Religion
See other Religion Articles
Title: Obama Rips Bible, Praises Koran
Source:
Breitbart
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/national-s ... bama-rips-bible-praises-koran/
Published: Feb 7, 2015
Author: Ben Shapiro
Post Date: 2015-02-07 06:32:22 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 192712
Comments: 433
Unless we get on our high horse and think that this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ. So it is not unique to one group or one religion. There is a tendency in us, a simple tendency that can pervert and distort our faith. 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: Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles. 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: I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. 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 of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer. 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.
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:
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-196) not displayed.
.
.
.
#197. To: Pericles, GarySpFc, liberator (#194)
No they don't. Frankly Muslims say nothing as they know Muhammad preached proselytizing by the sword. He demonstrated such. There are two Muhammads and Muslims will tell you the Muhammad of Medina is the one they follow. That would be when he came to political and military power.
"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)
LMAO. Yeah, I am about as right wing as Obama. Just because someone recognizes Obama's Muslin empathies and reluctance to even call a spade a spade doesn't make one a right winger. Get a grip, Dude. Let's get this straight, there is no difference between the extremes at both ends of the political spectrum. Both ends are dangerous whackos. "I ask again, what Muslim agenda has Obama enacted in the USA?" The same agenda he has to destroy the white U.S. middle class. The same as his agenda to give cover to the racial pimps like Sharpton. It's the same old same old about calling a person a racist because they disagree with Obama. And more significantly naming an AG that doesn't mind breaking the rules, if not the law, to promote Obama's vision of fundamentally remaking America. It's the same agenda that leads Duke to allow the Muslim call to prayer from its Chapel tower. It's the same agenda that led to a Federal court to rule that barring Sharia law in the U.S. is unconstitutional. And on the foreign policy side, his not so veiled hatred for Israel and willingness to allow Iran to acquire nuclear capabilities. Guess what the Arab nations in the region will want when Iran goes nuke? Guess who will give it to them? So go ahead, continue your stupidity, take you next shot and call me Islamophobic. You will retain your card as a useful idiot.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Is that why he didn't bomb the sh*t out of ISIS when they were mobilizing in the open desert? Is that why he allowed ISIS to sweep across Syria and Iraq? Oh, wait......they were just the JV.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Sir William Blackstone The Blackstone Institute honors Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780). Blackstone was the great Eighteenth Century English legal scholar whose philosophy and writings were infused with Judeo-Christian principles. The Ten Commandments are at the heart of Blackstone's philosophy. Blackstone taught that man is created by God and granted fundamental rights by God. Man’s law must be based on God’s law. Our Founding Fathers referred to Blackstone more than to any other English or American authority. Blackstone’s great work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, was basic to the U. S. Constitution. This work has sold more copies in America than in England and was a basic textbook of America’s early lawyers. It was only in the mid-Twentieth Century that American law, being re-written by the U. S. Supreme Court, repudiated Blackstone. An attack on Blackstone is an attack on the U. S. Constitution and our nation’s Judeo- Christian foundations. The Blackstone Institute is committed to reviving the Constitution and its Blackstonian foundations. Bashing Blackstone: The Reconstructionists’ Attack in America’s Culture War [An initial version of this article was published in Rare Jewel Magazine, March-April 2005] Sir William Blackstone, the eminent Eighteenth Century English law professor and author of Commentaries on the Laws of England, has wielded incalculable effects on law in America for the past 225 years. His Commentaries were the law textbook in Great Britain and the United States well after their initial publication. “Bashing Blackstone” is an invisible but critical dimension of the Reconstructionists (liberal/activist) attack in American’s Culture War. We Constitutionalists must therefore arm ourselves with a basic knowledge of Blackstone and his Commentaries. I. Why Study Blackstone’s Commentaries? Commentaries on the Laws of England (published between 1765 and 1769) by Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780) has been abandoned in the Humanistic jurisprudence (legal and constitutional philosophy) that permeates contemporary anti-Judeo-Christian judicial decisions.1 Blackstone also is virtually absent from American legal education today. What, then, is the significance of Blackstonian thought to today’s law? The answer is simple. Blackstone’s Commentaries are one of the most complete, consistent, humanly authored expositions of the Judeo-Christian worldview of law ever written. Blackstone’s immeasurable influence on both English and American law was universally recognized until well into the Twentieth Century, although the “bashing of Blackstone” in America began after the Civil War. Christopher Columbus Langdell a militant evolutionist who became Dean of the Harvard Law School in 1870, thought Blackstonian principles had to be ripped from American law not because they were wrong, but because they were a bulwark of protection against the growing Humanistic movement headed by Langdell and other elitists.2 But Blackstone’s jurisprudential views were not quickly eliminated. In the views of distinguished observers, “The influence of Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England . . . was phenomenal and as great in American as in England”; 3 and “Upon Blackstone’s Commentaries, United States Supreme Court Justice John Marshall and other early American jurists built the American legal system.”4 Indeed, in the most notable of Marshall’s decisions, he cited Blackstone several times to advance the concept of Constitutional supremacy over the power of judges.5 This fact is especially important today since judicial supremacists still cite Marbury as the source of judicial power. We must forcefully and consistently insist that these judges exercise judicial review only if they understand and apply this power within the entire context of Marshall’s – i.e., Blackstonian – philosophy. Statistics also demonstrate Blackstone’s influence in America. Drs. Donald S. Lutz and Charles S. Hyneman analyzed the various sources read and cited by our Founding Fathers; Blackstone was by far the most-cited English/American scholar.6 The American Revolution was a revolt against the politics of English government, but not its legal foundations; the Commentaries, in fact, were cited nearly 10,000 times in the reports of American courts between 1789 and 1915.7 In the world of Humanistic scholarship today, these facts are ignored because history in general is scorned as central to the process of interpreting the US Constitution. But Humanists as well as the rest of us constantly cite history. The only question is whom they cite and when that which they cite occurred. The principles of Blackstone's CommentariesBlackstone’s Commentaries infuse our Constitution, and their revival deserves our most careful attention today. II. Who Was Sir William Blackstone? William Blackstone was born in 1723, several months after his father’s death. His mother died when he was 12 years old. Considered a poor orphaned boy, he nonetheless received an excellent education, supported by prominent individuals, and did well in his studies. The legal profession eventually claimed him; he was entered as a student of law in the Inns of Court at the Middle Temple8 ; and in 1746 he joined the bar. In 1750 Blackstone received the degree of Doctor of Civil Law and left the practice of law for academic life. In 1758 he was elected the first Vinerian Professor of Law at Oxford. Blackstone was highly regarded by his contemporaries who shared our Judeo-Christian worldview. Professor Frederic Maitland declared that “Bracton [“Father of Common Law”] 9 was rivaled by no English juridical writer till Blackstone arose five centuries afterwards. Twice in the history of England has an Englishman had the motive, the courage, the power to write a great readable, reasonable book about English law as a whole.”10 But his ideas drew some criticism, particularly from Jeremy Bentham, the empiricist whose views were antithetical to the Judeo-Christian worldview and significantly contributed to attacks on this worldview by later Humanists. Blackstone wrote the Commentaries to organize and explain English law as it had come to exist by the late 1800s. He desired to reach not only “the Profession of the Common Law; but of such others also, as are desirous to be in some Degree acquainted with the Constitution and Polity of their own Country”11 and “to render the whole [of his analysis of the Common Law] intelligible to the uniformed minds of beginners . . . .”12 Blackstone first presented his material as lectures, but after students sold notes purporting to be his thoughts, he published his own edition, in four volumes.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
You are in darkness. Go look up Sir William Blackstone.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
That would be article 11 of the treaty. Which some scholars note did not appear in the Arabic version of the treaty. Which is interesting. The treaty was renegotiated 8 years later after expiration. Article 11 was dropped in the English version ratified by the Senate. Historical context is important. The founders wanted no part of denominationalism defining the US government. The Barbary Muslims knew the various factions of Europe and their established churches. That was the clear message sent, the US was not a nation with an established church government. We were not Great Briton and her established church nor were we "Holy" Roman Empire subjects. That's the historical context of the treaty. There is a difference between establishing a religion or more accurately a denomination and the ideals in which this nation were founded. The early Americans were devoutly Christian. The Christian faith influenced our founding. Of which the first Great Awakening having the greatest influence.
"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)
www.americanfreedombybarb.../05/eric-holders-justice- department-will.html">In case you missed it. "In its latest effort to protect followers of Islam in the U.S. the Obama Justice Department warns against using social media to spread information considered inflammatory against Muslims, threatening that it could constitute a violation of civil rights." "Over the years the Obama administration has embarked on a fervent crusade to befriend Muslims by creating a variety of outreach programs at a number of key federal agencies. For instance the nation’s Homeland Security covertly met with a group of extremist Arab, Muslim and Sikh organizations to discuss national security matters and the State Department sent a controversial, anti- America Imam (Feisal Abdul Rauf) to the Middle East to foster greater understanding and outreach among Muslim majority communities. The Obama Administration has also hired a special Homeland Security adviser (Mohamed Elibiary) who openly supports a radical Islamist theologian and renowned jihadist ideologue and a special Islam envoy that condemns U.S. prosecutions of terrorists as “politically motivated persecutions” and has close ties to radical extremist groups. The president has even ordered the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to shift its mission from space exploration to Muslim diplomacy and the government started a special service that delivers halal meals, prepared according to Islamic law, to home-bound seniors in Detroit. Who could forget Hillary Clinton’s special order allowing the reentry of two radical Islamic academics whose terrorist ties have long banned them from the U.S.?"
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
What reasons would that be? What part of the Gospel of Grace do the LRA preach?
"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)
Where in the world did you find that piece of garbage?
So you're trying to say Carter never crawled in bed with the Muslims in Afghanistan? Maybe this was his way of making up for abandoning the Shah.
“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.”
Man, that was one HELL of a windy post! I use the term "animism" because in real life, a number of more primative peoples around the world (and yes, some still exist) describe a "god" as imbued in the world around themselves. There is no real diametric opposing force of "good vs. "evil" other than what promotes one's life. There is no "god" as "god" is everything around us; however, there are great gods and those great gods are meaningful as they helped in some way promote the survival of someone. The boy rises up, confident that the "tree god" has saved his life. Of course, the boy reports the story to his family and the story is magnified as many times as the story is repeated and as often as the story is repeated, the story becomes reality. There is no correlation of an "intent" by any god to save the boy's life. Yet, there is a belief that the tree god (or simply "tree") has saved the boy's life. The idea of "luck" is all there is to say about belief systems. That is the reason for asking the questions earlier up the thread. People are prone to move towards a belief system they trust that will promote their own survival; if an earlier belief system is not supporting their survival they will change towards something else; it happens all throughout human history whether you want to agree or not. Belief systems are entirely based on "luck" to include modern religions.
“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.”
Kinda hard to tell that was George from the back, anyway it was the same result covering up for the phony.
“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.”
Oh, I guess that is just oky doky fine to some of the "True Believers". After all it is just some necessary steps towards "Fundamentally Transforming The United States".
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Linking cultists to Christians that's low even for you but not surprising, and Kony is a Muslim.
“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.”
Pericles: "Absolutely!!! If Obama used the more accurate "Lord's Resistance Army" example to show how Christian terror groups fighting for religious reasons in the modern world are also doing ISIS level depravities (as are Buddhist and Hindu terror groups until recently in Sri Lanka - the Hindu Tamils invented suicide bombers and there were cases where Sikhs blew up airplanes as well) most Americans would have scratched their heads having never heard of them. So he has to reach back to the Crusades and the Jim Crow era. That Americans kind of remember he figures". Lusifer (Satan), was the most beautiful angel in heaven, God loved him very much, maybe you Obama lackies can explain away, make excuses for the evils he has spread all over the world too, since our Father cast him out of heaven. OOPS! My bad. You already are, and doing a bang up job of it too, shoveling and spreading Obama's piles of sugar coated shite. But in the end, all you're going to be holding onto is a 'pile of Obama's/satan's Shite!~ jmho
("We sing about God because we believe in Him. We are not trying to offend anybody, but the evidence that we have seen of Him in our small little lives trumps your opinion about whether or not He exists". ~ Jeff Foxworthy)
I don't hardly know what to make of it, but I am rather surprised and puzzled at Gatlins sudden defense of Obama, and Muslims.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Why is that?
Just to be controversial, he likes the attention. (Along with a few others).
“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.”
When I was a boy I dove headlong into a shallow lake and broke my neck and was paralyzed. God healed me and saved my life. Luck? No. Miracle. A belief system predicated on luck cannot explain true miracles.
It was "luck" that you survived and it was also "luck" that your health was restored. There are no controlled variables about your circumstances that show "God" or any "miracle" other than your belief.
Just did not figure him that way. For one thing, he has been so adamant about supporting the Republican nominee. Just seems strange to me. But then he is strange, LOL.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
LOL ! Yeah I think you are right. Most people that are big attention hogs do have mental issues, LOL!
Si vis pacem, para bellum
I'm curious as to how long his list is? BTA his shrink is probably just as bad so he gets told "There's nothing wrong with you sir, have a nice day" "Please pay the lady at the counter on your way out".
“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.”
What Republican nominee? I didn't know there was one as of yet.
Luck? No. Miracle. " I agree! Over the years, I have witnessed many events that some would say was just luck, or coincidence. I have seen events that the only possible explanation was that they were miracles. Non believers can think what they want. I believe you experienced a miracle.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
It is. Vicomte13's personal experiences are nothing more than some good "luck." There was no intervention by a "god" to suggest that such a magnificient and spectacular event like that happened is pure bull shit.
There is not one, yet. But in case you did not see it, and apparently you did not, Gatlin stated on another thread that he would support whom ever was the Republican nominee.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
I don't give a shit about Gatlin's beloved political party or any of his choices for a President. He has only one projected image: more bull shit.
Believe what you want tater.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
By all rights, I should not be here today, but by the Will of God, and my will to live, I am! The same goes for our son, who should have died in 1997, or sitting as a human vegetable for the rest of his life, but he is not, he is whole again, and his doctors do no understand, nor did they believe in 'miracles' either. They are witnesses to miracles everyday, yet some still believe there is no God...go figure~ jmho
("We sing about God because we believe in Him. We are not trying to offend anybody, but the evidence that we have seen of Him in our small little lives trumps your opinion about whether or not He exists". ~ Jeff Foxworthy)
The problem with your belief is that others have same or similar experiences and subscribe the nature of their recovery or later well-being with a "GOD." This belief system fosters incredable ramifications for soscieties as people tend to cling onto the right "belief." Within and without various societies, enmity occurs and ultimately war. War seems to be a method of describing all these miracles, doesn't it?
Explain yourself.
("We sing about God because we believe in Him. We are not trying to offend anybody, but the evidence that we have seen of Him in our small little lives trumps your opinion about whether or not He exists". ~ Jeff Foxworthy)
Sure. Different societies have varying cultures for ensuring survival skills for the benefit of all within that same society. Just as social-economics, language, customs and traditions make up a culture so do local customs for various belief and systems of belief. Using religious models for Christianity is an interesting approach to social migration of belief systems. Also using Muslim models for belief systems are interesting to study. Both models have different cultures and beliefs but both cultures have statification about their respective belief systems. It is impressive to view these fragmented systems because at the end of the day, there is no real god; there are only beliefs about a REAL GOD.
Was not our Founding Father.
The only people who claim this are Fundie revisionists trying to grasp at straws. Even if true (I Don't read Arabic) it matters not at all because the Senate ratified the English language treaty. As for ideals - Jefferson flat out stated the ideal were not connected with Christianity when it came to English common law.
Carter started it but Reagan expanded it.
Kony is not a Muslim.
Pericles: Was not our Founding Father. Gary is a little daffy at times.
God healed me and saved my life. Luck? No. Miracle. A belief system predicated on luck cannot explain true miracles. I went to the grave of a saint and prayed for my back to heal - minor slipped disk kind of injury. Nothing happened. It was injured on t he trip to Europe. I endured for a month in pain. Went back to the States a doctor said it was pretty bad might need surgery and physical therapy. I was given some anti inflammatories and made an appointment for the following month. Within days of that my pain and injury went away. I went to the doctor he did an X-Ray and said in a paraphrase of his own words "It was miraculous and he had never seen similar injury heal up so fast on its own". So despite my doubts I was granted mercy and healed.
I am still waiting for evidence Obama made America more Islamic. All I get is Obama hired Arabs in govt. Not buying the demented right wing paranoid stupidity on Obama does not mean we are defending Obama or like Obama in any way. I think Obama is a war criminal for example.
Comments (238 - 433) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestAnd if you argue they are not 'real Christians' that is what Muslims say about ISIL, al-Qaeda, etc.
#198. To: Pericles (#192)
I just want people like you in the right wing............
#199. To: Pericles, cranky, gatlin, , All (#192)
Obama has killed more terrorist with drones than even Bush while depriving the terrorists of easy to target Americans on the ground.
#200. To: Pericles (#190)
#201. To: Pericles (#196)
I did not mention that at all. I showed where Thomas Jefferson stated flat out that English Common Law was not based on Christianity and predated it - he mentions the fact that the British establishment always claims their laws are Christian based and he disagrees. And Jefferson did not hide his views - they were very open. Imagine the modern uproar if an American president said this? Also, the Treaty Of Tripoli which the Senate ratified for Jefferson flat out stated that the USA was not founded as a Christian nation and not one noted comment of shock, dissent, etc to the wording of that treaty which was published in the newspapers back then for all to read. That tells me this was an unremarkable view by Americans at the time of the Founding Fathers regardless of their individual faiths.
#202. To: Pericles, GarySpFc, liberator, Destro (#196)
Also, the Treaty Of Tripoli which the Senate ratified for Jefferson flat out stated that the USA was not founded as a Christian nation and not one noted comment of shock, dissent, etc to the wording of that treaty which was published in the newspapers back then for all to read. That tells me this was an unremarkable view by Americans at the time of the Founding Fathers regardless of their individual faiths.
#203. To: Pericles, cranky, gatlin, All (#198)
#204. To: Pericles, GarySpFc, liberator, Destro (#191)
If Obama used the more accurate "Lord's Resistance Army" example to show how Christian terror groups fighting for religious reasons...
#205. To: redleghunter (#195)
The only myth is the leftist, atheist secular myth that the founders were deists.
#206. To: Pericles (#94)
(Edited)
#207. To: Vicomte13 (#169)
An example is a young boy about to cross a stream and is sighted by an approaching bear. The bear exhibits aggressive behavior towards the boy and the boy cowers in fear not knowing how to handle his panic. Simultaneously, but nevertheless apparent, the weather has turned very nasty and ligthening has struck a nearby tree, shearing off a heavy limb scaring the bear away.
#208. To: Spin Meisters And Moderates (#0)
#209. To: Liberator (#126)
#210. To: Liberator (#137)
" Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrates Obama Administration "
#211. To: Pericles (#89)
(Edited)
#212. To: Pericles, Gatlin, cranky, Stoner, Liberator, Pridie.Nones, Deckard, CZ82, GarySpFC, SOSO, rlk, hondo68, Vicomte13, redleghunter, sneakypete, all (#191)
gatlin: "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".
#213. To: Murron (#212)
#214. To: Stoner (#213)
#215. To: Stoner (#213)
#216. To: Pridie.Nones (#207)
The idea of "luck" is all there is to say about belief systems.
#217. To: Vicomte13 (#216)
#218. To: Pridie.Nones (#214)
" Why is that? "
#219. To: CZ82 (#215)
" Just to be controversial, he likes the attention. (Along with a few others). "
#220. To: Stoner (#219)
#221. To: Stoner (#218)
Just did not figure him that way. For one thing, he has been so adamant about supporting the Republican nominee. Just seems strange to me. But then he is strange, LOL.
#222. To: Vicomte13, Pridie.Nones (#216)
" God healed me and saved my life.
#223. To: Stoner, Vicomte13 (#222)
I have witnessed many events that some would say was just luck, or coincidence.
#224. To: Pridie.Nones (#221)
" What Republican nominee? I didn't know there was one as of yet. "
#225. To: Stoner, Gatlin (#224)
#226. To: Pridie.Nones (#223)
" event like that happened is pure bull shit. "
#227. To: Pridie.Nones, Vicomte13 (#217)
It was "luck" that you survived and it was also "luck" that your health was restored. There are no controlled variables about your circumstances that show "God" or any "miracle" other than your belief.
#228. To: Murron (#227)
#229. To: Pridie.Nones (#228)
War seems to be a method of describing all these miracles, doesn't it?
#230. To: Murron (#229)
#231. To: GarySpFC (#201)
Sir William Blackstone
#232. To: redleghunter, GarySpFc, liberator (#202)
That would be article 11 of the treaty. Which some scholars note did not appear in the Arabic version of the treaty. Which is interesting.
#233. To: CZ82 (#206)
(Edited)
So you're trying to say Carter never crawled in bed with the Muslims in Afghanistan? Maybe this was his way of making up for abandoning the Shah.
#234. To: CZ82 (#211)
#235. To: Pericles, GarySpFC (#231)
GarySpFC: Sir William Blackstone
#236. To: Vicomte13, Pridie.Nones (#216)
When I was a boy I dove headlong into a shallow lake and broke my neck and was paralyzed.
#237. To: Murron, Gatlin, cranky, Stoner, Liberator, Pridie.Nones, Deckard, CZ82, GarySpFC, SOSO, rlk, hondo68, Vicomte13, redleghunter, sneakypete (#212)
(Edited)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]