₦airaland Forum

@topic,

My response?

2 Corinthians 5:11 - Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men;

2 Corinthians 2: 14 - Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. 15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: 16 To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
What more can I say?!

@Sage,

Check out the visions to Daniel. at chap 7. Beasts and power always represented human rulerships.

Please remove the word 'always' from that your statement. This is how people fall into error when they carry over the context of one passage into another. The Beasts do not always refer to governments as you have said. In the Book of Revelation, we find some four beasts who are evidently a kind of Cherub in the service of God. Going by your 'always' submission, are we to refer to them as human government? I think not. REading a passage in context is what provides understanding of the Bible.

You cleverly dodged the points on so called "Christian" political leaders and "Christians" fighting and killing each other.

I am glad you not only refer to Christain political leaders but other Christians fighting and killing each other. In other words, it is not the politics that is at fault, there must be some underlying vices causing this. Like TV01, you are quick to condemn politics when infact, the root causes of the sins are something else. Politics is only being used by those who have the means, and those who don't find other means to do what is in their heart to do.

Did you just say that Nationalism comes from God and human rulership a gift of who?

Didn't you read Acts 17:28? Read 1 Corinthians 12:28 to find out about the the gifts of the Spirit which includes government.

Maybe the ffg passages will help you see that there is no middle ground b/w true Christianity and Politics.
Luke 4:5-7' John  6:15,14:30,15:19,17:16, 18:36, 2nd Corinthians4:4, 11:14,15
James 4:4, 1st John 5:19, 2:15-17, Rev 13:2.
.

Some of the passages deal with the contrast between the 'world' (not politics) and Christians. I have asked you before if you are implying that the 'world' is synonymous with politics. The Bible definition of the 'world' is found in 1 John 2:15-17 that you have quoted above. Please read it and just believe it instead of applying your own interpretation to it. The Luke 4 scripture confirms that the kingdoms of the world was delivered to Satan. Doesn't that tell you that it originally belong to someone else? The kingdoms in his hands came about through his ministry of stealing, killing and destroying. But what he has stolen, we shall receive 7-fold. The reason why the crowd wanted to make Jesus King is because they rightly understood that the Messiah will reign as an earthly King from Jerusalem. Jesus knew that the time wasn't then and that is why He refused their request. Every other scriptures you mentioned are just refering to the 'world' whose definition is the lust of the flesh, eyes and the pride of life and not politics as you will have us believe. Again, the Beast you refer to in Rev 13:2 is the Anti-Christ and not a worldly kingdom.

Also settle down and read the Revelation to John about that great mother of harlots and her association with the political rulers of this world, how she has used spiritistic practices, falsehood and her political alliances TO MISLEAD THE WHOLE WORLD.

The great mother of harlots in revelation does not refer to the Church. Is that what you have been indoctrinated with? That harlot is a City, a physical geographic location. The Angel revealed this much to John in Revelation 17:18. Besides, the Church of God is already raptured to heaven at this stage.

Why human rulership will always be a failure n y the only Goverment Christians should support is that of Jesus
Ecc 8:9, Jeremiah 10:23, Psalms 146:3,4

Unfortunately, you will have to wait till the millennial Kingdom for Jesus' Government on earth. His desire for now is that His will be done on earth as it is in heaven. If politics is a tool to be used by the Christian to further His will on earth, so be it. Like money, politics is a tool to be used for good or evil and they both have great influence. We will negotiate, we will persuade, we will agitate within the ambit allowed by our conscience to establish God's will on earth while not neglecting our duty of evangelism.

Christiandom and other false religious religions are prostituting themselves to political powers, and Christiandom rather than facing the fact that human rulerships n Goverments will be destroyed by God and his Son (Dan2:44, 7:13,14 Psalms 110:5, 2:8,9 John 14:30, Rev 13:12, 16:14-16, Eph 6:12), they are actively engaging in wordly politics and have ignored the commision Jesus gave to his faithful followers to proclaim about his incoming Kingdom alone.

You have a fundanmental flaw in your theology which I will try to set straight for you now. All the scriptures you refer to are end time events and Jesus clearly says that the end time events will revolve around the Jews as a nation, and other nations of the earth. How you have come to involve the Church which is at that point raptured is beyond comprehension for me. See Luke 21:29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree (Isreal), and all the trees (other nations);

CHRISTIANDOM IS CLEARLY A PART OF THAT HARLOT AND HAS BEEN RESERVED FOR GODS FIERY JUDGEMENT, ONCE AND FOR ALL, UNFAILINGLY AND DECISIVE. IT WILL BE UNDILUTED AND THE SHOCK OF HER DESTRUCTION BY THE SAME BEAST SHE IS PROSTITUTING HERSELF TO WILL RESOUND ACCROSS THE WORLD. ITZ GOING TO BE AN AWE INSPIRING EVENT.

As I have proved severally above, Christianity is not the harlot nor a part of it. Christians do not live in a single city which the harlot represents. Christians will stand before the Reward Seat of Christ and not the White Throne Judgement of the nations and people. Please get your doctrine straightened out.

I don't engage in protracted arguments of clear truths

How I wish all you've said bear some form of resemblance to the truth.

@Sage,

The Bible always uses Beasts to represent human rulerships. Morden day so called "Christianity" has prostituted herself to the rulers of this world and have brought God's anger upon it, which these same political powers will execute on her.

Can you please provide scriptures to back up your claim? I tire for all these modern day 'moses' giving us their own commandment and on a quest to lead God's people out of Egypt again. Please wake up, we are not in Egypt. We are in the Seventh day and have entered into His rest. God's anger on the Church for participating in politics? I think not. Do you want a list from the Bible of what God ways He will judge?

What most people do here on this forum is an exercise in self righteousness, a complete exercise in Futility. If you cast your mind and reserch the history of Christiandom in General, you will see why she deserves every each of the Judgment that is awaiting her without fail.

Judgement awaiting the church? I thought I have heard and seen it all!! Which version of the Bible do you use that says the Church is appointed unto wrath? I hope you are not quoting Dan Brown or perhaps Harry Potter.

Take a closer look and you will see why politics was not ment for true Christianity.

I am yet to see any scripture that says Christians should not participate in politics. Do you realise that one of the gifts of the Spirit is the gift of government?

If you are talking about the Kings of Isreal in order to justify participation in politics you are dead wrong. Ask me and il tell you why.

There's a lot more that points to God's interest in how the nations are governed than just the kings of Isreal. And by the way, TV01 is the one to state that the throne of Judah is of God while the throne of Isreal is not. You might want to 'enlightene' him further.

True Christianity has no part in the rulership from the devil.

Do you consider as 'rulership from the devil' the same Government that the Bible refers as God's Servant? This your audacity pass me o.

See what participation in politics have achieved for so called Christians who Jesus explicitly instructed to keep seprate from the world, have love among themselves and proclaim the only Goverment that God supports of, that of Jesus.

Can you please define which world Jesus asked us to stay away from. Are you saying the world is synonymous with politics?

And who says that the Devil does not have the last laugh. He rules the world and all the Nationalistic divisions come from him.

E be like say you go write your own 'Bible' o. My scriptures tell me nationalistic divisions, culture and boundaries are established by God. Where are you quoting from? The quran? If you do have a copy of the Bible, please read Acts 17:26

@donnie,

In actual fact, without wanting to sound arrogant, the truth is his detractors really do not count, because whether you like it or not, they that be with us are far more! Glory!

Are you refering to the size of your congregation or you are refering to God? Please be clear so we can know how to address your confusion and blatant butchering of the scriptures.

Did those men say the gave Pastor Chris money? Did you hear what he said about the signatures of the letters? Did he say the letters were written with his knowledge or consent. I need not speak much but let time reveal truth.

Now that we all know where they stole the money from, don't you think he should return the money to the rightful owner? Do you realise Banks are being fined and blacklisted for providing channels for terrorism? I'm sure your Pastor's behind would have been in jail now if he tried this in the West. Paying for stolen property is a crime. I can't believe a Man of God won't hold himself to a higher standard.

@TV01,

I have more questions for you:

1. Melchizedek was refered to as the King of Salem as well as the Priest of the Most High God. Why didn't God have a problem with his kingship? Please keep in mind you have stated specifically that the only earthly kingdom ever approved by God is the one of Isreal and Judah (after the break up of Isreal). And please be reminded that Melchizedek was a gentile King.

2. What was Paul talking about when he said And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.

3. And what are the limitations imposed or implied on the scriptures that says: all things are yours?

All the above are abundant in the IC. Where does one begin. The paedophillia of RC, the excesses of Pentecostalism, the weakness of Anglicanism.  Is it the discarding of scripture, the abandonment of doctrine? or the "other Gospels" being peddled. See it in the power rifts, the empire building (jealousy, contentions and dissensions leading to denominationalism). The control, the manipulation (witchcraft by, tithing, submission false authority and submission precepts). The selfish ambition (that's right, the lust for riches & political power are just that, dress them up all you want). It's literally endless and blindingly (no pun!)obvious even to unbelievers.

Can you prove to us that none of these vices was present in the early churches? If you can do that, then I will begin to take you seriously.

Have you ever wondered why Jesus never mentioned politics in His message to the seven churches in the Book of Revelation? If it is the underlying cause of all these vices, don't you think He would have made mention of it? Or do you think He was planning that TV01 will be the Great Apostle of our time through whom He will reveal this mystery? 

David agitated for power  ? Only if God didn't ordain it!

Are you saying neither David nor solomon agitated for power though the throne was already given to them by God? I told you to go through your Bible again to find out about this.

True believers will never be in league with the state. Period! Even where there appears to be common cause or unity of purpose, it's not to the same end! There are two kingdoms at play here. It's madness.

Mmm. I guess we can now have Abraham, Isaac, Mordecai, Esther, Nehemiah, David etc removed from our list of true believers based on TV's new revelation. What effrontery! You sure convinced me that brashness and ignorance are an indivisible twin.

2. What God will demand is that you don't compromise your faith what ever person of institution you join yourself with. God only demands we obey laws that do not violate our obedience to Him. Your counter-intuitive and circuitous logic is exhausting! Is it all "blind faith" with you? No reason or understanding? Even a smidgin of common sense? In a country (and there are quite a few) that offers abortion on demand, is a A Christian medic right to perform such operations in "allegiance to Caesar and accordance with the law", or does such a one refuse on the grounds of allegiance to a higher authority!

Your highlighted statement is what I have been saying all along with regards to a Christian's participation in politics. I hope you understand the statement is a principle of general application. No country makes it unlawful for a Medic to choose not to perform an abortion. Most State laws only affrim the right of a woman to abort their babies. You are clearly mixing up different issues to confuse yourself further. Infact, most abortion clinics are separate from other hospitals and I believe no Christian works as a Doctor or nurse in those abortion clinics. Working there is by choice and not by law.

Apologies for not being more specific. I was specifically referring to Herod here.

The Bible was not specific with regards to the leaven of Herod. If however the Bible lumps the leaven of the Pharisees with that of Herod, I guess the leaven of Herod wont be too different from hypocrisy.

I believe I have amply provided it, and added depth. Please feel free to query specifics or ask for more detail.

What scripture is that again? All I have read here has been nothing but TV01's 11th Commandment - Thou shalt not participate in Politics.

In any case, you have still not provided us with a contemporary example to prove the outworking of your doctrinal position. Not only have I provided scriptures, I have pointed at Michelle Bachmann as a contemporary example of the practical outworking of my doctrinal position.

@TV01,

More convoluted thinking here. A mixture of sloppy half-baked deductions and nonsensical conclusions. I have talkeed through the literal Word, shadow and fullfilling types and drawn a comprehensive and unified understanding from different perspectives. All this while humouring your "painting by numbers" approach to this whole exercise. Surely The lord is using me to teach you patience (although I am yet to figure out the point of some of the other gainsayers on this site !)

Half-baked deductions? I think not. You have failed to tell us any vocation or association in this world system that provides no compromise opportunities for the Christian, yet you say the christian should stay away only from Politics (though you also sited culture and commerce). So why not have us stay away from all instead of singling out politics? What evil do you see in poltics that is not manifest in other areas of life? You are yet to make this known, and I trust you will provide scriptural refernces as I have provided for mine.

Surely The lord is using me to teach you patience (although I am yet to figure out the point of some of the other gainsayers on this site !)

No thanks! My 14 month old son is already doing that. Doubt your ability to do a better job. I'm glad you at least know the Lord is not teaching me any scriptures from you 'cos there is no revelation from what you've been saying.

Perhaps you have an alternative explanation for the COE' total lack of spiritual credibility?

Compromise is due to a failing of the flesh not participation in politics. So what do you say of Christians who are not in politics but condone and practice homosexuality?

Again, please provide an alternative understanding. Additionally, Sexual Immorality generally (and not homosexuality alone or specifically) is the physical outworking of the spiritual adultery engaged in by many churches (by seving other gods). It's also compounded and evidenced by the man-made hierarchical structure of the Institutional Church. The fact that they are carnal and flesh driven is evidenced by their fruits;

The above is the 'gospel' according to TV01. Now let us hear the Gospel according to Saint Paul: Romans 1: 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
I do not see politics amongst the list that Paul made. Do you think he forgot to include it? There is more in that scripture which I will point at as we go. I guess your statement here only proves my earlier submission right, that you believe politics and church structure is the root of all evil. May I ask what evil and fruits of the flesh that is manifest in the church today that was not manifest in the early churches? Please itemise them for us to scrutinize and bring up before the light of scripture.

Permit me to ask you a question, or two.

1. What was the Lords meaning in this verse?
Mark 8:15 ~ Then He charged them, saying, "Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod."

The answer is in Luke 12:1 - Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

2. And this one
Luke 20:25 ~ And He said to them, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." If Caesar is God's servant, why is there an apparent dichotomy in rendering to them?

One thing is for sure. God will never ask you to be involved in or owe allegiance to a person or instituion that compromises our faith in Him. God has no problem with Ceasar, and that is why He encourages our obedience and allegiance to Him. If He feels allegiance to Ceasar will compromise our faith, He will not be shy to say: "Come out form amongst Ceasar and be ye separate."

I am still waiting for your scriptural backing of your position.

@TV01,

1. I never said that. The Bible doesn't say that about anything! Please quote me or the Bible    (if you can!)

Well, the Bible said the love of money is the root of all evil. Going by the principle of nuances and symbolism which you have been shoving down our throats, I cannot but conclude that you view politics to be the root of all evils. You said: the compromise of the COE was bsically due to their participation and endorsement of politics. You regard homosexuality in Churches as a bye-product of the governing structure of the churches. Not only is that notion laughable, it has no scriptural basis.

2. Participation in government (as an end result of agitating for worldly power), is no where shown or endorsed in scripture. Being called in a "puplic service" capacity is another matter.

You have not shown where the Bible condemns it my friend. this is still nothing but your opinion. In any case, even David and Solomon employed politics to get to their throne. You may want to read how each one came to power. Check out how David entered into league with others to become the king of the 12 tribes and also how Solomon became a king only after lobbying.  And can you give us an example of a Christian in the Civil Service who never lobbied for that position one way or another?

3. I have outlined variously examples of the States being arrained against true believers. The climax of scripture in Revelations outlines the role of the Beast. Hence, with hindsight or forsight identyfying types and shadows of symbolism throughout scripture is quite straightforward.

For every example of the State arraigned against the believers that you give henceforth, I will provide you another example of the State in league with the true believers. I wish you'd quit making reference to the beast in Revelation 'cos it is subject to varying interpretation. Your first submission on this suggests you are aware of this dilemma which made you use the phrase, "I believe".

. Whose servant is Satan? You are being particularly obtuse here. If I talked about God
   sovreignty once, I've talked about it a hundred times. Your consistent failure to appreciate
   context in the bible and see the "big picture" is quite disappointing. You also fail to make sense to
   any degree of Biblical symbolism. Your whole deployment of scripture appears to be in support of your own (G/MOG's) construct.

I have asked you for scriptures to back your position and you are talking about symbolism. If I ask you to prove to me from the Bible that homosexuality is a sin, would you be telling me about symbolism or would you produce undisputed facts from scripture? In any case, if you are trying to compare Satan to the State in reference to God's sovereingty, permit me to remind you that Satan is not God's servant for good towards the Church. Satan is not a rewarder of the good and punisher of the evil. Permit me to remind you that you are not to give unto Satan that which is Satan's. Also permit me to remind you that you are not to be subject to the authority of Satan. So can you see the foolishness of your thoughts? I don't know what you mean by my MOG's construct as I am not here spewing out anybody's teachings. I always make refernce to the source of my thoughts and words.

@TV01,

I sense your need to justify your position by clearly juxtaposing other issues (real or imaginary) into this discuss. I am not surprised by that since you have no scriptural authority to fall back on. My request is so simple that even a Babe (I don't mean a beautiful lady) in Christ will clearly understand it. In order to avoid making a nonsense of this topic, I want us to clearly spell out and point out our scriptural authorities for the positions we hold. I have these questions for you:

1. Where does the Bible say politics is the root of all evil as you are quick to establish?

2. Where does the Bible say that we should not participate in the government of our day?

3. Where are we told that Ceasar is a force arraigned against the Church as you have claimed?

4. Whose servant is Ceasar? God's or Satan's?

I hope you will provide a clear answer to these and not dribble beyond the goal posts as you have been doing!

My answers to questions 1 through 3 is NONE; and my answer to question 4 is GOD. See Romans 13:4 For he (the State) is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

@TV01,

I often stress the importance of extrapolating the practical outworking of any doctrinal position. After all, it’s a living faith. A doctrine that on the surface sounds plausible, but does not translate when reality bites, is nothing more than religious procedure.

Don't be deceived by the intellectually plausible argument that you need to understand an outworking of a doctrine before you take it for truth. The things of God don't work that way. You have to believe His Word first, then step out in faith to accomplish that which He has pre-ordained for you. Shadrach, Meshach and Abednigo wouldn't have taken that stand if they were waiting to understand how God was going to deliver them from fire. Theirs was to believe and take a stand based on faith, God's part was to honour their stand and and outwardly confirm the veracity of their doctrinal position.

I am dissapointed by the quality of your posts TV. I expected scriptures from you to justify your position that politics is evil and under the sphere of the enemy, but you have not done that. Rather, you have taken a doctrinal position based on events and happenings around you. You have erected the citadel of your faith on nuances, men's failings, extrapolations and manipulations that have no biblical basis at all.

Governance and the means of attaining it (politics) are not evil. No Government in history (including biblical history) ever attained and kept their positions without agitation. Even Jesus' millenial reign on earth suggests men will still have the free will to do as they please and suffer the consequences of their actions. I just can't fathom how a learned person like you can be so blind to all the facts made available through scripture, both Old and New. No doubt you bring this scripture to my mind: Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth

@All,

Can we please move this discussion to "Christians and Politics"? I think earlier indication that we have derailed this thread is appropriate. Don't wanna incur the wrath of the almighty administrator - Seun.

I'll see you guys there.

I am not suggesting all Christian engagement with the world is by mandate as such, but a clear reading of the scriptural narrative gives very strong pointers on certain areas. I believe that the nature of  political discourse and the underlying spiritual dynamic make it all but impossible for a Christian to seek political authority via the normal worldly channels without compromise. I believe this is borne out by scripture.

Matthew 19:26 - But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Matthew 17:20 - and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Faith is the instrumentality to obtaining this kingdom as we see in the witness of Michelle Bachmann. Through faith, we can accomplish the impossible.

Hebrews 11:33 - Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,

Again, let me stress I am being very particular about politics as I defined it earlier. Civil service is not politics. Christian social participation is not politics. And Christians/Christian bodies need to be wary of the fact that politicians/the state/governments, often court them, with a jealous/wary eye on the influence they exert.

Arent you shooting yourself in the foot here? How can you say politics is under the influence of the devil and you expect a Christian to serve as a Civil Servant under that same influence!!! It's like saying stealing is wrong, but it is okay to receive money from a thief. As you rightly said, Christains have great influence which we can exercise in a greater way through political power. Are we not here to influence our world? Isn't salt supposed to influence and preserve its environment? And by the way, Civil Servants are subject to political votes (and they lobby for votes) before they are confirmed to their positions.

To keep our witness pure, I don’t see us aligning or making common cause with them. It will ultimately compromise us and damage our witness. Let me just add, I see the state as one of the forces ranged against Christianity. I see this in scripture, history and contemporary times. The establishment of state churches (in democracies, monarchies, dictatorships etc etc), is a way to control, compromise and oft times co-opt Christian witness for the benefit of the state. As long as the state can do this, they are content to let us play church.

Your arguments seem very laudable and will easily deceive those self-righteous Christains whose focus is purely on heaven and forgetting they are here for a reason. The State a force arranged against Christians? I think not. I'd rather believe the Gospel according to Paul than the 'gospel' according to TV01 - Romans 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
The State is A Minister of God. How can the Minister of God be a force arranged against us. The history I see indicates the State doing the will of the 'church' and calling attention to Jehovah based on the witness of the Believers who participated in that government.
Daniel 6:26 - I make a decree, That in every dominion of my kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel: for he is the living God, and stedfast for ever, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed, and his dominion shall be even unto the end.
Esther 8:17 - And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.

As soon as we become a clear voice (light on a hill), with an uncompromised gospel message (salt & seasoning), we challenge the status quo and the prevailing power structure. That is to proclaim God and His Christ, a new, different and better kingdom. It’s at this juncture that the State (noting the underlying spiritual dynamic I mentioned earlier), turns on Christianity. Oppressing and persecuting the saints.

How do we challenge the status quo? By flouting the constitution of the State and imposing theocracy on the State? Where did you get this notion from and at what stage are we to go on this confrontation? How many believers effected the changes during the times of Daniel and Esther? The entire biody of believers or just a few? Please answer these questions.

The situation in China is a point in question. Let me say something categorical here. Where there is pure Christian witness, there is oppression of the saints/church by the state (which is a different, contrary kingdom, in direct confrontation to the one being proclaimed by the true witness of the church). Do you really believe that there is strong Christian witness in any Western nation? Or in any African one?

So Daniel and Esther did not have a great witness for the State to have supported them! Infact your submission leads us to believe that even Jesus did not have enough Christians witness since Pontius Pilate and Herod knew little to nothing about him and never persecuted him. Was it not the religious body of his day that brought their influence to bear on the State to kill Jesus? Another believer used his influence on the State to obtain Jesus' body and give it a proper burial as required by scripture. In other words, politics is just a tool that can be used for good or for evil. It all depends on who weilds that political influence.

This is true through scripture and through history. Look for the three players. The State, compromised/false religion, and true witness. Think Ahab, Jezebel and Elijah. See Herod/Herodias, the Jewish establishment & John the Baptist.

The picture can not be clearer than this: "For he (the State) is the minister of God to thee for good"

I see the ultimate outworking of this typified by the LovePeddler & the Beast of Revelation. The Beast I believe represents various aligned states/seats of power/thrones/governments. The LovePeddler is compromised/false/ecumenical religion. At first partnering (that is committing adultery) with the state and finally devoured by it.

Why use scriptures you are not sure you rightly interprete to justify a position you can't sustain form scripture.

That is my position. But of course I stand to be corrected in part or whole!

I seriously doubt if you are open for correction!

@Shahan,

Thanks for your input. I have requested TV to show us from scripture where politics is expressly forbiden but he keeps dodging this in his characteristic manner.

I wish he'd employ the same principle in every area of his life. If he does, then we won't find him using the internet, riding cars, trains and even flying an aeroplane. The reason being that the Bible did not mention any of these specifically.

@TV01,

Again, election validates nothing. A vote for her was not necessarily a vote for Christianity.

I never implied voting a Christian into power is synonymous with voting for christianity. This proves you must be arguing with your thoughts and not following our discussions here.

A vote for a "Christian politician" does not equate to a vote for Christ or a soul won.

Same answer as above. However a vote for a Christian means an opportunity for a Christian to witness for Christ in our Government.

You don't have to be a politician to adopt children. But it is laudable Christian witness.

A witness that the whole nation heard about. She sure is a city on a hill that cannot be hid. Due to this Christian witness, her race was one of the most publicised in the last election with the name of Christ mentioned almost at every corner.

The bishops are compromised by making common cause with those who have a different agenda and a different Lord.

So what are you saying? That we should have nothing to do with unbelievers? Pal said if that were the case, then we will need to go out of the world altogether. Tell me, do you have unbelievers in your office working together on the same project? If so, then you are compromised by your own principles.

If power in that sense is already The lords, what exactly is "Christian politics" agitating for?

Christian politics is about being the light and salt of the earth. It's about making "manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place." For your information, I am not advocating a theocratic state. Not at all. Infact, I do not believe in a theocratic state in this present dispensation. On the other hand, ALL things, including government are ours and if I see government in the hands of the enemy, I will do all i can to get it back in the hands of the Saints. And if it's in the hands of the Saints, you can be sure it's in the hands of God. Tell me, when the Bible says "ALL things are yours", including the world, does it include or exclude Government? If it includes government, how can we attain that position without politics? Even a Civil Servant still has to be confirmed by a vote in the House. How shallow minded can you be?

A question to you as well. If the Bible says All things are yours, why then do you have to work to receive that whcih God says already belongs to you? Why aren't you just sitting down at home and have God send you silver and gold which the Bible declares belongs to God?

I must say TayoD, mindful of the fact that the World comprises of different elements and means different things in context, you butchery of scripture is still quite painful to read

Can you please tell us what the World means in that context? Also explain what the Bible means when it says ALL things. Do you remember when I shared with you what the Bible defintion of 'World' is?

Again you miss the nuance. It was only because it was within God's plan and suited His purpose that he allowed Nebu to ascend to the throne. You are pulling the rug out from under your own feet. If God indeed raises up all kings/rulers, it begs the question I asked earlier, "What is the point of political christinaity? All your pointers to the righteous being in power & righteousness exalting a nation are also invalidated, as this would mean God doesn't always want the righteous in power, so again where does that leave "CP"?

What nuance is there to miss? Like someone said, "the Bible is so simple, you will need someone to help you misunderstand it." You sure are helping people misunderstand what the bible is saying. How much clearer does this scripture need to be? Daniel 2:37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. Political Christianity follows God's principle to obey the laws of the land. Our constitution demands politicking to attain a governmental post which in itself is service towards God.

I am still waiting for you to show us and prove to us how God will put someone in power today without the avenue of politics. I cited Obasanjo to you earlier. Please show us how God would have put him in power without politics.

Did anyone threaten to deport you if you do not support everything the US does? It seems you are trying to impress some people in certain quarters with your wrong analysis and futile defence for policies that even americans object to.

Get a life and live like other human beings, being unintelligence is not a curse, you can improve if you are really ready to learn, blind arguements will only expose how narrow minded you are.

Dumb words from a habitual liar. I guess intelligence in your dictionary includes lying to butress an unsustainable point. Don't be mad at me that I am a U.S. resident. It is not my fault that I am blessed in all I choose to do and achieve all I set my heart to achieve. You must be pained that others enjoy what you only dream about. A word of advice for you sha. Coming to America will not change your life for the better. As Bishop Idahosa has said: "A lizard in Nigeria will not become an alligator in America." Spend your time making the most of what you've got there. Feeling sorry for yourself won't help you, and bashing all who have what you don't won't change your sorry state.

@TV01,

Additionally, one has to view these things from a scriptural/spiritual perspective. Thers's only one God. Sovreign, Omni(p,p,s), but there are two sources of power. Yes, indubuitably, God ultimately ushers everything towards the ultimate conclusion of His own will, but one must not fail to see the kingdoms of this world (and the ensuing authority are under  the sway of the evil one).
Luke 4:5 Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6 And the devil said to Him, "All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. 7 Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours."
John 14:30 - I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me.
1 John 5:19 - We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.
Ephesians 2:2 - in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience,

Your argument falls flat on its face when we realise that Jesus made the following statement after His resurrection: Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.   

And why have you forgotten 1 Corinthians 3: 21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; 22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; 23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.   It appears you have chosen to be left behind in the Old Testament (I'm sure you know Jesus lived in the O.T.)

So for example, did God raise up Idi Amin? How about Pol Pot? Or the crop of war-mongering megalomaniac leaders in many states today? Or Herod (who killed only God knows how many babies and toddlers to eliminate the Messiah?) And what of Nebuchadnezzar? No, no, no! Even Pharoah was ultimately used for God's purposes, but that doesn't mean he was primarily seeking to serve or glorify God. But ultimately God used Pharoah for His purposes, just as He used Nebuchadnezzar to judge Judah and the surrounding nations, prior to judging Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar.

I will answer you with scriptures here:

Daniel 2:37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.

Daniel 5:18 O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour:

Daniel 7:18 But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.

Daniel 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

Daniel 4:32 And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.

Got enough?

@TV01,

True God fearing, Christ following Christians will never be able to take political power, simply because in numerical terms there will never be enough of them. Most people (including many who profess religious beliefs, including many who claim to be Christians), are walking the broad path. There are few that find the narrow way. Please ponder that.
There is no countrry (constituency) anywhere, that has a majority of true professing Christians

No wonder you are paralysed in your thinking. You have already accepted a conclusion that has limited your ability to see beyond a particular dogma. Not only are you ideologically wrong in your conclusion, there are modern day examples to show that you can be the salt of the earth (a city set on a hill) without dragging yourself in mud. And by the way, please share the source of your statistics with us. Or are we to accept your conslusion just because it came from TV01? The "way" talked about by Jesus in that scripture is nothing but Himself. Don't go stretching it to mean something else.

Neither is there any country (constituency), where you can campaign on unabashed Christian values, and be duly elected. Even in parties that claim to be "Christian" spiritual imperatives are always marginalised or way down the list of priorites. Even then, none of them dare to couch their manifestoes in scripture or unashamedly Christian prose. Please show me one.

I shared with you recently the case of Michelle Bachmann who in public said she was a fool for Christ in pursuing her elective office. She was taunted and persecuted over this statement and her stand against abortion and homosexuality (even though her sister is a lesbian). During the debate, her opponent mocked her belief (faith) that a wife should be subject to her husband.  She has been called all sorts of name for her uncompromising stand. Infact she lobbied and wrote a legislation to limit marriage between a man and a woman. Despite all this, she won convincingly in a Democratic State. She won in a State that is so non-Christian biased that a muslim was elected during the same election season. Doesn't that put paid to your uninformed statement? Michelle Backmann has shown herself to be an exemplerary public servant who practices what she believes based on her faith. She has shown that abortion isn't necessary. That alternatives abound and that there is hope even for an unwanted child. To prove this, she adopted 23 children into her home proving she is indeed a child of the one we refer to as the Father of the fatherless.

You are also entirely missing the corrupting influence of the state on pure Christian witness. There are 16 (I think), Christian Bishops in the House of Lords, and not a few professong Christian MP's. Please show me one piece of legislation that has the imprimateur of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ on it.  In fact, the day after (the very next day!) a piece oflegislation was passed favouring homosexuals (2005 summer or so), the Church of England, amended it's bye-laws to reflect same! It's why you have Bishops argueing about changing the limits on abortion and not for it's abolishment. It's hypocrisy and compromise and leads those who do not know better to think that is the official Christian position

You are getting things totally wrong. How many of the Catholic Bishops who molested the young boys in their care ran for elective office? You are putting the blams on politics when you should be targeting the 'flesh'.  And by the way, that the legislation to favour homosexuals was passed does not mean the Bishops were compromised. You just need to find out what they voted for to come to that conclusion.

I can see the h[b]A[/b]l[b]F[/b] [b]MA[/b]d Liar called Afam has finally entered the market to dance. Don't be deceived by the many people watching you dance. They are not admiring you as you think, they are actually pitying you!!!

@TV01,

I'll respond to all your submisions soon.

In the mean time, can you tell us what area of our day to day life is not a source of corruption to Christians. You single out politics as if it is the only vocation that will corrupt a christian absolutely. Please tell us what endeavour you are involved with that is above corruption.

Afam the Liar,

Or is it half-mad liar. There is a difference between reaching a wrong conclusion based on faulty intelligence has Bush did, and being an outright liar based on overwhelming facts as you are. Going to Iraq is Bush's greatest undoing, but he did that based on faulty CIA intelligence and not a lie as you, the greatest Liar has proposed.

I thought this forum was about the raid of Iran's Liaison Office (though the half-mad liar would have us believe it is Iran's Consulate). But in any case, I will like for everyone making the accusation that the U.S. raided Iraq for oil to please prove it. So far, all you have said are based on hearsay. While you may be right as such a notion is probable, please provide your proofs. If you don't have proofs, then submit your posts in the rumors/hearsay section. On the other hand, there is proof that Saddam's annexation of Kuwait was for oil. I wish you'd provide such proof in the case of Bush as well.

Calling Bush a Liar without proof amount to character assassination, Chavez style.  For instance, I have called Afam a Liar on this forum not based on hearsay, but based on facts. We only need to look at the topic of this thread to prove this. The coalition troops never raided Iran's Consulate, but a shameless Liar like Afam keeps trying to pull wool over our eyes despite the fact that we have pointed this error to him several times before now. This is what I refer to as calling someone a Liar with proof.

As seemingly unpopular as Bush is as a President, there is absolutely no chance of him being impeached because he has done nothing illegal. The most popular contemporary president today, Bill Clinton almost got impeached. So much for popularity.

@TV01,

Please stop using slight of hand to buttress your position. We are discussing "Christian participation in party politics" here. I did not say we sit around and wait for divine intervention. The novice to professor thing is false. You are taking as read that God wants us to engage in poloitics and will crown our efforts if we do so. Where is that notion in the Bible? Please show me. The learning that Joseph went through was not political tutelage. Ditto for Daniel and Esther. To make the arguemnt for Christians in politics, you have to try and align uncorrelated events and misapply the biblical narrative.
Who amongst those mentioned was actively seeking political power? God elevated them in order to fulfil His own purpose. The fact that He used earthly rulers to assign the authority or influence to them was His plan, not theirs. What they went through was to prepare them for the roles.

You go on telling us to show you where God says we should get involved in politics, yet you are unable to show us where He said politics is sin. If you think through scripture (the scriptures are a collection of God's thoughts), you will never come to the conclusion you have made. God crowns our efforts with success. See Proverbs 16:33  The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD. Isn't that the method used by the Apostles in picking a replacement for Judas? What about the Deacons? Infact, the same principle is seen in appointing a Bishop. The Bible says anyone who "desires to be a Bishop. Desire preceeds God's choice of man for any endeavour. How could God have appointed Daniel into politics if Daniel didn't desire it. Same with Joseph and Esther. So you see, divine intervention follows a man's desires and pursuit.

Deuteronomy 1:13 Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you. Now isn't this democracy to you? This is the people voting for the folks they desire to rule over them. That is the premise which we follow today. We seek amongst ourselves, those who are wise and understanding to rule over us. Where else can we get such except in the Church? Obasanjo is like a modern-day Josph who left prison to become king. Can you please tell us how he could have become nigeira's president if he never got into politics? Or would you think God will flout our constitution and impose somone on us against our will?

This is a variation of your oft cited "by any mean necessary approach". Which effectively enables you to overlook scripture and point to the end as a means of justifying unbiblical practices. (Like trying to justify divorce because of the calling on a persons life ~ please! Again, this passage does not speak to overt agitation for political power. It seems a lot of your doctrine is merely theoretical. As I answered mr pataki above, please detail how you will wield political power (let alone obtain it without compromise), to the glory of God. A politician purports to serve those he represents. Could you ban abortion, stop wars, banish gambling? You are representing unbelievers, so even if you manage to ascend any kind of political height, if you don't work to their (evil) interests, they will soon be shot of you. It's a work of the flesh, so your position either becomes untenable, or you are forced to compromise to stay in power. If the whole process hasn't corrupted you already.

Of course we go by all means necessary to get our desires fulfilled. As long as those means are not a compromise of our values as Christians. No wonder Jesus said the the children of this world are wiser than the children of light. While we are stupidly waiting for God's intervention, they are busy making use of their God-given brains and talents to make things happen. Your argument is prety theoretical too as far as I am concerned. A Christian in politics does not represent unbelievers. He represents his constituency which include both believers and unbelievers alike. Of course we can stiop abortion if we have enough Christians in power to vote against it. While we cannot vote against sexual immorality, we can at least vote against making prostituion legal and making sure unwanted pregnancies are not terminated. A situation where you have to compromise will have you take a honorable position that is ever available to a public servant - resignation.

God uses whom he will when and as he pleases. He used Nebuvhadnezzar to judge Israel and all the surrounding nations, then judged Babylon & Nebuchadnezzer.  Their has always been political intrigue and conspiracy. It flourishes wherever their is an earthly seat of power. it may be more genteel these days, but the bible is full of examples of kings being usurped or conspired against, even by their own flesh and blood. That's how it was done in those days. Daniel et al did not employ those methods. You revisionist history and extrapolation to contemporary times are both whimsical at best. And again a prime example of the kind of sophistry rampant in some denominations these days.

So do you refer to as political intrgue and conspiracy the methods employed by Mordecai and Esther to deliver their people from genocide? Are these compromising actions by the duo? Even David had his son conspiring to kill him.  So what exactly is your point? You have turned yourself to the judge of the the denominations. Unfortunately/fortunately, I can not wish you God-speed at such an endeavour.

@TV01,

If one can do so without compromising their faith in anyway, go right ahead.

So can you tell us how to determine who will not compromise their faith prior to participating in politics?

Also, can you tell me any human endeavor that does not provide the opportunity for us to compromise our faith?

@TV01,

None of the people mentioned above were politically active or agitated for power. Indeed every single one of them was in some sort of servitude. It was divine favour and not human effort that elevated them. Again I believe you are using unrelated terms and events synonymously. So, being led, favoured and exalted by God (using human vessels, regardless of their beliefs, regardless of the govermental/political situation on the ground), and being used to fulfil Gods purpose and Glorify His name does not equate to being politically active, even if it leads to you having political influence.

Can you separate divine favour from human effort? Have you seen where God elevated a novice to the position of a professor? My point is that while I believe in divine favour, it is not independent of the human vessel that God has favoured. Joseph went through different stages of administration, Daniel was schooled and well learned, Esther went through beauty classes - all these were human efforts. What you term divine favour is God crowning their human effort with success. Divine favour is when man's ordinary is complimented by God's extraordinary.

It appears you do not have a problem with exerting political influence, rather you are totally against the process of attaining political influence. Let me ask you a question. In that parable I cited in Luke 19, how many of those people were told what exactly should be done with their talents? How many were told how to multiply their resources?  The master expected them to use their common sense without violating thier conscience to negotiate and multiply their resources. So while the destination is certain, the means is left to the individual.

I don't agree with your premise. Which is essentially saying, God needs believers to be in certain positions before He can effect His will. Who placed Daniel? did Daniel arrive in Babylon (as a captive slave) and join a political party, begin networking, articulating his political agenda and building a well defined constituency

God uses men in different positions to get His will done. Through Government (politics), God delivered the world from famine through Joseph and delivered the Isrealites from genocide through Esther.
Daniel may not have practiced politics the way it is done today because such establishment wasn't in place during his days. The only government in the world during those times were dictatorship and monarchies. Democracy as we know it today was never in place. The question we need to ask is does politics contradict the spirit of the New Testament?

Joseph, the one in whom the "Spirit of God was". That is the key. When they see that in Christians, the uncommon wisdom, the moral probity, the unflinching righteousness, they will give God glory.
No, a Christians testimony, is his/her witness. We testify to the saving work of Christ (Gods goodness, mercy and grace) by our conduct in a corrupt and evil world, adopting it's mores to  assume power which we then hand over to God. That is unadulterated "Dominionist" thinking. I personally don't see any scriptural foundation for it. Trying to effect the same end as mentioned Biblical figures mentioned, but by different means is error. As Paul said to the Galatians. You can't finish in the flesh that which is started in the Spirit and vice-versa.
God bless

You seem to be deluded that the Bible has spelt out everything we should do at every point in time, all of the time. God has given you wisdom which He expects to be put to use in your daily activities. God told me to work to earn my keep, but He never told me to be an Engineer. I am an Engineer because I have the passion for it and I believe it is a means for me to work and take care of my family. The end product is that I am working and earning a living as stipulated by God.
The Apostle Paul used the means of writing to accomplish his vision and spread God's Word. Can you show us where Jesus did the same thing? So did Paul begin in the spirit and ended in the flesh because he followed a different means than Jesus?  You are using the internet today to spread God's Word. Did Jesus or the early church use that means? So are you now in the flesh because you are going about in cars, trains and airplane when Jesus never used those means of transportation?

So you see the means is immaterial as long as it doesn't compromise our conscience and God's Word. Politics, is a means to an end. That means can be used righteously or sinfully the same way the internet can be used righteously or sinfully.

@Seun,

Once upon a time, the military was also our judge, lawgiver, and governor. That's just the definition of dictatorship.

You leave out one important factor. God encourages and respects the freewill of man. The military dictators don't.

@TV01,

Negotiation makes it sound somewhat genteel doesn't it. Actually it's more about compromise.
Negotiate till He comes? The Lord said that? Please show me where!
So, we are to negotiate our way to establishing His will on earth as it is in heaven are we? Again, please expound how.

Politics is about negotiation and not compromise. Maybe that is the fountain of your problems. A ruler/politician/government/administrator or whatever must be well taught and knowledgeable in the art of negotiation. You negotiate based on your values. Compromise sounds like a valueless player who seeks to get whatever he/she desires without recourse to a set of moral values.

Luke 19:13 - And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. The word 'occupy' in that verse is synonymous with negotiation. The Lord makes it clear from the parable that we are to trade and negotiate with what He has given us in other to obtain more. And before you jump to conclusion that it is all about commerce (which you also condemned in an earlier exchange), please read about how the parable was tied to the kingdom and government.

Are we not told that what happens in Govenrmnet can affect whether we as Christians will live a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty? That should give you an idea how His will can be established on earth as it is in heaven. There are many examples of that today which I can make available to you as we go. Infact, the political negotiations of Jesus' day was instrumental to the scriptures being fulfilled.

Unfortunately, on this forum what you say is inconsequential because the forum will be a disaster if we all have to come down to your level to discuss threads.
Why not take time to learn stuff you don't know?

Coming to my level will mean speaking the truth. Unfortunately for you, truth is not something you regard very highly especially when it is diametrically opposed to your hopeless desires (which is all of the time).

Talk about learning. Please begin your belated quest for knowledcge by first learning the differences between a Liaison Office, an Embassy and a Consulate. When you know and understand the differences then we shall begin to teach you some real knowledge.

@Afam,

I have said you have nothing to offer but personal insults. Your contribution on this thread has been shown to be baseless and at best lies and fabrications from a depraved mind. keep at it, your ignorance and hopelessness is manifest for all to see.

@mrpataki,

I will not necessarily call God a Politician as you have done. While I know that the freest form of government on earth today is derived from Isaiah 33:22, I would rather say that God uses politics to accomplish His will on earth.

Politics is all about negotiation and we are the once Jesus told to negotiate till He comes. Like my Pastor once said, "when God shows up on the scene, He never comes to take sides, He comes to take over." As the scripture has said "the earth has God given to the sons of men" and it is up to us to use the wisdom He has given us to negotiate our way to establishing His will on earth as it is done in heaven.

@Shahan,

I've been so tied up at work this past week and been unable to post as much as I would love to. But in any case, I thought I'd shed more light on my position as earlier promised.

1 Samuel 28: I have no doubt in my heart that what Saul was dealing with was a familiar spirit and not the spirit of Samuel. The deceit of the enemy was compounded by the personal pronoun used by the spirit as well as the reference to the Word of God. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone because the devil knows and quotes God's Word very well. Do we remember how he quoted Bible verses to tempt Jesus? That the words of the spirit were truthful isn't a big deal if we remember the spirit that followed Paul around declaring truthfully that Paul was a servant of the Lord whose words should be heeded.

I wonder why God would allow the spirit of his saint to be roused from rest to partake of an act that God has forbidden. Like Apostle Paul argued, we cannot hope to promote righteousness through sinful means. So I very much doubt God will encourage sin in order to establish His will.

Hebrews 9:27

I defintely don't agree with what TV01 said concerning this scripture. His explanation is neither consistent with the entire passage nor sustained by revelation.

As I have established before, I believe the death mentioned in that verse cannot be physical death since we all know that not all men will die physically, and infact there are 2 we know who never tasted physical death.

At the same time, Hebrews 9:27 qualifies the word 'judgement' meaning that it refers to a single, common judgement that all men will face. May I bring to your attention that Christians will not be at the same judgment with unbelievers. As Christians, we will appear before the judgment seat of Christ while the unbels will report to the White throne judgement. With this back-drop, it is clear that "the judgment" in Hebrews 9:27 must not be the one after physical death because there is no single judgement common to all men.

As I said before, we are left with only the option of spiritual death and its consequence: judgment. If we'll recall, Adam was judged as soon as he sinned even before the Lord came into the garden. That judgment ensures he could no longer stand in God's prescence and alienated him from God.

It is this separation from God that the atonement deals with, and ensures that though we are appointed to die once and be judged, Christ has provided a means of reconcialiation back to God. That is the main theme of the entire passage.

@Mckren,

I have no qualms with you considering Bush to be a Terrorist going by the dictionary definition you submited: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. " However, I will only take you seriously if you agree that the same definition consripts you too as a Terrorist. I have proven this in my earlier response.

How can you explain a situation where the Chinese leader was invited by washington to explain why they recorded so much growth in GDP within a short while. Do you know that if Bush had excuse he would have branded china a terrorist state?

This statement only proves that your stance is not based on ideology but on personal prejudice. Since when did China become a model country to follow? Do you know how much damage China is inflicting on other nations in pursuit of their self-interests? Can you quantify the damage they have inflicted on the Nigeiran economy through piracy? What about the enormous economic disequilibrium they cause around the world by not subjecting their market to free-trade? How about letting their currency value be determined by market demand? Your notion about labeling china a terrorist state smirks of nothing but propanganda. I guess it will take an ignoramus like Afam to believe and accept such a baseless statement.

Clinton during his time also protected national interest but was not this confrontational.

And that is why he refused to kill Osama when he had the opportunity. The result: 9.1.1. For your information, Hillary Clinton was and is still in support of the war in Iraq. She is only against the strategy. I guess that tells you what Bill Clinton will do if he was in Bush's shoes.

Bush has just deployed 20,000 US soldiers in Iraq, the Democrats, the Legislature, the US army all think the idea is wrong except Bush. You will only begin to understand BUSH's interest in Iraq when you begin to look beyond the realms of democracy and terrorism. their interest is just a three letter word "OIL" it is as simple as that.

The same legislature you are siding with supported the Iraq war. What makes you think they are now right? I guess you side with anything and anyone that opposes Bush. Which U.S. Army think the idea is wrong? The Generals in charge of the war requested for the additional troops. so where did you get your info from? Please share it.

Is Saudi Arabia a democracy? why is Bush not exporting his ideology there? they are an ally of America. As long as oil is flowing democracy can go to blases.

Are you informed of what is going on around the world at all. Saudi recently held municipal elections in which women could vote and be voted for. Who made that happen? Iran? Even Clinton couldn't make this happen despite his fraternity with the Monarchy.

Osama Bin Laden has never been reported to live in Iraq, Ayman Alzawahiri is not in Iraq, infact Al-Qaeda only migrated to Iraq to face US after the invasion, Abu Mussab Al-Zaqawi only recently pledged his loyalty to Bin Laden before his death.
So explain to me how a 9-11 attack that was clearly masterminded by Al-Qaeda should transcend to a war in Iraq, even when Saddam Hussein is not a member of Al-Qaeda? don't tell me its because Saddam praised the attack that is not enough excuse.

Neither did he live in the United States but see what he accomplished there on 911. The war in Iraq goes beyond 911. Do you want to be schooled again on the reason for the invasion?

Most of the insurgence in Iraq and scattared all over the world are Jordanians, with Bin Laden inclusive. If America is launching a pre-emptive strike why not Jordan the home of most terrorist. Because King Abdullah is an ally of the west, and the oil is flowing.

This smirks of ignorance. The pre-emptive strikes are against institutions and people who harbour terrorists. The U.S. does more to fight terror than just throwing bombs (based on intelligence). These allies are fighting the terrorists in their countries such that the U.S. has no need to do it. When there is the need for it as we see in Pakistan, the U.S. will strike. In the mean time, the U.S. is gathering and sharing intelligence with her allies to fight the terrorist.

Bush is still attempting to effect a regime change in Russia because Vladimir Puttin will not dance to his tune, the Venezuelan leader is a dictator because he will not lick america's butt. so too is Iran, Syria, Brazil, China.

Can you provide proofs of these assertions especially with regards to Russia, Brazil and China.

But America needs to find a balance point between protecting National Interest and respect for other sovriegn Nations.

Well said. But the same applies to other nations too.

I'm on the side of the 9.3% voters so far of this thread that Chris Okotie is my man for the presidency. He's got the vision, the passion as well as the standing to ascend that honorable position. I read through his interview recently where he articulated his vision again and I just applaud his intellectual and nationalistic zeal. 

Please go through this article objectively and tell us what you think: http://www.independentngonline.com/news/185/ARTICLE/18433/2007-01-07.html