Nazarene Space

Last week I was certain I would be voting for Ron Paul despite the false allegations leveled at him about being "anti-Semitic" .  He obviously understands the precarious position of the fiat dollar and it's status as the world's reserve currency and how it could be changing some day soon. He also knows the US is way too far in debt and cannot sustain it's present spending levels. But, after watching the video, Rick Perry has redeemed himself from his past screw-ups in my eyes and is now running neck and neck with Ron.Any other opinions out there... (...excluding the kind that say "they are all crooks" like my dad) :>)

Views: 137

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Newt's my guy, though I'd go for Ron as well.
Perry seems like an establishment tool to me.


Newt has some serious problems if you have watched the game over the years.  For example on parental rights... he once proposed that welfare families have their children confiscated and raised by the state! 


I have lived in Texas all my life, and like Perry.... I like Cain a lot as well...


I have a problem with Cain's 9 9 9 plan....


This plan would tax the poor at a higher rate than the rich.


The person who lives paycheck to paycheck and spends 100% of what they make, will effectively be taxed at 18% while the rich man who only spends 10% of what he makes, would only be taxed at around 10%.  This would be an inverse graduated tax that would  tax the poor more than the rich.


This is the secret of the idea of a "federal sales tax" instead of a "federal income tax" as such a tax actually taxes the poor who spend all of their money at a higher rate than those who spend only part of it, the more you make, the lowe your overall rate... its literally an inverse graduated income tax.

Let me revise my answer.
Let's assume the US survives another few years and gets hold an election.

The only thing that matters is beating Obama, and frankly, any candidate will have to labor hard to be worse than Obama.

So, in terms of who can actually beat Obama, I think I'm forced to admit none of the guys we've named so far, excepting Herman Cain, have the chance (I think.)


Perry and Romney are both horrible candidates as pertains to policy, but they also have a realistic shot at winning.

I don't think Ron Paul is antisemitic, but he is certainly no friend of Israel.

I like Perry but he presents poorly at debates and is loosing public support.

I really like Herb Cain. I don't think he could win on his own, but a Romney/Cain

ticket could be interesting (even though I don't care for Romney, but he might

have the best chance of beating Obama).

Personally, I will vote for anyone who runs against Obama.  ABO.....anybody but Obama.



I cannot agree with you, the people who put Obama in office were very failed human beings and NOT Elohim.

Kefa, your arguments make sense from a predestination standpoint, but not a free will standpoint (IMO.)
Unlike Anglicans and Muslims, I don't believe free will and predestination can be harmonized.
If you believe in any measure of free will, you per definition don't believe in predestination.

Kefa T Dixon said:
I do believe in predestination however it is far from the Calvinistic viewpoint of predestination, I also believe in free will as part of that predestination, and that HaShem picks His people and His Chosen, however I believe that HaShem in His plan puts in people for His purpose, these plans and purposes we do not always know.
1. Most would take the term predestination to imply a rejection of free will, which appears reasonable to me.

2. If you don't like being compared to Anglicans, Muslims and Catholics (groups you seem to agree with on this and some other issues, by your own words) why would I like being continually compared to Calvinists ?

Kefa T Dixon said:


You and I have completely different viewpoints on predestination.

Which is fine we do not have to agree, it does make that much difference.

Unlike you, I understand both free will and predestination theology, since I have been in both camps.
You've only ever been in one of these camps, and never even tried to understand the other camp.
I am aware of all your arguments, as I have made them earlier, in trying to defend free will against the biblical argument of predestination.

As for Jewish theology, it seems you're in agreement with most of the pagans on this issue as well.
So the "look who I'm in agreement with" argument fails.
You're in agreement with the Muslims and the British Empire and the Catholics on the issue of predestination, so don't try painting a dichotomy of "who one agrees with" as defining of this discussion.
The Greeks and the Romans, past and future, overwhelmingly reject predestination in favor of free will theology and the teaching that the Father and Son are equal (in fact they invented this particular heresy).

Kefa T Dixon said:


That thinking goes much against Jewish Theology.  Maybe its the word predestination, I do not refer to this as the Greeks and Romans much knew it, predestination to me is HaShem calls His own based on thier hearts, He knew before time who this would be as he foreknew it.


All things are foreknown,
but freewill is given.
- m.Avot 3:16



At this point let me lay out the idea that there is a distinction between YHWH's primary will and His permissive will. 


Primary will is what YHWH actually wants?


Permissive will is what He is willing to allow in deference to our will.


There is also a Hebrew idiom by which YHWH is said to actively do things that He allows in His sovereignty to happen.

Another example of this idiom is found in Jer. 4:10:

Then said I: 'Ah, Adonai YHWH! surely
You have greatly deceived this people and
Yerushalayim, saying: You shall have peace;
whereas the sword reaches unto the soul.'
(Jer. 4:10 HRV)

Meaning not that YHWH decieved them but that he ALLOWED them to be decieved.
(other examples of this idiom: Mt. 6:13a; 2Thes. 2:11; Rom. 1:24-26; Zech. 1:10b).


Paul says many similar things in the epistles, about respecting what God has decreed regarding rulers, etc.
Similar sentiments are found in Jeremiah, who cautions people to not rebel against or fight against Babylon, for God had decreed Babylon's victory.

Kefa T Dixon said:

Rabbi Trimm how do you interpret Daniel then where it says HaShem will put in kings and remove kings?

That is not saying He is allowing them it says He put them in.

This is regards to leaders not in regards to predestination verses free will.

I think it means He will chose of His free will to either set up good kings, or step back and allow bad kings to arise.

Reply to Discussion













© 2019   Created by James Trimm.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service