Say Anything Blog

sorry you’ve lost the election…try again.

You mean the election in just over 3 weeks? 

This ad ought to play well with people of faith.

“you’ve lost” links its name to the “Fight (Or Create, if necessary) the Smears” web page.

pH for America was confident enough in their material, which showed Obama in his own words, that they posted the Create the Smears criticism on their own webpage.

Who are you going to believe: “you’ve lost” or your own lying eyes?

Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

Proof
How is he mocking?
Laughing and suggesting the bible shouldn’t set or guide policy isn’t mocking? It is just common sense - that life and society are far more complex nowadays than two thousand years ago and we cannot apply Jesus’ laws any more than we can the ten commandments.

HG,
Why would people of faith or anyone else take a 60 second ad as gospel without checking the references themselves? If someone were to do just that then, IMO, they are truly gormless idiots who are bitterly clinging to their religion.

Leviticus discusses slavery in a manner that suggests it is acceptable - treat your Jewish slaves as if they were servants.

Deuteronomy advocates stoning your disobedient son.

The sermon on the mount wherein Jesus reveals his new laws suggests that adulterers (and that includes divorcees) should be cast out - exiled.

What is wrong with the context here?

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Mofal,

The context is key.  The OT tells the history of Israel from its very beginning.  The laws in the OT were given by God Himself to the nation He established.  In other words, Israel’s ‘constitution’, so to speak, was authored and enforced by God Himself. The OT also looks forward to a day when God Himself will visually reign as King in Israel in the person of the Messiah.  This Messiah is none other than Jesus Christ who taught of the swift judgment which will be present once He assumes his role on this earth as King in Israel. 

Thus, care must be taken when comparing America and the OT theocracy in Israel or that theocracy yet future.

Deuteronomy advocates stoning your disobedient son.

...and gave us the Ten Commandments. Obama’s facile, condescending and yes, mocking tone, does not demonstrate a mastery of either Scripture or Christianity.

A slightly smarter, wiser or less condescending person could have made whatever points he was trying to make without insulting the entire Judeo-Christian tradition.

that life and society are far more complex nowadays than two thousand years ago

And the Ten Commandments are far older than two thousand years, and yet the principles are somehow as timely as ever! Or would Obama do away with that whole “Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal” thing? (That might explain his positions on abortion and confiscatory taxation!)

Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

A slightly smarter, wiser or less condescending person could have made whatever points he was trying to make without insulting the entire Judeo-Christian tradition.

Exactly.  Obama’s condescending tone is telling.  There is nothing Christian about Obama’s church and his black liberation theological nonsense.

Remember Farakhan says Obama is the OT messiah.  What a joke.

Laughing and suggesting the bible shouldn’t set or guide policy isn’t mocking? It is just common sense - that life and society are far more complex nowadays than two thousand years ago and we cannot apply Jesus’ laws any more than we can the ten commandments.

Funny, our Founding Father’s in private, in the Declaration of Independence, The Northwest Treaty and other documents believed that ““God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” [Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781

“We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.” - James Madison.

Leviticus discusses slavery in a manner that suggests it is acceptable - treat your Jewish slaves as if they were servants.

Deuteronomy advocates stoning your disobedient son.

It never ceases to amaze me how you liberals, deliberately, with malice, confuse the Old Testament with Christianity; and never understand the Old Testament at all. Why? You know that you are wrong about Americans being mostly a Christian people and this nation being founded upon Christian principles.

The sermon on the mount wherein Jesus reveals his new laws suggests that adulterers (and that includes divorcees) should be cast out - exiled.

All sinners, every man and woman that ever committed the tiniest sin cannot be allowed in a Holy Heaven with a Holy God and thus are cast out of that place by their own choice, no one can get in to Heaven, unless they are Born Again of the Spirit and accept Jesus propitiation for all their sins.

Obama has not exhibited by any actions a true faith in Christ (Supporting killing innocent babies is not Christ like), he has been taught as a Muslim, his church taught and anti-Christ Black LIberation Theology, he is closely aligned with Muslims and militant atheist-communists in his circel fo friends, so I would say any use of the Bible by him appears to be an attempt, like Billy Jeff to talk like something his is not and is a mockery!

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

a[n] cynical and manipulative honest attack on Barack Obama’s reading ignorance of the Bible.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: 

21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 

21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. 

Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele

So, boob: Would you care to enlighten us as to what that passage means in either its historical or theological context to historical Christianity?

Didn’t think so.

Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

The 10 Commandments can no longer apply?  Funny, I thought that “Thou shalt not kill,” “thou shalt not steal”, and so on were pretty universal moral precepts.

Maybe not in the pro-abortion camp, but among those of us who know what we’re looking at in an ultrasound, we can definitely clue in that God did, and does, still have it right.

And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that
he die…
The populace; that is, after his trial is finished, and he is condemned to die; and he was not stoned until the three first judges were there (by whom he was admonished, and ordered to be beaten), as it it said, “this is our son”, this is he that was beaten before you F6; and according to the Targum of Jonathan,

``if he feared (God, and showed any token of repentance) and received instruction, and they (his parents) desired to preserve him alive, they preserved him; but if he refused and was rebellious, then they stoned him;’‘

The Jews say this law, and that of retaliation, were never put into execution; that is, there is no record they were ever carried out, the law was for the warning and admonition against those that were profligate in their lives and not acted upon in reality.

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

It ain’t necessarily so
It ain’t necessarily so
De things dat yo’ liable to read in de Bible
It ain’t necessarily so

Funny, our Founding Father’s in private, in the Declaration of Independence, The Northwest Treaty and other documents believed that ““God who gave us life gave us liberty.

The founding fathers also ridiculed the bible, on many occasions, in private.

Jefferson’s word for the Bible? “Dunghill.”

Here’s Thomas Paine
“I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to
that book (the Bible).”

Paine again
“It is the duty of every true Diest to vindicate the moral justice of God
against the evils of the Bible.”

Thomas Jefferson

“I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find
in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They
are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men,
women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been
burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this
coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to
support roguery and error all over the earth.”

Jefferson again (on religion)
“Christianity…(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on
man…Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the
teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and imposters led by Paul, the
first great corruptor of the teachings of Jesus.”

More Jefferson (on clergy)
“The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for
enslaving mankind and adulturated by artificial constructions into a
contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves…these clergy in fact,
constitute the real Anti-Christ.”

John Adams
“Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines
and Oaths, and whole cartloads of other trumpery that we find religion
encumbered with in these days?”

Also Adams
“The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for
absurdity.”

Now what?

Instead of finding things to attack each other over, why don’t we find areas where we can agree, and find compromise long enough to take a step back and enjoy the recognition of our similarities? 

Then, we can take steps forward in a constructive way, together, to tackle the issues where we really do disagree.

Proof
How is he mocking?
Laughing and suggesting the bible shouldn’t set or guide policy isn’t mocking? It is just common sense - that life and society are far more complex nowadays than two thousand years ago and we cannot apply Jesus’ laws any more than we can the ten commandments.

Most of Jesus’s commandments are to the individual. Do not be angry, do not hate, do not say “you fool” in anger. They are not meant to be policy, and no one has suggested that we should make them law.

We do apply several of the commandments as law though. Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not commit adultery. The weekend is even based on the disagreement on which day is the Sabbath.

Leviticus discusses slavery in a manner that suggests it is acceptable - treat your Jewish slaves as if they were servants.

As even secular Jew Lewis Black notes, the old Testiment God is harsher because the people were harsh. They needed to be whipped into shape. Slavery was a reality of the time. And as you read the Bible, you see that God took a wild, almost savage, people and slowly molded them into his chosen. That noted, and the reality of slavery being undeniable, this is a radical law. Treat your slaves well? Look at that from the time it was written. When that command was made law, the people surely looked at each other in disbelief. “Treat your slave like a servant? This is madness! Surely our prophet is misunderstanding..or worse…is TWISTING the word of the lord!” It really was a radical departure from how everyone else dealt with slaves. Looking backwards, it seems like a sad law that condones slavery…in reality it was a sharp break from tradition that started the Judeo-Christian move away from slavery.

Deuteronomy advocates stoning your disobedient son.

As the scripture Bob so conveniently posted shows, stoning was not for a disobedient child, but a rebellious and wicked child. When the parents take their child to be stoned, they don’t say “he gaveth me sas”, but instead list a series of transgressions, and probably have more. Far from being something to be done on a whim, the command makes it clear that the child is evil in the example, and should only be done when the child cannot be set straight.

It’s all political bullshit. Liberals (and Robert108) lie and spin and twist and obscure and distract and cheat to protect their guys and hurt the opposing team. It’s like wrestling. They distract the ref while their team mate hits you with a chair. There’s no rule they won’t break, no law they won’t skirt, no crime they won’t forgive as long as they can win.

- that life and society are far more complex nowadays than two thousand years ago and we cannot apply Jesus’ laws any more than we can the ten commandments.

- Man of Fire and Light

The complexities of life prevent you from following the 10 Commandments?

Which ones specifically?

ONE: ‘You shall have no other gods before Me.’

TWO: ‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.’

THREE: ‘You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.’

FOUR: ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.’

FIVE: ‘Honor your father and your mother.’

SIX: ‘You shall not murder.’

SEVEN: ‘You shall not commit adultery.’

EIGHT: ‘You shall not steal.’

NINE: ‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.’

TEN: ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.’

Ok, I see what the problem is. You’re a lying, thieving murderer who worships Barack Obama like he’s a god. Good for you! You’ve broken at least half and are still walking the streets.

While Paine was pretty disdainful, the other two were not.

“The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for
enslaving mankind and adulturated by artificial constructions into a
contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves…these clergy in fact,
constitute the real Anti-Christ.”

This is a condemnation of man twisting the words of Christ for his own gain, and is not a condemnation of faith or the Bible.

“Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines
and Oaths, and whole cartloads of other trumpery that we find religion
encumbered with in these days?”

Same thing. Most of the parts of religion practiced, especially by Catholics, are either not in the Bible or go contrary to it.

“The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.”

And once more, the same thing.

We know Jefferson didn’t believe in the divinity, but in the teachings of Christ. He had a copy of the Bible in which he cut out the parts where Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead. He truely believed that Paul had corrupted the teachings of a great man by trying to turn him into God. Yet he was committed to those teachings. The quote about “I do not find one redeeming feature of Christianity” is thrown around a lot, but is never sourced. It seems pecular, in that he was a regular church goer, and passionate believer in Christ’s teachings. It’s most likely false and attributed to him to show a disdain that was not there or changed from it’s original meaning. If Christianity was such a worthless myth system, why would he attend Church to hear it taught. If he believed it was an irredeamable superstition, why try to make clear Paul’s lies? It clearly goes against what he said.

It’s all political bullshit. Liberals (and Robert108) lie and spin and twist and obscure and distract and cheat to protect their guys and hurt the opposing team. It’s like wrestling. They distract the ref while their team mate hits you with a chair. There’s no rule they won’t break, no law they won’t skirt, no crime they won’t forgive as long as they can win.

The problem with most of the posts here, is that they assume the founding fathers thought that religion was a bad thing.  When you actually read their words and understand what they had dealt with from Britain, they were harping against the very people who bastardized these religions.

Why do you think that the only two items dealing with religion in the original constitution prevent us from bastardizing religion by making laws establishing a national religion or discriminating against people because of their religious beliefs when it comes to being considered for federal employment?

The founding fathers also ridiculed the bible,

And if they did, did they also claim to be Christians as Barack Obama has done?

I have no problem with non-believers ridiculing the Bible. If however, someone claims to be a Christian and ridicules the Bible, he is either a hyprocrite or self-deceived.

Which is Obama?

Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

Obama is obviously not a Christian. We already knew that though.

This is a condemnation of man twisting the words of Christ for his own gain, and is not a condemnation of faith or the Bible.

Was that not what Obama was doing?  Me thinks yes.

Instead of finding things to attack each other over, why don’t we find areas where we can agree, and find compromise long enough to take a step back and enjoy the recognition of our similarities? 

Then, we can take steps forward in a constructive way, together, to tackle the issues where we really do disagree.

Great posts Neiman,Kenny.

I can’t think of anything to add, you said it very well. Regardless of what you libs here think, if an ad like that is shown here in the Bible belt, it will definately bother the Christians, like me. The road I live on is 15 miles long. In the area surrounding this, you will find 35 Christian churches. They are full every Wed. and Sunday. I don’t know what it is like where y’all are from, but here it definately makes a difference. The Wright, Pflager, Calypso Louie clan make people in this area livid.If McCain would jump on these guys it would make people here happy. In my neighborhood, it’s a closed community w/ a HOA, and we are not supposed to have yard signs. However, out of the 72 houses, 54 have McCain/Palin signs. Zero Obama signs.

“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” John Jay the first Supreme Court Justice

“Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” - James Madison, “A Memorial and Remonstrance”, 1785 *

No, he isn’t critisizing Christianity as a religion or denoucing it.  He is critisizing the “church” and the problems inherant in an organized religion that breed a distortion of its true form.  Many people who try to argue that the founding fathers were not Christians will misquote this and use it as part of their argument so be warned.

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” - Thomas Jefferson

“The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: ‘that God governs in the affairs of men.’ And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?” - Benjamin Franklin

Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity, shall from time to time be made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.

The Northwest Ordinance, which sets forth the requirements of any territory to become a state.

Why did they support mandated education? To learn the Bible and its moral teaching, which they felt was an absolute necessity for good government.

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

Was that not what Obama was doing?  Me thinks yes.

Clearly not. Your examples were of people criticizing clergy. Obama is lambasting the bible itself. What your examples were doing is equivalent to the conservative argument against Roe vs Wade. It’s not in the constitution, and the case law is bad, but since it’s wrapped up in “emanations of penumbras” it must be constitutional! Epic fail. Likewize, just because a preacher says to do something, doesn’t mean it’s biblical.

He was mocking using the bible as a foundation for laws, then picking things out of the bible to show he disagrees with the idea. “How about we use Leviticus where they encourage you to stone your child?” That’s mockery, both of the bible and of the religious. It’s deceptive because #1 no one is advocating making the bible law and #2 he’s trying to make the passage sound worse than it is to show the eeeeevils of the bible.

The theocracy line is old, tired, and stupid. And mocking the bible will not win new voters.

It’s all political bullshit. Liberals (and Robert108) lie and spin and twist and obscure and distract and cheat to protect their guys and hurt the opposing team. It’s like wrestling. They distract the ref while their team mate hits you with a chair. There’s no rule they won’t break, no law they won’t skirt, no crime they won’t forgive as long as they can win.

I have no problem with non-believers ridiculing the Bible. If however, someone claims to be a Christian and ridicules the Bible, he is either a hyprocrite or self-deceived.

And the only one Hannitized quotes that actually critiques the Bible is avowed diest, Thomas Paine.

It’s all political bullshit. Liberals (and Robert108) lie and spin and twist and obscure and distract and cheat to protect their guys and hurt the opposing team. It’s like wrestling. They distract the ref while their team mate hits you with a chair. There’s no rule they won’t break, no law they won’t skirt, no crime they won’t forgive as long as they can win.

Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele

Clearly not. Your examples were of people criticizing clergy. Obama is lambasting the bible itself.

That is not true, you merely focused on those that criticized the clergy and religion, and ignored those comment’s that criticized the bible.

Here’s Thomas Paine
“I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to
that book (the Bible).”

Thomas Jefferson
“I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find
in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They
are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men,
women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been
burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this
coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to
support roguery and error all over the earth.”

Instead of finding things to attack each other over, why don’t we find areas where we can agree, and find compromise long enough to take a step back and enjoy the recognition of our similarities? 

Then, we can take steps forward in a constructive way, together, to tackle the issues where we really do disagree.

Well, you didn’t ignore them, you dismissed them.

Instead of finding things to attack each other over, why don’t we find areas where we can agree, and find compromise long enough to take a step back and enjoy the recognition of our similarities? 

Then, we can take steps forward in a constructive way, together, to tackle the issues where we really do disagree.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Since you like Supreme Court rulings, well liberal ones anyway, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” John Jay the first Supreme Court Justice. He was our first Chief Justice of SCOTUS, was close to the Founding Fathers in time and he had no problem claiming America to be a Christian Nation, not by Law, as that would have only committed the sin of European Nations our forfathers came here to escape, but we were and mostly are today a Christian people, our Laws are based on Judeo-Christian principles and the Ten Commandments.

Thomas Jefferson “I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.”

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” - Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson hated as do many Christians the harm done to the church and the world because men have perverted the truth and turned that truth into man made fables for their own purposes, but make no mistake he was NOT hostile to the Christian faith. “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator and, I hope, to the pure doctrine of Jesus also.”  Thomas Jefferson

It is terribly dishonest when you take a quotation out of context, not just of the passage at hand, but from the context of a man’s lifetime utterances and practices. Jefferson said, “The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.” “Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.” “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” [Letter to Benjamin Rush April 21, 1803]

Jefferson was hostile towards religionists, but not towards Christ or the true Christian faith. In fact, it was he who endorsed public education in the Northwest Treaty as a means to teach the Bible and its moral precepts, which he felt were necessary to secure a free people.

Sorry Hannitized, no matter how you might choose to twist history to make Jefferson into a man hostile to the Christian faith or that would deny the Christian nature of our Constitution and people, you have to expunge The Declaration of Independence, which is our National Charter, from the history books, as that vision for America included a call for submission to Our Creator, Nature’s God, which could have only meant at those time - the Judeo-Christian God.

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

which could have only meant at those time - the Judeo-Christian God.

Is that because in those times there was no word for Jesus? No word for Christianity? No word for Judeo-Christian?

Because that could be the only rationalization as to why they would leave such an important element of out nation’s founding documents.

Neiman, please cut and paste a few references to Jesus and Christianity in our Declaration of Independence or Constitution so that we might better understand what you are on about.

Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele

TJ writing about the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom in his autobiography:

“Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.”

Of course it was Tommy wrote the classic line to the Baptist in Danbury:

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele

Obama’s the closest this I’ve seen to the “ANTICHRIST” in a long, long time..

Tommy wrote the classic line to the Baptist in Danbury

He was defending himself against the charge he wanted to establish a national Christian denomination, the passge you included was only his promise not to do that, that is all and to make any more out of it as that damnable KKK member Hugo Black did is to foster a monstrous lie.

As usual you are twisting the plain words of history to force them to support your anti-Christian hatred.

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

No, I’m not.

But you just broke a few of the commandments.

Uh-Oh!

Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele

Kenny

Most of Jesus’s commandments are to the individual. Do not be angry, do not hate, do not say “you fool” in anger. They are not meant to be policy, and no one has suggested that we should make them law.

In fact Jesus says in the sermon on the mount that he is not supplanting the Jewish laws but fulfilling them - making them complete.
HG

Thus, care must be taken when comparing America and the OT theocracy in Israel or that theocracy yet future.

The context of Obamas response was on whether the bible should set or guide policy. Jesus stated that the Jewish laws still stand, so they must be considered when using the bible to decide policy. If the OT were not relevant, then it would not be included in the bible, now would it?

Bullwinkle, I’m getting divorced and I sometimes I look at women lustfully, therefore I will be an adulterer the rest of my days (as will my wife) and according to Jesus, we should be excised from the body politic.
I swear, take your lord’s name in vain, insult people (my friends mostly) and will happily work and avoid worship on the Christian sabbath.

As far as Obama is concerned, I couldn’t give two hoots about him, nor for that matter, who wins your election. All the candidates seem to be vacuous and insincere, as far as I can tell.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Jesus stated that the Jewish laws still stand, so they must be considered when using the bible to decide policy. If the OT were not relevant, then it would not be included in the bible, now would it?

You really should not talk about this, you are grossly ignorant of the subject. When Jesus died and rose again He introduced the New Covenant of Grace, wherein the O.T. Law was no longer the master over us that believed, He fullfilled the O.T. Law perfectly for all them that believe in Him. When a new covenant or contract is made effective the old one is set aside, being made of no effect. As to Israel they still though vainly try to live under the Law, while Christians are free from the Law, except to Love God, and Love our neighbors as oursleves.

Bullwinkle, I’m getting divorced and I sometimes I look at women lustfully, therefore I will be an adulterer the rest of my days

If neither of you engage in sexual relations with others, you are not guilty of adultery. If you are not saved you are an adulterer, but saved and repentant your sins were all paid for by Christ.

But you just broke a few of the commandments.

I already answered you once today that is my daily troll limit!

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

No matter what Jefferson’s views on religion were, no amount of diversion will give cover to the contempt that Obama, who claims to be a Christian, shows to large portions of what most Christians refer to as “Holy Scripture”.

Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

That is not true, you merely focused on those that criticized the clergy and religion, and ignored those comment’s that criticized the bible.

No, I addressed certain comments that you claimed were critical of the bible, but weren’t. I pointed out that they were mocking clergy, not the bible, and that there was a difference. You then claimed Obama was mocking clergy…or something…when he was mocking the Bible. Paine wasn’t terribly relevant to the discussion anymore. I granted that he was a deist and moved on.

In fact Jesus says in the sermon on the mount that he is not supplanting the Jewish laws but fulfilling them - making them complete.

Which, in many cases, changed the original law. Jesus said that divorce was no longer allowed. That was a change to the existing law. He was fulfilling what the law was supposed to be, not what it was.

If you don’t understand that many of the rules changed because of Christ…you either have not read the bible, or you did not understand it. The sermon on the mount alone clearly changes the rules. This is understandable reading it by itself.

The context of Obamas response was on whether the bible should set or guide policy. Jesus stated that the Jewish laws still stand, so they must be considered when using the bible to decide policy. If the OT were not relevant, then it would not be included in the bible, now would it?

Setting policy, and guiding policy are two different things. Jesus overturned many Jewish laws. And they are included in the bible to show where we came from. It’s history. You don’t seem to have the slightest clue what you’re talking about.

Bullwinkle, I’m getting divorced and I sometimes I look at women lustfully, therefore I will be an adulterer the rest of my days (as will my wife) and according to Jesus, we should be excised from the body politic.

Yes, you are doing wrong by divorcing, unless there was valid reason. Next?

I swear, take your lord’s name in vain, insult people (my friends mostly) and will happily work and avoid worship on the Christian sabbath.

Jesus swore, and insulted people. He also said that Sabbath was made for the man and not man for the Sabbath. But, hey, if you want to flaunt your disrespect for God, feel free.

It’s all political bullshit. Liberals (and Robert108) lie and spin and twist and obscure and distract and cheat to protect their guys and hurt the opposing team. It’s like wrestling. They distract the ref while their team mate hits you with a chair. There’s no rule they won’t break, no law they won’t skirt, no crime they won’t forgive as long as they can win.

I’d like to see the whole speech, not just what was obviously cut up - like the Palin Gibson interview - before I make a judgement call.  I believe that Obama believes more in Jeremiah Wright and Looney Lewis’ view of religion, but this tape is so cut up I won’t believe it.

Man of Fire and Light,  Sorry you are going through a divorce. That is hard. I hope really good things for you!

Zsa Zsa, thank you sweetheart.

Neiman, are you right or is Kenny?

If neither of you engage in sexual relations with others, you are not guilty of adultery

Jesus says in the SotM that looking at women with lust makes one guilty of adultery - didn’t he?

Yes, you are doing wrong by divorcing, unless there was valid reason.

My reasons for divorce are none of your business, nor of your god. The reasons are perfectly valid.

When Jesus died and rose again He introduced the New Covenant of Grace, wherein the O.T. Law was no longer the master over us that believed

Does that mean that anything Jesus said before he died is null and void?

Jesus swore, and insulted people. He also said that Sabbath was made for the man and not man for the Sabbath. But, hey, if you want to flaunt your disrespect for God, feel free.

If this is the case, then he was a bit of a hypocrite for saying this - “If you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘you fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire” (Matthew 5:22)

I flaunt no disrespect for YOUR god, because I do not believe in him/her/it/whatever. I believe it is everyone’s right to believe what they wish to and no-one’s right to judge them based on their own beliefs. I respect that you have a strong faith in the teachings of the bible and that you live your life in a way that makes you happy. Can you extend the same courtesy?

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

My reasons for divorce are none of your business, nor of your god. The reasons are perfectly valid.

Shrug, I personally don’t care about your divorce. But yes, they are the business of the supreme being who created everything, including marriage. Strike one.

I flaunt no disrespect for YOUR god, because I do not believe in him/her/it/whatever. I believe it is everyone’s right to believe what they wish to and no-one’s right to judge them based on their own beliefs. I respect that you have a strong faith in the teachings of the bible and that you live your life in a way that makes you happy. Can you extend the same courtesy?

There was no respect extended. You express disbelief that anyone could cluelessly want to impose the bible. You have polite scorn, yet it is scorn nonetheless. You don’t understand the Bible, or our beliefs, yet you wish to comment on them and cast aspersions. “This is the same bible that condones slavery and allows you to kill disobedient children?” Even after you have been educated, you mindlessly repeat your slurs.

Furthermore, why should I extend ANY courtesy, based on your response that “no one should be judged by what they believe”? That’s the height of stupidity. What if I believe that non-believers aren’t human and should die? I can’t be judged on that? What if I believe blacks should be slaves again? I mean, it’s a belief right? If you are too open minded, everything inside just falls out.

One of us is right. If it’s you, no biggie. You die and turn into nothingness. If I’m right, you have to answer for your sins to a God that will not accept “I don’t accept your authority in my life” as a valid excuse. (Oh, and as a side note, actually your divorce is my business if we live in the same state. As marriage is a contract and a legal issue, and the courts are acting on the people’s behalf…technically, your divorce is the state…aka the people’s…business. Just an FYI.)

It’s all political bullshit. Liberals (and Robert108) lie and spin and twist and obscure and distract and cheat to protect their guys and hurt the opposing team. It’s like wrestling. They distract the ref while their team mate hits you with a chair. There’s no rule they won’t break, no law they won’t skirt, no crime they won’t forgive as long as they can win.

The right takes the ‘transcendental turn’ to the religious fundamentalists, those who do not believe in the separation of church and state. The Christian commies. The right’s new face. Palin’s religiousity and class war rhetoric have laid that bare.

For truth is named after the daughter of time, not of authority.

-Francis Bacon

The right takes the ‘transcendental turn’ to the religious fundamentalists, those who do not believe in the separation of church and state. The Christian commies. The right’s new face. Palin’s religiousity and class war rhetoric have laid that bare.

Where has Palin been against the false leftist doctrine of seperation of church and state? One pronouncement? A law? Something?

It’s all political bullshit. Liberals (and Robert108) lie and spin and twist and obscure and distract and cheat to protect their guys and hurt the opposing team. It’s like wrestling. They distract the ref while their team mate hits you with a chair. There’s no rule they won’t break, no law they won’t skirt, no crime they won’t forgive as long as they can win.

Kenny,

No, I addressed certain comments that you claimed were critical of the bible, but weren’t.

Yes but you ignored that Thomas Jefferson referred to the bible as “dunghill”.

I pointed out that they were mocking clergy, not the bible, and that there was a difference. You then claimed Obama was mocking clergy…or something…when he was mocking the Bible

.

Well, Obama was talking about people who interpreted the bible, which was the same point our founding fathers made.  Barack said; “People haven’t been reading their bibles” as he was talking about it’s text.  Meaning, that people were misinterpreting the bible.  Same point the Founding fathers made.

You are just dismissing his criticisms of the people to make him look bad.

Paine wasn’t terribly relevant to the discussion anymore. I granted that he was a deist and moved on.

He was a founding father, therefore he was relevant.

Instead of finding things to attack each other over, why don’t we find areas where we can agree, and find compromise long enough to take a step back and enjoy the recognition of our similarities? 

Then, we can take steps forward in a constructive way, together, to tackle the issues where we really do disagree.

He was a founding father, therefore he was relevant.

He did not make pretense at being a Christian, therefore, in this discussion, you and he are irrelevant.

Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

He did not make pretense at being a Christian,

That is also irrelevant to the argument made by Nieman.  His point is what our founding fathers thought of God and how it related to the declaration of independence.

This is all about what our Founding Fathers thought of God, Religion and the Bible.  It has nothing to do with their personal affiliation.  Therefore, Paine is relevant as all the others, and you are not.

Funny, our Founding Father’s in private, in the Declaration of Independence, The Northwest Treaty and other documents believed that ““God who gave us life gave us liberty. - Nieman

Instead of finding things to attack each other over, why don’t we find areas where we can agree, and find compromise long enough to take a step back and enjoy the recognition of our similarities? 

Then, we can take steps forward in a constructive way, together, to tackle the issues where we really do disagree.

That is also irrelevant to the argument made by Nieman. (sic)

Neiman didn’t start this discussion, I did. You in the wrong pew, bubba? Or did you miss the point that this thread is about Obama (a supposed Christian) mocking the Bible, not generic Founding Fathers doing so. (BTW, A handy rule of thumb is to at least read the headline before you comment!)
You are irrelevant with a capital “I”. The drunken squirrel was closer to being on topic than you are!  Feel free to start your own thread where you can make any argument you want with whatever lax standards of evidence you care to choose.

Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial