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: 192986
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 (1-322) not displayed.
.
.
.
#323. To: GarySpFC (#311)
The Constitution as written was so dramatically altered by the post-Civil War amendments that it is, in effect, a new Constitution that just carries the window-dressing of the old. The Founders had three constitutions. The first was unwritten and ad hoc, and the country operated on it throughout the Revolution. At the end of the Revolutionary War, the Articles of Confederation were adopted. The war was WON before they were adopted. The Articles proved inefficient, so the Constitution of 1787, ratified in 1789, was put in place. It had its good points, but it ultimately failed because it could not address the evil of slavery. The country fell apart and war put it back together. To win that war, the Union broke the Constitution as necessary. After the war, Amendments were made, and realities of power were imposed, that made a new Constitution. Call it the Constitution of 1868. That's what we lived under until the 1930s. It ended up being morally compromised in two ways: the States were able to resurge and exert power to abuse the freed slaves to the point of disenfranchisement and apartheid, and the economic structure didn't work. With the Supreme Court, FDR got the Commerce Clause to mean plenary power for the federal government, and we have lived with that structure ever since. At each phase, the Constitution did mean exactly what its founders intended, but it didn't work. The first Constitution, the unwritten modus operandi of the Continental Congress, was sufficient to keep a regular army in being and in the field long enough to defeat the British and win independence, but it had no further governing power. And that was wholly insufficient for a new country of 13 states. The second, the Articles of Confederation, better coordination was got, but the fear of sacrifice of sovereignty was so great that it ultimately didn't work. It didn't even work for its amendment: the Constitutional Convention and ratification process violated the existing constitution (the Articles). The Constitution of 1787 sufficed for an expanding land power that engaged in shipping, but it could not address the evil of slavery, so it failed. The Constitution of 1868 addressed the evil of slavery, but could not deal with the corruption of crony capitalism. It failed in Plessy v. Ferguson and the Great Depression. FDR's Constitution of 1934 - the "West Coast Hotel" Constitution is what we are living under now. It concentrated power sufficiently to allow apartheid to be abolished, to win World War II and the Cold War, and to make America a middle class nation, but it is failing now, as there is no check against runaway government spending. It looks as though the check on THAT may well be Vladimir Putin. When the economic system comes unraveled, a new Constitution, our fifth, may emerge from the rubble. We COULD just amend the existing one through an Article V convention that sweeps away West Coast Hotel and Kelo, but it seems unlikely that we will. There is too much fear and too many vested interests. Same was true before the Civil War. So we'll have to actually get destroyed first, THEN new parties and interests will rise from the rubble. Maybe. Then again, Lithuania and Hungary were once the mightiest states in Eastern Europe, and Denmark made the West tremble. When they fell, they never got back up. We shall see. Truth is, the Constitution has written by the Founding Fathers stopped meaning anything in 1861. Now it's just like an old family crest. One wears it with pride and it shows the history, but the actual Constitution is what is really DONE, and the Founders' Constitution was set aside when it failed to address the evil of slavery. The current Constitution will be set aside because the concentration of government power without checks means inevitable national bankruptcy, driven by an unchecked government. If Putin goes to the gold standard, we will see dimly the shape of the 6th US Constitution. But the country may be so devastated by the economic collapse that it breaks up and regions go their separate ways.
That's right. But my pantheism was developed in the Physics of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990's. God grabbed my face in July, 2001. Now the lack of the closed end makes the diesel-engine universe less plausible. But of course the universe isn't REALLY expanding at all. What is perceived as expansion is merely a misinterpretation of the quantum red-shift of light. Someday, somebody is going to turn the telescope lens around and realize that what they are seeing is the quantized SLOWING of light, consistently, over time. We think we're seeing down-doppler due to expansion. What we're actually seeing is down doppler due to light slowing down. But the world isn't ready for that yet, because we have our Ptolemaic system of today, which doesn't put the earth at the center of all and insist on epicycle, but which instead holds the speed of light constant and bends observations to fit that. The result is lots of "epicycles". They disappear when one stops arbitrarily putting light at the center and realizes that light has demonstrably slowed, and still is slowing. But that is not for today. That is for two decades hence. For now, we just have to observe that the physics are cracking up.
The Founders had three constitutions. The first was unwritten and ad hoc, and the country operated on it throughout the Revolution. At the end of the Revolutionary War, the Articles of Confederation were adopted. The war was WON before they were adopted. Spoken like a Frenchman! I doubt any Anglo will admit the reality, the USA has had several constitutions - while pretending they still live under their original one. Americans don't even acknowledge the presidents under the Articles Of Confederation except in special circumstances. It's as if the education myth industry does not want to obscure the myth that George Washington was the first president.
---------------------------- That might make a sane mind suspicious. Incidently I noticed you switched terms and substituted Arab for islamic to obscure your opponent's arguments while making your's seem more acceptable.
They might not be Arabs but I assume they are by their names and their pictures. I have zero evidence they are Islamists or even Muslim (they can be atheists for all I know). I assume that these are actual people not fake names and pictures. How can we verify? There is a lot of manipulation of the right by these kinds of propaganda campaigns and this is said by someone like me who considers Obama a war criminal. That is what happens to credibility when the right wing hangs out with birthers and it does not help that birther types also push this line of thought. http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/m/muslim-brotherhood-in-white-house- 050813.htm#.VNgC-PnF__E Summary of the eRumor: This is a forwarded email with the title of "White House Staff" or "New In The White House" that alleges that six American Islamist Activists who work with the Obama Administration are Muslim Brotherhood operatives influencing American policies. The Truth: This eRumor is an unproven conspiracy theory.
All nations have their myths. The American national myth has been a good one for uniting people from many disparate European lands, people who did not find peace with one another in Europe until the post- World War II order, in which Western Europe, land of all the hateful harpies (England, Germany, the Vikings, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Dutch and the French), was finally put together in real peace and openness, thanks primarily to the stability of American legions sitting there ending the concern of defense against each other. Denizens of all of those hostile nations came to America, and did not continue the fight here. I myself am descended from people on both sides of two religious civil wars: the Irish, and the French, and of Dutch too, perennial victim of the French at the time of the immigration of my Dutch ancestors. My ancestors were on seven different sides in European conflicts in the same century. Seven. And those nations have continued on opposite sides in some thing to this day. Ireland is STILL divided. But in America, the civic myth forged these hostile elements into something new. It worked exceedingly well for Europeans, and for old line Hispanics too. A bit more unevenly for Asians, and not all that well for blacks. Indeed, the problem of the Blacks is the fly in the chardonnay, truth be told. Still, we must not hate the Americans for their national myths. The Russians have theirs also, and the Serbs, and the Greeks. Everybody has them. There are always grains of truth in them and always exaggerations. I seek to be objective about these things. I also seek to demote American (or any other) national political documents from a place on the altar with the Bible. Constitution and Magna Carta do not belong on the altar alongside the Bible. It's idolatry to speak of them in terms of service and reverence due only to God. I am certainly French, and Irish, and Dutch, and Scandinavian. And "French" means a lot of things because France itself is a melting pot of very different regional cultures. I embody at least three of those six. But I am most of all American. After all, I was born in the American Midwest, of American parents of American parents. 14 of 16 great-grandparents were American-born. 26 of 32 great-great-grandparents also. I'm American. But I'm not American uber alles. "My country, may she always be right, but my country, right or wrong" is a dramatically patriotic statement. It is also idolatrous and immoral. My country comes third. My family comes second. God comes first. There are many Americans who think that America should come first: that's a very sinful thing, to put country above God, and a foolish thing, to put something that is really just a thought construct over one's own flesh and blood. God first. Family second. Country third. Some would say that within the rubric "country" that Constitution comes first. That's what the various oaths would seem to say. That's pretty treacherous ground, though, because the real constitution of today is FDR's Constitution, the West-Coast-Hotel + Brown v Board of Education + Roe + Kelo Constitution. That constitution is not only taking the country to bankruptcy, but also imposes death on millions of innocents. For the good of the country, we should be trying to get RID of the current constitution to get something more moral and more sustainable, and less abusive and lopsided in place. To think that the Constitution of 1787 actually still rules the roost in America is a pious fantasy. Pious fantasies are fine in casual social settings, but in actual discussion, they're simply delusions at best, or lies, and nothing good is ever built on lies. To save this country, we desperately need a new constitution. And it's not going to be able to look like the old ones: they all failed because of identifiable weaknesses. The first three were too weak. The 1868 Constitution leads to too much corruption. The FDR Constitution is too strong. Finding the Goldilox Constitution will be tough, and won't happen in the current environment. Unfortunately, we are going to have to have some Schumpeterian chaos to get to something new. And unfortunately, there is little taste for talking about these things seriously among those who worship an idol fashioned by human hands in 1787, and who do not see that it has been superseded twice already and we don't live under it anymore.
I don't believe your neck was really broken. It's a frightened little kid's reaction to getting knocked in the head. Now you're trying to make a heroic and authoritative lifetime career out of a passing hallucination produced by a bumped head. Grow up!
You also do not believe that two dead animals were raised by God in my hands. Or that God grabbed my face. Or that a holy dove flew into my face and drove me to the ground. Or that I saw a demon. Or that I saw the city from below and afar, or that In was plunged into the black abyss, or that I felt the heat of the flames of Gehenna beneath my feet, or that I was embraced by Jesus. You think that the Shroud of Turin, the Lanciano Eucharistic Miracle, the dozens of Incorrupt bodies of saints and the healings at Lourdes are all frauds too. And you think yourself entitled to reply to a man who describes them with snarling condescension. I haven't "made a career" of these things. In fact, I made a career of the military, and then passed through a veterinary training period before settling on a career as a lawyer. I brought these things up in specific answer to somebody who said that there is no evidence of anything supernatural. I gave the evidence, and it makes you nasty. What you wrote is wrong, and condescending. So let's not talk to each other, because you think I'm a child, and I think you're an ass.
Seems to be where the convo is going. My original comment was it is a leftist, secular atheist myth the founders were deists.
"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)
You also do not believe that two dead animals were raised by God in my hands. Or that God grabbed my face. Or that a holy dove flew into my face and drove me to the ground. Or that I saw a demon. Or that I saw the city from below and afar, or that In was plunged into the black abyss, or that I felt the heat of the flames of Gehenna beneath my feet, or that I was embraced by Jesus. ---------------------- I was embraced by Jesus. I believe you were embraced by hysteria and insanity. At this point it's apparent you think you are someone who has been given hypothetical special powers and insights and are intractable. A blessed miracle worker without a church or following.
I see your perception is up to your usual standards of incompetence and confusion.
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)
Nine points to nil SOSO. Claim victory over the community college MSNBC crowd.
"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)
I think you fell off of one of Decker's threads. There's a nice one on white aliens you can comment on. You are showing your socialist Euro side with the Free Mason fairy tales. Those conspiracy theories are as credible as the Dan Brown Da Vinci code fables. Here's the reality. No matter the foundation of a nation on Christian principles, fallible men and women will fail and do evil. Just look at Rome and Byzantium under so called "Christian" emperors and kings.
"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)
#335. To: Pericles, GarySpFc, liberator, Destro, SOSO, Bucky, A K A Stone (#312) What makes you think Pridie.Nones is Bucky?
Must have been an old autocorrect. You know these devices are so super smart these days.
"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)
Got it...
Yup. It's an absolute myth and revisionist history perpetrated by secular-humanist atheists... Even as there were a smattering of well-known Deists (Jefferson, Franklin), common knowledge and history demonstrates that even they were adament about crediting God and Providence for America's blessings and liberty in word and deed.
BTW, *everyone* unmasked you. BTW2 -- could you please toss my LF newspaper on the front porch? Thanks -- here's a nickel.
Still sitting on you ass collecting your welfare check I see.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
God is I AM! He cannot be anything less than all that He is, and lacking Omniscience that God would not be the God of the Bible. I agree that would not be atheism, however I doubt that it would properly be labeled pantheism. The God of becoming is what we label Process Theology.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
That nonsense is refuted by looking at the overall character of George Washington, a Christian. It is also refuted by the testimony of his family that he was a Christian.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
So, who is Kony ?
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The truth is you believe in a living Constitution, whereas I believe in a written one. Yes, errors were made in the past and in the present, but the Constitution is still a written document, with the shortcomings of a corrupt court translating it. I do not believe in relativism.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
"There are no miracles unless you believe in them. Since you are no young lad, your beliefs are like the tooth-fairy, the Great Pumpkin, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny". Yes, Virginia/Pridie.Nones, There is a God In 1897, Francis Pharcellus penned a famous response to eight-year-old Virginia O'Hanlon confirming the existence of Santa Claus. In light of the many recent attacks by anti-Christian and atheist groups on God, Jesus Christ, and the Bible, I thought it would be worthwhile to revisit the piece and update it for our time. There's no telling how many children have driven by a billboard that denounces Christianity as a lie or have viewed a television ad poking fun at their faith. These children deserve the same affirmation that Pharcellus gave young Virginia so many years ago. **************** Dear Mr. O'Leary, I am nine years old. Some of my friends in school say there is no God and that Jesus Christ is a myth. They get this information from TV and so do my two little brothers who are six and seven. My brothers have been so upset seeing the billboards on TV. They don't like that their Christmas parades and parties have been changed to winter parades and winter parties. What is so wrong about Christ or Christmas? My father has read your books and says if anyone can answer this for me it is you. So please tell me the truth. Is there a God? VIRGINIA O'HANLON/Pridie.Nones **************** VIRGINIA/Pridie.Nones, your classmates and your brothers have been made afraid by people who are angry at children who believe and at parents who have tried to raise their children in the best of moral ways. They have been taken advantage of by a small group of people who are affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe what they can't see. They think that nothing exists that is not comprehensible by their minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours, man is a mere insect, an ant -- in his intellect, as compared to the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge. Yes, VIRGINIA/Pridie.Nones, there is a God. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! How dreary would be the world if there were no God. It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS/Pridie.Nones . There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished. Not believe in God! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your dad to hire men to watch in the churches on Christmas Eve to catch a glimpse, but even if they did not see God, what would that prove? Nobody sees God, but that is no sign that there is no God. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders that are unseen and unseeable in the world. You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, VIRGINIA/Pridie.Nones , in all this world, there is nothing else real and abiding. No God! Be thankful! He lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, VIRGINIA/Pridie.Nones, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood and guide us to salvation. **************** The Bible says that "the fool says in his heart, there is no God." Our founding fathers were not fools. But the Bible also says "You say you believe in God. Good. The demons also believe and tremble." Merely believing in God is insufficient evidence for demonstrating either Christian principles or that a person is a Christian. Perhaps, to start, it might be beneficial to remind ourselves of what a Christian might be: it is a person who has acknowledged his or her sinfulness, responded in faith to the person of Jesus Christ as the only one who can redeem him, and by so doing been given the Holy Spirit. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/12/yes_virginia_there_is_a_ god.html Brad O'Leary is the author of America's War on Christianity and God and America's Leaders.
("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 believe in relativism either. But I also don't believe in totemism. I don't believe that by pointing at a physical object over and over again and ascribing powers to it, that those powers become real. The Constitution written in 1787 has not been followed since 1861. It was effectively rewritten in the period 1861 to 1868, through a series of amendments that create a federal override to everything. And the courts have come to interpret it just exactly that way, in time. Notably, from FDRs time onward, the Commerce Clause, which is in the Constitution, has been interpreted by the legitimately appointed Supreme Court, exercising its legitimate power of judicial review, to give the Federal government plenary power to do just about anything, because just about anything can be characterized as impinging upon interstate commerce. One can look back at a text that was meant a certain way and read a certain way for the first 72 years of its existence, note that it was changed, IN WRITING, and that the contents of the new writings effectively give a federal override...and go all the way back to Marbury v. Madison to find the founders themselves permitting judicial review as imagined in the Federalist papers. So, judicial review was an act of the Founders, the Constitution was amended, forcefully, in the 1860s to impart new principles that changed the balance of power to give a federal override on matters of personal liberty (from slavery) and due process of law, and the Supreme Court, exercising the judicial review power the Founders gave them, ratified this new expanded view. And they did it again with FDR's broad economic interventions. These are the realities of the constitutional structure, as written and in effect. It's not relativism to observe what is and say it is. It's realism. It's politics to try to freeze something written in time and claim that it has not changed and cannot change, because one likes it. But it's totemism to really believe it.
At this point it's apparent you think you are someone who has been given hypothetical special powers and insights and are intractable. A blessed miracle worker without a church or following. You're wrong.
Not believe in God! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your dad to hire men to watch in the churches on Christmas Eve to catch a glimpse, but even if they did not see God, what would that prove? Nobody sees God, but that is no sign that there is no God. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders that are unseen and unseeable in the world. Thank you for this wonderful post.
"For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb." (Psalm 139:13)
You're welcome.
("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)
Curious comment that you posted. Your comment seems to suggest I stated something to the effect: there is no god. Nope, there is a god based on my opinion; God is a mystery; an unknowable being that is forever elusive in our personal lives outside of creating the matter-energy-space-time of the dimensions of the Universe. The creator also spawned consciousness in all living things. My problem is identifying which religion maintains the correct perception about a god or a REAL GOD as all basically play with silly historical traditions that seem to define the attributes of God but really are mind bending platforms to create a hierarchy of power. There is no TRUE religion in other words but there is a creator of this Universe; I am certain of creation about the Universe based on a God but I am completely skeptical that any religion holds the merits about the truth for the creation of the Universe. With some luck, the above shall make you feel better.
Gary - atheism is the belief there is no god or multiple gods. Pantheism is literally diametetrically opposed to atheism. I think you are trying to suggest that monotheism (a supreme god) is the only form of religion you may disscuss within your lexicon. Your pointed comment is true for every living, conscious, feeling being on this planet to include yourself as you cling to your 40 year dogma that must be right and divine within your own mind.
Were you an altar boy?
There are some 10,000 religions on the planet that profess understanding a "REAL GOD." Some of those religions are related to others, some competely exclusionary. All have a different perspective about GOD. I never suggested there wasn't a god. I said there is no REAL GOD based on a religious interpretations or beliefs. Good and evil are relative terms. Fortunately, only principled men and women can understand the difference between the two and to exercise actions based on life's circumstances. The unprincipled scoundrels that are the harbingers of uncertainty, here; typically, they are leaders or supporting bureaucrats in American politics and other significant governments. You didn't understand my earlier comments way up the thread at all. I never suggested there is no creator or a God. I said there are only [human] beliefs in a God. There is big difference.
"Almighty and eternal Lord God, the great Creator of heaven and earth, and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; look down from heaven in pity and compassion upon me Thy servant, who humbly prorate myself before Thee." George Washington's prayer at Valley Forge "No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency...We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of heaven cannot be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which heaven itself has ordained." -- George Washington in his Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789 "Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being, who rules over the universe, who presides in the council of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States.." "...Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency" From President George Washington's Inaugural Address, April 30th, 1789, addressed to both Houses of Congress. "Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion."--George Washington, ca. 1789, Maxims of Washington, ed. John F. Schroeder (Mt. Vernon: Mt. Vernon Ladies Association, 1942), p. 106. "And now, Almighty Father, if it is Thy holy will that we shall we shall obtain a place and name among the nations of the Earth...:grant that we may be enabled to show our gratitude for Thy goodness by endeavors to fear and obey Thee." George Washington Nowhere within your post is there relevence to Jesus Christ. The founders did not specifically belong to a religion; they belived in a creator, however just not a religion.
Yup. And it is still misaligned. It can't happen. And as far as I am concerened, it shall never be. There is too much "luck" in the Universe that defines how the world operates. Yup. All you suggested was just one religious interpretation. What in the world does that comment mean?
Then explain what you posted below. Do you believe there is a one true Christian god, or not. This is a simple yes or no question. Sitting on a fence post, assuming 'something' created this universe is not an answer. ************************* #230. To: Murron (#229) 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'. Pridie.Nones posted on 2015-02-08 12:01:35 ET
("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. I described "belief systems" in a god or a REAL GOD. I suppose you are confused? What is complicated about my choice of terms to elicit a concept.
Oh puleeeze, save the bureaucratic dump you just took and pawn it off on some poor shmuck who might fall for It, political BS has never impressed me, and neither do you. if you cannot give a straight, honest answer, to a legitimate question, then you will understand why I will no longer play your game. My time is limited, sorry.
("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)
OK, to use an age-old Kentuckian euphemism: "let's get to brass tax." God is not about religion. Religion is about God. Does that help clarify my perspective?
No. I was a scientific pantheist until God grabbed my face, at age 38.
LOL! Ok... Well now, you see, there is something you and I can agree upon. Although I do believe God is a Christian God, I also don't believe He is so much about religion, but more about a one on one relationship each of us have with Him. And I believe that without a personal relationship with our Savior, all the talk and arguing over religion, Christianity included, will help none of us get into the kingdom of heaven. The churches cannot save us, religion will save no one, only through Jesus Christ can we be saved. ~ 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)
There has been a movement amongst the fundies to fake histroy and plant quotes: http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/the-rights-library-of-fake-quotes/
Comments (364 - 433) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestSo the Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers means something different to you than what they had in mind?
#324. To: Pericles (#317)
Physicists now think the big crunch won't happen - we are in an ever expanding universe that will eventually fly apart in all directions and experience a heat death. The universe will not snap back and rexplode and renew itself.
#325. To: Vicomte13, GarySpFC (#323)
(Edited)
The Constitution as written was so dramatically altered by the post-Civil War amendments that it is, in effect, a new Constitution that just carries the window-dressing of the old.
#326. To: Pericles (#237)
I am still waiting for evidence Obama made America more Islamic. All I get is Obama hired Arabs in govt.
#327. To: rlk (#326)
(Edited)
That might make a sane mind suspicious. Incidently I noticed you switched terms and substituted Arab for islamic to obscure your opponent's arguments while making your's seem more acceptable.
#328. To: Pericles (#325)
Spoken like a Frenchman! I doubt any Anglo will admit the reality, the USA has had several constitutions - while pretending they still live under their original one. Americans don't even acknowledge the presidents under the Articles Of Confederation except in special circumstances. It's as if the education myth industry does not want to obscure the myth that George Washington was the first president.
#329. To: Vicomte13 (#239)
There is one variable: as I was on my back, paralyzed, my nose filling up with water, I asked: "Please".
#330. To: rlk (#329)
I don't believe your neck was really broken. It's a frightened little kid's reaction to getting knocked in the head. Now you're trying to make a heroic and authoritative lifetime career out of a passing hallucination produced by a bumped head. Grow up!
#331. To: Liberator (#301)
Was there actually someone on this thread who claimed the majority of Founders were Deists?
#332. To: Vicomte13 (#330)
(Edited)
I don't believe your neck was really broken. It's a frightened little kid's reaction to getting knocked in the head. Now you're trying to make a heroic and authoritative lifetime career out of a passing hallucination produced by a bumped head. Grow up!
#333. To: Pericles (#308)
Are you a grand kegel?
#334. To: SOSO (#306)
I gave you nine points and all you can muster is a BS feeble response to just one? Way to go, Sparky, you sure are a persuasive devil.
#335. To: Pericles, GarySpFc, liberator, Destro, SOSO, Bucky, A K A Stone (#312)
It shows that whatever the faith the Founders had at home in private - they were animated by other ideologies for the public. I actually point out the Treaty Of Tripoli to show America is and has always been an anti-Christ country founded on anti-Christ principals of Luciferian rebellion and Free Masononry inspired ecumenism.
#336. To: redleghunter, ..., Bucky, A K A Stone, Pridie.Nones (#335)
I am leaning towards "Bucky" fight now...
http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=37682&Disp=272#C264.
#337. To: Gatlin (#336)
#338. To: redleghunter (#337)
(Edited)
BTW: Yukon unmasked him first.
#339. To: redleghunter (#331)
My original comment was it is a leftist, secular atheist myth the founders were deists.
#340. To: Gatlin (#338)
(Edited)
BTW: Yukon unmasked him first.
#341. To: Liberator (#340)
BTW2 -- could you please toss my LF newspaper on the front porch? Thanks -- here's a nickel.
#342. To: Vicomte13 (#313)
My pantheism was not an error. It was mostly True. But it was incomplete. The error in it was the one that Pridie.Nones makes: seeing luck, the randomness of entropy, where there is in fact conscious will. THAT is the grand difference.
#343. To: Pericles (#319)
One of the legends or myths of Valley Forge is that Washington prayed for his country here. We do not say that he did not pray at Valley Forge, there simply is an open question as to how he did so and if he actually was witnessed in prayer.
#344. To: Pericles (#234)
" Kony is not a Muslim. "
#345. To: Vicomte13 (#323)
Truth is, the Constitution has written by the Founding Fathers stopped meaning anything in 1861. Now it's just like an old family crest. One wears it with pride and it shows the history, but the actual Constitution is what is really DONE, and the Founders' Constitution was set aside when it failed to address the evil of slavery.
#346. To: Pridie.Nones, Vicomte13, All (#242)
(Edited)
#230-Pridie.Nones "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". -Pridie.Nones
#347. To: GarySpFC (#345)
The truth is you believe in a living Constitution, whereas I believe in a written one. Yes, errors were made in the past and in the present, but the Constitution is still a written document, with the shortcomings of a corrupt court translating it. I do not believe in relativism.
#348. To: rlk (#332)
I believe you were embraced by hysteria and insanity.
#349. To: Murron (#346)
Yes, VIRGINIA/Pridie.Nones, there is a God. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! How dreary would be the world if there were no God. It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS/Pridie.Nones . There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.
#350. To: redleghunter (#349)
#351. To: Murron (#346)
Yes, VIRGINIA/Pridie.Nones, there is a God.
#352. To: GarySpFC (#265)
That's Pantheism, which is just another form of atheism.
In reality your god manifests himself in a mirror.
#353. To: Vicomte13 (#266)
I'm a Catholic because it's TRUE.
#354. To: GarySpFC (#268)
Pridie.Nones: there is no real god; there are only beliefs about a REAL GOD.
GarySpFC: Prove it!
Quite frankly if there is no God it follows good and evil are only relative terms.
If there is no God, then a man shouldn't care if his mother is chased down the street like a bitch in heat by a pack of men or dogs. You really have no basis whatsoever for your morality.
#355. To: GarySpFC, Pericles (#285)
"The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations." George Washington's letter of August 20, 1778 to Brig. General Thomas Nelson
#356. To: Liberator (#302)
But...Hasn't man's quest for knowledge and understanding included satisfying his innate spiritual and emotional hunger for understanding and communicating with God?
To accept God as nothing more than a mere "mystery," one would have to ignore how God assured man of the genesis of the universe, the geneology of man and God in the flesh, life's instructions to man on wisdom, love, and purpose. One would also have to dismiss the 300 or more fulfilled prophecies of Jesus Christ, as well as the Gospel and...The End Game. It's all there in the Good Book. We can't play dumb with God, son.
Sure, many things about God will remain a "mystery," but what matters isn't.
#357. To: Pridie.Nones (#351)
Curious comment that you posted. Your comment seems to suggest I stated something to the effect: there is no god. Nope, there is a god based on my opinion;
#358. To: Murron (#357)
#359. To: Pridie.Nones (#358)
I described "belief systems" in a god or a REAL GOD. I suppose you are confused? What is complicated about my choice of terms to elicit a concept.
#360. To: Murron (#359)
My time is limited, sorry.
#361. To: Pridie.Nones (#353)
Were you an altar boy?
#362. To: Pridie.Nones (#360)
OK, to use an age-old Kentuckian euphemism: "let's get to brass tax." God is not about religion. Religion is about God. Does that help clarify my perspective?
#363. To: Pridie.Nones, GarySpFC (#355)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]