Prez Trump Meets Kim Jong Un: Talks, Trolling or Tricks?
Some on CD said recently that President Trump is successful and effective in his office. Is this a confirmation or a fluke? Is Mr. Kim Jong Un playing Mr. Trump or is he coming to his senses? What are we to make of this recent moves? Is this a victory for Trump or KimJong Un? What say ye? CM
Comments
-
@C_M_ said:
Some on CD said recently that President Trump is successful and effective in his office. Is this a confirmation or a fluke? Is Mr. Kim Jong Un playing Mr. Trump or is he coming to his senses? What are we to make of this recent moves? Is this a victory for Trump or KimJong Un? What say ye? CMWay too early to tell. But Trump is successful and effective and has been proven to be so. We don't need this as a confirmation.
-
@C_M_ said:
Some on CD said recently that President Trump is successful and effective in his office. Is this a confirmation or a fluke? Is Mr. Kim Jong Un playing Mr. Trump or is he coming to his senses? What are we to make of this recent moves? Is this a victory for Trump or KimJong Un? What say ye? CMThe USA is the country refusing a peace treaty to Korea, because it is unwilling to leave the country and retreat from there with its military occupational forces (as has been the case ealways ... once the USA has set foot with some soldiers on the ground in some country, they will not leave again but establish themselves as "friends" (occupants) with puppet regimes put in place
If a country doesn't freely submit to being "US democratized", it's bombed back into the middle ages and regime change forced (Afghanistan, Somalia, Lybia, Iraq, etc)Just to clarify what is going on .... open your eyes and take a proper look for yourself and you will see ...
-
@C_M_ said:
Some on CD said recently that President Trump is successful and effective in his office.That was me. He has been immensely successful in the ways he promised and the way voters wanted. He is hovering around 80+% approval by Republicans as indicated elsewhere in Reuters Polls.
Is this a confirmation or a fluke? Is Mr. Kim Jong Un playing Mr. Trump or is he coming to his senses?
Time will tell. No one, Trump, military experts, no one really knows yet. (Do you?)
What are we to make of this recent moves? Is this a victory for Trump or KimJong Un? What say ye? CM
This is not a political contest, but a journey through a difficult situation. Did you think otherwise?
-
@C_M_ said:
Some on CD said recently that President Trump is successful and effective in his office. Is this a confirmation or a fluke? Is Mr. Kim Jong Un playing Mr. Trump or is he coming to his senses? What are we to make of this recent moves? Is this a victory for Trump or KimJong Un? What say ye? CMI think if N. Korea became addicted to money along with China and the US, we might see greater chances for peace. And possibly this is an answer to our prayers.
-
@Dave_L said:
I think if N. Korea became addicted to money along with China and the US, we might see greater chances for peace. And possibly this is an answer to our prayers.IF the USA/Zionist Empire gave up its greed for world hegemony and enslavement of all nations, there might be a greater chance for peace.
It is this Empire which thinks of itself as "the indispensable nation" which is conducting illegal wars and crimes against humanity .... and of course blames others for their doings.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
I think if N. Korea became addicted to money along with China and the US, we might see greater chances for peace. And possibly this is an answer to our prayers.IF the USA/Zionist Empire gave up its greed for world hegemony and enslavement of all nations, there might be a greater chance for peace.
It is this Empire which thinks of itself as "the indispensable nation" which is conducting illegal wars and crimes against humanity .... and of course blames others for their doings.I guess what I'm hoping for is that the US and other nations would move away from the Military Industrial Complex, as identified by Ike Eisenhower, into a Business Industrial Complex. I hope the world's tycoons including Trump can move the world economies in this direction.
When Jesus returns, it will be relatively peaceful with people marrying and giving in marriage. With corruption typical for Noah's day. So unlike many, I expect peace to become more of the norm before Jesus returns. And this looks promising.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
I think if N. Korea became addicted to money along with China and the US, we might see greater chances for peace. And possibly this is an answer to our prayers.IF the USA/Zionist Empire gave up its greed for world hegemony and enslavement of all nations, there might be a greater chance for peace.
It is this Empire which thinks of itself as "the indispensable nation" which is conducting illegal wars and crimes against humanity .... and of course blames others for their doings.Slowly walk your opinion. America helped your country in the past, lighten up.
Do you prefer Russia to be this '"indispensable nation" which is conducting illegal wars and crimes against humanity .... and of course blames others for their doings?"
keeping it real...CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Slowly walk your opinion. America helped your country in the past, lighten up.The USA has NEVER done anything for the benefit of others, ALWAYS for its own benefit and increase in power and dominion to eventually rule the world.
Do you prefer Russia to be this '"indispensable nation" which is conducting illegal wars and crimes against humanity .... and of course blames others for their doings?"
Where has Russia ever claimed to be "the indispensable nation", as the USA's rulers have? Where is Russia currently conducting illegal wars and bombing countries back into the middle ages as the USA has been doing (cp Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc.) ??
Russia need not blame anyone else for their doings .... the USA / NATO and their Western main media presstitutes are doing the blaming of others for their doings - and especially Russia and Putin - every day in their attempts to brainwash their people into believing that they are the good guys and Russia, China, Iran, etc are the bad guys.Do you know that in 1990 as part of the unification of Germany, Russia withdrew their occcupation military forces from the zone of Germany in their jurisdiction after WWII, while the USA insisted on their military bases remaining, insisted on making some "agreement" rather than agreeing to a formal peace treaty with Germany being done, etc ....
keeping it real...CM
Sorry, C_M, it appears rather obvious that you are most likely not even aware of reality in these matters, but rather believe the propaganda you have been fed and still are fed by the "official" Empire main mass media.
-
@Wolfgang said:
keeping it real...CM
Sorry, C_M, it appears rather obvious that you are most likely not even aware of reality in these matters, but rather believe the propaganda you have been fed and still are fed by the "official" Empire main mass media.
So that makes you the sole enlightened one? Do I have to see everything your way to having a conversation? You seem to be upset with your government? CM
-
We already know what everyone is going to say on these forums. We need fresh blood. I bet I could write a month's arguments ahead of time for each character here and no one would know the difference.
-
@GaoLu said:
We already know what everyone is going to say on these forums. We need fresh blood. I bet I could write a month's arguments ahead of time for each character here and no one would know the difference.what's the meaning of your statements? CM
-
@GaoLu said:
We already know what everyone is going to say on these forums. We need fresh blood. I bet I could write a month's arguments ahead of time for each character here and no one would know the difference.haha
-
Well, I don't know how to be more clear. Sorry.
-
I think each has a position and a corresponding position we expect in return from our claims. But it helps me to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of my positions that took years to develop. And to test new positions that are still forming. So I appreciate all positive and negative reactions to what I say. And try to respect that all walk in the amount of light God has provided to them.
-
Dave, it sounds like CD is your personal test lab for untried theological theories? CD
-
@C_M_ said:
Dave, it sounds like CD is your personal test lab for untried theological theories? CDIf you research my theology, you will find it is solidly Reformed, Baptist, and Mennonite/Amish. I don't say anything not checked against the creeds in matters of theology.
-
That sentence in of itself doesn't even make sense.... Which form of Baptist? What do you mean be Reformed, and Mennonite/Amish are not the same thing.
-
@GaoLu said:
Well, I don't know how to be more clear. Sorry.What I perceive may not be what you meant by what you said. Regardless, I got your overall point. CM
PS. I have been pondering for sometimes the point of "fresh blood." I will share my finding in a future post. CM
-
If you familiarize yourself with Reformed Theology, it forms the center of my thinking. The Baptists of the 1600s form the areas I do not agree with the Reformed on. Infant Baptism, Visible Institutional Church, etc. I am a pacifist of the Mennonite tradition. And Believe the Amish are a physical example of the early church where pastors worked, and the churches met in homes.
-
@Dave_L said:
If you familiarize yourself with Reformed Theology, it forms the center of my thinking. The Baptists of the 1600s form the areas I do not agree with the Reformed on. Infant Baptism, Visible Institutional Church, etc. I am a pacifist of the Mennonite tradition. And Believe the Amish are a physical example of the early church where pastors worked, and the churches met in homes.I'm Reformed Baptist so I'm very familiar with that. So when you say Baptist I assume you mean the London Baptist Confession?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
If you familiarize yourself with Reformed Theology, it forms the center of my thinking. The Baptists of the 1600s form the areas I do not agree with the Reformed on. Infant Baptism, Visible Institutional Church, etc. I am a pacifist of the Mennonite tradition. And Believe the Amish are a physical example of the early church where pastors worked, and the churches met in homes.I'm Reformed Baptist so I'm very familiar with that. So when you say Baptist I assume you mean the London Baptist Confession?
I find some of good. But I use mainly the Westminster and supplement it with the 1644, 1646, or 1689 LBC. I also use the 1778 Schleitheim Confession where the others turn violent.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
If you familiarize yourself with Reformed Theology, it forms the center of my thinking. The Baptists of the 1600s form the areas I do not agree with the Reformed on. Infant Baptism, Visible Institutional Church, etc. I am a pacifist of the Mennonite tradition. And Believe the Amish are a physical example of the early church where pastors worked, and the churches met in homes.I'm Reformed Baptist so I'm very familiar with that. So when you say Baptist I assume you mean the London Baptist Confession?
I find some of good. But I use mainly the Westminster and supplement it with the 1644, 1646, or 1689 LBC. I also use the 1778 Schleitheim Confession where the others turn violent.
You realize the 1689 is a carbon copy of Westminster except for the parts that you talk about not liking right?
-
What drives your theology the Bible or the "Reformed, Baptist, and Mennonite/Amish creeds?" CM
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
If you familiarize yourself with Reformed Theology, it forms the center of my thinking. The Baptists of the 1600s form the areas I do not agree with the Reformed on. Infant Baptism, Visible Institutional Church, etc. I am a pacifist of the Mennonite tradition. And Believe the Amish are a physical example of the early church where pastors worked, and the churches met in homes.I'm Reformed Baptist so I'm very familiar with that. So when you say Baptist I assume you mean the London Baptist Confession?
I find some of good. But I use mainly the Westminster and supplement it with the 1644, 1646, or 1689 LBC. I also use the 1778 Schleitheim Confession where the others turn violent.
You realize the 1689 is a carbon copy of Westminster except for the parts that you talk about not liking right?
They are close but differences exist in the "eternal Sonship" in the WCF/1689 and the earliest LBC that teaches "incarnate Sonship". So they all make an interesting study.
I also recalled how the LBC omits some important info from the WCC. So that must be why I trust the WCC more. It's been awhile since I compared them.
-
@C_M_ said:
What drives your theology the Bible or the "Reformed, Baptist, and Mennonite/Amish creeds?" CM
The creeds are like books that help understand scripture. If we all get rid of our libraries and have only the bible, where would we be?
-
Again, we, at CD, had an extensive discussion on Creeds. The Bible and creeds are not created equal if I recall the general consensus. I believed it was said, Creeds could be bias in areas and restrictive in others. If I am mistaken on the general discussion please, clarify in comparison to your personal view.
So, in short, the answer to the question: "If we all get rid of our libraries and have only the Bible, where would we be?", better off. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Again, we, at CD, had an extensive discussion on Creeds. The Bible and creeds are not created equal if I recall the general consensus. I believed it was said, Creeds could be bias in areas and restrictive in others. If I am mistaken on the general discussion please, clarify in comparison to your personal view.
So, in short, the answer to the question: "If we all get rid of our libraries and have only the Bible, where would we be?", better off. CM
You might be better off without teachers. But I notice you teach quite a bit. And I listen to and appreciate your input. But the creeds and books are no different. Some of them took lots of debate and refinement before arriving at their doctrine.
-
@Dave_L said:
The creeds are like books that help understand scripture. If we all get rid of our libraries and have only the Bible, where would we be?
Again, we, at CD, had an extensive discussion on Creeds. The Bible and creeds are not created equal if I recall the general consensus. I believed it was said, Creeds could be bias in areas and restrictive in others. If I am mistaken on the general discussion please, clarify in comparison to your personal view.
So, in short, the answer to the question: "If we all get rid of our libraries and have only the Bible, where would we be?", better off. CM
You might be better off without teachers. But I notice you teach quite a bit. And I listen to and appreciate your input. But the creeds and books are no different. Some of them took lots of debate and refinement before arriving at their doctrine.
Dave, your point is well taken. I seek not to take away from what is reflective of the Bible. Notwithstanding, are you suggesting a Creed or a combination of Creeds can and should supersede the Bible? CM
-
@Dave_L said:
If we all get rid of our libraries and have only the bible, where would we be?We might eliminate some of the nonsense in the world today.
I cut my teeth occasionally hearing, "No creed but the Bible!" I am not sure that is a necessary stance to be holy, but good grief. When a man starts cherry-picking bits and pieces of a dozen creeds chosen from hundreds and then staunchly says he speaks only theology from the creeds and is a follower of them, I have to sneeze or something to hide what I am thinking.
Post edited by GaoLu on -
The world we live in... CM
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
