[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Religion Title: Obama Rips Bible, Praises Koran
On Thursday, at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C., President Obama blithely informed his audience that Christians ought not get on their “high horse” about the problem of radical Islam:
This is historically and philosophically illiterate. Historically speaking, the Crusades were a response to Islamic aggression in Europe and the Middle East; the Inquisition, as Jonah Goldberg points out while quoting historian Thomas Madden, director of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at Saint Louis University, was designed to regularize executions rather than leaving them to the will of the masses. Christians undoubtedly pursued horrible brutalities against people, including innocent Jews. However, as Goldberg points out, “Christianity, even in its most terrible days, even under the most corrupt popes, even during the most unjustifiable wars, was indisputably a force for the improvement of man.” Nowhere is that clearer than in Obama’s second example, slavery. Virtually all of the most ardent abolitionists were deeply religious Christians. Hundreds of thousands of American men marched to their deaths singing “The Battle Hymn of the Republic”: “In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea / With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me / As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free / While God is marching on.” That was 150 years ago. It’s not exactly the modern Islamic slogan, “Death to the Jews.” Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., was, as his name suggests, a reverend. He quoted old black Christian spirituals and the Biblical story of the exodus from Egypt. Christians obliterated slavery. Christians obliterated Jim Crow. Modern slavery is largely perpetrated by Muslims. Modern Jim Crow is certainly perpetrated by Muslims under shariah law. There is a larger point, here, too: President Obama’s foolish argument suggests that because Christians were brutal a millennium ago, they should shut up about brutalities today. This is somewhat like saying that because someone’s great-great-grandfather held slaves in rural Alabama, that person should shut up about human trafficking in 2015. It’s asinine. But Obama has a history of insulting Christianity and Judaism while upholding Islam. In 2006, Obama bashed the Bible and religious Christians and Jews in particular:
He then concluded that religious leaders should not speak out against publicly-funded contraception or gay marriage. We can get into President Obama’s pathetic Biblical commentary here – his interpretation of Leviticus on slavery is incorrect, Jews still avoid shellfish, the Talmud explains that no child has ever been stoned for rebelliousness, and the Sermon on the Mount is not a pacifist document. Obama’s not Biblically literate – he’s the same fellow who says, “I think the good book says don’t throw stones in glass houses.” He said in The Audacity of Hope that he would define Biblical values however he chose, stating that he is not willing “to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.” Both are, in fact, parts of the Bible. Citing the Sermon on the Mount to justify civil unions for homosexuals, as Obama has done, is not in fact Biblical. But more importantly, Obama’s scorn for the old-fashioned Bible is obvious. That became more obvious in 2008, when Obama told some of his buddies in San Francisco that unemployed idiots “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” The Obama administration has routinely attacked religious organizations and people who violate Obama’s personal political predilections. They’ve attacked all trappings of Christianity as well. Whether they’re using Obamacare to force religious individuals to pay for others’ contraception or toning down the National Day of Prayer instead of holding a public ceremony, whether they’re covering a monogram of Jesus at Georgetown University during a presidential speech or objecting to adding FDR’s D-Day prayer to the WWII memorial, the Obama administration clearly isn’t fond of Christianity. This contrasts strongly with President Obama’s romantic vision of Islam. He famously called the Muslim call to prayer “the sweetest sound I know.” He said in his first presidential interview, with Al-Arabiya, that his job was “to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives.” Weeks later, he said in Turkey, “We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country.” A few months later, in a speech in Cairo to which he invited the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama said:
He added that Islam has a “proud tradition of tolerance,” explained, ‘Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace,” and said, “America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” He said in his Ramadan message in 2009 that Islam has played a key “role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.” ISIS, Obama has said over and over again, is not Islamic. His administration maintains that America is not at war with radical Islam. He stated before the United Nations in 2012, just weeks after the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya at the hands of Muslim terrorists, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” Hillary Clinton allegedly promised Charles Woods, father of one of the slain in Benghazi, that the administration would achieve the arrest of the YouTube filmmaker behind The Innocence of Muslims. The State Department issued taxpayer-funded commercials denouncing that YouTube video. President Obama variously called the video “crude and disgusting” and stated that “its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.” At the UN in 2014, Obama lauded a Muslim cleric who backs Hamas. And, of course, Obama uses Islamic theology to promote his vision of world peace:
All three religions do have access to holy sites now, in Jewish-run Jerusalem. They did not when Muslims ruled Jerusalem. But facts have no bearing in the fantasy world of the president. Perhaps one final contrast tells the tale. In 2012, according to the Washington Post. “U.S. troops tried to burn about 500 copies of the Koran as part of a badly bungled security sweep at an Afghan prison in February.” Two American soldiers were shot in the aftermath. This prompted President Obama to apologize profusely to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, writing him a letter stating, “We will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, including holding accountable those responsible.” Three years earlier, members of the military burned Bibles printed in Pashto and Dari. CNN reported that they had been discarded “amid concern they would be used to try to convert Afghans.” The Bibles were burned rather than sent back to their source organization because the military worried they might be re-sent to another outlet in Afghanistan. There was no apology to the church that printed the Bibles, or to Christians more broadly. Sure, radical Muslims around the world, supported by millions of their compatriots and friendly governments, are murdering innocents. But it’s Christian aggression that forces Muslims to burn other Muslims alive in Muslim countries. (1 image) Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-65) not displayed.
Please post documented facts for each one of these (4,743) 'alleged' lynchings. I can post the documentary evidence of about 98 of the most gruesome of them in the form of photographs…if I had a scanner to do so, knew how, and felt like it. There was a museum display in New York City at a holocaust museum of the lynching area in America, with photos and various other artifacts. It was a very somber thing, like a holocaust. A documentary was done on it, and a book published called "Without Sanctuary" that gives plenty of details and photographs, for those with a strong stomach. It's bad stuff, and the rate of it: one every other day, was one of the things that drove the Great Migration of blacks from the deep south to the Northern industrial cities.
#67. To: SOSO, Pridie.Nones, Liberator, pericles, Murron, cranky, GarySpFc, Stoner, All (#48) Can anyone claim that it is not the intent of Islam to impose Sharia Law as the only law around the globe? But even Mulsims know that this can't happene but in small steps.Not I. But even Mulsims know that this can't happene but in small steps.However, the original question was: "What Obama has done to make the USA more Islamic?"
#68. To: SOSO, Gatlin, Pridie.Nones, Liberator, Murron, cranky, GarySpFc, Stoner (#48) But even Mulsims know that this can't happene but in small steps. Our POS current POTUS has contributed more than his fair of these small steps to obtaining the true Muslim goal for the planet. So when Clinton and george Bush helped create a Muslim Bosnian and Kosovo and overthrew a secular Iraq it was also Obama's fault? It is just stupid logic from the American right wing which is why I lament the stupidity of the American right - especially those that make this claim and support the Iraq war to this day.
#69. To: redleghunter (#53) Well the above is true. However the interactions of Islam with the USA has always been negative. Don't forget that most Muslim countries were allies with the Nazi's during WW-2. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) #70. To: Pericles (#56) You mistake Obama for Bush. An easy mistake to make when it comes to policy. You can tell them apart,though. Boy Jorge is the smart one. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) #71. To: SOSO, Pridie.Nones, Liberator, pericles, Murron, cranky, GarySpFc, Stoner, All (#67) (Edited)
#72. To: Pericles (#57) NAACP: Thirty Years of Lynching in the U.S. 1889-1918 ) Yeah,if you can't trust the Tan Klan to tell the truth about race issues,who can you trust,right? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) #73. To: Pericles, Murron (#56) You mistake Bush for Carter. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.†#74. To: Pericles, ALL (#63) (Edited) Did George Bush Lie About America Being Founded on Christian Principles? “The lesson the President has learned best—and certainly the one that has been the most useful to him—is the axiom that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. One of his Administration’s current favorites is the whopper about America having been founded on Christian principles. Our nation was founded not on Christian principles but on Enlightenment ones. God only entered the picture as a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent.” Thus begins an article by Brooke Allen that was posted on the website of “The Nation” on February 3, 2005.1 It’s obvious that Allen has not done a thorough study of American history as it relates to its founding documents. There is much more to America’s founding than the Constitution. America was not born in 1877 or even in 1776. The Constitution did not create America, America created the Constitution. More specifically, the states created the national government. The states (colonial governments) were a reality long before the Constitution was conceived, and there is no question about their being founded on Christian principles.
Here is Allen’s first assertion: “Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God.” “No mention whatever” is pretty absolute. Given this bold claim, then how does she explain that the Constitution ends with “DONE in the year of our Lord”? “Our Lord” is a reference to Jesus Christ. This phrase appears just above the signature of George Washington, the same George Washington who took the presidential oath of office with his hand on an open Bible, the same George Washington who was called upon by Congress, after the drafting of the First Amendment, to proclaim a national day of prayer and thanksgiving. The resolution read as follows: That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution for their safety and happiness. * Pennsylvania’s 1790 constitution declared, “That no person, who acknowledges the being of God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this commonwealth.”
* The Constitution of Massachusetts stated that “no person shall be eligible to this office, unless . . . he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.” The following oath was also required: “I do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth.” * North Carolina’s 1868 stated that “all persons who shall deny the being of Almighty God” “shall be disqualified for office.”5 The 1776 constitution, that remained in effect until 1868, included the following (XXXII): “That no person, who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.”6 North Carolina describes itself as a “Christian State” in the 1868 constitution (Art. XI, sec. 7). If, as Allen maintains, “God only entered the picture as a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent,” how does she explain these state constitutional provisions? If the federal Constitution nullified these state constitutional mandates, then her point would be valid. The thing is, God was a major player in the founding of America for more than 150 years before the Constitution was drafted. The statement in question was to assure a radically religious (Muslim) government that America would not depose that government and impose Christianity by force. A single phrase ripped from its historical context does nothing to nullify the volumes of historical evidence that Christianity was foundational to the building and maintenance of this nation. The 1797 treaty constantly contrasts “Christian nations” (e.g., Article VI) and “Tripoli,” a Muslim stronghold that was used as a base of operations for Barbary pirates. Muslim nations were hostile to “Christian nations.” The Barbary pirates habitually preyed on ships from “Christian nations,” enslaving “Christian” seamen. “Barbary was Christendom’s Gulag Archipelago.”10 In Joseph Wheelan’s Jefferson’s War, detailing America’s first war on terror with radical Muslims, we learn that Thomas “Jefferson’s war pitted a modern republic with a free- trade, entrepreneurial creed against a medieval autocracy whose credo was piracy and terror. It matched an ostensibly Christian nation against an avowed Islamic one that professed to despise Christians.”11 Wheelan’s historical assessment of the time is on target: “Except for its Native American population and a small percentage of Jews, the United States was solidly Christian, while the North African regencies were just as solidly Muslim—openly hostile toward Christians.”12 In 1822, the United States, along with Great Britain and Ireland, ratified a “Convention for Indemnity Under Award of Emperor of Russia as to the True Construction of the First Article of the Treaty of December 24, 1814.” It begins with the same words found in the Preamble to the 1783 treaty: “In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity.” Only Christianity teaches a Trinitarian view of God. The 1848 Treaty with Mexico begins with “In the name of Almighty God.” The treaty also states that both countries are “under the protection of Almighty God, the author of peace. . . .”
1 Brooke Allen, “Our Godless Constitution,” The Nation website (February 3, 2005). www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050221&c=1&s=allen “Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org #75. To: GarySpFC (#74) Did you plagerize the contents of your post? If not, how long did it take you to type all of that stuff? If so, where is the source weblink?
#76. To: Pridie.Nones (#75) (Edited) The post came from my Logos Bible Software, and permission for me to use the material is contained therein. For your information I have 7,515 resources in the program. “Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org #77. To: Pridie.Nones, GarySpFC (#75) Did you plagerize the contents of your post? If not, how long did it take you to type all of that stuff? If so, where is the source weblink? Instead of challenging his source, why can't you tell us what you agree with or disagree with in his post? Is anything included that is untrue?
#78. To: Gatlin, GarySpFC (#77) Instead of challenging his source, why can't you tell us what you agree with or disagree with in his post? There was no direct source to the material presented, other than some resources from the original author. Why is it that some posters don't summarize their thoughts and support their ideas with direct refernces so that any reader can evaluate the concepts in a more objective fashion? OOPPSS, I forgot (just briefly) that I posed a question to you, Gatlin aka spammin' man.
Is anything included that is untrue? Sure. I don't believe any of the "stuff" presented. It is basically hogwash.
#79. To: Pridie.Nones (#78) I have ministered in the field of apologetics for over 40 years. I have a doctorate in theology, and those who know me on this and other sites are acquainted with my long posts. “Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org #80. To: GarySpFC (#79) I have ministered in the field of apologetics for over 40 years. I have a doctorate in theology, and those who know me on this and other sites are acquainted with my long posts. Despite your extensive "ministry," at the end of the day, all you can ever perform is to defend your belief system. I remain unconvinced about any of your belief system when all you can ever truthfully suggest is: it is mystery and a wonder.
#81. To: Pridie.Nones (#78)
United States Congress (June 4, 1805), during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, drafted a Treaty of Peace and Amity with Tripoli, ratified April 12, 1806, in order to prevent the pirates of the North African Barbary Coast from seizing American ships, confiscating their cargo, and selling the crews and passengers as slaves. The United States had made a previous treaty with Tripoli and paid large sums of extortion money, but it failed when war broke out in 1801. Lieutenant Stephen Decatur (1779–1820) won famed by stealing into the Tripoli harbor on the small vessel Intrepid, February 16, 1804, burning a captured ship and escaping unharmed amidst fierce enemy fire. British Admiral Horatio Nelson called it the “most bold and daring act of the age.” In April of 1805, the U.S. Marines seized the Barbary harbor of Derne, Tripoli, the daring act of which is remembered in the Marine Hymn “From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli.” The June 4, 1805, Treaty of Tripoli, did not include a phrase that had been questionably inserted into the previous Treaty with Tripoli, June 7, 1797, that the United States “is not, in any sense founded on the Christian Religion …,”2207 (an insertion intended to clarify that the American government was not like the Mohammedan, Buddhist, or Hindu governments which controlled the religious life of its citizens and “that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”) This phrase was not in the Arabic version of the 1797 treaty,2208 and appears to have been an insertion by Joel Barlow (1754–1812), the American consul at Algiers who oversaw the translation process from Arabic to English. ,(Joel Barlow’s position as American consul to Algiers was originally intended for the naval hero John Paul Jones, but he died before he could fill the appointment.) The original Arabic translation of the 1797 treaty stated: Glory be to God! Declaration of the third article. We have agreed that if American Christians are traveling with a nation that is at war with the well- preserved Tripoli, and [the Tripolitan] takes [prisoners] from the Christian enemies and from the American Christians with whom we are at peace, then sets them free; neither he nor his goods shall be taken.… Praise be to God! Declaration of the twelfth article. If there arises a disturbance between us both sides, and it becomes a serious dispute, and the American Consul is not able to make clear his affair, and the affair shall remain suspended between them both, between the Pashna of Tripoli, may God strengthen him, and the Americans, until Lord Hassan Pashna, may God strengthen him, in the well-protected Algiers, has taken cognizance of the matter. We shall accept whatever decision he enjoins on us, and we shall agree with his condition and his seal; May God make it all permanent love and a good conclusion between us in the beginning and in the end, by His grace and favor, amen!2209
William J. Federer, Great Quotations: A Collection of Passages, Phrases, and Quotations Influencing Early and Modern World History Referenced according to Their Sources in Literature, Memoirs, Letters, Governmental Documents, Speeches, Charters, Court Decisions and Constitutions (St. Louis, MO: AmeriSearch, 2001). “Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org #82. To: Pridie.Nones (#78) Sure. I don't believe any of the "stuff" presented. It is basically hogwash. It shouldn't be too hard for you to find the different treaties online, examine them, and see what is true. “Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org #83. To: Pridie.Nones (#80) (Edited) Reflecting on The Skeptics Demand for Proof by Gary Butner, Th.D. One day it occurred to me how to answer a skeptic's mocking demand for proof of the Life and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christians cannot present a mountain of evidence for every fact in the Bible they are certain is true. Additionally, they cannot prove to a closed mind the Gospel is true, and that is due to the distinction between proof and evidence. Proof is subjective, whereas evidence is objective. The skeptic has to decide if the evidence he has been presented with rises to a level he considers proof. Christians have already made that decision and walk by faith in Jesus Christ based on the preponderance of evidence they have examined and found to be true. Yes, at times Christians entertain doubts, and there are areas of the Bible of which they are ignorant; however as their faith grows based on accumulating more and more evidence; doubts fade and their faith transforms from ideas and opinions into beliefs, and finally into certitudes. The gatekeeper guarding the skeptic's mind blocks them from honestly examining the very same evidence Christians are certain is true, and that is why the skeptic remains blind, sitting in deep darkness, and shackled by his sins for lack of faith. “Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org #84. To: GarySpFC (#81) For many of the nation's founders, they practiced Christianity not because of their convictions but because it was a method of communication to local towns folk; basically, attendance at a church was conveyance to say, "we are together." So, local politics were stimulated by not necessarily deep convictions of or about religious faith but nothing more than a sales card for political office. Don't get all enthused about TJ being mentioned in your article because it was offered on a Christian CD which you seem to enjoy.
#85. To: Pridie.Nones (#84) So, local politics were stimulated by not necessarily deep convictions of or about religious faith but nothing more than a sales card for political office. And how are you so certain of the Founding Fathers motives? “Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org #86. To: GarySpFC (#82) It shouldn't be too hard for you to find the different treaties online, examine them, and see what is true. Your research doesn't seem to have much impact, does it? Similarly like all the research of historical evidence about various Constutional Amendments attempting to redress grievances or nullify the process. Within any nation, once a document is signed and accepted it is cast as a permanent boat anchor around your neck.
#87. To: GarySpFC (#85) And how are you so certain of the Founding Fathers motives? Most of the founders were Deists. They could give a "hoot" about Christianity primarily because of the many wars in Europe over the Catholicism/Protestant debate, which still rage, albeit not so violently. The founders probably enjoyed a Sunday church chicken dinner, though. And an apple pie desert besides finding a pretty young girl to enjoy a private moment with behind closed doors.
#88. To: Pridie.Nones (#87) (Edited) Most of the founders were Deists. They could give a "hoot" about Christianity primarily because of the many wars in Europe over the Catholicism/Protestant debate, which still rage, albeit not so violently. Is that true? Are you certain about that or is it rhetoric you have chosen to believe?
http://www.evidenceforjesuschrist.org/Pages/christian-nation/declaration-of- independence-signers.htm There is more. http://www.evidenceforjesuschrist.org/Pages/christian-nation/america-menu.htm “Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org #89. To: Gatlin (#71) (Edited) Well, Obama was stupid in mentioning the past. he should have mentioned the Christian Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), in Africa that is as brutal as Boko Haram and are fighting for religious reasons. But Obama has to dumb stuff down for Americans to get a point across and that is Obama's weakness because while Clinton was good at dumbing down his points so the yokels could get his message, Obama never understood Joe Blow Americans and how to talk to them.
#90. To: GarySpFC (#88) Well, let us say that the American nation is imbued in Christianity. Yet, the founders made no direct excerpt about those same convictions forming the US Constitution or otherwise. You have to realize that Christianity in America was fairly strict about the human spirit, especially about the sexual nature of mankind. There were many kinds of codes for proper behavior. But, the founders (at that time) realized that the real issue were principles not beliefs that formed the US. In many cases, those principles were in alignment of Christian dogma no matter the local chusrch content.
#91. To: GarySpFC (#74) http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl227.php
#92. To: GarySpFC, Pridie.Nones (#81) (Edited) This phrase was not in the Arabic version of the 1797 treaty,2208 and appears to have been an insertion by Joel Barlow (1754– 1812), the American consul at Algiers who oversaw the translation process from Arabic to English. It does not matter if it was in the original Arabic or not (I can't verify since this claim is found only in Fundie sources who are clearly freaked out this passage exists) because the Senate ratified and was read the English language version and the English language version is the law of the land. No one from that era of our Founding Fathers found any problem with the wording or concept either - it was unremarkable to them to consider the USA was NOT a founded on Christian principals. Including President Thomas Jefferson who in a private letter also stated he did not consider English Common Law was based on Christian principals either.
#93. To: Gatlin (#59) Substitute the word "religion" in the argument with the word "politics". Look at how many people have been murdered over the course of modern history for POLITICAL reasons! My goodness, this thing, politics, must be incredibly evil in and of itself, for it causes men to become mass murderers. Why any rational human being would want to believe in, support or participate in POLITICS, given the incredible record of evil and death that politics has caused is a real question: look at the body count! We cannot overlook it. Politics has driven virtually all of the genocides and all of the slavery of the past century. Rational, educated men should not become involved in violent superstitions such as politics. Politics in ever age have led to nothing but destruction. People need to move past politics and become apolitical, for whoever is devoted to a political cause may become a fanatic, and the next thing you know, the storm troopers are goose-stepping down the Champs- Elysees! Politics: just say no. The parallel is perfect.
#94. To: CZ82 (#73) You mistake Bush for Carter. You mistake Carter's Cubans for Bush's Muslims.
#95. To: Pridie.Nones (#86) Within any nation, once a document is signed and accepted it is cast as a permanent boat anchor around your neck. Until it's thrown off.
#96. To: Vicomte13 (#95) Pridie.Nones: Within any nation, once a document is signed and accepted it is cast as a permanent boat anchor around your neck. It is rare to have any outrage of or by the American People in the USA. Today, all the People do is watch TV, pay their taxes and thank God that they don't have to pay more. They are silly, spineless, docile idiots that vote for the same thing everytime.
#97. To: cranky (#3) He's [the Muzzie President] a Constitutional scholar, doncha know? Yes. That is the strangly absurd meme that's been promoted. Has anybody ever been able to discern an iota of documentation from the Kenyan's writings or evidence that supports "constitutional scholar"? Maybe Brian Williams has seen it.
#98. To: Pridie.Nones (#96) It is rare to have any outrage of or by the American People in the USA. Today, all the People do is watch TV, pay their taxes and thank God that they don't have to pay more. Perhaps they are rationally apathetic. There are only so many things that people can worry about, and sensible people focus on those things they can change. Large numbers of Americans have observed over their lifetimes that the parties rotate, leaders come and go, but the song remains the same. Therefore, they have rationally concluded that the political system is broken, corrupt and a waste of time to engage with. In this, they may well be right. From their perspective, those people who take the time to become politically active, who study the issues and become passionate about things they cannot change, and who then become whipped into a frenzy of emotion over the outcome of rigged elections - those people are the fools. The ones who don't waste their time studying politics because they know that it's as real as Professional Wrestling: far from being silly, may be the wisest of all.
#99. To: Pridie.Nones (#86) Your research doesn't seem to have much impact, does it? Similarly like all the research of historical evidence about various Constutional Amendments attempting to redress grievances or nullify the process. One can believe the truth or believe a lie. There is more at stake in this than what appears on the surface, because once a man chooses to believe a lie he has departed from reality. He thinks he can contain the lie in a dark corner of his mind, but in reality it infects the totality of his being. “Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org #100. To: Gatlin, Carnival Barker, A K A Stone (#34) Get lost, Punk. Where? Will you be performing next at the Big Top? (Don't forget your clown shoes)
"thanks for providing me a platform from which to launch articles you have not disputed as inaccurate." You're welcome, Hambone. But then you should thank A K A Stone for lending you a temporary platform from which to launch/spam your propaganda, red herrings and strawmen. (you get 2 red stars for your work here thus far. And a cookie.)
#101. To: Liberator (#97) Has anybody ever been able to discern an iota of documentation from the Kenyan's writings or evidence that supports "constitutional scholar"? Yes. He has written at least one document that you should be able to identify:
It is admired by all scholars and US Constitional lawers and governance as a whole.
#102. To: Gatlin (#59) So those who called themselves “Christians” and committed atrocities that solely occurred on “command of church authorities” or were committed in the name of “Christianity” were deemed NOT to be “Christians....by whom? By Christ Jesus: Matthew 25: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. " (Romans 1:16-17) #103. To: Gatlin, Deckard, Pridie.Nones, The Big Top (#34) You are doing nothing here except trying to cause disruption. LOL. THAT is precious. Thought the above line from the forum-spamming Carnival Barker ought to be isolated -- just for further S&G.
#104. To: GarySpFC (#99) There is more at stake in this than what appears on the surface, because once a man chooses to believe a lie he has departed from reality. He thinks he can contain the lie in a dark corner of his mind, but in reality it infects the totality of his being. I am curious about your intent of the above post that I quote. Are you saying that "belief" is tied to "reality?" If so, how do you explain "animism" and the perpetual belief systems thereof?
What about "luck" at a casino in Las Vegas?
#105. To: Pridie.Nones (#101) Yes. He has written at least one document that you should be able to identify: HA! Well then -- that's enough "scholarship" for me. Make 'em the Chief Justice of SCOTUS. Or Generalissimo. OR Burger KING.
#106. To: GarySpFC (#62) Thanks. Another portion of world history Obola has no clue of. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. " (Romans 1:16-17) . . . Comments (107 - 433) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|