posted October 11, 2004 01:54 AM              

I can certainly see why it upset the Bush administration so much.

Good documentary and my heart really went out to the Flint woman who lost her son in Iraq.

Did you know that Bush made a movie of his own to try and counteract "Farenheit 9/11?" It was distributed to all the churches in the U.S. that have addresses. The pastors were real upset about it too.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40166

Bush documentary to combat Moore film
Producers hope to distribute DVD on president's faith to 300,000 churches

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: August 27, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Ron Strom
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

The producers of a documentary about President Bush's faith hope to educate millions of Christians nationwide about the commander in chief's spiritual life by distributing DVD copies of the film to 300,000 churches – every church in the country with a mailing address.

"George W. Bush: Faith in the White House," produced by Grizzly Adams Productions Inc., is a 70-minute examination of the president's personal practice of Christianity. David W. Balsiger, producer and director of the film, hopes it will serve as a an alternative to filmmaker Michael Moore's anti-Bush "Fahrenheit 9/11." Coming out on DVD Oct. 5, Balsiger sees his film going head-to-head with Moore's. A statement from the production company says it hopes the documentary will "neutralize many Bush-bashers."

Another outlet for the movie will be the American Film Renaissance festival next month in Dallas. WorldNetDaily is the Internet sponsor of the festival. Balsiger is scheduled to speak at the Dallas event between showings of his film.

The American Film Renaissance festival will also feature two other anti-Michael Moore offerings – "Michael Moore Hates America" and "Michael and Me."

The company also says the film will be screen four times for Republican National Convention delegates next week at a hotel across from Madison Square Gardens.

Grizzly Adams Productions emphasizes the film was produced without any coordination with the White House or the Bush-Cheney campaign.

The producers say the documentary features "balanced credible research with candid testimony from both critics and supporters that document Bush's extraordinary faith and prayer life – even before his election to the presidency."

Says Balsiger: "When it comes to objectivity and a balanced view between our Bush documentary and Moore's show there is a vast difference. Moore's show has absolutely no spokesperson from the Bush administration nor anyone else giving an opposing view to anything Moore says in the film."

Balsiger's documentary, he says, includes "18 proponent interviewees on Bush's faith and comments from 10 anti-Bush spokespersons, whose perspectives tend to come from the liberal agenda."

Carol Wilde, a publicist for Grizzly Adams, told WND that seven Christian television networks plan to broadcast the film in October. She also said secular networks are looking at the possibility of running it.

Part of the strategy for getting the film exposed to Americans is to send a DVD copy to every church in the U.S., which, according to Wilde, is about 300,000.

"We're in the process of working that out," she said. "We're gathering the money together to do that mailing."

Wilde hopes churches will "show it at some point to their parishioners, giving people an opportunity to come in and watch it."

The film is based in part on two books examining Bush's personal faith – David Aikman's "A Man of Faith: The Spiritual Journey of George W. Bush" and Tom Freiling's "George W. Bush on God and Country."

Grizzly Adams Productions says it has produced more than 500 family-friendly TV specials and series for NBC, CBS, Discovery, The Learning Channel, and other networks.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-04-baptists-upset_x.htm

Baptists angry at Bush campaign tactics

NASHVILLE (AP) — The Southern Baptist Convention, a conservative denomination closely aligned with President Bush, said it was offended by the Bush-Cheney campaign's effort to use church rosters for campaign purposes.
"I'm appalled that the Bush-Cheney campaign would intrude on a local congregation in this way," said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

"The bottom line is, when a church does it, it's nonpartisan and appropriate. When a campaign does it, it's partisan and inappropriate," he said. "I suspect that this will rub a lot of pastors' fur the wrong way."

The Bush campaign defended a memo in which it sought to mobilize church members by providing church directories to the campaign, arranging for pastors to hold voter-registration drives, and talking to various religious groups about the campaign.

Other religious organizations also criticized the document as inappropriate, suggesting that it could jeopardize churches' tax-exempt status by involving them in partisan politics.

Campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said the document, distributed to campaign staff, was well within the law.

"People of faith have a right to take part in the political process, and we're reaching out to every supporter of President Bush to become involved in the campaign," Stanzel said.

One section of the document lists 22 "coalition coordinator" duties and lays out a timeline for various activities targeting religious voters. By July 31, for example, the coordinator is to:

_Send your church directory to your state Bush-Cheney '04 headquarters or give to a BC04 field representative.

_Identify another conservative church in your community who we can organize for Bush.

_Recruit 5 people in your church to help with the voter registration project.

_Talk to your pastor about holding a citizenship Sunday and voter registration drive.

The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the effort "is a shameless attempt to misuse and abuse churches for partisan political ends." Lynn said his organization would be "watching closely to see how this plays out in the pews."

The Rev. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, a Washington advocacy group that has been critical of the Christian right, said the document was "totally inappropriate."

"We are alarmed that this initiative by the Bush-Cheney campaign could lure religious organizations and religious leaders into dangerous territory where they risk losing their tax-exempt status and could be violating the law," Gaddy said.

Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, said "efforts aimed at transforming houses of worship into political campaign offices stink to high heaven."

None of those groups, however, has been as supportive of the Bush administration as the Nashville-based Southern Baptists.

Bush spoke to the Southern Baptists' recent national convention, by video link, for the third year in a row. Outgoing SBC President Jack Graham called the president "a man of personal faith whose leadership is great for America."

posted October 11, 2004 10:26 AM              

After having seen the movie, I feel that anyone calling it a Fairytale is nothing more than closed minded and ignorant.

Most of the footage speaks for itself. He makes some very good points and asks some very valid questions

... For instance going to Congress and asking them individually to sign their kid up to go to Iraq... Funny... no one was interested

Everyone should see this movie.

It's funny. I've only seen people use strong language against it when they have NOT seen it.

Sure, MM's pretty biased. He doesn't lie in the movie...

... And please... If you haven't seen it, STFU I don't care what you've got to say about it... you're ignorant... text book definition.

posted October 11, 2004 11:11 AM              

"for instance going to Congress and asking them individually to sign their kid up to go to Iraq ... Funny ...no one was interested "

posted October 11, 2004 11:43 AM              

That is a good point. Mostly he was illustrating the point that these people (for lack of a better word) don't want their kids there (as only ONE of them have a child there), but are completely ok with OUR kids being there.

I don't have a problem with people posting specific issues with the film...or having an open dialog about it. I'm just tired of certain people popping in to talk about the movie being absolute rubbish when they've never seen it... ya know? It really gets on my damn nerves. It's quite narrow minded. Actually, it rather reminds me of the same twits that KNOW the Howard Stern show is evil because they've read an article about it... or the expecially annoying people that deem Harry Potter wicked because it involves witchcraft. I really have no tolerance for this kind of ignorance.

posted October 11, 2004 12:41 PM              

I agree that the film footage in "Farenheit 9/11" spoke for itself. I also loved the songs that Moore applied to some of the footage. Got a big laugh out of those.

I have no patience with people who speak out of ignorance either and really, IMO, the people who blast Moore and the film and yet have not even seen it are just parroting what the Bush administration and the Republicans say about the film and Moore. Just like they parrot everything else Bush and the Republicans say rather they know the real facts or not. Blind allegiance is what they have and they do not want to know the truth because that would mean they were wrong and their leader was wrong.

I got the impression that Moore was not asking the Congressmen to sign their kids up for Iraq but was asking them to sign a form saying they would. I might be mistaken and do intend to watch the movie again. There was one congressmen who told Moore he thought it was a good idea.

What this movie did bring out was the close ties that Bush has with the Saudi oil barons and money merchants. It's real scary when you find out how much interest the Saudi's hold in the U.S. So much in fact that they could easily cause our whole economy to collapse.

posted October 11, 2004 01:35 PM            

quote:

---

I have no patience with people who speak out of ignorance either and really, IMO, the people who blast Moore and the film and yet have not even seen it are just parroting what the Bush administration and the Republicans say about the film and Moore. Just like they parrot everything else Bush and the Republicans say rather they know the real facts or not. Blind allegiance is what they have and they do not want to know the truth because that would mean they were wrong and their leader was wrong. I got the impression that Moore was not asking the Congressmen to sign their kids up for Iraq but was asking them to sign a form saying they would. I might be mistaken and do intend to watch the movie again. There was one congressmen who told Moore he thought it was a good idea. What this movie did bring out was the close ties that Bush has with the Saudi oil barons and money merchants. It's real scary when you find out how much interest the Saudi's hold in the U.S. So much in fact that they could easily cause our whole economy to collapse. It also brought out the close ties that the Bush's, father and son, had with the Osama bin Laden family. So close in fact that Bush had them flown out of the U.S. when all other aircraft was grounded after 9/11 and without questioning them about Osama bin Laden's whereabouts. ??????? []

---

Virtually everything you've asserted...that the idiot Michael Moore asserted about the President has been shown to be lies and distortions of the truth. In fact the Moore fantasy has been shown to be nothing but pure propaganda.

"Would you sign your kids up for Iraq?"
I guess in Moore's and apparently your reality that would be possible but factually, it isn't the reality of an all volunteer military nor would it be possible given the prohibition against slavery. If that's a fact you've overlooked Mirandee, you might want to consult the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution and a good dictionary for the definition of slavery and/or involuntary servitude.

"What this movie did bring out was the close ties that Bush has with the Saudi oil barons and money merchants. It's real scary when you find out how much interest the Saudi's hold in the U.S."
The Bush connection to those in Saudi Arabia is through the bin Laden family....a family which is not in the oil business, is not part of the Royal Family and in fact, is in the construction business, NOT the oil business, having an ongoing contract to construct the institutional buildings of Saudi Arabia. Further, during the time the Caryle Group was making a lot of money with Saudi Arabian contracts, neither the President or Bush senior were connected in any way to the Caryle Group. Neither Bush or the Bush family has a single thing to do with Saudi ownership of any investments in America nor did the Bush family have a single thing to do with helping the Saudis acquire their US holdings. As a matter of law Mirandee, foreign investment in America is protected and welcomed.

"It also brought out the close ties that the Bush's, father and son, had with the Osama bin Laden family. So close in fact that Bush had them flown out of the U.S. when all other aircraft was grounded after 9/11 and without questioning them about Osama bin Laden's whereabouts."
This statement, lifted from the idiots fantasy is a direct lie, let's call it what it really is, shall we? Richard Clarke, the former so called terrorism czar is on the record as saying the decision to release the Saudis so they could return home, went no higher than him. He made the decision on his own after consulting with the FBI who bounced the decision off him AFTER the FBI HAD interviewed the Saudis they were interested in questioning. Further, when the Saudis left America, all commercial flights WERE NOT grounded.

This has all been covered here before and in depth Mirandee and the sources to discredit what you and the brain dead Michael Moore assert are readily available to anyone who wants to do a simple search. The responsible American press....the small part of the press that is responsible, have commented on the fantasy and labeled it for what it is. The question Mirandee is, why are you still portraying the fantasy as truth?

Not that I think you will do that search Mirandee. An old saying comes to mind, "ignorance is bliss," perhaps that's the answer to my question.

posted October 11, 2004 04:45 PM            

Reliable sources have also checked Michael Moore's facts and found the lies, distortions and fantasy therein. The main source for a lot of Moore's so called facts has said several times that "Moore got it wrong"...Richard Clarke.

posted October 11, 2004 04:58 PM            

SHOULD BE DAMNED TO hELL!

...and I got proof to why I say this:

Jesus Clears the Temple

John 2:12-25

Key verse 2:15-16

So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! How dare you turn my father’s house into a market!”

In John 1:14, we learned that Jesus came from the father, full of grace and truth. Last week we saw an example of Jesus’ grace. In turning the water into wine, he saved a wedding celebration. Everyone enjoyed this best wine they had ever tasted. It demonstrated Jesus’ power to change the tasteless and common into the best tasting and most extraordinary. We are no more deserving of salvation than anyone else is. But it was Jesus’ grace to change us, the sinful and common, into sons of God (1:12). Jesus is full of grace.

But now, in the very next passage, we do not see Jesus, full of grace. We see Jesus, full of truth. He makes a whip out of cords and upturns tables. Today, we want to think about what made graceful Jesus so angry. We will think about Jesus’ zeal for his father’s house and the spiritual meaning of the temple.

Lets read the key verses, 15 and 16

So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! How dare you turn my father’s house into a market!”

Pray

Part 1 “How dare you turn my father’s house into a market?”

Look at verses 13 and 14. “When it was time for the Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts, he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money.” It was the time of the Passover. During the Passover, the population of Jerusalem swelled. Jews from all over the world returned to celebrate the Passover at the temple, as the law required (Dt 16:2). They came on camels; they came on ships; they could not bring Passover lambs with them. They would have to exchange their foreign money and buy animals. So Jerusalem became a bustling marketplace during the

Passover. But the problem was where the market was. In the spirit of competition, location was key to brisk business. And the best place to sell animals was right where they were needed, in the temple itself. From a business point of view, it makes perfect sense. But from a spiritual point of view it was exceedingly wicked. Let’s see why.

First, look at what Jesus did. Let’s read verse 15. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. Jesus always seems so peaceful, but this misuse of the temple made him very angry. He made a whip and drove out the animals. A money changer had all of the different foreign coins neatly stacked on a table. Jesus lifted up the table and flipped it over, scattering the coins. Jesus seems so different here than when he graciously turned water into wine. But we must recall that Jesus came from the father, full of grace and truth (1:14). Usually in the Bible, we see Jesus grace and forgiveness. So whenever we see Jesus angry, we want to take note and pay careful attention to find out what made him angry, so that we do not ourselves make him angry.

What was it about the selling of animals that made him so angry? Lets read verse 16. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! How dare you turn my father’s house into a market!”

Jesus was angry because the temple was his father’s house; it should not be a market. Who could call the temple “my father’s house”? But Jesus is the Son of God. As the Son, zeal for his father’s house consumed him. When he saw his father’s name being blasphemed, he was filled with righteous anger.

Before we continue, lets pause for a few moments to lay a foundation of understanding about why selling in the temple is wrong. Since there is no temple today, some of us may not be very familiar with how important the temple was to ancient Israel. It symbolized the presence of God with his people. It was the center of their faith, the place they were to go to make sacrifices, the place they were to go for their festivals, the place they were to go to to pray. After it was destroyed, Daniel still prayed toward its ruins in Jerusalem. He mourned for the state of God’s temple, which brought dishonor to God’s name. He longed for the temple to be restored, for the glory of God. The temple was so central to Jewish life that the entire book of Ezra focuses on the rebuilding of the temple, because without the temple Israel was not a nation.

So what is wrong with selling in the temple? There are two basic problems: it blasphemes God and it destroys the spiritual environment.

First, God is not worshipped in the temple, but blasphemed. The temple was a special place to God. At the dedication of the first temple, God said to Solomon, “Now my eyes will be open and my ears attentative to the prayers offered in this place. I have chosen and consecrated this temple so that my Name may be there forever. My eyes and my heart will always be there.”( 2Ch 7:15-16) God’s eyes, ears, heart, and even Name were there.

Consider that God’s ears were there. This means that while God hears everyone’s prayers, wherever we are, but he was especially attentative to prayers offered in the temple. It was like using a microphone to make your voice louder. Yet, at the temple, the sounds of prayer were drowned out by the sounds of the market. God paid careful attention to what was said, but day in and day out, he heard the sounds of barter. “1 denarius for that sheep.” “Oi vey! Your killing me! Two denari, final offer!”

Consider that God’s Name was there. Therefore it was a scared and Holy place, set apart for Holy things. People could not enter the temple if they were ceremonially unclean – for instance if they had a rash. What then made them think that they could set up a street market inside the temple? Greed blinded them. Money is neither good nor evil, but 1Ti 6:10 says, “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.” No one can serve both God and money. (Mt 6:24) To see money worshipped in the very presence of God at his temple was terrible. “[The temple] had a wall around it to separate the holy from the common.”(Ez 42:20) Do you know why the first temple was destroyed? Ez 43:8 says, “When they placed their threshold next to my threshold and their doorposts beside my doorposts, with only a wall between me and them, they defiled my name by their detestable practices. So I destroyed them in my anger.” God is angry when his name is defiled by detestable practices. But now in the rebuilt temple of Jesus’ day, money is king -- not just next to the temple, but even inside of it.

The second problem with a market is that it makes a bad environment for those who sincerely wished to worship and pray. The temple was to be a house of prayer for all peoples. Isaiah 56:6-7 reads, “And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD, and to worship him, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and hold fast to my covenant – these will I bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.” In all the world, there was only one temple of the true God. It was in Jerusalem, but that did not mean that Gentiles were not welcome. They too were welcome to come there and pray in the court of the Gentiles; the temple was a house of prayer for all nations.” But now the court of the Gentiles was a bustling market! Did you ever try to pray in a bustling market? No I don’t think so. When you want to pray you to your closet, or to the church or somewhere quiet. You do not pray next to a cash register. By turning the Gentile’s court into a market, the Jews were inconsiderate of the Gentiles. They did not welcome the Gentiles. Perhaps there was a man from Spain. He feared God and converted to become one of God’s people. He made a long trip to Jerusalem to pray at the temple for his family. But when he got there, he had to pray with cows mooing in one ear and money clanking in the other.

So the point is, what is happening in the temple is blasphemous. How dare they turn the house of God into a market. How dare they, don’t they fear God? It’s not a small problem, but severe. If you can see that, then you can see why Jesus reacts so severely to it. A serious problem calls for a serious response. If Jesus were only full of grace, then he would shrug it off. But Jesus is also full of truth. Jesus does get angry. Consider Mark 3:4-5a, Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent. He looked around at them in anger, and deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts,…” Then when does Jesus’ truth and when his grace? It is simple: when there is sin, there is truth; when there is repentance, there is grace. Full of truth, Jesus pronounces 7 woes on the Pharisees who refused to acknowledge their sin. But full of grace, Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners – after they repented.

There is no temple today. Hebrews 8&9 explains why. But we can apply the teaching of the holiness of the temple. 1Cor 6:19-20 “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body” What about you? Is your heart a place of worship to God or a marketplace? Our culture is materialistic. One man’s heart is a marketplace, consumed with money making schemes; he constantly checks his stocks. What room is left in his heart is consumed with money spending schemes; coveting the best things and the latest gadgets. But God says, “Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength” (Dt 6:5)

How can we expect Jesus to feel about such a man? Can he expect to meet Jesus full of grace or Jesus full of truth? He should expect Jesus to be angry. If he is fortunate, Jesus will take a whip and drive the love of money from his heart. Many go through life assuming that God loves them and God loves America and God loves everyone. But wouldn’t Jesus be angry with America? We ask ourselves, “Does zeal for the Lord consume me, or does money consume me?” Is my body a sacred temple of the Holy Spirit? If our bodies do not honor God, his holy name blasphemed by us. Clear out your heart and worship God in spirit and truth. It is a sobering and healthy thought to wake us up from complacency, that Jesus is full of truth.

There is an application here of Jesus’ zeal for the Lord, which caused his holy anger. Generally speaking, anger is wrong (Mt 5:22), because the reasons for our anger are selfish or judgmental. But on rare occasions there is such a thing as righteous anger, by which we may rebuke others. This anger must not be judgmental. But there is a place for it. We should learn from Jesus to be full of grace and truth. In rebuking the Corinthians’ many sins Paul warns, “What do you prefer? Shall I come with a whip, or in love and with a gentle spirit?” ( 1Cor 4:21) His words remind us of the whip of cords that Jesus made, and show that he had both grace and truth.

For example, I had a Bible student. His heart was a marketplace. Therefore, he said many wrong things. I tried to bear with him and be gracious. Even when what he said made me angry for the LORD’s sake, I kept a smile on my face. Though I corrected the student, he never listened, and my correction made no impression. Then one time he said something very wrong, and I blew up and got angry. Then what happened? Suddenly he paid attention to what I was saying! There is a place for theatrics. Jesus shocking behavior of overturning tables may be able to wake some people up from their complacency about what they are doing.

Part 2 Scripture-based faith or Sign-seeking pseudo-faith

How will the disciples react to this truthful side of Jesus? They could be shocked. He’s gone to far. Or they could be afraid. What if the temple guards come to arrest them for making a disturbance. But the disciples had the sense to interpret Jesus actions as a spiritual lesson. They found the answer in scripture. Let’s read verse 17. His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

These words come from Psalm 69:9, one of the most famous Psalms about Jesus. Jesus was zealous for God.

The disciples had a scripture-based faith. They did not react with their emotions to Jesus’ actions. Rather they went to the scripture to find out why he was doing so. They knew their Bibles well. Their faith was from the Bible. Verse 22 says, “After he was raised from the dead his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scriptures and the words that Jesus had spoken.”

When we see people acting in ways we do not expect, we are like to react emotionally. For instance, I attended a wedding at a different church. I saw that they did some things differently, and I thought, “It’s not right.” But the right response is to go back to the Bible, and see if it is in agreement with the Bible or not.

Therefore, Bible study is very important. Without a knowledge of the scriptures, we cannot interpret what we see.

But now look at verse 18. Then the Jews demanded of him, “What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?” The Jews reacted very differently than the disciples. Though they should know the Bible, they reacted with emotion and a demand for a sign, which comes from unbelief. The temple priests feel threatened, challenged. They were in charge of what went on in the temple, who was Jesus to tell them how to run their own temple. They had sanctioned the selling of the animals in the temple, who was Jesus to undermine their authority and tell them they were wrong? They had likely charged fees to those merchants lucky enough to sell in the temple. Who was Jesus to threaten their revenue?

One thing we notice is that they did not repent. They did not consider the case on its merits. Regardless of who Jesus is, it is plain to anyone who thinks about it that Jesus is correct. But they do not accept the rebuke. Did you ever know you were wrong but were too proud to admit it? Instead they react defensively and challenge Jesus’ authority. Sign-seeking is a common error of people. Today, many people in many churches are looking for signs. Actually, Jesus performed many miraculous signs, as we see in verse 23. But to those who seek signs, no amount of signs is ever enough, they always want more.

In a similar event in Mt12:39, Jesus replies, “a wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given except the sign of Jonah.”

Verse 23-25 also deal with sign-seeking.

Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name. But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. He did not need man’s testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man.

The people saw the signs and believed in his name. But Jesus knew their hearts. He knew that he could not entrust himself to them, because their faith was shallow, based only on miracles. Unless they put down a deeper root, they will not last.

We should not be sign seekers but faith seekers. None-the-less, God has provided one sign that we might believe. If people do not believe this one sign, no number of additional signs will help. That sign is Jesus resurrection on the third day.

Part 3 “Destroy this temple and I will raise it again in three days.”

Let’s read verse 19-21 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple and I will raise it again in three days.”

The Jews replied, “It has taken us forty-six years to build the temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” But the temple he had spoken of was his body.

The Jews understood Jesus to be talking about the temple which was begun to be built in 20BC, but Jesus was talking about his own body. If they would destroy his body, he would raise it on the third day. Verse 19 became the source of the charge that would later convict Jesus of blasphemy. They accused Jesus of threatening to destroy the temple. But when we look at what Jesus actually said in verse 19, he would not destroy the temple. It was they who would kill him.

Jesus’ is here also looking to the destruction of the old temple, and the building of a new temple, his own body at the resurrection.

The temple was a symbol pointing to Jesus. Everything about the temple pointed to Jesus. The sacrifices that were offered there. The priests that officiated there. The festivals that were celebrated there. The very building itself. The symbolism of God dwelling among his people. All of these things find their fulfillment in Christ. For this reason, Jesus declares in Jn 4:21-24 that we are no longer to worship at the temple, but in spirit and truth. For this reason, the curtain temple was torn at Jesus’ death, and the temple itself was destroyed within that generation. Heb 8:13 shows that the earthly temple was obsolete.

Jesus proclaimed of himself in Mt 12:6, “One greater than the temple is here.” Verse 19 shows that Jesus is our new temple. Rev 21:22 says that there is no temple in heaven because “the Lord God Almighty and the lamb are its temple.” Rather than having to go to Jerusalem, we all have access to the father through Jesus. Rather than bring the blood of sheep and bulls, Jesus’ own blood atones for us once for all.

In conclusion, only John’s gospel records a clearing of the temple at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. In this way, John emphasizes how Jesus came from the father full of grace and truth. Let us learn of Jesus’ zeal for the Lord, and truthful spirit. May we accept the one sign given for all time, the resurrection of Jesus, and believe in his name.
http://www.washingtonubf.org/BibleMaterials/John2002/John2b_msg.html

--------------------------------------------

posted October 11, 2004 05:47 PM            

They've been doing this for some time Ozone. How come you never complained before about the Kerry/Edwards practice of polluting churches with campaigning?

George W. Bush has never...to my knowledge....ever, one time campaigned from a church...while church services were in progress or otherwise. If you have proof that Bush...on any Sunday, has ever addressed the members of any church about this or any other election, please post that proof here.

Clinton and Gore both campaigned in churches...as a regular part of the church services. Where were you then Ozone? I don't remember your outrage over that.

What I see here is some of the bias LS was talking about in one of her posts. Pure, political bias, unjust, unfair and utterly prejudiced ....add untrue as well Ozone.

Do you find anything blasphemous about this Ozone?

Kerry Stumps for Black Voters at Churches
NewsMax Wires
Sunday, Oct. 10, 2004

MIAMI - With just three Sundays left before Election Day, Sen. John Kerry is asking for all the help he can get from black voters and the Almighty.

The Democratic presidential nominee attended two church services Sunday, instead of his usual one, worshipping first with Haitian Catholics and then with black Baptists, where the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton tied his election to the civil rights struggle.

"We have an unfinished march in this nation," Kerry said at Friendship Missionary Baptist Church, as many congregants waved fans handed out by the campaign with his slogan, "Hope is on the way."

"Never again will a million African Americans be denied the right to exercise their vote in the United States of America," Kerry promised, referring to the disputed Florida recount in the 2000 presidential race. As he often does before black audiences, Kerry said he has a legal team that will aggressively respond to any allegations of disenfranchisement.

Black turnout is key to Kerry's plan for victory in Florida and elsewhere — less than 10 percent of black voters nationally supported George W. Bush in 2000. But Kerry's campaign says there have been efforts to turn religious blacks against him based on his support for abortion rights and civil unions for same-sex couples.

Jackson told worshippers their political concerns are issues that touch their everyday lives, not gay marriage.

"I see disturbing signs today that some of our churches have been confused by wolves in sheep's' clothing," Jackson said. "How did someone else put their agenda in the front of the line?"

"November 2, the power is in your hands, hands that once picked cotton," Jackson said.

Added Sharpton: "Everything we have fought for, marched for, gone to jail for — some died for — could be reversed if the wrong people are put on the Supreme Court."

Speakers avoided criticizing President Bush by name, since they were in church, but he was indirectly vilified.

Former Rep. Carrie Meek said Kerry is "fighting against liars and demons. ... He challenges the man who walks with a jaunty step." She rocked her hips in an imitation of Bush's swagger as the congregation cheered and Kerry laughed from his high-backed seat behind the pulpit.

Bush, who spent the day at his Texas ranch, and Vice President Dick Cheney did not campaign Sunday, while Kerry running mate John Edwards appeared on the five Sunday talk shows before heading to the Midwest.

In Washington, Republican Party chief Ed Gillespie criticized Kerry for saying in an interview in The New York Times Magazine that, "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." He appeared to equate terrorism to prostitution and illegal gambling, saying they can be reduced but not ended.

"This demonstrates a disconcerting pre-September 11 mind-set that will not make our country safer," Gillespie said on "Face the Nation" on CBS. "And that is what we see relative to winning the war on terror and relative to Iraq."

Hours later, Bush's re-election campaign announced a new television ad that plays off of Kerry's interview comment. "Terrorism ... a nuisance? How can Kerry protect us when he doesn't understand the threat?" the ad says. The campaign said the ad would run on national cable television networks and the campaign's Web site.

In Florida, Kerry, who is Catholic, also attended Mass at St. James Catholic Church. Aides said it was for his own personal worship rather than for any campaigning.

Or, as Kerry told a teenager who asked him Saturday night if he can get rid of standardized tests, "You do a lot more praying during exams than any other time of the year."

posted October 11, 2004 08:12 PM              

Jwhop: - Pot - kettle - black

Ozone, I tend to agree with your assessment of how Bush is attempting to use the churches for his own gain. This coming from a man who declares himself to be a man of faith? By his own admission Bush doesn't read, Ozone, so he has probably never read the passages you refer to in your post. But they are an accurate assessment of what he is doing.

Quote:

Ozone, how is it possible for you to always get it wrong or backwards.

Pot - Kettle- Black, Jwhop

It's Kerry and Edwards who are campaigning in churches....

Hee Hee Newsmax ---blah, blah, blah

posted October 11, 2004 09:39 PM            

Campaigning in a church is a violation, whether the church invited the candidate or not.

I haven't seen anything about Bush sending any DVD to churches to be distributed to church members. Care to refresh my memory on that issue Mirandee. Or is this just more hot air from the left?

There is a DVD but no mention of distribution in churches. Please reveal your source that says this DVD is to be given to church members in church.

Templeton Contributes $1 Million to Counter Soros
NewsMax.com
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Let Freedom Ring Clarifies Templeton Donation Report

World famous financier Sir John Templeton has donated $1 million through his foundation to a political group that will encourage religious conservatives to vote this November.

Templeton’s significant donation is another sign the hotly contested 2004 race may turn out to be a battle of billionaires for the hearts and minds of Americans.

The John Templeton Foundation, launched in 1987 by philanthropist, author and financier Sir John Mark Templeton, has earmarked the donation to kick-start an independent-expenditure group that will “counter the millions of dollars being spent to attack and discredit President Bush by leftist organizations such as those supported by billionaire George Soros, Hollywood liberals and others,” according to the group’s president, Colin A. Hanna.

The group, “Let Freedom Ring,” aims to zero-in on the conservative evangelical voter, a voting constituency that could be a major factor in the November election.

An estimated four to six million frequent churchgoers did not vote on Election Day in 2000, and getting back that lost vote could be critical for President Bush to defeat Democrat John Kerry in November.

According to Hanna, a Republican and former Chester County, Pa., commissioner, Let Freedom Ring will promote “a positive political philosophy based upon respect for Constitutional principles, economic freedom and traditional values.”

“We think that Americans are basically positive and optimistic, and want to be inspired rather than repelled by politics. That’s why Let Freedom Ring will not engage in negative personal or partisan political attacks,” added Hanna.

“We want to reach out to patriotic Americans, especially people of faith, and encourage them not to let mud-slinging by the left turn them off to our political process,” said Hanna.

Hanna’s organization is headed by a four-member board of directors that includes Templeton’s son, Dr. John Templeton, a retired pediatric surgeon.

Battle of the Billionaires

Billionaire George Soros and others who have targeted President Bush for defeat in November have reportedly pledged to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to relentlessly attack the incumbent.

Soros is a major backer of MoveOn.org, which has cranked out political advertising that included two TV spots that endeavored to compare Bush and Adolph Hitler.

Soros has already admitted he was attempting “regime change” in the U.S. by donating more than $16 million to so-called “527” political groups. He told the Washington Post he might even consider spending his $7 billion fortune if he thought he could defeat George Bush for sure.

Though Sir John Templeton’s $1 million donation pales compared to that of Soros, the men leading these unprecedented efforts to influence an American election share similarities.

Both are wealthy men who made their fortunes in finance and later turned to philanthropy.

Today, the 91-year-old Templeton lives in Nassau, the Bahamas.

In 1992, Templeton sold his widely respected Templeton Funds in 1992. He turned from finance to philanthropy using his own John Templeton Foundation, which had been established in 1987.

But until his $1 million donation to Let Freedom Ring, Templeton had largely avoided politics. His foundation supports to the tune of $40 million a year causes relating to spirituality and religion.

His foundation is best known for its annual Templeton Prize For Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities. Winners – who receive the largest cash award of such prizes -- have included Dr. Billy Graham and Mother Teresa.

Not An Attack Campaign

For his part, Hanna claims that the new group’s media efforts would not mirror MoveOn.org and “will not engage in attacking Senator Kerry the way those organizations attack President Bush.”

“Instead,” pledges Hanna, “we will promote the basic values of freedom, fairness, compassion, responsibility and global leadership that distinguish America as the ‘shining city on a hill’ that President Reagan spoke of so proudly.”

The new group plans television commercials, videos, documentaries, web campaigns, voter registration drives and citizen mobilization efforts that will “inspire a new generation of Americans to participate actively in our political process by reminding them of the issues that we all care about,” said Hanna.

“We think that American voters are tired of negative campaigning and deceptive attack advertising, and that they will quickly embrace a new player on the political field committed to a positive, upbeat, optimistic presentation of political issues,” Hanna added.

"We are not anti-Kerry," said Hanna. "We are pro certain conservative things."

“Religious conservatives are a unique kind of ‘swing voter,’” Hanna opined. “They don’t swing between Bush and Kerry, but between Bush and not voting.”

Hanna says his organization will eventually raise $10 to $30 million, with most funds being used for grass roots organizing in 12 targeted states, including Pennsylvania and Ohio.

His group is already preparing a documentary about President Bush’s religious faith which he plans to release this summer on DVD.

By some estimates, as many as 6 million evangelicals who attend church regularly did not vote in 2000.

Some Republican operatives believe that religious vote will be key for Bush winning re election this year.

According to a survey last month of 1,260 registered voters by the California-based Barna Research Group, evangelical Christians make up seven percent of the population and 86 percent of them expect to vote for Bush in November.

The survey determined that 88 percent of evangelicals are likely to vote, and also represent “the population segment most supportive of the president’s performance in office -- 89 percent give him a favorable evaluation.”

Not everyone is happy with Hanna’s efforts.

The Rev. Barry Lynn who leads Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, says Let Freedom Ring is a brazen effort to mix religion and politics.

"This is one more massively funded effort to achieve (Bush strategist) Karl Rove's stated goal of getting 3 (million) to 4 million more Christian evangelical voters to the polls." Lynn reportedly said.

posted October 11, 2004 09:44 PM              

in farenheit911 moore shows senator byron dorgan stating that "we had some airplanes authorized at the highest levels of our government to fly"
and moore himself says "it turns out that the whitehouse approved planes to pick up the bin ladens and numerous other saudi's"

moore didnt say dubya bush ordered it or that he knew

in fact the 911 commission says "that Although White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card remembered someone telling him about the Saudi request shortly after 9/11, he said he had not talked to the Saudis and did not ask anyone to do anything about it. "
"The President and Vice President told us they were not aware of the issue at all until it surfaced much later in the media "

however, if i had written farenheit911 i would have spent some time puzzling over that meeting between bush family freind saudi ambassador prince bandar and bush dubya on sept 13.... i cant imagine that when the trade centers were still burning, and the estimate of dead was still at like 10,000+,
and the administration is already drawing up ultimatums to the taliban to turn over osama, that the subject of the gathering of bin ladens and other saudi's was never even brought up....its either a sinister double dealing by prince bandar,the president is lying, or like i said , it was such a foregone conclusion after decades of such preferential treatment....that neither of the two thought it was important......

posted October 11, 2004 11:30 PM            

So Petron, the FBI is finished with the Saudis, has told Clarke and Clarke has authorized their departure. Pray tell me, if you can, what significance a conversation between the President and the Saudi prince could possibly have. What possible pretext could there be to hold them and what law could be invoked to refuse to let them leave as they requested. Commercial flights were in the air, contrary to what the airhead Moore alleges. The rest of what you said is a far reach to connect dots that don't line up, irrelevance. Further, Clarke himself says Moore got it wrong and he said that AFTER he had left the NSA!

posted October 12, 2004 12:48 AM            

quote:

---

how did moore "get it wrong" if the whitehouse (clarke) DID approve the flights?

---

Petron, the NSA is located in Fort Meade, Maryland not at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Richard Clarke was never a White House source, nor is anyone who does not work personally for the President and serve at his pleasure.

At best, Richard Clarke was a government source but never a White House source. Naming Clarke as a White House source ties his actions and words directly to the President and that just isn't true, no matter how many gyrations one wants to go through to make it so.

posted October 12, 2004 01:11 AM            

But, in that case that makes this statement by Mirandee totally

quote:

---

Did you know that Bush made a movie of his own to try and counteract "Farenheit 9/11?" It was distributed to all the churches in the U.S. that have addresses. The pastors were real upset about it too.

---

The producers, Grizzly Adams Productions Inc., state Bush and the White House had nothing to do with the film. Further, they state "We're gathering the money together to do that mailing.", which doesn't sound like the Bush campaign is doing any of the funding.

They state the information for the movie came in part from two books examining Bush's personal faith – David Aikman's "A Man of Faith: The Spiritual Journey of George W. Bush" and Tom Freiling's "George W. Bush on God and Country."

posted October 12, 2004 04:07 AM              

Those video's were sent to the churches in August I believe.

Also, having been the chairperson of my local parish council and worked in the church I can tell you that we invited a lot of speakers to speak in our church. That article says nothing about Kerry speaking DURING a church service. Any meeting can be held in a church. We have had civil rights meetings and all kinds of what could be called "political" meetings. But not during service. It is not illegal to hold meetings on church property after services.

The point you made about the illegality of it all is the exact point that the pastors made and that is what upsets them that Bush administration would do this. The Republican election committee asked people to deliver the addresses of the churches to them for the purpose of mailing those DVD's out to all the churches. That is illegal.

Thanks Elenore for clarifying that for Jwhop. I was about to tell him to see above post when I read your post.

posted October 12, 2004 03:42 PM            

quote:

---

but on 911 richard clarke was IN the whitehouse directing the secure telecommunications between bush in airforce 1 and cheney,rice,tenet etc in the whitehouse bunker....
he WAS to a large part running the show and making many of the decisions

---

Your logic and timeline are both faulty Petron. The decision to release the Saudis was not made on 9/11. The meeting between the Saudi prince and Bush did not occur on 9/11 but rather on 9/13. The Saudis did not depart on 9/11 but rather on 9/14. The President was back in the White House on 9/12 and Clarke was not, if he ever was, coordinating communications between the President in Air Force One and his Cabinet.

Further, you have shown nothing to suggest Clarke was in the White House but even if he was, he is not a White House source, any more than a "special agent" of the FBI visiting the White House on government business would be. Clarke was not a Cabinet rank member of the Bush team, did not report personally to the President and in no way could Clarke be considered a White House source any more than the White House gardener would be.

Moore is simply full of it but no exaggeration or outright lie is to great to spin his fairy tale yarn of misfeasance by the President.

posted October 12, 2004 03:57 PM            

I knew the NSA is not housed in the White House. My God, all those antennas and dishes sticking up in the air would spoil the picture perfect postcards of the White House