The bailout should go only to the plan. Don`t touch it. Obviously, you dont know a darn thing about McSame. He nearly lead us down this road before with his good friend and crook, Charles Keating. In March of this year, McCain stated AGAIN that DEREGULATION was the key to turning around the economy. Without regulations and regulators, the corrupt CEOs suck our money away and we, the tax payers, pay out BILLIONS on the recovery/bailout. Look at the Keating Five video (13 mins long) to learn the truth behind that mess. McCain was squarely in the middle!You didn't touch the last one so I'll be a nice guy and give you this one. I'll come back to it if I have to.

7. McCain wants to add to the bailout giveing more money to the plan. Who will pay for this EXTRA 300B ?? US! The only way to do that is to raise taxes, which the GOP lies to you, saying they wont raise taxes. Remember Bush I..."read my lips, no new taxes" What did he do? He raised the OLD taxes. HAHA gotcha!I didn't vote Bush and research the plan if you need to know where the bailout money comes from.



New strikes
8. Obama voted 94 times for tax increase. (that's where the money came from)
9.McCain believes in creating more job and solving are energy problem by reopening nuclear plants and switching for that source.
10. Obama wants to pour more money into researching fossil fuels. He voted for it!
11. Obama still refuses to understand why we are in Iraq.
12. Obama makes blunt threats against other countrys! He is a tyrant!.
13. Oh this was a favorite last night if anyone seen the debate watch how many times Obama said "I agree with McCain."
14. Obama wants to fine you for not haveing his heath care. Last night this was presented to him again and he ignored the question.

There is 7 more plus a hit on the old topics.
Pokedad I will have to read yours after work i respect you and want to give your argument my full attention.
 
Last edited:
4. Does anyone know who Obama worships? Why don't you look that up.

Are you afraid of having a president with a different faith than you?

If it was even true, and this was debunked before he even was the presidential nominee, Obama is a Christian. I can't stand people who think he's a different religion just because of his name.

I hope you know that Islam is extremely similar to Christianity.
 
I like this topic. It reminds me of why I supported McCain back in 2000.


4. Does anyone know who Obama worships? Why don't you look that up. Yeah, he goes to a UCC church. United Church of Christ = Christian. They have a great commercial out now using the finger saying "Here is the steeple and here is the church, look inside and see ALL the people!" Yes, church should be open to ALL.Senator Obama lived in Indonesia from the ages of 6 to 10. Senator Obama practiced Islam daily at Meteng Primary school, where he was registered as a Muslim.

Please note that this is false. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

Supporting McCain is good. Repeating false info is bad.
 
Are you afraid of having a president with a different faith than you?

If it was even true, and this was debunked before he even was the presidential nominee, Obama is a Christian. I can't stand people who think he's a different religion just because of his name.

I hope you know that Islam is extremely similar to Christianity.

"I hope you know that Islam is extremely similar to Christianity"
No it isn't. Christians don't believe in going to heaven if they die in battle for God.
They also don't have rigid dress codes for women and a total controlling society.

Now Christians Have done some bad stuff ect, crusades for example..
But True Christianity and True Islam are very different.

BTW Omaba isn't a Christian. Or atleast isn't a Born Again Christian.
Sheesh
 
"I hope you know that Islam is extremely similar to Christianity"
No it isn't. Christians don't believe in going to heaven if they die in battle for God.
They also don't have rigid dress codes for women and a total controlling society.

Now Christians Have done some bad stuff ect, crusades for example..
But True Christianity and True Islam are very different.

BTW Omaba isn't a Christian. Or atleast isn't a Born Again Christian.
Sheesh

Tina: I am a Christian and have been since I was BORN. DO I have to be "reborn again" to still be a Christian??? :confused: Likewise, Barack has stated he is a Christian, attends a Christian based Church (UCC). What more does he have to do????

Bruggy: You have been debunked already on the "muslim" issue. Barack has not and never was a muslim. Sorry to bust your bubble there bub.

"Did Obama's mother go on to marry another Muslim named Lolo Soetoro who "educated his stepson as a good Muslim by enrolling him in one of Jakarta's Wahabbi schools?"

Yes and no. When Obama's mother remarried, it was indeed to an Indonesian man named Lolo Soetoro, whom his stepson describes as a "non-practicing" Muslim. But it was his "secular" mother who supervised his education, Obama has written, sending him to both Catholic and Muslim primary schools after the family moved to Jakarta. There is nothing on record to indicate Obama attended a madrassa (Muslim religious school) run by Wahabbists, and in any case it's unlikely his mother would have chosen to expose him to such an extreme form of Islam given her stated abhorrence of religious closed-mindedness and her stated goal of giving him a well-rounded education, including in matters of faith.

(Update: CNN has tracked down the school in question, the Basuki School in Jakarta, which a deputy headmaster described as a "public school" with no particular religious agenda. "In our daily lives, we try to respect religion, but we don't give preferential treatment," he told CNN. A classmate of Obama's described the school as "general," with students of many religious backgrounds attending. Obama entered the school at the age of 8 and attended for two years.)"

Source is About.com: Urban legends.

Keith
 
@ Pokedad re: post #17: LOL, That wasn't very nice. :)

Just to clear up any questions about the Keating five issue...

Robert Bennet, The Senate Ethics Committee lawyer who investigated McCain said in February on Hannity & Colmes:

"First, I should tell your listeners I'm a registered Democrat, so I'm not on (McCain's) side of a lot of issues. But I investigated John McCain for a year and a half, at least, when I was special counsel to the Senate Ethics Committee in the Keating Five. ... And if there is one thing I am absolutely confident of, it is John McCain is an honest man. I recommended to the Senate Ethics Committee that he be cut out of the case, that there was no evidence against him."
 
"I hope you know that Islam is extremely similar to Christianity"
No it isn't. Christians don't believe in going to heaven if they die in battle for God.
They also don't have rigid dress codes for women and a total controlling society.

Now Christians Have done some bad stuff ect, crusades for example..
But True Christianity and True Islam are very different.

BTW Omaba isn't a Christian. Or atleast isn't a Born Again Christian.
Sheesh

So all Christians must be "born-again" Christians to be considered Christian? lol.

I'm not "born again" and I consider myself very Christian. I'm not going to get into the whole "born again" thing but let's just say I think it's a load of bs.

BTW Islam is very similar to Christianity. They both believe in a prophet being sent down to speak the word of God (Mohammed = Jesus). They also have similar social ideologies (treat thy neighbor like thyself, etc.). Both are considered very much Western religions. The dress code thing is just one aspect of the religion.
 
Why does someone have to be a Christian to run for President? It's like people are saying that someone can't be a good person if they aren't Christian. :/
 
So all Christians must be "born-again" Christians to be considered Christian? lol.

I'm not "born again" and I consider myself very Christian. I'm not going to get into the whole "born again" thing but let's just say I think it's a load of bs.

BTW Islam is very similar to Christianity. They both believe in a prophet being sent down to speak the word of God (Mohammed = Jesus). They also have similar social ideologies (treat thy neighbor like thyself, etc.). Both are considered very much Western religions. The dress code thing is just one aspect of the religion.



???

I HOPE you weren't saying that Mohammed and Jesus were the same person.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

Why does someone have to be a Christian to run for President? It's like people are saying that someone can't be a good person if they aren't Christian. :/

There is no legal litmus test, but someone's faith is a good indicator of someone's values. When that faith is the same as that of the majority of the population, it is generally indicative that said person's values are the same as that of the majority of the population's values. I worded that strangely, but you understand.
 
Last edited:
I hope you know that Islam is extremely similar to Christianity.

That is so wrong it makes me cry.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

They both believe in a prophet being sent down to speak the word of God (Mohammed = Jesus). They also have similar social ideologies (treat thy neighbor like thyself, etc.). Both are considered very much Western religions. The dress code thing is just one aspect of the religion.

So because there are a few similarities, it means they are "extremely similar"?

Muslim = Western Religion? And here i was sitting, thinking that it was widely spread in Asia. (and not in the West)

Dude, Christianity is so much bigger in the West.
 
Last edited:
Yes I'm glad you oppose me law man now that some one is doing that I'm gonna swing back.

the posts for McCain are strong valid points. Now short reasons why I plan to vote republican.
1. I will never vote for someone that has never served for are great country! The word is "our", not are! Look it up! BTW, Bush never served OUR great country either...did ya vote for him?No! I didn't vote bush! What does that have to do with the argument.

In an election where no candidate served in the military, Clinton vs. Palin in 2016 as a possible example, you would not vote? I served in the military, 4 years, honorably discharged after serving as a ROK trained Ranger, Air Assault qualified, Infantry Sergeant in the most forward deployed Infantry Battalion in the US Army with Top Secret Compartmentalized security clearance, having briefed both the Army Chief of Staff General John Wickham and Chairman of the Armed Services Committee Senator Strom Thurmond. I as a military veteran who served with distinction support Senator Obama, he has, in my opinion, a better understanding of the concept of mission accomplishment and welfare of the troops than Senator McCain. McCain voted against funding to provide our troops with body armor, voted against increased veteran health care, and voted against the new GI Bill..

2. Obama wants us to leave war in iraq an go to afghanistan the day he hits office. You think gas prices are bad now watch what effect this has! citation please? Obama simply said we were attacked by Al Queda and Bin Laden, not Iraq (truth!) and that we need to find THEM!Who just announces who we are going to attack and when this can make us look like a tyrant to other countrys.

Sen. Obama hasn't called for the US miliary to pull out of Irag the day he takes office, he is advocating a phased pullout that will draw down troop numbers over at least 16 months. Sen. Obama does advocate that we refocus our military focus on Afghanistan, the real front on the war on terror; the shift in priorities being in line with the opinion of a majority of Americans will occur as troops are drawn down in Iraq.



3. I agree that we need to move back to afghanistan but the timeline planed by McCain seems to be more intelligent. McCain stated we may be in Iraq for another 100 years....some timeline! He also said the draft may be needed again! You want to be drafted? I dont want my kids drafted when they come of age. McCain stated this in therory. Obama said last night in the new debate that he wants to go back to afghanistan and "find people however we must to fight." To me that is the draft so your voting for the draft with him. I've listened to the debates and all the arguments before you decided on Obama. McCain never mentioned a draft. How does it feel now that i twisted Obama's words not good is it?

Sen. McCain has steadfastly refused to offer any timeline, either for our exit from Iraq or refocus on Afghanistan. Can you please provide a link to the planned timeline you claim Sen. McCain intelligently offered? I agree only intelligent candidates for President offer timelines. Sen. McCain has said that Here's Sen. McCain saying that he would consider a draft http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t76K8fymsY&feature=related . Can you find a companion piece where Sen. Obama says anything as frightening to parents of children who might be caught up in a Sen. McCain draft to fight Sen. McCain's 100 year war in Iraq? Please provide a link.

4. Does anyone know who Obama worships? Why don't you look that up. Yeah, he goes to a UCC church. United Church of Christ = Christian. They have a great commercial out now using the finger saying "Here is the steeple and here is the church, look inside and see ALL the people!" Yes, church should be open to ALL.Senator Obama lived in Indonesia from the ages of 6 to 10. Senator Obama practiced Islam daily at Meteng Primary school, where he was registered as a Muslim.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2819634&page=1

Obama Goes On Campaign to Debunk Madrassa Education Allegation
Presidential Hopeful Slams Suggestions Made About His Education in Mostly Muslim School
By JAKE TAPPER and NITYA VENKATARAMAN
Jan. 24, 2007

Sensing a need to respond to an untrue allegation that he had been educated during his childhood in an Indonesia madrassa, Sen. Barack Obama and his staff have aggressively launched a campaign to debunk the story, perhaps indicating a fear that some may believe it.

"When I was six, I attended an Indonesian public school where a bunch of the kids were Muslim, because the country is 90 percent Muslim," the Democratic presidential hopeful told ABC's Chicago affiliate WLS-TV. "The notion that somehow, at the age of 6 or 7, I was being trained for something other than math, science and reading, is ludicrous."

Obama described the allegation as indicative of the "climate of smear" associated with presidential campaigns and called on the press to make sure "stories are substantiated."

Obama defended his education at "Sekolah Dasar Negeri 04," which roughly translates as government elementary school No. 4 in Indonesia, where he moved at the age of 6 after his mother married an Indonesian man. After two years at the government elementary school, Obama transferred to a Catholic school.

The false coloring of Obama's early education gained considerable steam during a "Fox and Friends" round table on Jan. 19, 2006. Host Steve Doocy said that Obama spent "the first decade of his life raised by his Muslim father as a Muslim and was educated in a madrassa." It is almost impossible to tabulate how many false claims are in that sentence.

Doocy went on to colorfully "define" madrassas as "financed by Saudis, they teach the religion that pretty much hates us. The big question: Was that on the curriculum back then?"

Smear much?

5. Obama`s VP choice told McCain he wished to run with him. Maybe he'd do anything to get that VP slot but still worth looking into.Wow you didn't argue this one!

Are you referring to Sen. McCain's consideration to Join the 2004 Kerry ticket against President Bush?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73322

McCain expressed on ABC's "Good Morning America" that he might show interest in joining a Democrat on the ticket.

"John Kerry is a close friend of mine. We have been friends for years," McCain told the ABC morning show. "Obviously I would entertain it."

6. McCain has already been I a very high position. He knows that gas problems are not the focus. If we don`t take control now of the housing and business market we will hit the next great depression. The bailout should go only to the plan. Don`t touch it. Obviously, you dont know a darn thing about McSame. He nearly lead us down this road before with his good friend and crook, Charles Keating. In March of this year, McCain stated AGAIN that DEREGULATION was the key to turning around the economy. Without regulations and regulators, the corrupt CEOs suck our money away and we, the tax payers, pay out BILLIONS on the recovery/bailout. Look at the Keating Five video (13 mins long) to learn the truth behind that mess. McCain was squarely in the middle!You didn't touch the last one so I'll be a nice guy and give you this one. I'll come back to it if I have to.

I don't even know what your first sentence, "McCain has already been I a very high position" means.

Are you referring to his having been a pilot?

http://correntewire.com/john_mccain_fighter_ace_destroyed_five_us_planes

Are you referring to Cindy McCain's highs on stolen prescription painkillers?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy....html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008091103947&s_pos=

I hesitate to wonder if you think 72 year old Sen. McCain has gas problems as I read your second sentence.

http://www.diseasesatoz.com/indigestion.htm

"The bailout should go only to the plan. Don`t touch it."

What plan, put forth by Sen. McCain, do you refer to? Link please.

7. McCain wants to add to the bailout giveing more money to the plan. Who will pay for this EXTRA 300B ?? US! The only way to do that is to raise taxes, which the GOP lies to you, saying they wont raise taxes. Remember Bush I..."read my lips, no new taxes" What did he do? He raised the OLD taxes. HAHA gotcha!I didn't vote Bush and research the plan if you need to know where the bailout money comes from.

Everyone in America knows where the bailout money is coming from: American Tax Payers. If Sen. McCain doesn't seek new revenues (taxes) to pay for the multiple bailouts, then the debt will be passed on to our children, with interest.

This spending without the money to pay for it cuts against the grain when contrasted with questions about overspending from concerned debate attendees last night.


New strikes
8. Obama voted 94 times for tax increase. (that's where the money came from)
9.McCain believes in creating more job and solving are energy problem by reopening nuclear plants and switching for that source.
10. Obama wants to pour more money into researching fossil fuels. He voted for it!
11. Obama still refuses to understand why we are in Iraq.
12. Obama makes blunt threats against other countrys! He is a tyrant!.
13. Oh this was a favorite last night if anyone seen the debate watch how many times Obama said "I agree with McCain."
14. Obama wants to fine you for not haveing his heath care. Last night this was presented to him again and he ignored the question.

There is 7 more plus a hit on the old topics.
Pokedad I will have to read yours after work i respect you and want to give your argument my full attention.

8. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/tax_tally_trickery.html

consider:
McCain has promised that he will balance the budget by 2013. While highly unlikely, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says that without serious spending cuts, McCain's tax proposals will actually increase the size of the debt between $5.1 trillion and $7.4 trillion over the next 10 years. So balancing the budget would require cutting federal spending by 25 percent. McCain, however, has proposed very few specific spending cuts, advocating only a freeze.

9. Sen. Obama's plans for job creation and energy are more detailed than Sen. McCain has offered.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy

10. Sen. Obama, understanding that as a nation with only 3% of the world's oil reserves, consuming 25% of the world's oil supply, investment must be made in researching ways to more efficiently extract oil until bridge technologies to alternate energy sources exist. Sen. McCain, on the other hand, just wants to gift the oil companies $4 Billion in tax breaks as an additional gift to shareholders and CEO's. Sen. Obama is investing in our future. Sen. McCain is squandering taxpayer dollars.

11. Heck, I'm with Sen. Obama there. So are a majority of Americans. Not 1 of the 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq. Iraq had no WMD's. Iraq did not attack America. Conversely, the people who planned 9/11 were contained in Afghanistan, but President Bush belligerently invaded and has occupied Iraq.

12. Are you talking about Sen. McCain's calls for military strikes against both Iran and North Korea? Sen. McCain is a short tempered aggressive bully. Do you know what a tyrant is? A tyrant is a leader who holds office without legal legitimacy, without having come to power through election, or succession. Sen. Obama is involved in a legal transition of power, it's called an election. Sen. Obama is, by definition, not a tyrant.

13. Only an irrational myopic egomaniac would refuse to find common ground on matters that affect the future of our nation. Sen. Obama is intelligent and rational, he wants what is best for America, and is willing to support good ideas and policy from any source. A better question would be, "Why does Sen. McCain refuse to seek to acknowledge anyone's good ideas, but refuse to consider any ideas but his own?'. Overinflated ego at the expense of the national interest.

14. I agree that each candidate has problems with their health care positions. I am not in favor of fines, but am more supportive of Sen. Clinton's universal health care position. Sen. McCain offers a $5,000 credit when the average policy currently costs $12,000. Many Americans don't have health insurance because they can not afford it. There will be no tax credit received, because many Americans can't afford $5,000 for crappy coverage or $12,000 for decent coverage. John McCain was uncomfortable when asked about his tax payer paid health care as a US service member, a member of congress, and as a person over 62. Does Sen. McCain want to join his Keating 5 scandal buddy Sen. Glenn in being an astronaut. Here is Sen. McCain in his own words on health care and astronauts in perhaps the strangest non-answer of the election:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfLfZDu6ESU

Bruggy, I respect all of Sen. McCain's supporters (okay, maybe not the racists and bigots, or the one's that call him a terrorist, or those who shout "Kill Him" unchecked at McCain/Palin rallies). I enjoy reading and responding to the thoughts expressed on this forum, and others. I don't doubt that Sen. McCain's supporters love this country any differently than Sen. Obama's supporters. I respect passion, activism, patriotism, and advocacy for a candidate or position. I enjoy the back and forth of debate. I certainly don't mind learning something new.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

@ Pokedad re: post #17: LOL, That wasn't very nice. :)

Just to clear up any questions about the Keating five issue...

Robert Bennet, The Senate Ethics Committee lawyer who investigated McCain said in February on Hannity & Colmes:

"First, I should tell your listeners I'm a registered Democrat, so I'm not on (McCain's) side of a lot of issues. But I investigated John McCain for a year and a half, at least, when I was special counsel to the Senate Ethics Committee in the Keating Five. ... And if there is one thing I am absolutely confident of, it is John McCain is an honest man. I recommended to the Senate Ethics Committee that he be cut out of the case, that there was no evidence against him."

I think McCain said it better himself in 1999; McCain said, "I could argue with you 'til I'm blue in the face that I did nothing wrong in the Keating affair, which might be technically true. But I know that I did wrong by attending that meeting with four other senators and a group of regulators."

He's changed his tune greatly in 2008.

Boofu, I knew you would catch #17. LOL.
 
Last edited:
That is so wrong it makes me cry.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:



So because there are a few similarities, it means they are "extremely similar"?

Muslim = Western Religion? And here i was sitting, thinking that it was widely spread in Asia. (and not in the West)

Dude, Christianity is so much bigger in the West.

"Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are monotheistic faiths practiced by about half of the world’s population. Monotheism refers to the belief in one God. The faiths are often called western religions to distinguish them from the eastern religions practiced primarily in Asia. Believers in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are found on every populated continent, but tend to be concentrated in North and South America, Europe, Australia, Western Asia and North Africa. Christianity and Islam are growing influences in sub-Saharan Africa, often replacing indigenous faiths."

http://www.mrdowling.com/605westr.html

Maybe someone should be re-learning his world religions ;x

When I say western I mean monotheistic - not geographical =\

And I'm glad me being right makes you cry ;x
 
So all Christians must be "born-again" Christians to be considered Christian? lol.

I'm not "born again" and I consider myself very Christian. I'm not going to get into the whole "born again" thing but let's just say I think it's a load of bs.

BTW Islam is very similar to Christianity. They both believe in a prophet being sent down to speak the word of God (Mohammed = Jesus). They also have similar social ideologies (treat thy neighbor like thyself, etc.). Both are considered very much Western religions. The dress code thing is just one aspect of the religion.

Side note - Yes, you do need to be "born again" to actually be a Christian.

Jesus himself is very clear on this point. (John 3 has some good insights)

Now, to be "considered Christian" that's a different story. People can fake it, and still be considered Christian. To actually BE a Christian, one must be born again.


Islam, while an Abrahamic religion, is further away from Christianity than some think. While Islam believes that Mohamed and Jesus were both prophets, Christians believe that Jesus was, in fact, God incarnate. There's a big difference there.
 
Side note - Yes, you do need to be "born again" to actually be a Christian.

Jesus himself is very clear on this point. (John 3 has some good insights)

Now, to be "considered Christian" that's a different story. People can fake it, and still be considered Christian. To actually BE a Christian, one must be born again.


Islam, while an Abrahamic religion, is further away from Christianity than some think. While Islam believes that Mohamed and Jesus were both prophets, Christians believe that Jesus was, in fact, God incarnate. There's a big difference there.

And that's where Christianity divides into MANY different hermeneutical beliefs. I'm Christian, yet I don't interpret the Bible to say that we need to be "born again" to go to heaven. I also don't believe that Jesus was incarnation of God. Will I go to heaven when I die? Let's all hope.

In essence, I don't believe in literal interpretations of the Bible, unlike many others. For example, I don't believe in tithing 10% of one's income to the church under some circumstances. However, I do believe in always living one's life the way Jesus would.
 
Pokedad, you and I could debate a lot of the above issues until we are both blue in the face (some of them obviously aren't even worth pursuing or are untrue/irrelevant). But at this point in the election, 27 days away, My time is better spent pursuing other things here in Iowa where I am managing a state house campaign. Just know that I am watching! ;)
 
Since all Christianity stems from Catholicism, I thought it might be good to go to the source for the final word on what it means to be born again. I shudder for those who may have gotten it wrong and may end up burning for their mistake. shudders.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Are_Catholics_Born_Again.asp

Are Catholics Born Again?


Catholics and Protestants agree that to be saved, you have to be born again. Jesus said so: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3).

When a Catholic says that he has been "born again," he refers to the transformation that God’s grace accomplished in him during baptism. Evangelical Protestants typically mean something quite different when they talk about being "born again."

For an Evangelical, becoming "born again" often happens like this: He goes to a crusade or a revival where a minister delivers a sermon telling him of his need to be "born again."

"If you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and believe he died for your sins, you’ll be born again!" says the preacher. So the gentleman makes "a decision for Christ" and at the altar call goes forward to be led in "the sinner’s prayer" by the minister. Then the minister tells all who prayed the sinner’s prayer that they have been saved—"born again." But is the minister right? Not according to the Bible.


The Names of the New Birth


Regeneration (being "born again") is the transformation from death to life that occurs in our souls when we first come to God and are justified. He washes us clean of our sins and gives us a new nature, breaking the power of sin over us so that we will no longer be its slaves, but its enemies, who must fight it as part of the Christian life (cf. Rom. 6:1–22; Eph. 6:11–17). To understand the biblical teaching of being born again, we must understand the terms it uses to refer to this event.

The term "born again" may not appear in the Bible. The Greek phrase often translated "born again" (gennatha anothen) occurs twice in the Bible—John 3:3 and 3:7—and there is a question of how it should be translated. The Greek word anothen sometimes can be translated "again," but in the New Testament, it most often means "from above." In the King James Version, the only two times it is translated "again" are in John 3:3 and 3:7; every other time it is given a different rendering.

Another term is "regeneration." When referring to something that occurs in the life of an individual believer, it only appears in Titus 3:5. In other passages, the new birth phenomenon is also described as receiving new life (Rom. 6:4), receiving the circumcision of the heart (Rom. 2:29; Col. 2:11–12), and becoming a "new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15).


Regeneration in John 3


These different ways of talking about being "born again" describe effects of baptism, which Christ speaks of in John 3:5 as being "born of water and the Spirit." In Greek, this phrase is, literally, "born of water and Spirit," indicating one birth of water-and-Spirit, rather than "born of water and of the Spirit," as though it meant two different births—one birth of water and one birth of the Spirit.

In the water-and-Spirit rebirth that takes place at baptism, the repentant sinner is transformed from a state of sin to the state of grace. Peter mentioned this transformation from sin to grace when he exhorted people to "be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).

The context of Jesus’ statements in John 3 makes it clear that he was referring to water baptism. Shortly before Jesus teaches Nicodemus about the necessity and regenerating effect of baptism, he himself was baptized by John the Baptist, and the circumstances are striking: Jesus goes down into the water, and as he is baptized, the heavens open, the Holy Spirit descends upon him in the form of a dove, and the voice of God the Father speaks from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son" (cf. Matt. 3:13–17; Mark 1:9–11; Luke 3:21–22; John 1:30–34). This scene gives us a graphic depiction of what happens at baptism: We are baptized with water, symbolizing our dying with Christ (Rom. 6:3) and our rising with Christ to the newness of life (Rom. 6:4–5); we receive the gift of sanctifying grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27); and we are adopted as God’s sons (Rom. 8:15–17).

After our Lord’s teaching that it is necessary for salvation to be born from above by water and the Spirit (John 3:1–21), "Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized" (John 3:22).

Then we have the witness of the early Church that John 3:5 refers to baptismal regeneration. This was universally recognized by the early Christians. The Church Fathers were unanimous in teaching this:

In A.D. 151, Justin Martyr wrote, "As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true . . . are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61).

Around 190, Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons, wrote, "And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34).

In the year 252, Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage, said that when those becoming Christians "receive also the baptism of the Church . . . then finally can they be fully sanctified and be the sons of God . . . since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ [John 3:5]" (Letters 71[72]:1).

Augustine wrote, "From the time he [Jesus] said, ‘Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5], and again, ‘He that loses his life for my sake shall find it’ [Matt. 10:39], no one becomes a member of Christ except it be either by baptism in Christ or death for Christ" (On the Soul and Its Origin 1:10 [A.D. 419]).

Augustine also taught, "It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or ‘by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5]. The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam" (Letters 98:2 [A.D. 408]).


Regeneration in the New Testament


The truth that regeneration comes through baptism is confirmed elsewhere in the Bible. Paul reminds us in Titus 3:5 that God "saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit."

Paul also said, "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:3–4).

This teaching—that baptism unites us with Christ’s death and resurrection so that we might die to sin and receive new life—is a key part of Paul’s theology. In Colossians 2:11–13, he tells us, "In [Christ] you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision [of] Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ" (NIV).


The Effects of Baptism


Often people miss the fact that baptism gives us new life/new birth because they have an impoverished view of the grace God gives us through baptism, which they think is a mere symbol. But Scripture is clear that baptism is much more than a mere symbol.

In Acts 2:38, Peter tells us, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." When Paul was converted, he was told, "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16).

Peter also said, "God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:20–21). Peter says that, as in the time of the flood, when eight people were "saved through water," so for Christians, "aptism . . . now saves you." It does not do so by the water’s physical action, but through the power of Jesus Christ’s resurrection, through baptism’s spiritual effects and the appeal we make to God to have our consciences cleansed.

These verses showing the supernatural grace God bestows through baptism set the context for understanding the New Testament’s statements about receiving new life in the sacrament.


Protestants on Regeneration


Martin Luther wrote in his Short Catechism that baptism "works the forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and grants eternal life to all who believe." His recognition that the Bible teaches baptismal regeneration has been preserved by Lutherans and a few other Protestant denominations. Even some Baptists recognize that the biblical evidence demands the historic Christian teaching of baptismal regeneration. Notable individuals who recognized that Scripture teaches baptismal regeneration include Baptist theologians George R. Beasley-Murray and Dale Moody.

Nevertheless, many Protestants have abandoned this biblical teaching, substituting man-made theories on regeneration. There are two main views held by those who deny the scriptural teaching that one is born again through baptism: the "Evangelical" view, common among Baptists, and the "Calvinist" view, common among Presbyterians.

Evangelicals claim that one is born again at the first moment of faith in Christ. According to this theory, faith in Christ produces regeneration. The Calvinist position is the reverse: Regeneration precedes and produces faith in Christ. Calvinists (some of whom also call themselves Evangelicals) suppose that God "secretly" regenerates people, without their being aware of it, and this causes them to place their faith in Christ.

To defend these theories, Evangelicals and Calvinists attempt to explain away the many unambiguous verses in the Bible that plainly teach baptismal regeneration. One strategy is to say that the water in John 3:5 refers not to baptism but to the amniotic fluid present at childbirth. The absurd
implication of this view is that Jesus would have been saying, "You must be born of amniotic fluid and the Spirit." A check of the respected Protestant Greek lexicon, Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, fails to turn up any instances in ancient, Septuagint or New Testament Greek where "water" (Greek: hudor) referred to "amniotic fluid" (VIII:314–333).

Evangelicals and Calvinists try to deal with the other verses where new life is attributed to baptism either by ignoring them or by arguing that it is not actually water baptism that is being spoken of. The problem for them is that water is explicitly mentioned or implied in each of these verses.

In Acts 2:38, people are exhorted to take an action: "Be baptized . . . in the name of Jesus Christ," which does not refer to an internal baptism that is administered to people by themselves, but the external baptism administered to them by others.

We are told that at Paul’s conversion, "he rose and was baptized, and took food and was strengthened. For several days he was with the disciples at Damascus" (Acts 9:18–19). This was a water baptism. In Romans 6 and Colossians 2, Paul reminds his readers of their water baptisms, and he neither says nor implies anything about some sort of "invisible spiritual baptism."

In 1 Peter 3, water is mentioned twice, paralleling baptism with the flood, where eight were "saved through water," and noting that "baptism now saves you" by the power of Christ rather than by the physical action of water "removing . . . dirt from the body."

The anti-baptismal regeneration position is indefensible. It has no biblical basis whatsoever. So the answer to the question, "Are Catholics born again?" is yes! Since all Catholics have been baptized, all Catholics have been born again. Catholics should ask Protestants, "Are you born again—the way the Bible understands that concept?" If the Evangelical has not been properly water baptized, he has not been born again "the Bible way," regardless of what he may think.
 
Muslim is similar to Christianity much in the same way that Christianity is similar to Judiasm. They all use the same holy scriptures (both Christianity and Muslim added to the Jewish Bible), and all practice similar teachings. The "Holy Jihad" is similar to the "Holy Crusade" from the early part of the century. I have no problem with the Muslim religion. I have problems with radicals of ALL religions. Obama is not a radical. He is a liberal, which is different from a radical.

No more questions about Obama's religion. Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, what does it matter? He's not worshiping Satan, and he's not calling for a Holy War against anybody. As far as religion goes, that's enough for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top