DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on March 13, 2008, 01:10:57 PM
-
(http://www.meade.com/mysky/images/logos/abc_news_logo.gif)
Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/Blotter/Obama_wright_080312_ms.jpg)
Obama's Pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Has a History of What Even Obama's Campaign Aides Say Is 'Inflammatory Rhetoric'
Sen. Barack Obama's pastor says blacks should not sing "God Bless America" but "God damn America."
Is Obama's Pastor a Liability? The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor for the last 20 years at the Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's south side, has a long history of what even Obama's campaign aides concede is "inflammatory rhetoric," including the assertion that the United States brought on the 9/11 attacks with its own "terrorism."
In a campaign appearance earlier this month, Sen. Obama said, "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial." He said Rev. Wright "is like an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with," telling a Jewish group that everyone has someone like that in their family.
Rev. Wright married Obama and his wife Michelle, baptized their two daughters and is credited by Obama for the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope."
An ABC News review of dozens of Rev. Wright's sermons, offered for sale by the church, found repeated denunciations of the U.S. based on what he described as his reading of the Gospels and the treatment of black Americans.
"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism.
"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.
"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost," he told his congregation.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1 (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1)
-
Can you just imagine if Obama were a Republican candidate, and this was not just their pastor, but a mentor? The left and MSM would eat him alive
Alas, this is a Democrat candidate, and as such, does not require such. As it is so often in vaildating the pervasive left leaning bias, it's not what's reported, it's what's not reported :-\
-
very true SIRS
check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbUBTlmAiA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbUBTlmAiA)
-
I don't see a problem with what his pastor has said. He's speaking from his religious viewpoint. Do you really think that Christ would bless many of the actions that this country has taken?
-
I see a HUGE problem....well, if it were a Republican. Let's focus on what this is about, Js....the Pastor, as no one is citing America as being this beacon of perfection. This pastor's comments, all well and good under the 1st amendment, are racist at its core.
Now, he has a perfect right to his opinion regarding America and whites, but that doesn't make him any less of a racist. And for Obama to still be a devoted member of his church (there must be a few others in the neighborhood, you'd think), with this pastor as an apparent mentor WOULD be a death nail for any Presidential aspirations, ........ if this were a Republican Candidate. But he's not, he's a Democrat, and so it's perfectly cool to have a racist pastor, who hates America
-
I don't see a problem with what his pastor has said.
JS that is no surprise, of course you don't
You are a liberal, blame America first kind of guy
And I don't mean that in a mean way, thats just your opinion
The point isn't that liberals are going to have a problem with what he says
Thats stuff right out of the Michael Moore playbook.
The point is.....lets see if the American People agree with this pastor.
Are the American people going to buy into "God Damn America"?
I doubt it....
He's speaking from his religious viewpoint
yeah...so?
so was Koresh
so are the Mullahs
so was Mullah Omar as his Taliban executed women in football stadiums
so was Jim Jones
Do you really think that Christ would bless many of the actions that this country has taken?
To answer you question......
Which in and of itself is outrageous and proves my earlier "Blame America First" point is...YES.
I hope you meant to say "all" or "some".
But yes I think that Christ would bless "many" of the actions of this country.
For your information or what you & Michael Tee choose to believe "it ain't all bad".
In fact there are many great things this country has done.
Of course there are actions imo Christ would not bless.
But I think Christ would have problems with the actions of just about every country.
Whats funny/ironic...is here is this guy "damning America", but thats the same country that
is about to elect the black candidate he supports! If Obama is elected
most of his support will come from whites. "Damn white America they be those
donating and voting for Obama by the millions to be President of this damn whitey America!". ::)
-
I see a HUGE problem....well, if it were a Republican. Let's focus on what this is about, Js....the Pastor, as no one is citing America as being this beacon of perfection. This pastor's comments, all well and good under the 1st amendment, are racist at its core.
Now, he has a perfect right to his opinion regarding America and whites, but that doesn't make him any less of a racist. And for Obama to still be a devoted member of his church (there must be a few others in the neighborhood, you'd think), with this pastor as an apparent mentor WOULD be a death nail for any Presidential aspirations, ........ if this were a Republican Candidate. But he's not, he's a Democrat, and so it's perfectly cool to have a racist pastor, who hates America
Let's see what the pastor said (according to the article) that was so monstrous.
We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye
What is not factual about that statement? Now you can defend the atomic bombs with the standard cost/benefit analysis that more troops would have died in an inevitable invasion of Japan. That's the standard response. Yet, from a Christian religious standpoint, it was a direct attack targetted at civilians. Nuclear weapons are weapons of terror, designed entirely to produce fear and obliterate populations. I'm not saying that anyone here has to agree with what the pastor is saying (and note that he's not being elected to anything) but what is he saying that is incorrect?
We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.
Again, what is factually incorrect? He did not invent this notion. The CIA calls it "blowback" and coined the term decades ago. The Biblical equivalent is "you reap what you sow."
The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
The Government has (and it is documented) imported illegal drugs from Latin and Central America. This was linked to the Contras as a revenue source as well as to Manuel Noriega when he was in our good graces. The justice system has been a major issue in the African-American community for many decades and it is perceived as being grossly unfair and very racist.
I can't see where this pastor is being a racist. Nor can I see where he's dealing in falsehoods.
-
JS that is no surprise, of course you don't
You are a liberal, blame America first kind of guy
And I don't mean that in a mean way, thats just your opinion
The point isn't that liberals are going to have a problem with what he says
Thats stuff right out of the Michael Moore playbook.
The point is.....lets see if the American People agree with this pastor.
Are the American people going to buy into "God Damn America"?
I doubt it....
I'm a socialist, not a left-liberal. You'd be surprised at where we'd disagree. Otherwise you are making blanket charecterizations that are not useful.
yeah...so?
so was Koresh
so are the Mullahs
so was Mullah Omar as his Taliban executed women in football stadiums
so was Jim Jones
Irrelevant. Unlike those that you mention, this pastor has not called for anyone to be hurt or hurt themselves. You are making false parallels.
Do you really think that Christ would bless many of the actions that this country has taken?
To answer you question......
Which in and of itself is outrageous and proves my earlier "Blame America First" point is...YES.
I hope you meant to say "all" or "some".
But yes I think that Christ would bless "many" of the actions of this country.
For your information or what you & Michael Tee choose to believe "it ain't all bad".
In fact there are many great things this country has done.
Of course there are actions imo Christ would not bless.
But I think Christ would have problems with the actions of just about every country.
It isn't an "outrageous" question in any way. It is a perfectly legitimate question for a Christian to ask. In fact, we know from the Bible that nations are judged by Christ Himself, and judged on how well they treat their poor and their prisoners. How can a question Christ asks ever be outrageous?
Whats funny/ironic...is here is this guy "damning America", but thats the same country that
is about to elect the black candidate he supports! If Obama is elected
most of his support will come from whites. "Damn white America they be those
donating and voting for Obama by the millions to be President of this damn whitey America!". ::)
Speaking of racist comments...
[/quote]
-
Wright isn't running.
Obama is.
When Obama urges people to sing "god damn america" we might have a problem. Until then this is just gotcha gaming.
-
I can't see where this pastor is being a racist. Nor can I see where he's dealing in falsehoods.
That's because I'm not being specific to just this 1 article. I'm referencing the Pastor in his totality. Quotes like:
"When [Obama's] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli [to visit Moammar Khadafy] with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell."
2 years after 911, ?In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11. White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ?disappeared,? as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns.?
Has said that Zionism has an element of "white racism."
His Church's Trumpeter Magazine (published and edited by Wright's daughter) last year presented to Louis Farrakhan, whom it said "truly epitomized greatness". Wright himself has praised Farrakhan's "integrity and honesty."
And what are some of the things this "great man of integrity" has said?
- ?They call (Hezbollah) terrorists, I call them freedom fighters. No one asks why they would do such a thing. Why would they do such a thing? What has driven them to this point? That?s what the UN, the U.S. and Europe doesn?t want to deal with because the Zionists have control in England, in Europe, in the United States and around the world.?
- ?The white man is our mortal enemy, and we cannot accept him. I will fight to see that vicious beast go down into the lake of fire prepared for him from the beginning, that he never rise again to give any innocent black man, woman or child the hell that he has delighted in pouring on us for 400 years.?
- ?Hitler was a very great man. He wasn?t great for me as a Black man but he was a great German and he rose Germany up from the ashes of her defeat by the united force of all of Europe and America after the first World War.?
- ?Now, that nation of Israel, never has had any peace in forty years and she will never have any peace because there can never be any peace structured on injustice, thievery, lying and deceit and using the name of God to shield your dirty religion under His holy and righteous name.?
- ?Do you know some of these satanic Jews have taken over BET?? Everything that we built, they have. The mind of Satan now is running the record industry, movie industry and television. And they make us look like we?re the murderers; we look like we?re the gangsters, but we?re punk stuff.?
- ?This Koran says that the Jews have altered the word of God out of its place. They did not want the masters of the people to know what Jesus really said, what Moses really said, because then you wouldn?t have a yardstick to measure their deviations.?
- ?The Jews don?t like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that?s a good name. Hitler was a very great man. He rose Germany up from the ashes.?
And let's not forget the Good Reverend's Black value system. It's that Forest/Tree thing again, Js
-
Wright isn't running. Obama is. When Obama urges people to sing "god damn america" we might have a problem. Until then this is just gotcha gaming.
He's a Democrat, so you're absolutely on the mark, Bt. However, if Obama were running as a Republican, this would be 24/7 non-stop MSM "news". And I think we both know that. Look at all the guff Trent lott got for a simple birthday snafu comment. Drove him right out of his leadership position. Bush simply spoke at Bob Jones, and insitution that had changed its policies, but was roundly condemned by the left and NAACP. Yes, it's politics as ususal, and yes, Obama is running, not Wright. But most of us also acknowledge the pass that Democrats frequently get, that the GOP is routinely condemned for
-
The same thing is happening with McCain. Demands he denounce some Ohio preacher who said something someone took exception to.
I just think it's silly.
-
Remember, the left has a cow when Republicans speak at Bob Jones University. They didn't attend the university, their children don't attend, they don't make monetary contributions, they gave a speech there. That's it.
Barack Obama has a been a parishoner at this church for 20 years. He has supported it by attending regularly, he has supported it monetarily, and considers the pastor a mentor. This pastor and what he preaches is racist as hell. There can be no denying it. Obama's on going support can lead to only one conclusion, he believes what is preached there, therefore he is a racist himself.
Now remember this also, the left doesn't care. They came to Clinton's defense, they came to Spitzers defense, and they have come to this racist pastors defense. Why? Because they are democrats. that's all that matters. The ends ALWAYS justify the means.
After hearing more of what this racist pastor Wright has said, Obama should quit the race. Between his wife and his pastor, you'll never convince me he doesn't harbor the EXACT same views.
-
The same thing is happening with McCain. Demands he denounce some Ohio preacher who said something someone took exception to. I just think it's silly.
Is that preacher McCain's mentor? His "spiritual advisor"?
-
"The same thing is happening with McCain.
Demands he denounce some Ohio preacher who said something
someone took exception to"
No where near the same thing.
That guy was not McCain's preacher.
That guy didn't presided over McCain's wedding and baptize two McCain daughters
That guy was not a McCain mentor.
That guy was not mentioned by McCain in a debate as being a McCain advisor.
McCain doesn't even know the guy.
The guy claims he met McCain once at some political function.
And McCain immediately came out and denounced what the guy said.
NOT THE SAME!
Come on BT ::) you don't need to pretend this is ok in order
to pacify the left that is threatening to quit 3DHS. Don't worry,
they ain't gonna quit, and if they do it will because they cant
defend the undefendable which is liberalism.
-
You know, after I posted my response to Bt, I too realized, it's no where near the same thing. In fact, it reinforces the points already being made. Hear, Bt references calls by McCain to denounce some minister in Ohio, yet dead silence by any of the MSM outlets for calls by Obama to denounce his own Pastor's clearly hyperbolic (if not racist) rhetoric. One is Republican the other Democrat. Guess which one is which
-
Come on BT Roll Eyes you don't need to pretend this is ok in order
to pacify the left that is threatening to quit 3DHS. Don't worry,
they ain't gonna quit, and if they do it will because they cant
defend the undefendable which is liberalism.
Oh Please. You aren't some superhero suited up to fight the darkside. You are a poster on this forum, same as those with a left leaning persuasion. And they have the same right to express their opinions as you do.
McCain is being slammed because a pastor at some megachurch endorsed him and he won't denounce him. Lanya posted about it. You are demanding Obama do the same. I really don't see the difference.
And i really think the guilt by association gambit is silly.
Obama has no more control over his pastor than i do of you.
Obama probably goes to that church because his wife wants him to. And come pillow time she holds the trump cards.
-
I'm a socialist, not a left-liberal.
Like that really matters in the context of my statement. ::)
You'd be surprised at where we'd disagree.
I doubt it.
Otherwise you are making blanket charecterizations that are not useful.
yeah sure....btw is that the way you spell characterizations?
Irrelevant. Unlike those that you mention, this pastor has not called for anyone to be hurt or hurt themselves. You are making false parallels.
Nope. I am making the point that it does not matter if someone is making points
for religious reasons or based on religion. They can still be just as wrong....
so saying it was him speaking about his religion is a valueless statement. Again "SO?".
It isn't an "outrageous" question in any way.
It is outrageous to question..... as if there are not many..... if there are many actions that Christ would approve that this country has taken?
That would be an extreme position that only a tiny fraction of the American people would agree with.
But I like for leftist to take extreme positions out of mainstream American thought.
There are countless, countless actions this country has taken that are Christ-like.
But in your rush to "blame America first" you are blinded to reality.
In fact, we know from the Bible that nations are judged by Christ Himself, and judged on how well they treat their poor and their prisoners.
Yes and we treat our poor and our prisoners better than most....but please do not bore me with what you think Christ thinks or what you think Christ makes judgements on.....Obama's preacher thinks he knows what Christ thinks too......so what?.....All the different Christian denominations think they know what Christ thinks and wants too....so what?.....so when you say "we know"......who knows? you know?....LOL....yeah sure.....You may know for you.....but you dont know for me any more than my garbage man does.
How can a question Christ asks ever be outrageous?
Christ didn't ask, you did.
Speaking of racist comments...
Here comes the demonization!
Gosh you guys are sooooooooo predictable.
Disagree with a leftist and get ready for the "ooops you must be a racist".
It shows such a shallow understanding of the issues to have to run to the "you're a racist" tag.
-
It's nothing at all like McCain and some jerk off who came out in support of him. If that was so bad, we can point to bin Laden endorsing John Kerry and all the terrorists speaking in glowing terms about Obama.
Obama has a big problem here. Democrats are being divided along racial lines. This can't be good for them, and it won't be good for America if Obama is the nominee. I used to think Mrs. Clinton would be the easiest to beat, but now I think McCain can beat either on of them.
-
I doesn't make one damned bi of difference what Obama's preacher said or didn't say: he is not running for president. Having heard this would have zero difference on how Obama might act if elected.
This is a total non-issue.
I'm a LOT more worried about McCain singing "bomb, bomb, bomb,
bomb, bomb Iran."
-
I doesn't make one damned bi of difference what Obama's preacher (& mentor & spiritual leader) said
Well of course.....Obama's a Democrat. d'uh
-
Leftist continuously trash Catholics for what the Church preaches. They particularly attack the Church on it's opposition to abortion.
Leftists trash followers of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and anyone who they claim follows fundamentalist beliefs
But Rev. Wright's racist, anti-American teachings have no effect on their opinion of Obama.
There seems to be no end to leftist hypocrisy.
-
Obama has a big problem here. Democrats are being divided along racial lines. This can't be good for them, and it won't be good for America if Obama is the nominee. I used to think Mrs. Clinton would be the easiest to beat, but now I think McCain can beat either on of them.
I agree . Hillary is doing a superb job of playing the race card. Even the stories about Wright are probably being bumped to the top of the headlines by her surrogates and friends. Her last best chance is to win PA and she is reminding the blue collars that Obama is not one of them.
I guess it is entertaining watching it but i doubt i'll participate in widening the racial divide. I'll leave that to the dems. They have a long and storied history of it.
-
I doesn't make one damned bi of difference what Obama's preacher said or didn't say: he is
not running for president. Having heard this would have zero difference on how Obama might
act if elected. This is a total non-issue.
Number one it isn't "said or didn't say".
He did say it, it's on tape.
Number two, so it's not an issue?
I am sure if Tom Delay was running for President it would not be an issue if his close mentor and pastor was Pat Robertson.
Like you would'nt bring that up?
Yeah sure XO. ::)
.
-
Leftist continuously trash Catholics for what the Church preaches. They particularly attack the Church on it's opposition to abortion.
Leftists trash followers of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and anyone who they claim follows fundamentalist beliefs
But Rev. Wright's racist, anti-American teachings have no effect on their opinion of Obama.
There seems to be no end to leftist hypocrisy.
-=================================================
I think there is a BIG difference between trashing someone for THEIR wacko beliefs and trashing them for their supposed supporters wacko beliefs.
You say "spiritual leader and mentor" as though this were some sort of official position, but you know damn well that it isn't.
Watch and see what the people say on election day-- that's the only really important issue.
As for Tom Asshole Delay, the guy is so effing corrupt it hardly matters what his preacher says. He is scum already, one does not need to explain how his "spiritual leader and mentor" might contaminate him with more scum.
Hillary has a perfect right to say whatever the poo she wishes. The voters will decide how to interpret it.
99% of this election horseshit is totally unrelated to how the person will serve when elected, and it isn't worth the electrons to blather on about it.
-
Number two, so it's not an issue?
I am sure if Tom Delay was running for President it would not be an issue if his close mentor and pastor was Pat Robertson.
Like you would'nt bring that up?
Yeah sure XO. Roll Eyes.
And if he did? Is that how you defend your actions or condemn his?
Wright really isn't an issue. he's an opportunity.
-
Yes and we treat our poor and our prisoners better than most....but please do not bore me with what you think Christ thinks or what you think Christ makes judgements on.....Obama's preacher thinks he knows what Christ thinks too......so what?.....All the different Christian denominations think they know what Christ thinks and wants too....so what?.....so when you say "we know"......who knows? you know?....LOL....yeah sure.....You may know for you.....but you dont know for me any more than my garbage man does.
I don't belong to a church with "all the different Christian denominations. I belong to The Church. Otherwise it pays to pick up your Bible every once in a while if you really want to know what Christ teaches and read the Gospels. There's no point in discussing it if you don't bother to take that initial step.
Christ didn't ask, you did.
Read Matthew.
Speaking of racist comments...
Here comes the demonization!
Gosh you guys are sooooooooo predictable.
Disagree with a leftist and get ready for the "ooops you must be a racist".
It shows such a shallow understanding of the issues to have to run to the "you're a racist" tag.
I'm not going to get into this as I want to show some support of Bt's call that we make this place about substantive debate.
-
Leftist continuously trash Catholics for what the Church preaches. They particularly attack the Church on it's opposition to abortion.
Leftists trash followers of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and anyone who they claim follows fundamentalist beliefs
But Rev. Wright's racist, anti-American teachings have no effect on their opinion of Obama.
There seems to be no end to leftist hypocrisy.
I find that the right wing is just as quick to condemn Catholicism as the left, if not more so. This is especially true of extreme free market capitalist folks and evangelical Protestants. Remember that the life ethic is not only concerning abortion, but contraception, capital punishment, euthenasia, and any other attack upon human dignity, which includes torture.
-
It is of absolutely NO importance whether any future president denounces or refuses to denounce any preacher or whatever. Being a leader is not based on who one denounces.
Bill Clinton was in no way a better or worse president because he publically disagreed with the long-forgotten hiphop rapper known as Sista Soljah. Nor was Olebush one bit better or worse because of his dumbass attacks on the ACLU in 1988.
Once these presidents were elected, Sista Soljah and the ACLU as actual politically important issues vanished, which ois precisely what should have occurred.
All this, especially including the demented suggestion that in some alternate zombie universe Tom DeLay would run for president and (horrors!) I would presumably denounce him for agreeing with his preacher (did he even have a preacher?) is just so much mindless idiotic puerile blahblahblah.
-
It is of absolutely NO importance whether any future president denounces or refuses to denounce any preacher or whatever. Being a leader is not based on who one denounces.
Bill Clinton was in no way a better or worse president because he publically disagreed with the long-forgotten hiphop rapper known as Sista Soljah. Nor was Olebush one bit better or worse because of his dumbass attacks on the ACLU in 1988.
Once these presidents were elected, Sista Soljah and the ACLU as actual politically important issues vanished, which ois precisely what should have occurred.
All this, especially including the demented suggestion that in some alternate zombie universe Tom DeLay would run for president and (horrors!) I would presumably denounce him for agreeing with his preacher (did he even have a preacher?) is just so much mindless idiotic puerile blahblahblah.
I agree. I think a lot of it stems from these two notions:
1. If X does not denounce Y, then X = Y.
2. I think Sirs made the statement that "there must be a lot of churches in the community." The notion of "church hopping" until you find a church you agree with is a modern (primarily Protestant Christian) idea. It is born from individualism where a moral philosophy must be acceptable to the individual and not where the individual must be challenged by a moral philosophy.
The problems are these:
#1 is simply false logic. If XO is silent about CPUSA, it doesn't mean he automatically is a member. Nor does it mean the opposite, i.e. that he hates everything about them. Neither is a logical conclusion without more detail.
-
It has been said that Negro racism is oximoronic because there must be an element of power to enable racism. Thus the powerless would not be racist no metter their attitude .
The Reverend Wright would be a freind of the president if Obama wins , so could he be automaticdly converted ?
-
"I don't belong to a church with "all the different Christian denominations.
I belong to The Church"
What does that mean?
My point is still the same no matter what church you belong to.
The Christian faith has many denominations.
Even a non-denominational church is making a statement in and of itself.
The point being all the demoninations have a "different twist".
They come to a slightly different conclusion.
I suppose each of them think they have "found the way".
Hey whatever works for them or you.
People that spend their whole lives studying the bible don't agree.
"Otherwise it pays to pick up your Bible every once in a while if you really
want to know what Christ teaches and read the Gospels"
I have and do.
And I come to a different conclusion than you do.
But hey whatever works for you.
I tend to be pretty open-minded on people's spirituality unless
their religion motivates them to kill me like many in Islam want to do
because I am an "infidel".
"There's no point in discussing it if you don't bother to take that initial step"
I suggest you should quit ASSuming things you know nothing about.
Read Matthew
What like this?:
"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you"
Obviosuly translates into non-government help for people.
How could government help be a "secret".
No JS you cant do it the easy way.
You can't steal my money and give it the poor
and then feel all "warm & fuzzy" about yourself.
As you see thats not what Christ wants.
He doesn't want people forced by leftist governments.
He wants it to come from the heart.
Or maybe this?
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged"
Maybe you should refrain from calling people racist you know very little about.
Maybe you should not assume the worst until you know more of the story.
btw: Do you believe this statement in Matthew?
Matthew 19:9 "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife,
except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
I'm not going to get into this as I want to show some support of Bt's
call that we make this place about substantive debate.
Oh but it's substantive to call/imply someone a racist you know very little about
and obviously can not back up.
But hey thats a great new cop-out for the Leftist.
Call somebody a racist and then pretend "your above it all".
-
And if he did?
It would prove my point.
Is that how you defend your actions or condemn his?
Defend my actions?
I don't have anything to defend.
I didn't say "God Damn America" or attend a church that proclaims such.
Yes it is one way to expose XO's bliind partisionship and prove my point.
Wright really isn't an issue. he's an opportunity
Yeah sure he isn't an issue.
If Hitler was his pastor I guess it still wouldn't be an issue?
Well we'll see if he is an issue won't we?
I agree Wright is an opportunity to prove my point.
-
I agree Wright is an opportunity to prove my point.
I think you missed my point.
-
I think you missed my point.
Ok sorry, that is easy to do on the internet.
-
What does that mean?
My point is still the same no matter what church you belong to.
The Christian faith has many denominations.
Even a non-denominational church is making a statement in and of itself.
The point being all the demoninations have a "different twist".
They come to a slightly different conclusion.
I suppose each of them think they have "found the way".
Hey whatever works for them or you.
People that spend their whole lives studying the bible don't agree.
I'm Catholic, we do not have denominations. That is solely a Protestant phenomena. Your last sentence is correct, but theological discussions still have merit. The multiplicity of thought does not render theology useless, nor does it make all Biblical theory equivalent.
I suggest you should quit ASSuming things you know nothing about.
An educated guess and I don't think it was that far off.
"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you"
Obviosuly translates into non-government help for people.
How could government help be a "secret".
A bizarre conclusion from A to B, but perhaps 2 Peter 1:20 is something you should read?
Maybe you should refrain from calling people racist you know very little about.
Maybe you should not assume the worst until you know more of the story.
If you read my comment I never said that you were racist. I said that your comment was racist, and it was.
btw: Do you believe this statement in Matthew?
Matthew 19:9 "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife,
except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
Yes.
I'm not going to get into this as I want to show some support of Bt's
call that we make this place about substantive debate.
Oh but it's substantive to call/imply someone a racist you know very little about
and obviously can not back up.
::)
Read before going into full victim mode please.
But hey thats a great new cop-out for the Leftist.
Call somebody a racist and then pretend "your above it all".
When I speak on Israel I repeatedly get called anti-Semitic and last time was told that I "wished to complete what Hitler started." So don't get too wrapped up in your victimhood.
-
I think Sirs made the statement that "there must be a lot of churches in the community." The notion of "church hopping" until you find a church you agree with is a modern (primarily Protestant Christian) idea. It is born from individualism where a moral philosophy must be acceptable to the individual and not where the individual must be challenged by a moral philosophy. The problems are these: #1 is simply false logic. If XO is silent about CPUSA, it doesn't mean he automatically is a member. Nor does it mean the opposite, i.e. that he hates everything about them. Neither is a logical conclusion without more detail.
Let me put it this way, Js. If a person attends a particular church, they attend largely because of the spiritual connection & growth they believe they're getting from it. (yea, yea, and maybe the wife makes you go) Point being if a pastor is presenting exceedingly hyperbolic, when not racist rhetoric, one has a choice.....leave to find a new congregation or not. To Denounce said over-the top rhetoric, or not
Now, what would be the reasons for leaving and/or denouncing? Already apparent, the leader of "your" congregation (read; NOT some minister from some distant state who you know nothing of) is facilitating racist dialogue, and injecting politics within the realm of what's supposed to remain spiritual
Now, what would be the reasons for staying and/or not denouncing? There are many, and wideranging
- You agree with his rhetoric
- You don't wish to anger the pastor you chose to preside over your wedding
- You don't wish to anger your wife, who's making you go to church
- (add your own)
In any case, the latter staying scenarions demonstrates (to me) some serious problems Obama would have, as my President. That he actually supports the racist and Ant-american mindset would be the worst case scenario. But that he doesn't have the fortitude and conviction to face his pastor and tell him that his comments are wrong, that a segregated society is wrong, that advocating a Black value system over a more general moral value system is wrong
Yes, Wright isn't running for President, and if there weren't such an overt double standard in the MSM, this would not & should not be an issue. But since we all know that if this were a Republican, the fit would be hitting the shan. So as such, I'm going to be throwing this up from time to time
-
I wonder, if upon returning home from Sunday services, if Mr. & Mrs. Obama sit down with their daughters and tell them to ignore all that racist nonsense they just heard?
-
I wonder, if upon returning home from Sunday services, if Mr. & Mrs. Obama sit down with their daughters and tell them to ignore all that racist nonsense they just heard?
My guess is Obama does, since he and his children are partially white.
Unless they are into self loathing.
-
rich look at this
Obama's "Blame America First" Pastor: The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.
"We started the AIDS virus . . . We are only able to maintain our level of living
by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty. . . ."
-
I'm Catholic, we do not have denominations. That is solely a Protestant phenomena. Your last sentence is correct, but theological discussions still have merit. The multiplicity of thought does not render theology useless, nor does it make all Biblical theory equivalent.
And Catholicism is demonination of Christianty.
-
A bizarre conclusion from A to B,
Bizarre? How so?
It clearly states repeatedly that it should be done "in secret".
How could forced charity through government be "in secret".
What is bizarre is for you to think forcing people to do charity
is somehow what Christ had in mind.
but perhaps 2 Peter 1:20 is something you should read?
Perhaps you should get Matthew down first before urging others
to read what you obviously don't grasp.
-
If you read my comment I never said that you were racist.
Oh quit playing games
I said that your comment was racist, and it was.
No it was not.
Please prove how it is racist?
-
"yes"
So if a man divorces a wife that has turned away from God,
a wife that lives a sinful life, a wife that is a thief,
a wife that abuses his children, a wife that is a crack head
and he remarries, he is committing adultery?
-
I wonder if the Hillary machine is behind the
timing of the Obama Pastor Scandal?
(http://i29.tinypic.com/2u7sxw2.gif)
-
It wouldn't be beneath them, though as I've already referenced, this isn't getting anywhere NEAR the publicity & MSM attention it would, if this were McCain's pastor
-
I'm Catholic, we do not have denominations. That is solely a Protestant phenomena. Your last sentence is correct, but theological discussions still have merit. The multiplicity of thought does not render theology useless, nor does it make all Biblical theory equivalent.
And Catholicism is demonination of Christianty.
No it isn't. As I said, denominations are a Protestant phenomena. Catholicism and Orthodoxism are very similar and represented a schism. There is not the wide and very bizarre range of beliefs that encompass Protestantism.
-
A bizarre conclusion from A to B,
Bizarre? How so?
It clearly states repeatedly that it should be done "in secret".
How could forced charity through government be "in secret".
What is bizarre is for you to think forcing people to do charity
is somehow what Christ had in mind.
but perhaps 2 Peter 1:20 is something you should read?
Perhaps you should get Matthew down first before urging others
to read what you obviously don't grasp.
If you read the latter you'll know why I'm ignoring your advice. Which is notably not given in a charitable nature.
-
"yes"
So if a man divorces a wife that has turned away from God,
a wife that lives a sinful life, a wife that is a thief,
a wife that abuses his children, a wife that is a crack head
and he remarries, he is committing adultery?
Yes, he must first get his marriage annulled then he may seek another relationship.
-
SIRS it is starting to get some traction.
It's all over the news now.
MSNBC & CNBC were talking alot about it this morning.
The Wall Street Journal has big feature on it today.
LA Times has it.
ABC News.
The New York Times
(http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa56/USA2008/Politics/BarackObamaRevJeremiahWright-NFH.jpg)
-
Wright really isn't an issue. he's an opportunity
Yeah sure he isn't an issue.
If Hitler was his pastor I guess it still wouldn't be an issue?
Well we'll see if he is an issue won't we?
===========================================================================
If your grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bicycle.
By being an issue, I mean that listening to some guy in church once a week or whenever does not turn anyone, particularly an educated person like Obama, into some sort of mindless droid zombie.
Of course, if there were a sufficient quantity of yutzes like you in this country, it might be seen as an issue by said yutses.
But it still would have no real bearing on how Obama did his job as president when elected.
-
"No it isn't. As I said, denominations are a Protestant phenomena"
(http://www.currybet.net/images/blog2007/20070818_wikipedia.gif)
Religious denomination
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Major denominations and religions of the world, a religious denomination (also simply denomination) is a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition and identity.
The term is frequently used to describe various Christian denominations (for example, Eastern Orthodox, Catholicism, and the many varieties of Protestantism or Restorationism).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_denomination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_denomination)
-
So if a man divorces a wife that has turned away from God,
a wife that lives a sinful life, a wife that is a thief,
a wife that abuses his children, a wife that is a crack head
and he remarries, he is committing adultery?
"Yes, he must first get his marriage annulled then he may seek another relationship"
Annullled by who?
Also where does it say anything about annullment in Matthew?
-
I mean that listening to some guy in church once a week or whenever does not turn anyone, particularly an educated person like Obama, into some sort of mindless droid zombie.
Unless of course, their ideology is on the right, and they're listening to some guy on the radio once a week or whatever. Then that's exactly what they are, right Xo?
-
It wouldn't be beneath them, though as I've already referenced, this isn't getting anywhere NEAR the publicity & MSM attention it would, if this were McCain's pastor
---------------------------------------------------------------------\
So what if it were revealed that McCain was actually a species of reptile from beyond Antares?
Would that get as much attention as if Obama were a member of a collective of axolotls from Planet Koozbane?
And what would this prove?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What on Earth is the point of your ridiculous speculation on unreal events and situations?
Why are you wasting so many innocent electrons and blameless pixes on wacko nonexistent theories?
What on Earth is your point?
-
When you choose to attend a church, why do you do it?
Do you do it so you can sit in your pew with your family thinking, "Boy, is this guy a yutz. I can hardly wait to get out of here and explain to my children what a yutz he is." Then do it all over again next week?
No.
Protestants have an advantage in this respect. They can fire a pastor. They can find another church that is more in line with their non-racist beliefs. Or they can start their own church.
But no. Obama dragged his family to that Church for 20 years. He had Wright baptize his children. He contributed money to that church. There can only be one conclusion; he agrees with what the church teaches. It's at least apparent that his wife does, and after being married for 21 years I can assure that if his wife does, he does.
Leftists who are dismissing this or apologizing for it are intellectually dishonest at the least and racist at worst. How can they be racist? Why that's what Black folks do don't ya know. It's not their fault, they don't really mean it. Its just how they are. we shouldn't expect anything else."
No, this man Wright has been a driving force in Obama's development and to deny that is dishonest.
-
So what if it were revealed that McCain was actually a species of reptile from beyond Antares?
Would that get as much attention as if Obama were a member of a collective of axolotls from Planet Koozbane?
And what would this prove?.
It would prove your acute disconnection to current events, and dare I say, reality. ::)
What on Earth is the point of your ridiculous speculation on unreal events and situations?
Who Obama's spiritual leader and mentor is, is no speculation. It's real, it's tangible, it's FACTUAL. And opposed to your nonsensical out-of body response, is relevent to current issues and events
-
"No it isn't. As I said, denominations are a Protestant phenomena"
(http://www.currybet.net/images/blog2007/20070818_wikipedia.gif)
Religious denomination
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Major denominations and religions of the world, a religious denomination (also simply denomination) is a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition and identity.
The term is frequently used to describe various Christian denominations (for example, Eastern Orthodox, Catholicism, and the many varieties of Protestantism or Restorationism).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_denomination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_denomination)
Ah, well if Wikipedia says so...
-
So if a man divorces a wife that has turned away from God,
a wife that lives a sinful life, a wife that is a thief,
a wife that abuses his children, a wife that is a crack head
and he remarries, he is committing adultery?
"Yes, he must first get his marriage annulled then he may seek another relationship"
Annullled by who(m)?
Also where does it say anything about annullment in Matthew?
Annulled by the Church.
If you really want to understand it, I'll endeavor to explain it. If you're just trying to use it in some way, then I'm not going to because it is complicated and often misunderstood.
The bottom line is that yes, if a man or woman divorces and remarries without an annulment then it is adultery.
-
If you read the latter (2 Peter 1:20) you'll know why I'm ignoring your advice.
Have you ever had a discussion about some Biblical passage or topic in which the person with whom you were speaking abruptly ended the conversation with the words ?That?s just your interpretation?? Or maybe they said ?Well, that?s just your opinion? or ?You?ve got your opinion on that, and I?ve got mine.? If you have talked to others about the Bible much at all, odds are good you have had such things said to you, perhaps often. The pluralistic religious landscape in our country is quite full of this concept.
Have you ever used 2 Peter 1:20 as a reply to that? Peter said ?But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.? Some people think this statement by Peter is the perfect retort to ?that?s just your interpretation.? On the surface it appears that Peter is saying that there is no such thing as ?your interpretation? or ?my interpretation? of the Bible, there?s just what the Bible says and that?s that. No one, the passage says, is allowed the comfort of a private, personal interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is not to be read in such a way that it is made to conform to our opinions and assumptions; instead, we must conform to what it says.
But is that really what 2 Peter 1:20 is saying? Let?s take a closer look at this whole business.
Let?s begin with the more general matter of different interpretations. To some people, ?interpretation? is actually a bad word because it has unnecessarily become associated with subjectivism and the pluralistic mentality which asserts that the Bible is basically unintelligible, that opinions (interpretations) are all we can hope to have when it comes to the Bible and religious matters, and that since the Bible is unintelligible in the first place, all opinions (interpretations) about what the Bible means are equally valid. Some interpretations of the Bible may have such an attitude behind them, but the fact is that we cannot escape the business of interpreting the Bible. Even those who claim that all they do is let the Bible speak for themselves engage in an interpretive process (although they are probably unaware of it themselves).
Is the Bible basically unintelligible? Not at all. The Bible is eminently understandable. It makes this very claim for itself (Eph 3:4). But the question everyone who picks up a Bible eventually faces (whether they address it explicitly or not) is: what does this mean? The moment we begin to inquire about the meaning of any part of the Bible, or even of the Bible as a whole, we have asked the first question in the process of interpretation. And when we begin to say ?I think the Bible means this? or ?I think this passage is saying that,? we have produced an interpretation, like it or not.
Engaging in the process of interpretation is not an evil thing. I will reassert that everyone who picks up a Bible and wonders to any degree what the text means is already involved in an interpretive process. Anyone who has any opinion about what the Bible teaches has arrived at an interpretation of the Bible. The real question is: is this the right interpretation? Is my interpretation correct? Is the interpretation at which I have arrived the one that makes the very best sense of what is written? Does the interpretation I have produced fit the Biblical data without distorting it in any way (that is, without twisting words, without leaving data out, without reading foreign ideas into it, etc.)?
Consider, if you will, that the interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures was one of the key issues upon which Christianity was founded. The early Christians, who had learned from Jesus himself, believed and taught that the Hebrew Scriptures spoke of the demise of the Levitical sacrificial system centered in the tabernacle and temple, that those Scriptures predicted the coming of Jesus of Nazareth into the world, that they predicted his death, burial and resurrection, and that they spoke of the resurrected Jesus as the king over God?s kingdom. Many of the Jews disagreed with that vehemently. That is, one of the greatest differences between Judaism and Christianity was their interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Christianity is itself an interpretation of those Scriptures, and it claims to be the right interpretation.
Interpretation is unavoidable when handling the Bible, and the early Christians themselves were interpreters (whose interpretation was viewed as radical by the Jews) of the Jewish Scriptures. Peter was not, therefore, condemning interpretation wholesale in 2 Peter 1:20. Read Peter?s letters and what you will see there is an interpretation of the life of Christ. Because Peter was an apostle guided by the Holy Spirit, we can be assured that his interpretation of the story of Jesus was correct. But it was an interpretation nonetheless.
So what does 2 Peter 1:20 mean (note that this is itself an interpretive question!)? Consider the context. Peter is there talking about the prophets of Old Testament times. This is clear from verse 19, in which Peter says ?we have the prophetic word made more sure.? What Peter means is that Jesus was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, and Peter himself was an eyewitness to this very fact. It was not that Peter had heard that Jesus fulfilled prophecies, but that Peter knew it from his own experience with Jesus.
How were the prophets of old able to predict with such astonishing clarity and accuracy the things about Jesus? Peter tells us plainly in verse 21: ?no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.? The Spirit of God revealed these things to them. They were not making guesses about the Messiah. In fact, they were not even making educated guesses. What they predicted was not a matter of them arriving at some interpretation of events they saw in their own day. This is what Peter means when he says ?no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.?
For example, the prophet Isaiah predicted the Babylonian captivity of Judah at a time when Babylon was not a military or political threat to anyone, nor was their any indication they would be some time later. In Isaiah?s time the Assyrians were waging wars of conquest over all of the Ancient Near East. If Isaiah had been guessing, or interpreting, what would happen to Judah based on the things that were going on around him, he would have predicted that the Assyrians would take the kingdom of Judah into captivity. But he did not. He accurately predicted that the Babylonians would do that, and that is exactly how it unfolded in history. This is because Isaiah was not interpreting the events of his day, looking for patterns in current events, as he spoke about the future of Judah. What he said about Judah he said from the Holy Spirit of God.
2 Peter 1:20, then, is about the prophets and how they made their predictions. It is not about the more general issue of interpreting the Bible. 2 Peter 1:10 is not about whether anyone must or can interpret the Bible.
So the next time someone says ?that?s just your interpretation,? instead of quoting 2 Peter 1:20 to them, invite them to investigate which interpretation (understanding, or reading) of the Bible is the right one.
http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-2-peter-1-20(3).htm (http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-2-peter-1-20(3).htm)
-
If you really want to understand it, I'll endeavor to explain it.
Thanks JS but I've had it "explained" many times.
And I don't buy it.
If you're just trying to use it in some way, then I'm not going to
because it is complicated and often misunderstood.
Yeah very "complicated" and not in Matthew.
I doubt Christ would make something so common so difficult and complicated.
Only men can do that.
Not buying it.
The bottom line is that yes, if a man or woman divorces
and remarries without an annulment then it is adultery
Respectfully "To each his/her own?
-
If you really want to understand it, I'll endeavor to explain it.
Thanks JS but I've had it "explained" many times.
And I don't buy it.
If you're just trying to use it in some way, then I'm not going to
because it is complicated and often misunderstood.
Yeah very "complicated" and not in Matthew.
I doubt Christ would make something so common so difficult and complicated.
Only men can do that.
Not buying it.
The bottom line is that yes, if a man or woman divorces
and remarries without an annulment then it is adultery
Respectfully "To each his/her own?
Your way is to completely ignore the words in Matthew. How is that an acceptable solution?
The Church is not built by man.
-
"Ah, well if Wikipedia says so..."
and
Websters Dictionary
denomination: a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denomination (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denomination)
and
History.com
http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=227134 (http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=227134)
and
About.com:
"Here you will find a detailed profile of the Roman Catholic denomination along with a brief history, beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic denomination.
http://christianity.about.com/od/romancatholicdenomination/Roman_Catholic_Denomination.htm (http://christianity.about.com/od/romancatholicdenomination/Roman_Catholic_Denomination.htm)
and
About.com:
The Roman Catholic Church denomination is the largest Christian group in the world today with more than a billion followers constituting about half of the world's Christian population.
http://christianity.about.com/od/denominations/p/catholicprofile.htm (http://christianity.about.com/od/denominations/p/catholicprofile.htm)
and
ReligiousFacts.com
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/denominations.htm (http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/denominations.htm)
-
"Your way is to completely ignore the words in Matthew"
And JS please tell me how in the world you would be able to know that?
It says "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left
hand know what your right hand is doing so that your giving
may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done
in secret, will reward you"
JS how do you know that I don't live the above quote more
completely than you do? How you can possibly judge others
without knowing them? Because I do not support "gvt charity" (oxymoron)
I am "ignoring" Matthew? Again that is your opinion, but it is not
the word of God. Thats all it can be JS because you are not God
and don't speak for God. The Bible speaks for the interpretation of
God we follow, and men follow the interpretation of that book
that they believe is true.
-
"Your way is to completely ignore the words in Matthew"
And JS please tell me how in the world you would be able to know that?
It says "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left
hand know what your right hand is doing so that your giving
may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done
in secret, will reward you"
JS how do you know that I don't live the above quote more
completely than you do? How you can possibly judge others
without knowing them? Because I do not support "gvt charity" (oxymoron)
I am "ignoring" Matthew? Again that is your opinion, but it is not
the word of God. Thats all it can be JS because you are not God
and don't speak for God. The Bible speaks for the interpretation of
God we follow, and men follow the interpretation of that book
that they believe is true.
I was speaking in regard to the issue of re-marrying.
With annulment there is no remarriage. There is only one legitimate marriage recognized by God. What you proposed is to ignore it altogether.
As for the passage you speak on, it is rather clear and had nothing to do with welfare. Christ was speaking primarily of the Pharisees, especially those who made a big deal of their charitable contributions (remember the story of the Pharisee and the tax collector praying at the temple?). I was once asked what I do for the poor on this board and I answered honestly, but I do not go around and make a big deal out of it. No one should and it is not a competition. Which is why it is odd when someone says, "Politician X gave $Y to charity last year!"
Saint Francis is perhaps the best model for Christ-like love for the poor and I'm rather sure that almost everyone falls short of his devotion.
-
I am going to agree that Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity. All Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are Catholic. Despite the fact that Catholic means 'universal', the Roman Catholic Church is not even the Universal Church of all Catholics, hence the word Roman (as opposed to Syrian, Orthodox, Coptic and other types of Catholics or groups more Catholic than Protestant.
------------------------------------------------------------------
This "do not let your right hand know what your left hand is doing" is just plain weird.
Neither hand knows diddly, only your head knows, and it knows what both hands are doing or you are seriously ill or impaired.
According to Jesus, You should give all you own to the poor and follow Jesus, but when you give it to them, you should somehow give it to them in secret, without making a big deal about it. I don't know about you, but of someone hands me something in a low voice and says "here, take this", I am gonna think it is stolen, and never legally belonged to the donor in the first place. I probably would not take it. I know I did turn down a chance to buy a nice set of tools for $5 from some crackhead who obviously jacked them from the Auto Parts Store on the corner. I doubt that he gave them back.
--Excuse me, sir, I can't help noticing that you are poor. Come here my good fellow
--Yeah?
--Here, take my worldly possessions. I won;t be needing them, because I am going to follow Jesus.
--OH THANK YOU! THANK YOU KIND SIR!!! GOD BLESS YOU!
---Shhhh! Keep it down! You will let my right hand know what my left hand is doing! I have to give you all this stuff in secret. Here, take my bed and mattress. Take my dinette set. Take my candleholders and fancy clothes and my extra pair of sandals.
---THANK YOU! GOD BLESS>>>
---Shhhh! Be quiet I tell you!
Apparently, although we must assume that Jesus fave disciple, Peter, gave all he owned to, well, someone, we do know that he owned a boat at one time, and there is no mention of who got Peter's boat, or if he even gave it to the poor. I find much of the NT rather, well, fishy, about stuff like this.
-
I was speaking in regard to the issue of re-marrying.
OK
With annulment there is no remarriage.
Says who?
There is only one legitimate marriage recognized by God.
Says who?
IMO God does not expect people to live in a fantasy land or in
an untenuous situation.
What you proposed is to ignore it altogether.
No it is to recognize reality.
To pretend the marriage never happened
when there are beautiful smiling children...gifts from God
from the marriage is in my mind ignoring reality.
As for the passage you speak on, it is rather clear
and had nothing to do with welfare.
Yes it does.
It speaks about charity and helping those in need.
Christ was speaking primarily of the Pharisees,
Oh then why is it in Matthew?
He is speaking to people today about giving.
I was once asked what I do for the poor on this board and I answered honestly, but I do not go around and make a big deal out of it. No one should and it is not a competition. Which is why it is odd when someone says, "Politician X gave $Y to charity last year!"
Agreed, but in my mind you appear to have an arrogant attitude that your way (socialism) is some
how the "moral high ground" and I do not accept that view.
Saint Francis is perhaps the best model for Christ-like love for the poor
and I'm rather sure that almost everyone falls short of his devotion.
I am sure he was a fine, fine man, I am not sure he did more for mankind
than *Bill Gates*, but we all have our road to travel.
-
I find much of the NT rather, well, fishy, about stuff like this.
Can you trasnlate?
What is "NT"?
ok...sorry
i'm at work at trying to juggle
you find the new testament fishy?
-
Can you trasnlate?
What is "NT"?
New Testament.
-
I can't see where this pastor is being a racist. Nor can I see where he's dealing in falsehoods.
Lemme add to the growing list, now that more of these choice hyperbolic quotes are presenting themselves
"We (America) started the AIDS virus . . . We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty. . . ."
"We've got more black men in prison than there are in college. Racism is alive and well. Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. No black man will ever be considered for president, no matter how hard you run Jesse [Jackson] and no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body."
"America is still the No. 1 killer in the world. . . . We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers . . . We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Ghadhafi . . . We put [Nelson] Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."
"When [Obama's] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli [to visit Moammar Khadafy] with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell."
"In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11. White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just "disappeared," as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns."
Has said that Zionism has an element of "white racism."
And let's not forget the Good Reverend's Black value system. It's that Forest/Tree thing again, Js
-
With annulment there is no remarriage.
Says who?
The Church
There is only one legitimate marriage recognized by God.
Says who?
God.
IMO God does not expect people to live in a fantasy land or in an untenuous situation.
Following Jesus is not done to make you comfortable. It a calling that is difficult and can be very painful. Christ told you that (as did Paul).
What you proposed is to ignore it altogether.
No it is to recognize reality.
To pretend the marriage never happened
when there are beautiful smiling children...gifts from God
from the marriage is in my mind ignoring reality.
Annulment is not "pretending it never happened" and the children are not considered illegitimate. I thought you said that someone explained this to you.
What you want is convenient Christianity. It doesn't work that way. Christ did not call his disciples to have them reshape his ministry into something convenient for everyone. His call was very radical for the time, and is probably even more so today.
As for the passage you speak on, it is rather clear
and had nothing to do with welfare.
Yes it does.
It speaks about charity and helping those in need.
Welfare is determined by a government. It is a policy developed by the state in a similar way as prisons, roads, and a military. Welfare economics is an invention of the 20th century, long after the time of Christ.
Christ was speaking primarily of the Pharisees,
Oh then why is it Matthew?
He is speaking to people today about giving.
Certainly, we should all have a hand in helping the poor, but it doesn't stop with just giving.
I was once asked what I do for the poor on this board and I answered honestly, but I do not go around and make a big deal out of it. No one should and it is not a competition. Which is why it is odd when someone says, "Politician X gave $Y to charity last year!"
Agreed, but in my mind you appear to have an arrogant attitude that your way (socialism) is some
how the "moral high ground" and I do not accept that view.
I'm not sure what your view of me has to do with anything else in this discussion.
Saint Francis is perhaps the best model for Christ-like love for the poor
and I'm rather sure that almost everyone falls short of his devotion.
I am sure he was a fine, fine man, I am not sure he did more for mankind
than *Bill Gates*, but we all have our road to travel.
As I said, it is not a competition.
-
I can't see where this pastor is being a racist. Nor can I see where he's dealing in falsehoods.
Lemme add to the growing list, now that more of these choice hyperbolic quotes are presenting themselves
"We (America) started the AIDS virus . . . We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty. . . ."
"We've got more black men in prison than there are in college. Racism is alive and well. Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. No black man will ever be considered for president, no matter how hard you run Jesse [Jackson] and no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body."
"America is still the No. 1 killer in the world. . . . We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers . . . We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Ghadhafi . . . We put [Nelson] Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."
"When [Obama's] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli [to visit Moammar Khadafy] with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell."
"In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11. White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just "disappeared," as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns."
Has said that Zionism has an element of "white racism."
And let's not forget the Good Reverend's Black value system. It's that Forest/Tree thing again, Js
Your forest/tree cliche is worth what you paid for it Sirs.
Explain to me what is racist about these quotes, other than this one:
When [Obama's] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli [to visit Moammar Khadafy] with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.
which does seem to have a racist tinge to it.
Tell me what is racist about the others, please.
-
Like I said Js....it's Forest/Trees. You can pick out certain quotes and claim "There's no racism there", which might be technically accurate, to THOSE specifics. When you take the totality of his comments, and add to that his "Black Value system", and segregatory mindset, you have a racist. He just happens to be black
-
Like I said Js....it's Forest/Trees. You can pick out certain quotes and claim "There's no racism there", which might be technically accurate, to THOSE specifics. When you take the totality of his comments, and add to that his "Black Value system", and segregatory mindset, you have a racist. He just happens to be black
There's no forest without trees.
Which statements are racist and why? You are calling the man a racist and posting quotes as proof. Surely you can explain why those quotes are evidence enough to support your allegation.
-
You can pick out certain quotes and claim "There's no racism there", which might be technically accurate, to THOSE specifics.
And by the way Sirs, you picked out the quotes and said there is racism there. Not me.
Please do not pin it back to me in the converse. The defense of your allegation is your burden, not mine.
-
Like I said Js....it's Forest/Trees. You can pick out certain quotes and claim "There's no racism there", which might be technically accurate, to THOSE specifics. When you take the totality of his comments, and add to that his "Black Value system", and segregatory mindset, you have a racist. He just happens to be black
There's no forest without trees.
And there are plenty of trees to be had. Let's see how fast I'm labeled a racist for pushing a White value system. Let's see how fast I'm labeled a racist to claiming that Blacks are the cause of all this country's ills. Hell, Trent Lott was labeled a racist simply because he complimented an old man, who had questionable racist suggestions, decades earlier
You can pretend he's not Js, and probably would still sleep ok. As for me, I've seen and heard plenty to recognize racist rhetoric. Even when it's a Black racist
-
You can pick out certain quotes and claim "There's no racism there", which might be technically accurate, to THOSE specifics.
And by the way Sirs, you picked out the quotes and said there is racism there. Not me.
Yea, the ones that had either racist rhetoric OR Anti-american rhetoric. At no time did I claim it was ALL referencing racism That was your flawed conclusion, not mine
-
says who? The Church
No it doesn't.
says who? God
No he doesn't.
-
Following Jesus is not done to make you comfortable.
Thats not a issue as far as I can see.
It a calling that is difficult and can be very painful. Christ told you that (as did Paul).
Sure, for some more difficult than others.
All know the way, but few walk it.
-
Annulment is not "pretending it never happened" and the children are not considered illegitimate.
I thought you said that someone explained this to you.
It has been explained many times.
Never to my satisfaction.
If it works for you, thats great.
But for me personally it's a bunch a baloney some men made up.
I don't buy it....but I respect it for you if it works for you.
What you want is convenient Christianity.
JS really I don't want anything.
I am quite comfortable in my own skin.
I am quite comfortable with my own spirituality.
I don't worry about it at all.
I know the way for me.
It's for me and no one else.
I am not trying to convince anyone that "my way" is their way.
IMO Each of us must find our own way.
It doesn't work that way. Christ did not call his disciples to have them reshape his ministry into something convenient for everyone. His call was very radical for the time, and is probably even more so today
see above
-
Welfare is determined by a government.
gvt=people
It is a policy developed by the state in a similar way as prisons, roads, and a military.
Welfare economics is an invention of the 20th century, long after the time of Christ.[/b]
JS I am sorry I am not following your point.
I mean obviously you must know that many things in todays world are inventions long after Christ
but that the Bible is written in a way to give meaning to things in todays world. So it doesn't
matter when "welfare" was invented, although I would think gvts were helping some of their
citizens throughour history. It doesn't matter if welfare is a post-Christ invention it is still
a form of helping people. And many of the passages we are discussing involve "helping people".
You and I just do not agree on the best way to do it.
-
Certainly, we should all have a hand in helping the poor, but it doesn't stop with just giving
Agreed a 1000 times over!
I'm not sure what your view of me has to do with anything else in this discussion.
Well I don't really mean it in a hurtful personal way if thats what you thought.
To me you are pretty typical of people that study religion and then think they
have all the answers. They think they discovered the secret! There is no secret!
ALL KNOW THE WAY, FEW WALK IT.
As I said, it is not a competition.
Exactly, thats why I said "we all have our road to travel"
and those of us that believe.....we'll be judged.
I am ready!
Are you?
;)