Does President Obama have anti-biblical views? Is he for the Bible, against it, or neutral? Obama is a Christian. According to the president's own words, he "came to my Christian faith later in life and it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead...I think also understanding that Jesus Christ dying for my sins spoke to the humility we all have to have as human beings, that we're sinful and we're flawed and we make mistakes, and that we achieve salvation through the grace of God," according to an article by abcnews.go.com.
His actions do not support his stated beliefs, however.
A recent article makes the case that the president has a history of anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant and anti-Jewish sentiment (can be said that Obama is "anti-biblical"). He has actively mocked biblical passages, drawing laughter from a crowd, been aggressive in removing any funding for Christian Organizations who do good work, and has had religious symbols covered while speaking at Georgetown. He is not passive in his anti-biblical beliefs; he is active in removing symbols and breaking centuries of tradition.
Some of the more flagrant displays of anti-biblical acts can be found here. The list is long and goes back to when Obama said that Christians "cling to guns or religion" and have an "antipathy to people who aren't like them." The list illustrates his clear animosity toward the Bible and those that believe in it.
It is not a matter of President Obama vigilantly separating church and state, (which is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter from 1802), it is about our president actively mocking the Bible. As a side note, Thomas Jefferson also said, "... Those with whom we act, entertaining different views, have the power and the right of carrying them into practice" (1814). The point is, if people believe, one should not impose their views onto them, but should lead by example.
The list is too long to put in this article, but here are some:
May 2009 - Obama refused to host services for the National Prayer Day at the White House.
April 2009 - In a deliberate act of disrespect, Obama nominated three pro-abortion ambassadors to the Vatican, which declined all three.
October 19, 2010 - Obama begins omitting the phrase about "the Creator" when quoting the Declaration of Independence - seven times.
April 2011 - For the first time in American history, Obama urged passage of a "non-discrimination law" eliminating conscience protection in hiring.July 2010 - The Obama administration uses federal funds to get Kenya to change its constitution to include abortion.
Some more:
November 2011 - Obama opposed inclusion of Roosevelt's famous D-Day Prayer in the WWII Memorial.
February 2012 - The Obama administration forgives student loans in exchange for public service, but only if the service is not related to religion.
September 2011 - Air Force Chief of Staff forbids commanders from notifying airmen services available to them from chaplains.
January 2012 - The Obama administration argues that the First Amendment provides no protection for churches and synagogues in hiring their pastors and rabbis.
These are just a few. The goal is not to "smear" the president. This is just to show his actions, his words, who he is and if America is ok with that and agrees, then so be it. To the author, America is about embracing all people, all faiths, and respecting and loving one another equally, whether a man is white or black, young or old, right or left, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist or Atheist. All cultures, faiths, ages, sexual preferences, all people should be respected as a part of humanity.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 173
I've taken note of all that you've mentioned as they occurred; and felt that each of his actions was inexcusable and revealing. I particularly remember that he'd ordered a large piece of plywood cover the phrase "In God We Trust" above the Dais.
Word and Deed are not synonymous...A good Tree cannot bear bad Fruit; by his Fruit you will know him. I would love to take him at his word; but cannot disregard his deeds.
I believe it is better to do good, than to feel good. I suspect it makes him feel, and look good, to say it is so.
You mean one that you agree with.
The first one, Obama speaks disrespectfully of Christians, saying they “cling to guns or religion” and have an “antipathy to people who aren’t like them”, is false.
The one about three rejected ambassadors to the Vatican is false.
The one about "deliberately omitting the phrase about “the Creator” when quoting the Declaration of Independence" numerous times is false.
The one about misquoting the national motto is false.
Should I keep going, or is that enough?
And apart from the fact that so many of the accusations are false, there's the issue of whether or not actions that some Christians might not like, or find offensive, or disagree with, or whatever actually constitute actions that are "anti-biblical".
The example JJ provided is a good example. His claim that President Obama's vote on a bill banning "partial birth abortions" as a "violation of Christian beliefs" is refuted by the fact that many Christians are pro-choice and supported then-Senator Obama and others who opposed the legislation. And not surprisingly, some of these pro-choice Christians use biblical references to support their position.
As I said in my earlier comment, if President Obama has upset some religious extremists through actions that they believe somehow represent a failure to government the country based on their personal religious views or interpretations of their preferred "holy" book(s), then I hope he does more of it in his second term. I prefer a secular government over a theocratic one.
At the time, Hillary Clinton pounced on the comment, as she was campaigning. She responded, ""The people of faith I know don't 'cling to' religion because they're bitter. People embrace faith not because they are materially poor, but because they are spiritually rich,"
He back pedaled a bit in this article after the controversial statement, "Obviously, if I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that," he continued, "But the underlying truth of what I said remains, which is simply that people who have seen their way of life upended because of economic distress are frustrated and rightfully so."
Two of them have been named and it is easy to find the story online: Caroline Kennedy, Douglas Kmiec.
"Vatican sources told Italy's Il Giornale newspaper that among those rejected were Caroline Kennedy and two other Roman Catholics who were unacceptable to the pope because they have publicly stood against church dogma."
You can see for yourself, right from the white house page.
This article has a video of him doing it on another occasion. It also says, "This isn’t the first time the president has selectively edited the Declaration in not acknowledging the role of God in bestowing these rights upon man. During a Sept. 15 speech before the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute’s Annual Awards Gala, the president omitted the religious reference, but the White House dismissed criticism, saying that Obama “went off script and adlibbed when he made that mistake.†But just a week later, the President made the exact same “mistake†speaking during another fundraiser, this time in New York City."
Obama misquotes the National Motto, saying it is “E pluribus unum†rather than “In God We Trust†as established by federal law.
You can find it on the white house site.
I wholeheartedly agree, & I'm not even sure I will be voting for Obama, but for the sorry accusations and misrepresentations on this post...it's the epitome of forcing one's religious views onto the masses, and it's wrong!
I can say it because I've listened to the audio, and I've read transcripts, and then-candidate Obama didn't mention Christians anywhere in his comments about people who "cling to guns or religion".
"Two of them have been named and it is easy to find the story online..."
It's easy to find lots of things online, but that doesn't mean they're all true. This is one of those instances. The selection, Senate confirmation, and acceptance of credentials of a US Ambassador by a foreign head of state is a specific, formal process, and the only person who was selected by President Obama to go through that process was Miguel H. Díaz.
"You can see for yourself, right from the white house page."
Yes, I can see for myself that in neither of the specific instances referred to, the DSCC Dinner in Rockville, Maryland or the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute's 33rd Annual Awards Gala, is President Obama quoting the Declaration of Independence. Referencing or paraphrasing, but not quoting. Nor is he the first president to do so. For example, President Reagan, Proclamation 5431, January 18, 1986:
"Obama misquotes the National Motto, saying it is “E pluribus unum” rather than “In God We Trust” as established by federal law.
You can find it on the white house site."
I've found it on the White House website, although not at the link you've provided. And again I can see that President Obama didn't misquote anything. He said "In the United States, our motto is E pluribus unum -- out of many, one." That is true. That motto can be seen on the Great Seal of the United States, the Seal of the President of the United States, on the Seal of the United States Congress, and elsewhere.
The actual quote is "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they 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."
This is the audio: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTxXUufI3jA
Are you saying it is false because you think he meant a different religion?
My quote is from the Blaze article you linked to, not from the transcript of Obama's remarks.
"Are you saying it is false because you think he meant a different religion?"
I'm saying it's false because I've listened to the remarks, and I've read a transcript of the remarks, and it's clear that then-candidate Obama didn't say anything about people clinging to bibles, and he didn't mention Christians. I'm saying that the accusation, along with several others which I've explained, are false. And I'm saying that the larger accusation, that these claims (many of which, as already shown, are false) somehow prove that President Obama is anti-Christian, or anti-biblical (whatever that's supposed to mean), is ridiculous.
Here's another example illustrating just how ridiculous. The one about President Obama choosing not to host a White House event for the National Day of Prayer. At least this one is true, but the claim that it constituted an "act of hostility towards people of Biblical faith" seems pretty weak when the fact that President Reagan only held one such event in two terms, President G.H.W. Bush only held one such event in four years, and President Clinton didn't hold any during his two terms.
Seriously, I understand that you are picking these apart (as you should, and I appreciate it, as I think it is important to question everything). You bring up valid points. However, I hope that instead of dismissing all of these instances outright, and it is quite an extensive list, you could see where there is a trend. Everyone of them, from valid news sources, cannot be false. Even if only half are true, it would still be disturbing.
I think this is from Renee,s link but having a terrible time with this particular connection... No formal rejections ... But they were "privately" rejected Alall the same.
"The Vatican is maintaining the official line that there have been no formal rejections of Obama's ambassadorial nominees because none has been officially put forward."
"There is unhappiness in Washington that the Vatican should veto its choices because they do not adhere to Catholic teachings. But the White House has been caught off guard by the intensity of the backlash within parts of the US Catholic community, which is divided over whether private religious beliefs should decide public policy."
What I think is disturbing is that some people give credence to lists produced by a known liar and fraud like Barton.
I also think it's disturbing that some religious extremists are apparently unhappy that their religion isn't given enough special attention and privilege by the executive and head of state of a secular government.
I don't know when or where you heard (or think you heard) President Obama say anything about you clinging to your guns and bibles, Glome, but I know he didn't say that in the instance mentioned in the Wallbuilders' list.
I'm sure it's easy for people to know when they're being disrespected when they make it up in their own heads, Marilyn.
Yeah, making comments about what someone actually said instead of some people claim that person said, is pretty shady.
If you want to join Mr. Barton, a known liar and fraud, in accusing President Obama of being anti-Christian and/or anti-biblical (whatever that's supposed to mean), I hope you can come up with a better (and more factually-accurate) list than he did.
I know I'm scatter brained enough I could easily switch words. (But I knew what he meant :)
because 'no-god' knows they are the stalwarts of media integrity ......
"Especially if they've already proven themselves to be untrustworthy." I imagine you are talking about me, and I am sorry that you feel that way, but I feel strongly that you would shoo away any "evidence" I could bring to you.
Unless you've got other evidence besides the list compiled by Mr. Barton, then I don't think you're making a "fair point" at all.
" I imagine you are talking about me..."
No, I was referring to David Barton.
I also brought up his video, and the examples from his list are from credible sources, they are verifiable. I check before I publish, as I know, especially with a controversial topic such as this, that I will be challenged, as I should be ;-).
Here is one I found from the Washington Post all by myself, it is most likely on Barton's list, but worth the read either way, "The latest dispute centers on a decision by the Department of Health and Human Services in late September to end funding to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to help victims of human trafficking, or modern-day slavery."
And yet I've pointed out a number of the examples on his list that were not verified, but which were in fact untrue.
"The latest dispute centers on a decision by the Department of Health and Human Services in late September to end funding to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to help victims of human trafficking, or modern-day slavery."
HHS chose to give grant money to other groups that help trafficking victims rather than the Conference of Catholic Bishops, and doing so is somehow "anti-biblical"? Where in the Bible does it say that the US government has to give millions of dollars in grant money to the Conference of Catholic Bishops?
Why don't you find out what the market price today is on clues, so you can get one?
For example: snopes disagrees that he canceled the national prayer day at the white house ...
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37310
http://sojo.net/blogs/2012/02/21/transcript-barack-obama-and-god-factor-interview
This one is disturbing, he is actively mocking the Bible (especially at :45 second mark) where he says that the bible says "slavery is ok" and "eating shellfish is an abomination".
Interesting from a man who said, "understanding that Jesus Christ dying for my sins", I guess it just depends on the audience.
Boy, you got that right. His policy on Israel is flexible within the day, depending on that, or so it appears.
God is not mocked no matter who, what, when, where, or how ... like it was once told me by a very humble person ... You Cannot Fool the Universe ...
You have been very factual in your presentation and are open for a change if they show you something or some fact you are believing is incorrect. One thing I know from reading your comments all the way down, you are looking for the truth of the matter and are willing to take criticism to be sure you have the facts.
There's very few people on here that do that. Which ever side they're on, they often only want to trash the other side. Winning is their goal rather than evaluating their own thoughts to be sure they are gathering truth.
There are some conservatives that really work at truth & I've noticed they are open to it from either side.
I don't want to say I don't know debating liberals that are that way, but I don't run into them very often. Even though they do research trying to learn the facts, they are unable to really understand that we want to go a different direction than they do, so they have to look at our goals with a different view and realize it makes sense, we are heading the way we think right, just as they are making what they feel are sensible rules to go the direction they think us right. They mainly close their eyes to that reality and just treat us like idiots :)
It would be fun to have people from both sides that would listen to each other. If only to learn each others pattern of belief.
Anyway, great post and I appreciate your attitude :)
I believe we are all looking for the substantial truth that will help us deal with the world systems we live in & we need to acquire real discernment as we go just to keep our heads ...
I wish we could find common ground instead of instinctively jumping into name calling, defensiveness, etc. Civil debate. Grown-ups. When did we start to devolve?
"even the so called experts have fed us a bunch of lies & misinformation" ahhhhhhh yes ;-) question everything.
Name them!
How is my article hypocritical?
You also said, "the sorry accusations and misrepresentations on this post...it's the epitome of forcing one's religious views onto the masses, and it's wrong!"
Which accusations and misrepresentations do you mean?
For me, it is not about religion, it is about the president saying one thing and doing another.
Barton holds no formal credentials in history or law, and scholars dispute the accuracy and integrity of his assertions about history, accusing him of practicing misleading historical revisionism, "pseudoscholarship" and "outright falsehoods". His research has been described as flawed by many historians, who dismiss his work as that of "a biased amateur who cherry-picks quotes from history and the Bible."
Also, I suspect that even if you believe the list is true, since you "wholeheartedly agree" with this statement "But if President Obama has engaged in actions that upset some religious extremists, I hope to see him doing more of it during his second term." I suspect you would actually be happy if the items prove true.
You should talk, Barton has been discredited by numerous scholars, historians, church leaders, and has been linked to neo-Nazi groups. YOU consider the source!
The president of this "non-partison" organization is Rev. Barry W. Lynn, who the site described in part, "In addition to his work as a long-time activist and lawyer in the civil liberties field, Lynn is an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ, offering him a unique perspective on church-state issues."
To further trace, he is an ordained minister of the United Church of Christ, the head of THAT is Rev. Geoffrey A. Black, who has stated “I have been watching the activities of the Tea Party for months curious about their underlying motives,” intoned the Rev. Geoffrey A. Black, president of the 1.1 million member United Church of Christ. He condemned Tea Party demonstrators for having “spit upon” Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) and having “shouted names that we have not heard in the public square since the days of the Civil Rights movement,” which are a “disgrace to our nation’s civility.” (something that has never been proven, despite the gazillion cameras around that day). I could not find any quotes of the reverend denouncing the documented violence that has taken place at the Occupy movement.
So, this source is not exactly trustworthy, either. However, even is David Barton is a kook, all he did was COMPILE A LIST. The list is what I address and the sources in the list are from news organizations such as the LA Times, The New York Times, the White House page, the Washington Post. Of course, he links to others, like Fox, but I imagine that you do not find them as credible as a non-partison news outlet, so here are some of his sources:
Jerry Markon, "Health, abortion issues split Obama administration and Catholic groups," Washington Post, October 31, 2011.
Jason Ukman, “Air Force suspends ethics course that used Bible passages that train missle launch officers,” Washington Post, August 2, 2011.
Luis Martinez, "Will Same Sex Marriages Pose a Dilemma for Military Chaplains?," ABC News, October 12, 2011.
Masoud Popalzai and Nick Paton Walsh, “ Obama apologizes to Afghanistan for Quran burning,” CNN, February 23, 2012
All he did was compile a list.
Name them! Ah ha ha. That was a shock. My mouth is bigger than my brain is at times . . . but I will give you a couple now and will pop by your pings every time I think of another one.
Actually, I haven't figured you out yet. You do easily share some thoughts with cons and some with libs. That says something about you. :) Give me time to learn what it says. But it's looking like a bright spot.
Renee; I would say if you shared something that liberals thought and showed her why, she would openly think about it and accept it if she saw it was right. I just me her.
There are others I know would do that but my mind goes blank when it comes to names.
Lee. Lee would accept truth even if it proved her wrong. Char also would ask a lot of questions and admit what ever truth she was in error of. I think Fren would do the same.
You know we're all focused on God, but not 'religion' like it used to be. By our age we know our Bibles well and have Greek and Hebrew dictionaries, concordances and I have a program with about 20 different Bibles. When a word isn't too clear in its transfer to English it's nice to check ito out in Greek or Hebrew, than check on how the real linguists dealt with the verse. They are usually very close but some differ conisderably.
I said all that to say that the Bible is continually opening up. When God open's up something new to me it isn't any time before someone else shares what she learned in study and it is often the same think I just learned. So He's working with all of us all over the world at the same time. I think it's fun and exciting.
I was religious and scared to death of God til I was 22. Then my aunt opened the Bible told me God calls us to HIM, not to a set of rules. I cried for 3 days because I belonged to a religion that said I would go to hell if I left it. (Why am I telling you this? I have no idea) I layed across my bed and cried and told him there was no way I could figure out what a God bigger than the universe was saying to me. I was startled. He came in. I didn't expect that. Then he removed a huge weight from me and gave me to know it was my sins. I was in a little amazement but was so light I didn't feel like I was walking on the floor. I laughed thinking, I'll never believe tomorrow that I wasn't walking on the floor tonight.
Anyway... why was I telling you this? Let me go up the post and see. But no one religion is right. God is right. He declares the Bible is indeed His word. I have found that well verified. So If someone shares a verse that is new I listen to their thoughts and perhaps learn from them or them from me.
The primary thing in Christianity is know Jesus Christ. He also reveals the Father to us.
Oh ... I remember ... most Christians that are searching for truth are excited when they find it. That's too strong a statement. They SHOULd be excited to learn truth :)
I'm talking too much and I'm sleepy and can't stop. I will bring more name now and then to pings :) Good night
With this part...well I was paying attention already but this part ... Well, I'm wondering if we were separated at birth? Or is it more true to say that at birth (born again) we were united?... So glad you shared it.
When I get up the next morning I can tell I was semi sleeping between paragraphs :):) Actually, that's kind of an exaggeration but as you can, not much. Just tell me to go to bed.
It is time for all of us to respect the beliefs of others. There are thousands of religions and who is to say which one is the best. I doubt God is a totalitarian. I think he loves us best when we respect each other.
"money grubbers who enjoy government bailouts and tax breaks and put the burden of taxation on the shoulders of the middle class and threaten needed programs like Unemployment Insurance and Social Security" As is your right, Mary Ann and if you are happy with his policies (I believe that throwing money at problems is never a solution and that we are in a dangerous amount of debt that will ultimately be our downfall, and we should learn by the example of Europe, which now must implement very difficult austerity measures. If we do not start to be self sufficient financially, we will ultimately have to do the same) than by all means, vote for him. By the way, Obama did support the bail out(s), as I am sure you are aware.
"There are thousands of religions and who is to say which one is the best." Nobody disputes that (well, at least I don't), and being an atheist or a Christian or a witch is fine with me.
And as the president he deserves respect. Don't they teach respect in church anymore?
The thing I am pointing out, however, (as is my right, and yours, and all of ours) is that President Obama has anti-Christian tendencies, this is irrefutable, and the fact that he states that he is a Christian, in my opinion, rings hollow, as his WORDS and his ACTIONS do not show that.
He shows us by his actions that he does not stand for faith, or the people he should be serving to stand for their right to believe what they believe. What bothers me is that he cannot just say, "hey, I do not believe and I will do everything in my power to drum out any semblance of Christianity from the United States, as I have no respect for it." It would certainly make me respect that he is at least transparent and honest with the American People.
As I said in the article, "he goal is not to "smear" the president. This is just to show his actions, his words, who he is and if America is ok with that and agrees, then so be it. To the author, America is about embracing all people, all faiths, and respecting and loving one another equally, whether a man is white or black, young or old, right or left, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist or Atheist. All cultures, faiths, ages, sexual preferences, all people should be respected as a part of humanity."
"extremist conservative Evangelicals" another blanket statement that is incendiary and halts conversation. Instead of defaulting to calling names, perhaps we can engage in a civil conversation.
President Obama has anti-Christian tendencies,
So what if he does have such tendencies (which is only your bigoted opinion, not established fact), who the hell appointed you to judge another persons right to believe and/or not to believe as he/she so desires.
That's the problem with you Bible Thumping Evangelicals, people must believe your way or you will judge and accuse such non followers of your faith, to be anti Christian heathens. In reality, it's people like you who are driving people such as me, away from organized religion.
You Holier Than Thou, Self Centered, God Loves Only Me Christians, make me sick to my stomach. You think yourself to be and want all others to believe and see you as being so religious, when in fact, you are nothing more than a bigoted egotist of the worest kind.
Remember; Judge not, Least You be Judged.
I could care less if he believes or not, (I don't, but respect those that do), it is the hypocrisy that makes me cringe. On one hand, he says he thinks "Jesus died for our sins" and on the other hand, he covers up a religious symbol before speaking at Georgetown.
"Bible Thumping Evangelicals" "bigoted egotist of the worest kind" I guess you are not into civil debate. What is with the name calling? Seriously, I don't call you names, you don't even know me. I think we can rise above that.
Then, why even bother posting this~you're hypocrisy is written all over this article, and your "examples," picayune!
I am also very hopeful of that ... Even after many years online ( almost 4 of them on Gather).
But it seems to me as if the more reasonable and respectful one is (for instance, as Glome says---, "You have been very factual in your presentation and are open for a change if they show you something or some fact you are believing is incorrect. One thing I know from reading your comments all the way down, you are looking for the truth of the matter and are willing to take criticism to be sure you have the facts") the more ardent the opposition is to one's remarks. It's almost as if the more informed .. Or the more reasonable among us are the most dangerous to their own positions and beliefs ...
Some find (and I mean they must literally look for ways that are not there) ways in which to trash even Glome if you can imagine...
I am all about the Truth. Bring it :)
Ms Lady, come down and play with us and I promise not to preach again :)
... until late tonight :)
Without having a deep, sustainable belief system that has a defined moral backing and a defined set of standards then you really don't have a belief system, you have situational morality and weather vane standards. This pretty much defines most of the immoral, intolerant progressive/liberal scum in this nation.
Well, as I say, the hypocrisy makes me cringe, but I would hate to generalize. I know some nice libs ;-)
You know them when you come in contact with them.
I do like your work here. Keep it up.
Just askin'.
You're getting tougher, Hon. Wear a cup. ;]
Eric S Said: Interesting side thought ... is it okay to call non-public women that are members of the TEA Party that sexually repelent name "teabaggers" or is that considered a slur?
Just askin'.
Lol... Just yesterday I had a (so far) one sided conversation with a couple of people who seem to belive just that. Though it's not limited to being a Tea party member. In a broader context, one simply has to be Talking While Conservative...
Especially if your name happens to be ... of course... Sarah Palin. Or Michelle Bachmann. And as long as one directs the nastiness toward one woman or one Conservative at a time, seems to be 'all good' as far as filthy epithets is concerned.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981166925
OBAMA A BLACK-SLAVERY AVENGER?
Are you aware that Barack Hussein Obama can be found in the Bible?
Proverbs 19:10 (NIV): "It is not fitting for a fool to live in luxury - how much worse for a slave to rule over princes!"
Also Proverbs 30:22 (NIV) which says that the earth cannot bear up under "a servant who becomes king."
And Ecclesiastes 5:2-3 (KJV) advises: "let thy words be few...a fool's voice is known by multitude of words."
Although Obama is not descended from slaves, he may feel that he's destined to become a black-slavery avenger.
Or maybe an enslaver of all free citizens!
For some stunning info on Pres. Obama and his fellow subversives, Google "Imam Bloomberg's Sharia Mosque," "Michelle Obama's Allah-day," "Obama Supports Public Depravity," "David Letterman's Hate Etc.," "Un-Americans Fight Franklin Graham" and also "Sandra Bernhard, Larry David, Kathy Griffin, Bill Maher, Joan Rivers, Sarah Silverman." Also Google "Islam will purify Jews and Christians" and "Prof. F. N. Lee's ISLAM IN THE BIBLE [PDF]."
PS - Since Christians are commanded to ask God to send severe judgment on persons who commit and support the worst forms of evil (see I Cor. 5 and note "taken away"), Christians everywhere should constantly pray that the Lord will soon "take away" or at least overthrow all US leaders who continue to sear their conscience and arrogantly trample the God-given rights of the majority including the rights of the unborn. Do we need a second American Revolution?
PPS - For a rare look at the 182-year-old endtime belief which has long neutralized millions of American patriots by promising them an "imminent rapture" off earth - which has diverted them away from being prepared to stand against all enemies, domestic as well as foreign - Google "Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty," "Pretrib Rapture Diehards," "Edward Irving is Unnerving," "Pretrib Rapture Secrets," and "Pretrib Rapture Politics" - all by the author of the bestselling nonfiction book "The Rapture Plot" (the most accurate and highly endorsed documentation on the pretrib rapture's long-covered-up-but-now-revealed beginnings in Britain in 1830 - see Armageddon Books).
Anybody else.... Obama has my vote.
And the less said about religion the better.
The hard-core religious mob scares me.
Too brainwashed for me to give much, if any credence to or about or to consider any argument from those of that mentality as worthy of even listening to.
And the planet continues to rotate and the spewing about some "middle-east peace process" continues relentlessly.
Let me make this clear. Braying at fresh air every Sunday will not improve your life in any material way. All it will do is make you feel better about yourself and thats it
Another example is this palaver about contraception. Where in the bible is it said that people should avoid the use of condoms and pills? I think it is fair to say that the healthcare industry (which conservatives love) is far better off if contraception were to be mandatory in the health insurance they sell as it would help them avoid having to pay for expensive treatments for diseases that are long associated with careless sex or to pay for treatments of condition associated with botched abortions etc
"The sort of people he was referring to tend to do exactly as he said." Such a blanket statement. What "sort" of people?
Who is trying to get anyone to stop taking contraception, the only issue is whether the church should be forced to provide it in their insurance. As I said in an article about Sandra Fluke, "Actually, this whole contraception issue seems to be timed in a way to take the attention away from the very real and urgent problems that the country and the world is facing right now. How convenient that the headlines are no longer scrutinizing the president's policies and accomplishments while he has been in office and instead, the mainstream media is focused on Obama's support of this activist." I could give a hoot about this issue, all I know is that the church stands against it and we should respect religious organizations, even if we don't agree with them, it is called tolerance for other's beliefs. Anyone working for a religious organization knows what they are getting into when they sign up, they need to take the cost of contraception into consideration, if they intend on using it.
He was quite right is saying that we should pay no attention to those hideously vile laws. Might I ask if you are in favour of this rubbish? After all, it is all in the "good book" isnt it?
Why shouldn't the church provide contraception in its insurance coverage? There is nowhere in the bible where contraception like pills and condoms are expressly forbidden as far as I know. In fact, being the lodging hme for pederasts and peadophiles that that church is, one might have thought that they would have a vested interest in ensuring the safety of the many girls that get abused by its priests (dont get me started on the boys!)
Also, if the Catholic church is as popular as it says it is, it shouldnt have to worry about its adherents taking contraception should it?
Again, it is about tolerance for other people's beliefs.
"In fact, being the lodging hme for pederasts and peadophiles that that church is, one might have thought that they would have a vested interest in ensuring the safety of the many girls that get abused by its priests (dont get me started on the boys!)" It always comes down to that, it has to get squeezed into every conversation about Christianity.
This article is about Obama. It is about how he undermines what he supposedly supports and clearly is only a Christian because it suited his political agenda.
This is not mocking. This is the truth. The Bible should not be interpreted literally nor word for word. That is the point of what he's saying in the video you linked to.
I happen to agree with him 1000%!
It seems to me that you are Parroting Leftwing talking points.
So the Bible is spiritually discerned? Wow! Who woulda thought it! Now, if you could kindly advise me whether you agree or otherwise with Gods laws regarding the stoning of people for gathering firewood on the Sabbath (there was one such man in the old testament who met that exact fate remember?) Are you saying that God was right for recommending such a punishment?
Also, is God "spiritually" correct when he says we should kill our children if they disobey us?
That you are confused about the Christ, and the Bible, explains your willingness to look rather silly, Sir. The rubbish lies in your words. You've not been asked to "accept" anything. The discussion is centered on Obama's claim that "he is a Christian," and the lack of consistency in his Word and Deed. Not yours.
Obama says he is a Christian and has said nothing nothing to suggest the opposite? Personally I dont believe in religion and it has no real outstanding benefits that cannot be found in the secular. It may be useful for the feeble minded should they need comfort perhaps but other than that, it is a waste of time.
But that is not the point. The point is that nowhere in this blog has any evidence been offered to suggest that President Obama is not a Christian. Can you produce a quote or a transcript where he says he is not a believer?
Dont worry, I am more than willing to wait..... I got my sleeping bag and dried foods and razors and a copy of war and peace to keep me company.....
"
You don't understand The Message of the Christ; if you did, you wouldn't have asked those questions.
Understand?
quite true, but the author HAS provided evidence that HIS beliefs are not really in sync with clearly defined christian beliefs.
i am not talking about semantics, idiosyncracies or ideas.
the basis of christianity is a personal belief and devotion to Christ, as being an individuals road to salvation - hence the name.
obama has said repeatedly, he believes in a 'collective salvation'.
he says he is a christain, but then professes anti-christian beliefs and demonstrates anti-christian behavior.
remionds me of a guy in the same nursing home as my mom- he declared and swore that he was nepoleon ....... heck he wasnt even french!
Do you think that when mocking and name-calling comes so easily, maybe one would not get the point? Interesting thought.....
"It seems to me that you are parroting right wing talking points." --
It seems to me that you are Parroting Left wing talking points.
"Christians" pick and choose which pieces of the Bible they publicly and privately endorse. For example, we ignore the passages about slavery, but we choose to "enforce" others that we can find a group to join us in damnation of only those words.
The "Christians" and "Bible-beaters" only think you are "religious enough" if you follow the selections they made as bad and good from the text.
If Obama is poking fun at some of the passages in the Bible it is because they are comical in today's society. It's because he's an INTELLIGENT person that he can tell the difference.
Thank you.
I guess we can enjoy our lobster and then go to confession and ask for forgiveness?
The Word has been so, since the beginning. They are "comical" in todays Society, because ours is now a Society of Fools. And your foolishness begins with your slander. That you cannot discern the meaning of Scripture, and of Life, does not make your mockery so. That we cannot discern the difference between Truth and Lies; Good and Evil; Right and Wrong; that is the Wisdom of "today."
Truth be Told, and when one really ponders, it highlights and displays the Wisdom of God...;)
of course - i am wasting my time in trying to explain anything .....
bangin my head on this brick wall hurts - anyone wanna email me a cyber-aspirin?
My idea was not to mock Christians like our president likes to do, just to put it out there that is happening. An interesting trend is that several have commented that they are fine with the president mocking Christianity, and August Lady and Wil B. have actually said they would "like to see more of it". Lora also dismissed it, and engaged in some mocking herself.
I wonder how they would feel if the president started mocking Muslims or homosexuals. Not good, I'll bet.
For some reason, Christians are open season, as are white men and increasingly, Jewish people, oh and I can't forget the rich. Eat the rich!
From 2009: "Obama told the pope of his commitment to reduce the number of abortions and of his attention and respect for the positions of the Catholic Church," Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi told reporters after he was briefed by the pope.
Funny, I don't remember that particular initiative. I found (a bit off topic, I know, sorry) a really interesting piece from 2008. It discusses Obama trying to get the pro-life vote, while maintaining his pro-choice core. Ugh, so strategic. Why can't we just have honesty? Anyway, some of the more interesting quotes from the article:
"Once it became clear that the pro-choice forces would not agree to strong language demanding a reduction in the number of abortions — a stand that could cost the Democrats dearly in the fall — the Obama camp was faced with a choice. They could try to roll the pro-choice groups. That would have made a big splash and appealed evangelicals and Catholics, but would have alienated pro-choice groups and splintered the party."
and
"The compromise tells you a great deal about Obama’s possible governing style. He did not put forth specific language ahead of time. His team worked quietly behind the scenes with different constituencies – pointedly declining to ever have the factions in the room at the same time."
I believe that she is, Renee.
What is old can be New, again. And how refreshing, that you know! If we are mindful to understand both the Moral confusion and the tactics of the Left, it is not difficult to to see them for who they are. We could just call this a "difference of opinion;" but if you think about it, it goes much deeper. Of course, we are all Free to think and believe as we wish. But the difference between the words of the one who seeks Value and the one who seeks to tear down those WITH VALUE tell us much about them.
Obama, with regard to Christians, and, as you've pointed out, how he speaks depending on his audience, tell us Volumes. He is an expert at playing one against the other. It works on SOME of us, as you can see.
"...I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
;)
i hope you are sitting down and have a strong heart, because i am about to inform you of a fact that will be incredibly shocking to you.
i do not await with bated breath, to be blessed with your next comment.
ok ... now calm down, i know that is a crushing blow to your ego.
relaxx - breathe slowly - deep breath in - now release - close your eyes......
now thqt that is settled - it was quite silly of me to try to define anything for you - you already have your own pre-determined definitions, and be damned should you realize they are subtrofuge, and misnomers.
i will look for a liberal-english dictionary so i can converse with you in words you understand - when i frind one, i will be back.
Obama said he'd close it, first thing. Christians lie much?
He doubled down on the Bush bailouts. Blessed are the superrich, is that how it goes?
He's sanctioned murder via drone arbitrarily. "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't apply to the cool and awesome.
Two wars running, Syria and Iran on the way (post election, natch) Good Christ.
I don't think he's anything past ambivalent on questions of the spiritual, but as a President, he makes a heck of a Republican. Liberals will vote for him, say Romney's greedy, Santorum too Christian, Gingrich immoral, this may be true.
And forget Ron Paul, the only one who'd keep the promises Obama made. He's craaaazy.
But liberals aren't insane. Advocating for Obama as he takes their money, breaks his word and laughs in their faces while he does it is a badge of civilized tolerance and erudite.
I can handle bad conservatives, at least I know where I stand. Liberals? Whack-a-mole morality, Calvinball ethics. I don't do crazy.
There's a good man in this race. He'll have my support all down the line.
P.S. 3 vote differential on the recount. But still. :)
What I find most disturbing about the Left's position on Christianity is that they position themselves as scholars on a subject that most of them have no experience with and know the very least about. Theirs is such a ludicrous position it is a laughable one. What's most sad about that is, the Left limits itself to thinking about a personal relationship with God as being globbed with right-winged radicals when, in fact, a personal relationship with God is the farthest from that as one could possibly get.
That thwarted perspective is a direct result of not knowing God themselves, but only knowing what they read or hear of radical Christianity as fed to them by a renownly illustriously misguided media. Out of pure ignorance of God, the Left is incapable of drawing lines between one person's sincerely practiced faith in the privacy of their own lives; and the inflammatory stories that are so inciting they make major national and international news headlines.
A personal relationship with God and radical right winged religion are as opposite as our north and south poles. But the Left pulls and meshes those two opposites together, because they need to develop the most frightening rendition of a non-existent Christianity monster as can possibly be rendered. That's what they use to draw others to them, because, after all, no one wants to be 'there' all by themself (lol). The Left strives desperately to convince themselves that they will never be held personally accountable for their own actions. Oh, contrare :).