Anyone else hate Mike Pence?

[Agorism]

The guy just irks me. I can't stand the thought if this guy ever becoming preznit.

[FrankRep]

The Freedom Index (http://www.thenewamerican.com/files/Freedom_Index_111-3.pdf) gives Mike Pence (R-Indiana) a Constitutional score of 78%, overall a score of 86%.

SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/files/Freedom_Index_111-3.pdf



Side note: Ron Paul scored a 100%. :)

[cindy25]

Pence is too tied to Israel

[erowe1]

The Freedom Index (http://www.thenewamerican.com/files/Freedom_Index_111-3.pdf) gives Mike Pence (R-Indiana) a Constitutional score of 78%, overall a score of 86%.

SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/files/Freedom_Index_111-3.pdf


I've seen a lot of Freedom Indexes/Conservative Indexes from past years where he scored a lot worse than that.

[Imaginos]

Pence is too tied to Israel
Bingo.
Pence should move to Israel and leave us alone.

[Sola_Fide]

I can't respect Christian zionists...or any other Zionist for that matter. They want to enforce their morality on our foreign policy.

[Zatch]

I can't respect Christian zionists...or any other Zionist for that matter. They want to enforce their morality on our foreign policy.

Ron Paul supporters need to quit equating Zionism with U.S. govt. interventionism. It turns away potential Ron Paul supporters who think he's an anti Israel candidate. I'm a diehard Ron Paul fan and a Zionist. Look up what Zionism means.

[erowe1]

Ron Paul supporters need to quit equating Zionism with U.S. govt. interventionism. It turns away potential Ron Paul supporters who think he's an anti Israel candidate. I'm a diehard Ron Paul fan and a Zionist. Look up what Zionism means.

I think that's a fair point. I could call myself a zionist too, in some sense. But when it comes to public policy, as opposed to personal beliefs, a zionist policy is an interventionist one. Pence is a good example of a Christian zionist who uses that belief to justify intervention, and he's not outside of the mainstream in that respect.

[malkusm]

Ron Paul supporters need to quit equating Zionism with U.S. govt. interventionism. It turns away potential Ron Paul supporters who think he's an anti Israel candidate. I'm a diehard Ron Paul fan and a Zionist. Look up what Zionism means.

Most of our interventions are on behalf of Israel's national interests at the expense of our own. I think I speak for a lot of people here when I say that we just want Israel to be treated like any other country: diplomatically, and with open commerce.

The fact is that Zionists get a bad rap because of the prominent Zionist lobby, which has real, negative implications for our foreign policy.

[Sola_Fide]

Ron Paul supporters need to quit equating Zionism with U.S. govt. interventionism. It turns away potential Ron Paul supporters who think he's an anti Israel candidate. I'm a diehard Ron Paul fan and a Zionist. Look up what Zionism means.





I am a Christian. I know what Zionism means. Christians who have a dispensational outlook on theology are more prone to Zionism. I am a Reformed Christian so I am more covenental in my outlook on Scripture. So therefore theologically, I can't agree with Zionism.


Politically, I can see no real difference between the bulk of American intervention in the past 100 years and Zionism.


I am not anti-Jew, but I cannot find the basis for American interests being so bent toward Zionism.

[specsaregood]

Look up what Zionism means.

Doesn't it mean you have unplugged from the matrix and are in a battle with the machines alongside neo and morpheus?

[Zatch]

Politically, I can see no real difference between the bulk of American intervention in the past 100 years and Zionism.


I am not anti-Jew, but I cannot find the basis for American interests being so bent toward Zionism.

I'm not saying Zionism hasn't influenced American foreign policy. I'm saying being a non-interventionist doesn't make you less Zionist:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/cohen1.html

[Zatch]

Doesn't it mean you have unplugged from the matrix and are in a battle with the machines alongside neo and morpheus?

Exactly.

[Cowlesy]

I don't hate him. In fact, I don't even hate President Obama. I just don't agree with their worldviews. And I wouldn't spend so much time reading and thinking about politics except that they both think Government is the Master and the people are the servants, and on that point they deserve to be fought.

[Sola_Fide]

I'm not saying Zionism hasn't influenced American foreign policy. I'm saying being a non-interventionist doesn't make you less Zionist:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/cohen1.html


Well, I agree with the article. Non-interventionism is not neccessarily tied with Zionism.


But what I said is that I am opposed to Zionism biblically. I do not agree that the Bible teaches Zionism, or premellinialism, or dispensationalism. This is a Schofield/Darby 20th century interpretation of Scripture...it is not historically Christian, or Biblical.

Here is a great book that might open up your eyes:
http://www.monergismbooks.com/Christian-Zionism-Roadmap-to-Armageddon-p-16473.html

[erowe1]

Well, I agree with the article. Non-interventionism is not neccessarily tied with Zionism.


But what I said is that I am opposed to Zionism biblically. I do not agree that the Bible teaches Zionism, or premellialism, or dispensationalism. This is a Schofield/Darby 20th century interpretation of Scripture...it is not historically Christian, or Biblical.

http://www.monergismbooks.com/Christian-Zionism-Roadmap-to-Armageddon-p-16473.html

Scoffield and Darby did not teach zionism in a sense that would give any special place to the modern nation-state of Israel. When they distinguished Israel from the Church, the Israel they referred to was the ancient nation of the descendants of Jacob.

They did teach that God would restore them to the land he promised them. But that eschatology was descriptive, not prescriptive. It did not entail any mandate for Christians to support the reinstitution of a nation of Israel in that land today. Nor did it entail equating Israel with rabbinic Judaism, which is part of what zionism in the form it mainly takes today does. Nor did their theology even suggest a way for human beings to know who in the world today could even be a part of that biblical Israel. They taught that the present Church Age was one in which God had set aside his plan for Israel and would not return to it until after the rapture of the Church.

I realize that you would still have major problems with all that theologically, as a covenant theologian. But I think the connection between dispensationalism and zionism that many people who oppose both have is a misconception. I have a ThM from a very conservative classical dispensational seminary, and the majority of the faculty members whom I heard address this topic while I was there did not support the idea that Christians either on their own or via the government had any obligation to have some special relationship with the modern nation-state of Israel, nor that its existence was the fulfillment of prophecy.

Furthermore, the biggest Christian zionists I can think of, especially when it comes to making their zionism a part of their public policy, are not dispensationalists. John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson are all nondispensationalists. It's harder to tell where some of these politicians, like Pence, are coming from theologically. But some that I know of who are avowed Christian zionists, also come from church backgrounds where dispensationalism is not likely a part of it. On the other hand, two very strong opponents of Israel-first foreign policy I know of, Chuck Baldwin and John Hostettler, both fit the profile of dispensationalists (even though, granted, I don't know for a fact if either of them are).

One reason I say this is not to try to change anyone's mind about dispensationalism. But I think there's a rhetorical payoff from this. In battling Christian zionism it isn't a prerequisite that we get people to reject dispensationalism. There are good arguments to be made against it that dispensationalists can and should accept.

[Sola_Fide]

Scoffield and Darby did not teach zionism in a sense that would give any special place to the modern nation-state of Israel. When they distinguished Israel from the Church, the Israel they referred to was the ancient nation of the descendants of Jacob.

They did teach that God would restore them to the land he promised them. But that eschatology was descriptive, not prescriptive. It did not entail any mandate for Christians to support the reinstitution of a nation of Israel in that land today. Nor did it entail equating Israel with rabbinic Judaism, which is part of what zionism in the form it mainly takes today does. Nor did their theology even suggest a way for human beings to know who in the world today could even be a part of that biblical Israel. They taught that the present Church Age was one in which God had set aside his plan for Israel and would not return to it until after the rapture of the Church.

I realize that you would still have major problems with all that theologically, as a covenant theologian. But I think the connection between dispensationalism and zionism that many people who oppose both have is a misconception. I have a ThM from a very conservative classical dispensational seminary, and the majority of the faculty members whom I heard address this topic while I was there did not support the idea that Christians either on their own or via the government had any obligation to have some special relationship with the modern nation-state of Israel, nor that its existence was the fulfillment of prophecy.

Furthermore, the biggest Christian zionists I can think of, especially when it comes to making their zionism a part of their public policy, are not dispensationalists. John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson are all nondispensationalists. It's harder to tell where some of these politicians, like Pence, are coming from theologically. But some that I know of who are avowed Christian zionists, also come from church backgrounds where dispensationalism is not likely a part of it. On the other hand, two very strong opponents of Israel-first foreign policy I know of, Chuck Baldwin and John Hostettler, both fit the profile of dispensationalists (even though, granted, I don't know for a fact if either of them are).

One reason I say this is not to try to change anyone's mind about dispensationalism. But I think there's a rhetorical payoff from this. In battling Christian zionism it isn't a prerequisite that we get people to reject dispensationalism. There are good arguments to be made against it that dispensationalists can and should accept.


Erowe1,

First off, I really appreciate your well thought out posts,on all topics.


I suppose you may be downplaying the connection between dispensationalism and Zionism. In the very least, one compliments the other, whereas the prevailing eschatologies of Calvinism in the era before Darby could not compliment Zionism (in fact it was neccessarily opposed to it theologically).

[A Son of Liberty]

I don't hate him. In fact, I don't even hate President Obama. I just don't agree with their worldviews. And I wouldn't spend so much time reading and thinking about politics except that they both think Government is the Master and the people are the servants, and on that point they deserve to be fought.

When a person keeps butting into my life, telling me what to do, and even starts taking my stuff, I get to a point where I hate them. I hate them for their imposition upon me.

Yeah, I hate Pence. And I hate Obama. I hate people who force themselves upon me, and try to run my life like they know better than me. I hate people like that. I hate these self-righteous, arrogant, hypocritical, cynical, immoral and foolish people. They're wrong. They're not just wrong, they're criminals.

[erowe1]

Erowe1,

First off, I really appreciate your well thought out posts,on all topics.


I suppose you may be downplaying the connection between dispensationalism and Zionism. In the very least, one compliments the other, whereas the prevailing eschatologies of Calvinism in the era before Darby could not compliment Zionism (in fact it was neccessarily opposed to it theologically).

Dispensationalism and zionism definitely have in common that both distinguish Israel from the Church. So they can be compatible, and to some covenant theologians that point in common might be enough to consider the terms interchangeable.

If we drew a Venn diagram, the circles for dispensationalism and zionism would overlap, and the space where they overlap would include some popular dispensationalist literature that has been very influential among lay people, such as Hal Lindsey and the Left Behind series, but the two circles wouldn't be coequal, and neither would subsume the other. Both would have space that is outside the other. So yes, dispensationalism compliments zionism better than a form of covenant theology that says Israel=Church could.

On the other hand, not even all covenant theologians do say Israel=Church. Many postmillenialists interpret Israel in Romans 9-11 to be physical Israel. As a matter of fact, IIRC, this includes Charles Hodge, who was an extremely important Calvinist theologian the generation before Darby. He wasn't a zionist, but I think his theology could be appropriated and taken in a zionist direction just like Darby's could.

[Imaginos]

Most of our interventions are on behalf of Israel's national interests at the expense of our own. I think I speak for a lot of people here when I say that we just want Israel to be treated like any other country: diplomatically, and with open commerce.

The fact is that Zionists get a bad rap because of the prominent Zionist lobby, which has real, negative implications for our foreign policy.
+1
And let Israel (especially!), Japan, South Korea, Germay, Taiwan, and 100+ other countries defend themselves with their own money!
Withdraw all the troops from all over the world and stop sending money to 150+ countries as well!
And arrest everyone who work for AIPAC for treason!
We should just mind our own business, period!