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: 206203
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 (1-355) not displayed.
.
.
.
#356. To: Liberator (#302)
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/
The scriptural account of God’s relation to his creation is also distinct from pantheism. The Greek word Àᾶ½(PAN) (from ÀᾶÂ, G4246) means “all” or “every,” and pantheism is the idea that everything, the whole universe, is God, or is part of God. Pantheism denies several essential aspects of God’s character. If the whole universe is God, then God has no distinct personality. God is no longer unchanging, because as the universe changes, God also changes. Moreover, God is no longer holy, because the evil in the universe is also part of God. Another difficulty is that ultimately most pantheistic systems (such as Buddhism and many other eastern religions) end up denying the importance of individual human personalities: since everything is God, the goal of an individual should be to blend in with the universe and become more and more united with it, thus losing his or her individual distinctiveness. If God himself (or itself) has no distinct personal identity separate from the universe, then we should certainly not strive to have one either. Thus, pantheism destroys not only the personal identity of God, but also, ultimately, of human beings as well. Quotes: Saisset, Pantheism, 148—“An imperfect God, yet perfection arising from imperfection.” Shedd, Hist. Doctrine, 1:13—“Pantheism applies to God a principle of growth and imperfection, which belongs only to the finite.” Calderwood, Moral Philos., 245—“Its first requisite is moment, or movement, which it assumes, but does not account for.” Caro’s sarcasm applies here: “Your God is not yet made—he is in process of manufacture.” See H. B. Smith, Faith and Philosophy, 25. Pantheism is practical atheism, for impersonal spirit is only blind and necessary force. Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1907), 101. Pantheism has become the inheritance of every nation on earth and has cursed the streams of human thought beyond all estimation. It assumes the eternity of matter and the absurdity that matter has power to originate life and spirit. In its idealistic form it contradicts human consciousness and destroys the very ground upon which reason is based and the fundamental method of its own procedure. It breaks down the most essential distinctions between existing things, by which alone they are identified. According to pantheism, the potter and the clay are one and the same thing—if they exist at all. The promoters of these notions of necessity contradict in their daily lives the very speculations they propound. They cannot state a theorem, or even commence to do so, without departing from their major idea. Every effort to build this theory assumes the principle that destroys it. Attempting to support it, they dig down its supposed foundations. The theory obliterates all distinctions. It levels all elements to one item. There is no recognition of the fact that God is infinite while creation is finite; that God is omnipotent while creation is impotent; that God is immutable while creation is mutable; that God is eternal while creation experiences both birth and death. Error is incidental to other minds, but unavoidable and essential to the pantheistic teachers. Though it recognizes a god such as human speculation conceives, pantheism is the mother of atheism and the grossest idolatry. It is promoting the notion that matter is God and God is matter and it is a short step from this to the assertion of the fool that there is no God. It is but a step, likewise, to the worship of any inanimate or animate thing, since the theory contends that it is all a part of God. The system leads to blasphemy and licentiousness. The basis of every moral distinction is obliterated by it. If all nature is God, then human action is not distinct from God but is the very action of God. The whole category of human crime becomes as worthy as virtue itself. The terms by which evil is described are only conventional ideas. Reason is assassinated and virtue defamed. Such is the fruit of modern pantheistic philosophy current in educational centers today. The student of doctrine may well ponder the following utterance which is a normal offspring of pantheistic philosophy: “The belief in a personal living God is the chief foundation and origin of our worm- eaten social state; and further, that so long as mankind shall hang by a single hair to the idea of heaven, there is no happiness to be looked for on earth. Man himself is the religion of futurity. God stands in need of man, but man has no need of God” (cited by Cooke, ibid., p. 186). These revolting assertions are the very creed of atheism and communism, which are clutching the throat of the social interests of the world and which hate the things of God with a perfect hatred. Cousin says, “For the Ionic school in both its stages, there was no other God than nature. Pantheism is inherent in its system. What is Pantheism? It is the conception of the universe, Äὸ À±½, as alone existing, as self-sufficient, and having its explanation in itself. All nascent philosophy is a philosophy of nature, and thus is inclined to Pantheism. The sensationalism of the Ionians of necessity took that form; and, to speak honestly, Pantheism is nothing but atheism.”38 4. It is no extravagance to say that Pantheism is the worst form of atheism. For mere atheism is negative. It neither deifies man nor evil. But Pantheism teaches that man, the human soul, is the highest form in which God exists; and that evil is as much a manifestation of God as good; Satan as the ever-blessed and adorable Redeemer. Beyond this it is impossible for the insanity of wickedness to go. “Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
I never suggested there wasn't a god. I said there is no REAL GOD based on a religious interpretations or beliefs. That is nothing more than double-speak. 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. So only principled men, in your view, can understand the difference between the two extremes. Are you one of the few members of the master race that can understand the difference between good and evil?
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
Your post is dishonest in taking only one quote I posted and making it the foundation for your argument. I made many posts showing the Founding Fathers in referring to religion had Christianity in mind.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
The revolting assertions also give us hedonism and greed. Which are clear subsets of atheism and communism as well.
"For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb." (Psalm 139:13)
Your site also attacks David Barton, but it fails to mention Barton recently won a major lawsuit for being slandered..
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2015/02/05/david-barton- distorts-things-even-when-he-wins/ David Barton Distorts Things Even When He Wins February 5, 2015 by Warren Throckmorton 9 Comments As I noted here previously, David Barton settled his defamation lawsuit out of court last year. Barton had been accused of being known for appearing at white supremacist rallies by two 2010 candidates for the Texas Board of Education. The Democrat candidates criticized their GOP opponent of relying on Barton who they implied was a white supremacist. Barton and his opponents settled with Barton gaining a financial settlement of an undisclosed amount and an apology. Here is the apology: During our respective campaigns in 2010 for separate positions on the Texas State Board of Education, we published a video entitled: ”A True Tale From Texas,” that created a false impression about David Barton. The purpose of that video was to discredit our Republican Party political opponents on the State Board of Education, and those on whom they relied, by depicting their position as politically extreme and detrimental to education. Thus, the video stated that David Barton, who advised the State Board of Education, is known for speaking at white supremacist rallies. We believed that statement had been fact- checked by our political consultant, Scott Garrison, who relied for confirmation solely on information provided him from The Texas Freedom Network. As professionals in education and the proper use of language, we understand that this statement suggested that David Barton is a white supremacist, and that the two organizations he is affiliated with, WallBuilder Presentations, Inc. and WallBuilders L.L.C., were associated with or supportive of white supremacists. After learning more about Mr. Barton, we realize this statement was false. We separately and jointly apologize to Mr. Barton for damage to him individually and to his two organizations as a result of that statement. There is nothing in this apology about Barton’s historical claims or status as an historian. The claim at issue related to white supremacy. Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2015/02/05/david- barton-distorts-things-even-when-he-wins/#ixzz3RNM6KmVv
I don't think he's gonna touch that one, would take more effort than the usual BS he posts.
“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.”
In addition to being intellectual dishonest it appears that he is an intellectual coward as well.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Here, I shall provide all of you with a bit of comick relief:
I posted most, if not all of your quotes: no Jesus Christ references much less Christianity references. Sorry, Gary ... you lose.
Do you ever tire of proving yourself a total moron. "In fact, Jefferson was devoted to the teachings of Jesus Christ. But he didn’t always agree with how they were interpreted by biblical sources, including the writers of the four Gospels, whom he considered to be untrustworthy correspondents. So Jefferson created his own gospel by taking a sharp instrument, perhaps a penknife, to existing copies of the New Testament and pasting up his own account of Christ’s philosophy, distinguishing it from what he called “the corruption of schismatizing followers.” The second of the two biblical texts he produced is on display through May 28 at the Albert H. Small Documents Gallery of the Smithsonian National Museum of American History (NMAH) after a year of extensive repair and conservation. “Other aspects of his life and work have taken precedence,” says Harry Rubenstein, chair and curator of the NMAH political history division. “But once you know the story behind the book, it’s very Jeffersonian.” Jefferson produced the 84-page volume in 1820—six years before he died at age 83—bound it in red leather and titled it The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. He had pored over six copies of the New Testament, in Greek, Latin, French and King James English. “He had a classic education at [the College of] William & Mary,” Rubenstein says, “so he could compare the different translations. He cut out passages with some sort of very sharp blade and, using blank paper, glued down lines from each of the Gospels in four columns, Greek and Latin on one side of the pages, and French and English on the other.” Much of the material Jefferson elected to not include related miraculous events, such as the feeding of the multitudes with only two fish and five loaves of barley bread; he eschewed anything that he perceived as “contrary to reason.” His idiosyncratic gospel concludes with Christ’s entombment but omits his resurrection. He kept Jesus’ own teachings, such as the Beatitude, “Blessed are the peace-makers: for they shall be called the children of God.” The Jefferson Bible, as it’s known, is “scripture by subtraction,” writes Stephen Prothero, a professor of religion at Boston University. The first time Jefferson undertook to create his own version of Scripture had been in 1804. His intention, he wrote, was “the result of a life of enquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system, imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions.” Correspondence indicates that he assembled 46 pages of New Testament passages in The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth. That volume has been lost. It focused on Christ’s moral teachings, organized by topic. The 1820 volume contains not only the teachings, but also events from the life of Jesus. The Smithsonian acquired the surviving custom bible in 1895, when the Institution’s chief librarian, Cyrus Adler, purchased it from Jefferson’s great- granddaughter, Carolina Randolph. Originally, Jefferson had bequeathed the book to his daughter Martha." Duh!!!!!! This is ample mention of Jesus by just one of the Founding Fathers. Sorry, you lose.......agin.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
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. Blindness must be one of your attributes.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
He F'd with God, now he's dead. EOM There ya go.
Deists, pal .. most were are all Deists. Why? Because of philosophical ramifications of Humanist considerations, not religion. Do you know what you are suggesting? The US Government is not founded on Christianity or any other religion.
Sorry, Gary ... you lose. Only in your dreams.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
There ya go. LOL .. lqqks like all of us go the same way one way or another... unless you are special. Are you "special?"
And then there are these quotes from John Adams........yes a FF and our 2nd President." "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." "I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." “We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!” {Though some claim that it was not Adams that said this but another contemporary}" But wait, there is more. Herer's some quotes from George Washington, aka a FF and the First President of the U.S. It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible." “What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” "It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors." "The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country."" You may wish to reconsider you comment.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Adams' notes were not written into the US Consitution or any other document for or about the US. The entire CONCEPT and PRINCIPLE of the FIRST AMENDMENT was to ensure no European KING had influence over our sovereignty. England had a church. Elsewhere, in Europe the religion rage took a heavy toll on everyone. The founders were NOT influenced by manmade religions at all; with the exception of local church meetings on Sunday ...... if they attended at all.
It's more than a suggestion, Sparky, it's absolute proof that you are wrong in saying that the FF never referenced Jesus or Christianty or ever the Christian Bible. Such references are well documented a plenty. These quotes all support the notion that the respective individual understood that the U.S. Consitution was in fact steeped in, if not modeld after, Christian beliefs and values without ever having to specifically say so in the document itself. They truly believed in freedom of religion and in not having an offical government religion. Sorry, you lose........again.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
You have proved nothing more than you don't know what the HELL you are discussing. Calm down and retire for the evening, you need to take a breather.
Where is the cross in the American flag? On its symbols? Seals? I see it in European versions.
I never said they were written into the Constitution. But they certainly were written into documents (e.g. - letters amongst them) about the U.S. "The founders were NOT influenced by manmade religions at all;" Then what do you call all of the quotes I gave you from Jefferson, Adams and Washington about Jesus, Christianty and the Bible? Chopped liver? Only a total dolt can continue to deny that each of these men were profundly influenced by their respective understanding of Jesus and Christianty, even if only on a philosophical level. The all beleived in God. What their respective personal religion was is still open to debate. But it is crystal clear that a belief in God and belief in Christian moral philosophy shaped the drafting of the Constitution. If you still dispute this so be it. I am done with engaging you on this subject. You may have the last word.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
You remain a total moron.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Where is the cross in the American flag? On its symbols? Seals? I see it in European versions. What part of "They truly believed in freedom of religion and in not having an offical government religion." don't you understand?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Psst ... some of these devout "christians" on this thread do not understand the historical times about the founders; it was a time of enlightenment not necessarily anchored in religious beliefs.
Lets tally the number of "christian religions" for your take on the effort of "Christianity." How many religions are there? Which one is right? How man Bibles? Which one is right? Provide a number for both questions.
Geez, you have been reading my posts. I am faltered. Exactly, which one? There certainly were enough flavors of Christianity to accomodate each of our FFs. This argument rages on and will likley to do so for the foreseaable future. You may wish to reveiw this thread. Perhaps you can persuade the others on your points. I have been working on them for quite some time with some moderate success I beleive:) BTW, if you believe that I am a "devout" Christian, well.......you lose.......again. I have an abiding faith in God and Christ but an extremely dubious about the notion that every word in the translations of the Bible as used to preach the Word is to be taken literally or represents historical physical events.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
By some reckoning there are tens of thousands Christions denominations or sects world wide. In the U.S. by some reckoning a couple of score major ones. But who GAS? There are more than enough to validate the observation that there is no one Christian denomination but rather a really Big Christian Tent. "How many religions are there?" Do you mean formal organized relgions or personal religious beliefs? If the latter, probably 7 billion or so.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
There is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and it is Orthodox.
Everyone else is going to hell?
Psst ... some of these devout "christians" on this thread do not understand the historical times about the founders; it was a time of enlightenment not necessarily anchored in religious beliefs. Before I begin I want to state I am not a Freemason conspiracists in that I don't accept the idea Freemasons are part of a modern conspiracy or evil or trying to take over the world. I just think Freemasonry is tied into the origins of this country and the founding ideology of the USA was tied to Freemasonic ideals. Many don't want to delve into when the split happened between the Founding Fathers version of America and that of the American people, who tended to be more religious but my thesis is something broke when the people turned against the Freemasons. Yes, not every Founding Father was a Freemason but Freemasonry's ideology was widely accepted. That is why in American culture they will accept a man of any faith as long has he has a faith. That is the old Freemasonry legacy in our culture. The reaction against Freemasonry happened in the 1826 Morgan Affair but I think anger at Freemasons was probably brewing for a long time under the surface. It was seen as the religion of the elite? Maybe. It is no accident the Second Great Awakening in the USA happened at the same time as the reaction against Freemasonry (and both were centered in New York state). It is no accident that the religious movement after they defeated the Freemasons (who had to go underground and almost did not recover and are now on their last legs in membership) sought to recast the Founding Fathers as some sort of Protestant holy men rather than what they were. This split back in the 1800s is why I think the USA has had a schizophrenic identity ever since.
Everyone else is going to hell? The Orthodox don't claim that. That is God's judgement. http://www.orthodoxconvert.info/Q-A.php?c=The+Church- Does+Orthodoxy+Really+Think+It+Is+the+True+Church It should be evident to most Orthodox, if they readily understand this divergence, why it so goes against most Protestants to say that the Orthodox Church is the fullness of The Church. On the one hand, to say that goes against the Protestant foundation of what it means to be the Church and is usually interpreted as "you are on the outside and will not be saved unless you join our group." For the others who believe they are the Church, it is like two children saying "I'm the Church," "No, I'm the Church!" These reactions, while understandable for one coming from a Protestant background, are reacting to Protestant understandings superimposed upon Orthodoxy, and not upon Orthodoxy's understanding of itself. So it is critical that we look at what the Orthodox understanding is. Before we do that, however, it will be helpful to look at what the Orthodox understanding of the Church does not say. When the Orthodox Church says that it is "The Church", they are making no pronouncement upon the salvation of anyone inside or outside membership in Orthodoxy. This may be hard for Protestants to grasp since being saved and being part of The Church is practically synonymous when linked to the spiritual Church. The knowledge that not everyone, let's say, in the Baptist Churches will be saved only serves to reinforce the fact that the Baptist Church cannot say it is "The Church". Yet, they also firmly believe that there are many who will be saved, so neither can one say that any other group is "The Church." While Orthodoxy does believe that ultimately to be saved means being in the Church and those outside the Church will not be saved, that issue is not fully decided until judgment day. Because salvation is not looked at within Orthodoxy as either an in or out position but a journey into God. We readily recognize that anyone inside or outside the Church at any particular point in time can be in the currents of salvation or not participating in it. Thus, there is no ability to point to any one person either inside or outside the visible Church and say they are saved or not saved. Whether any one particular person is going to make it to heaven we leave in God's hands. We cannot know the heart of the person, much less the disposition of God towards a particular individual short of God revealing that to us.
Comments (396 - 433) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest 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)
#364. To: Pridie.Nones, Redleghunter, Liberator, ALL (#352)
Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (vol. 1; Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1993), 174–175.
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (vol. 1; Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 319.
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (vol. 1; Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 333–334.
#365. To: Pridie.Nones (#354)
(Edited)
#366. To: Pridie.Nones (#355)
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.
#367. To: GarySpFC (#364)
The student of doctrine may well ponder the following utterance which is a normal offspring of pantheistic philosophy: “The belief in a personal living God is the chief foundation and origin of our worm- eaten social state; and further, that so long as mankind shall hang by a single hair to the idea of heaven, there is no happiness to be looked for on earth. Man himself is the religion of futurity. God stands in need of man, but man has no need of God” (cited by Cooke, ibid., p. 186). These revolting assertions are the very creed of atheism and communism, which are clutching the throat of the social interests of the world and which hate the things of God with a perfect hatred.
#368. To: Pericles (#363)
There has been a movement amongst the fundies to fake histroy and plant quotes:
#369. To: GarySpFC (#368)
There has been a movement amongst the fundies to fake histroy and plant quotes: Your site also attacks David Barton, but it fails to mention Barton recently won a major lawsuit for being slandered
#370. 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.
#371. To: CZ82, Pericles, Murron, Gatlin, cranky, Stoner, Liberator, Pridie.Nones, Deckard, GarySpFC, rlk, hondo68, Vicomte13, redleghunter, sneakypete (#370)
#372. To: CZ82, Pericles, Murron, Gatlin, cranky, Stoner, Liberator, Deckard, GarySpFC, rlk, hondo68, Vicomte13, redleghunter, sneakypete (#371)
#373. To: GarySpFC (#366)
(Edited)
Your post is dishonest in taking only one quote I posted and making it the foundation for your argument. I made many posts showing the Founding Fathers in referring to religion had Christianity in mind.
#374. To: Pridie.Nones, GarySpFC, CZ82, Pericles, Murron, Gatlin, cranky, Stoner, Liberator, Deckard, rlk, hondo68, Vicomte13, redleghunter, sneakypete (#373)
........no Jesus Christ references much less Christianity references.
#375. To: Pridie.Nones (#355)
"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
#376. To: Pridie.Nones (#372)
George Carlin
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#377. To: SOSO (#374)
#378. To: Pridie.Nones (#373)
I posted most, if not all of your quotes: no Jesus Christ references much less Christianity references.
#379. To: hondo68 (#376)
He F'd with God, now he's dead. EOM
#380. To: Pridie.Nones, GarySpFC, CZ82, Pericles, Murron, Gatlin, cranky, Stoner, Liberator, Deckard, rlk, hondo68, Vicomte13, redleghunter, sneakypete (#374)
........no Jesus Christ references much less Christianity references.
#381. To: SOSO (#380)
#382. To: Pridie.Nones, GarySpFC, CZ82, Pericles, Murron, Gatlin, cranky, Stoner, Liberator, Deckard, rlk, hondo68, Vicomte13, redleghunter, sneakypete (#377)
Do you know what you are suggesting?
#383. To: SOSO (#382)
#384. To: SOSO (#382)
(Edited)
#385. To: Pridie.Nones, GarySpFC, CZ82, Pericles, Murron, Gatlin, cranky, Stoner, Liberator, Deckard, rlk, hondo68, Vicomte13, redleghunter, sneakypete (#381)
Adams' notes were not written into the US Consitution or any other document for or about the US.
#386. To: Pridie.Nones (#383)
You have proved nothing more than you don't know what the HELL you are discussing.
#387. To: Pericles (#384)
#388. To: Pericles (#384)
Where is the cross in the American flag? On its symbols? Seals? I see it in European versions.
#389. To: SOSO (#386)
#390. To: Pridie.Nones, redleghunter, vicomted13, GarySpFc, A Pole (#389)
Lets tally the number of "christian religions" for your take on the effort of "Christianity." How many religions are there? Which one is right? How man Bibles? Which one is right?
#391. To: Pridie.Nones (#389)
Lets tally the number of "christian religions" for your take on the effort of "Christianity."
#392. To: Pridie.Nones, SOSO (#389)
Lets tally the number of "christian religions" for your take on the effort of "Christianity." How many religions are there? Which one is right? How man Bibles? Which one is right?
#393. To: Pericles (#392)
Orthodox.
#394. To: Pridie.Nones (#388)
(Edited)
Where is the cross in the American flag? On its symbols? Seals? I see it in European versions.
#395. To: A K A Stone (#393)
Orthodox.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]