Don't you miss the days of Pres. BC?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by jaxfam6

Good point. Our sermon today was "God doesn't grade on the curve." Sin is sin no matter what it is, little white lie or murder. Thank God for His mercy and grace.

Sin is sin, but even the Law differentiated between various sins against God.

I would never put an adulterer in the camp with a murderer. Both are equally in need of a savior, however, there is a very big difference between these sins.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Aquila

President Clinton repented also. And, this thread is a very good example of how he's reaping the effects of his sin. It's destroyed his reputation and the memory of any good he accomplished.

Of course... at least he isn't responsible for the deaths of over 80,000 Iraqis (including women and children) as a result of an unnecessary invasion of choice based on fraudulent intelligence.

Clinton had extra-marital sex. Bush killed thousands in a very questionable war. Think about it.

Good grief. Think about the lives that were saved also.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Cindy

Good grief. Think about the lives that were saved also.

Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that Saddam had to be dealt with. But I feel we should have focused on bringing Osama bin Laden to justice. It's been proven that Saddam had no ties with al Queda, he saw them as a threat to his power. Iraq didn't attack us.

Here's my prediction... we'll leave Iraq a turbulent democracy. There will come a point when anti-American religious extremists will become very popular and will be elected to the highest offices of power and Iraq will become an even more serious threat and ally to terror than Saddam ever was. Just my concern.

But since this is about Clinton, I think it's important to note that after the 1993 WTC attacks (which killed six and injured 1,000) the United States brought the perpetrators to justice through international criminal law enforcement cooperation. Those behind the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia (which killed five U.S. military personnel) were also brought to justice through international law enforcement measures, prosecuted in Saudi Arabia, and were later beheaded by the Saudis. Those behind the bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa (which killed 224 and injured 5,000) were also brought to justice and are in prison today through international law enforcement cooperation.

My question for Bush would be, "You invaded two countries and spent billions and billions of dollars, draining the American economy... where's Osama bin Laden?"

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that Saddam had to be dealt with. But I feel we should have focused on bringing Osama bin Laden to justice. It's been proven that Saddam had no ties with al Queda, he saw them as a threat to his power. Iraq didn't attack us.

Here's my prediction... we'll leave Iraq a turbulent democracy. There will come a point when anti-American religious extremists will become very popular and will be elected to the highest offices of power and Iraq will become an even more serious threat and ally to terror than Saddam ever was. Just my concern.

But since this is about Clinton, I think it's important to note that after the 1993 WTC attacks (which killed six and injured 1,000) the United States brought the perpetrators to justice through international criminal law enforcement cooperation. Those behind the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia (which killed five U.S. military personnel) were also brought to justice through international law enforcement measures, prosecuted in Saudi Arabia, and were later beheaded by the Saudis. Those behind the bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa (which killed 224 and injured 5,000) were also brought to justice and are in prison today through international law enforcement cooperation.

My question for Bush would be, "You invaded two countries and spent billions and billions of dollars, draining the American economy... where's Osama bin Laden?"

Okay, thanks for the explanation.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Sin is sin, but even the Law differentiated between various sins against God.

I would never put an adulterer in the camp with a murderer. Both are equally in need of a savior, however, there is a very big difference between these sins.

Hmmm. Actually, under the law, both sins would be worthy of death.

[Aquila]

Since we're talking about President Clinton, here's something interesting:

GOP Congress blocked Clinton push for anti-terror legislation
John Aravosis (DC) · 9/04/2006 11:10:00 AM ET · Link

CNN, July 30, 1996

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the [Clinton] White House wants. Some they're not going to get." ....[Hatch] also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.

So Bill Clinton, rather than just breaking the law as Bush did (then again, perhaps this is why Bush broke the law - he knew from history that the Republicans controlling the congress would oppose his efforts to expand wiretapping), decided to go to the Republican congress in 1996 and ask them for increased authority to do more eavesdropping in order to stop the terrorists - stop September 11. Senior Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, one of the GOP's top picks for the Supreme Court and a GOP committee chair, objected.

The Republicans stopped President Clinton from getting all the tools he needed to stop the next September 11 - well, no, actually they opposed giving President Clinton all the tools he needed to stop the actual September 11. Could September 11 have been stopped if the GOP had given President Clinton the tools he requested to stop Osama and Mohammad Atta from killing 3,000 people in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington?

Maybe we need to ask the Republicans up for re-election why they wanted to appease the terrorists?

President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

There's even an audio clip of President Clinton practically begging the Republicans to give him the tools he needed to stop Osama and the terrorists. Trent Lott said no. Orrin Hatch said no. Do these men really deserve to run the Congress during a time of war?

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinto...ton.terror.wav

I know it's old news, but it's thought provoking.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Hmmm. Actually, under the law, both sins would be worthy of death.

Was King David sentenced to death?

Do you believe that a man having an extra-marital affair is just as bad as a man who launched a pre-emptive war against another nation based on speculative intelligence wherein 80,000 people (including women and children) have been killed? I'm just curious.

I know adultery is bad, but a man and wife can be reconciled with counseling and nobody's dead.

[Ron]

My only point at the beginning of my post was that in spite of being good friends with good Christians like the Mangun's, the Clitnons, they are still not Apostolics!\

To be so would necessitate them making a break from the political world.

Alas, the political world makes one reek from compromising with world views that are not compatible with basic Christian principles.
Gay rights & Abortion to name two things that the Clinton's support as an example.

[Fiyahstarter]

Originally Posted by jaxfam6

I watched this video clip tonight, for the first time. I bet there hasn't been a feeling like that in any inauguration ceremonies since.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGQh2otoYtY

Great clip! Thanks for sharing.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Ron

My only point at the beginning of my post was that in spite of being good friends with good Christians like the Mangun's, the Clitnons, they are still not Apostolics!

Labels mean little. We don't know the depth of their spiritual experience.

To be so would necessitate them making a break from the political world.

Maybe. Do you believe that an Apostolic cannot participate in politics?

Alas, the political world makes one reek from compromising with world views that are not compatible with basic Christian principles.
Gay rights & Abortion to name two things that the Clinton's support as an example.

Rome was far worse and Paul admonished Christians to respect Rome's authority and give honor unto the king as supreme, in addition to paying taxes. This is a sinful world. All Bill Clinton's position did was put the responsibility of those issues on the individual. In a sense, with Democrats, the Government washes it's hands of the issues and leaves individuals responsible for their own choices.

I don't support gay marriage. But I think marriage is a private issue and Government does well to stay out of it.
Abortion is such a complex issue I have come to the conclusion that Government intervention will only make things worse. We need to leave it in the hands of individuals and allow private agencies and various programs to rise to the occasion.