Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Jesus, The Name Above Every Name...Except Barack Obama's


UPDATE: CNS News says that it was at the request of the White House that the name of Jesus was removed.

Scandalous is the only word I can conjure to accurately describe the fact that Georgetown University removes the Holy Name of the Lord Jesus Christ from the archway above the dias to accomadate PSBO. This first hand account was written by Dawn over at The Dawn Patrol h/t to Robert of Can You Handle Truth for bringing this to my attention. Dawn writes:

At Georgetown University today, while sitting in the press section at Gaston Hall awaiting the arrival of President Obama for a "major address" on economics, I overheard a reporter discussing the advance text of the speech.

The reporter said that senior presidential adviser David Axelrod had compared Obama during his European trip to one planting seeds for a harvest. Along the same lines, he noted, in today's speech, Obama was set to use another Gospel analogy: that of the "house built upon a rock."

And so it came to pass, beneath Gaston Hall's beautiful painting of Morality, Faith, and Patriotism, with gold letters on the wall behind him spelling the Jesuit motto "Ad majorem Dei gloriam"—"To the greater glory of God"—Obama shared his prosperity gospel at the nation's oldest Catholic university.

But there was one thing missing: Jesus' name.

I'm not just talking about Obama's failing to mention Jesus—though he did pointedly fail to mention the name of the One—that is, for him, the other "One"—who first told the "parable" he shared.

No, Jesus' very name, in the form of the ancient monogram IHS, which had been in gold lettering on the wooden archway above Gaston Hall's dais, was painted over (or otherwise expertly camouflaged) prior to Obama's arrival. Apparently, the Name that is above every other name is not permitted to be above Obama.

The photo above shows the archway "before." You can see the "after" clearly in C-SPAN's video, as Georgetown President John DeGioia emerges to give his fawning introduction.

(I became aware of the cover-up after the speech, when it was pointed out by pro-life advocate Larry Cirignano in an e-mail forwarded to me. Whether Georgetown University initiated it or did it at the request of the White House is unknown at this time.)

As for Obama's address, here is how the most pro-abortion, pro-infanticide elected official in history appropriated the words of Our Saviour:



There is a parable at the end of the Sermon on the Mount that tells the
story of two men. The first built his house on a pile of sand, and it was
destroyed as soon as the storm hit. But the second is known as the wise man, for
when "…the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat
upon that house…it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock."We cannot rebuild
this economy on the same pile of sand. We must build our house upon a rock. We
must lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity – a foundation that will
move us from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest; where we consume less at home and send more exports abroad.



No mention of Jesus. It's just a parable about a house built upon a rock.

In Obama's hands, the words of Our Lord become just another way to tell the story of the Three Little Pigs.

He resumed the analogy as he capped off his speech:





There is no doubt that times are still tough. By no means are we out of
the woods just yet. But from where we stand, for the very first time, we are
beginning to see glimmers of hope. And beyond that, way off in the distance, we
can see a vision of an America’s future that is far different than our troubled
economic past. It’s an America teeming with new industry and commerce; humming with new energy and discoveries that light the world once more. A place where anyone from anywhere with a good idea or the will to work can live the dream they’ve heard so much about. It is that house upon the rock. Proud, sturdy, and unwavering in the face of the greatest storm. We will not finish it in one year
or even many, but if we use this moment to lay that new foundation; if we come
together and begin the hard work of rebuilding; if we persist and persevere
against the disappointments and setbacks that will surely lie ahead, then I have
no doubt that this house will stand and the dream of our founders will live on
in our time[Full text
here.]


When he had finished these words, the Georgetown crowd was astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes. (Source) - Emphasis added

This makes my heart sick.

138 comments:

Katrina said...

'When he had finished these words, the Georgetown crowd was astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.'

LOLLL I cracked up when I read that last line. But the truth is, there ain't a darn thing funny about this.

It continues to boggle my mind that Christians support this man's every decision and policy.

Disgusting.

DJ Black Adam said...

Oy Veh.

ziggy said...

We're in trouble folks. For those of you out there that believe in Christ, be ready to share him with others. We that build our house on the real "Rock" will be the wise men and the ones left standing. There's shaking going on, the wind and rain is coming. I don't think I'm exaggerating here. It's mourning time, America. I had a friend who calls herself a Christian tell me after election day, "God is Good" i.e. the fact that Obama got elected. Needless to say, I saw nothing to celebrate about. I was saddened and sobered.

Katrina, in reference to your comment, I can only believe that those who didn't have the spiritual eyes to see, are the ones who voted for this pompous socialist. Remember the parable of the 10 virgins... But regardless, May God have mercy on us all. I mean that. The things on the horizon aren't pretty. But to those out there who are saved by the blood - "stand still and see the salvation of the Lord".

DJ Black Adam said...

@Ziggy:

Please give chapter and verse that shows that the Holy Ghost was directing Christians to vote for McCain / Palin.

Southern Drawl said...

This is so sad. Can they not see, our nation is the house on shifting sand. We moved off the rock long ago when we began to systematically remove God from every part of our lives. Now the goal is to rewrite history so we are not a "Christian" nation anymore. Our leaders want us to trust and worship them. It is so much easier to control people when they can not and do not think for themselves.We have become all things to all people. Denying our heritage and our God.

DJ Black Adam said...

@Southern Drawl:

"Now the goal is to rewrite history so we are not a "Christian" nation anymore."

I'm sorry, when was this "democratic republic" a Christian nation exactly? When George Washington and Thomas Jefferson was sexing their black female slaves OR when Andrew Jackson was giving small pox to Indians?

Just asking.

Anonymous said...

This is getting any creepier. :(
Meg

ziggy said...

DJ Black Adam: There’s no scripture that tells us to vote for republicans. But being a Christian does give us a world-view that is illuminated by the truth in scripture. I cannot support Obama for glaring reasons. No candidate is perfect, but we have to support the one that comes the closest. We do have wisdom. The bible says that we are salt and light. Salt preserves. Light illuminates. What our president stands for is darkness and destruction. Here are some with scriptures that inform my position:

1. He’s pro-abortion: The scripture that most readily comes to mind is Psalm 139:15: “My frame was not hidden from you, When I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance being yet unformed, and in your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them. ---For me, this speaks to the fact that we are God’s creation in a personal sense. How dare someone terminate God’s work in progress. Killing a child prior to 9 months is the same as killing a 9 year old. It keeps the child from reaching 10 years old. It’s interrupting a life. Not only that, he’s for partial birth abortion and signed that bill that says that if a child is born alive after an abortion attempt, it should be left to die. That is quite monstrous.

2. The company Obama has kept worries me: He has connections to people I consider to be dangerous in their ideology-Reverend Wright, W. Ayers. Socialist bombers, or preachers of Liberation Theology, they are both wrong demon-inspired beliefs. Psalm 1:1 says: Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the path of sinners or sits in the seat of the scornful…1 Corinthians 15:33: Do not be deceived, evil company corrupts good habits. To me these scriptures tell us that we can assume that Obama might share the beliefs of these people since he has long-standing relationships with them. He’s been counseled by his pastor for over 20 years as he sat in his church. If Ayers can help Obama to get a house, they are friendly. Ayers’ crimes and viewpoints obviously didn’t repel our president. Saul Alinsky’s, (he of Rules for Radicals) son said this about Obama and his performance at the democratic convention, “"Barack Obama's training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness. It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well." Saul Alinsky by the way, was a socialist who wrote this in the dedication of his book, Rules for Radicals, "To the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer." So the son of an admirer of satan praises Obama? We are known by the company we keep and I submit, by those who approve of us. I won’t mention the dictators who approve of him.

ziggy said...

I oppose Socialism: It is not a coincidence that Socialist states forbid religion and Christianity is virulently opposed. It’s a system that reveres the State as an all powerful, all providing entity. Under this system, dependence on God for provision is supplanted by the state with their promise of provision for everyone. God given gifts and talents cannot be exercised in a Socialist state. Marx defines communism (which is socialism)as the abolition of private property. All of scripture uphold the notion of private property. How can we give and provide to the poor if we don’t own private property? Why would God in the 10 commandments tell us not to covet our neighbor’s goods? “We should not covet his house,…nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.” This to me, implies ownership. Try Exodus 21:33: If a man opens a pit , or if a man digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or a donkey falls in it, the owner of the pit shall make it good; he shall give money to their owner, but the dead animal shall be his.” Again, God established rules of ownership for the Israelites. These are rules that God has established, any ideology that denies this is satanic. History teaches us the results of all Socialist, Communist governments. They fail. Those failures are not nice things, and they are monumental failures on every level. We can see by the study of secular, recent history, that Socialism is dangerous. It accomplishes all that the bible tells us that satan comes to do, that is, to “steal, kill, and to destroy.” To Steal liberty, property, kill: human potential, destroy: lives, (humans, the crowning jewel of God’s creation,) our souls,….
Socialism tries to create a classless state: Again, anti-God, anti-Christ ideology. The bible tells us that there is even hierarchy in heaven. There are Cherabim and Seraphim that come into the very presence of God. Granted they cover their eyes, and feet. Isaiah 6:2. His word tells us there are principalities, powers, rulers…(this refers to rank in the spiritual realm) God says he will put everything under Christ’s feet. Again, that shows higher rank, authority. How about when God tells us in Romans 12:3-4: “For I say through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith, for as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function…” This speaks of the fact that yes, in the spiritual we have been given gifts, likewise in the natural we each have strengths and talents. In our society, our natural giftedness and strengths and weakness will determine what we will accomplish, and how much we will make financially. If I had the skill at math or finances, I’d be on wall street right now. Ha Ha. If I could muster the discipline of an athlete, I’d have a mantel of trophies and probably millions in endorsements. I have none of those things. I do not envy or feel that I should have the status of those people. The effectual management of their natural gifts, and hard work has blessed them with wealth. Our society rewards those things. It is not unjust to be ridiculously wealthy when other people are not. How can the poor be blessed, if there are not people with money to help them? The man who buried Jesus’ broken body, bless the mighty God, was a rich man, who had his own tomb to put my savior’s body in. Jesus himself said the poor will always be with us. Any ideology that suggests we can wipe out poverty is from the pit of hell, only because it seeks to deny the truth that Jesus has stated. That ideology is one of the “high things that seek to exalt itself against the knowledge of God”. 1 Corinthians 24-25: “Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it. And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown.” i.e.-There are winners and losers. Only one gets the prize. Also everyone who competes is temperate in all things. That means we need to live our life in temperance, I call that responsibility. Can’t we say that in a great number of cases we can identify poverty causing behavior? I’m not talking about those who are sick, disabled, widowed etc…. I can go on, but I think I’ve said enough.

JudyBright said...

Here is the text directly before the Scripture that Obama perverted:

Matthew 6:13-23
13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
This reminds me of Caiaphas, who prophesied the sacrificial death of Jesus without knowing it, and his own destruction.

John 11:50-52 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! 50You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."

51He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.
I say this because he is using Holy Scripture to illustrate his point, and the very Scripture he quotes is what condemns the point he is making. He thinks he is talking about the ROCK, when in reality he is describing the sinking sand. The ROCK in the Biblical context is the Words of Jesus Christ. In another passage the ROCK is the confession of faith of believers that Jesus is the Christ, and that is the ROCK on which Jesus Christ will build his church.

The ROCK is not the Government, the ROCK is not massive foolish debt, the ROCK is not Barack Obama. This is the sinking sand that will lead to our destruction. Obama will not lead us into the promised land he describes in this cursed speech:

But from where we stand, for the very first time, we are
beginning to see glimmers of hope. And beyond that, way off in the distance, we
can see a vision of an America’s future that is far different than our troubled
economic past. It’s an America teeming with new industry and commerce; humming with new energy and discoveries that light the world once more. A place where anyone from anywhere with a good idea or the will to work can live the dream they’ve heard so much about. It is that house upon the rock. Proud, sturdy, and unwavering in the face of the greatest storm.


sarcasm/ Yes, a land flowing with milk and honey for sure, just across the banks of the Jordan I see that blessed promised land! Can I get an AMEN! /sarcasm.

Jesus Christ is the ONLY thing that will redeem and restore this nation or any other, and indeed, all other ground is sinking sand.

uptownsteve said...

Fear of a Black Planet.

By negroes no less.

So sad.

Conservative Black Woman said...

UTS~No fear. Perfect love casts out all fear. It's so sad that even when it comes to matters of Faith you can't beyond your "blackness". Sad. So, so sad.

Conservative Black Woman said...

I meant to say you can't see beyond your blackness.

So, "negros" can't uphold the name of Christ. Blackness is the god you serve, I presume? Well, UTS knock yourself out -- but every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord.

This really isn't a thread about race it's about faith. If you have none....well, I'm still praying for you.

Jerry & Jan said...

I like your web blog and appreciate the fact that you understand that those of us who oppose the policies of Barack Obama are not being racist. Christians are brothers and sisters regardless of race. It saddens me that so many in the black community are so taken with Barack Obama that they have forgotten the words of Martin Luther King. Rev. King said that he looked forward to the day when we judge a man by the content of his character and not the color of his skin. It is the content of Obama's character that I am against, not the color of his skin. I pray for our country and I will pray for you.

DJ Black Adam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DJ Black Adam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
grace said...

ziggy that was very informative and well worth the read....thank you for your use of scripture to support your stance on these issues.

DJ Black Adam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DJ Black Adam said...

@Ziggy and Judy:

I waited a minute because I wanted to respond to both of you very seriously and not in a tongue in cheek fashion because I really have about had it with you righties co-opting Christ and positing that somehow the issues of abortion and gay marriage trump all the anti-CHRIST ideology in your Grand Ole Party.

As the Blastmaster KRS One would say: “reality ain’t always the TRUTH”.

The reality is: “The GOP is anti-abortion”, REALITY IS “if they were going to role back Roe v. Wade they had 8 years to do so, and sure as the hell didn’t”.

The reality is: “The GOP is anti-gay right”, REALITY IS “that male right wingers are caught giving or getting fellatio in bathroom stalls from men, or get caught smoking meth while cornholing a guy in a hotel room”.

The reality is: The GOP stands for family values”, REALITY IS “GOP pols are constantly tripping over their penises to get in the first whorehouse they can find”.

I heard a preacher say: “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” Rev 3.15-16 KJV

So you all can save that “WWJD” because he damn sure would NOT vote GOP. The hypocrisy of your party is enough BUT that’s just the foundation.

And Ziggy, this is hilarious: “I oppose Socialism: It is not a coincidence that Socialist states forbid religion and Christianity is virulently opposed. It’s a system that reveres the State as an all powerful, all providing entity.”

Hmm first off, your presuppositions are flawed. Universal Health Care and more money for education DO NOT = Socialism. If that’s the case, our Northern neighbors don’t seem to have a problem with CHURCHES, they seem to have quite a few.

2nd off, Communist dictatorships and Democracies that have some socialistic dimensions (like our own) are TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS.

And as for going the Jeremiah Wrights church, I think being in the party where Strom Thurmand and Jesse helms were your elder statement, that you dare not rebuked, is more an issue for me than Barack having a stupid pastor whom HE DID rebuke..

Now Judy:

You wrote: “Watch out for false prophets…”

Oh my Lord, Judy, this one is pretty clear, when the heck did Barack claim to be a prophet or to be following in the prophetic tradition of Moses, Elijah, Ezekiel etc.?

You people are really trippin.

I’ll say this much to my FELLOW CHRISTIANS, I can say this AS SURELY AS THE LORD LIVES: “God is not a Democrat or Republican, an that BOTH parties of THIS nation are on equal footing with Him, governments of MEN, by MEN and NEITHER living up to HIS will or to what HIS KINGDOM will be”.

Further, I believe that BLACK CHRITSIANS let themselves be manipulated by their faith by people who profess Christ but do not KNOW HIM. I do not believe you all are operating with Spiritual Wisdom or Discernment in your allegiance to the GOP, HOWEVER< I don’t question your “Christianity” for it, I just pray you WISDOM.

Conservative Black Woman said...

"Further, I believe that BLACK CHRITSIANS let themselves be manipulated by their faith by people who profess Christ but do not KNOW HIM. I do not believe you all are operating with Spiritual Wisdom or Discernment in your allegiance to the GOP, HOWEVER< I don’t question your “Christianity” for it, I just pray you WISDOM"

DJBA~What have I ever posited that my allegiance is to the cause of the GOP and not to Christ. With all due respect I think it's preposterous that you would single out an individual's transgressions to impune an ideology. As a Christian you know that's what unbelievers do all the time the point to the individual sins of chistians they know to say that christianity is a false religion.

I will not tell you that I don't care about politics but I will tell you that if a Republican candidate stood on the same platform as it PSBO regarding life issues I would not support them either. Even if every Republican candidate is a blazing hypocrite it still doesn't mean that I would support a candidate that openly advocates death over life, evil over good, and behaviors that lead to failure over behaviors that lead to success. Also, I never heard any republican candidate say that they would repeal Roe Vs. Wade the issue has been State having the right to call the shots as it pertains to abortion rights and Supreme court appointments..if you have a liberal president he will choose a liberal appointee.

Ziggy & Judy excellently communicated exactly where we stand and why we stand there.

DJ Black Adam said...

@CBW:

I know that you sincerely believe in what you say, I honestly believe that you, and Judy and heck maybe in Ziggy feel that voted for Barack was outside of what you would do as a Christian, I apologize if it appeared I was saying that I didn’t think you guys put Christ (or what you think Christ would want) before anything else.

We just see God’s will in this differently here. I will NOT say I “know his will” any more or less than any other Christian here, I just believe that the GOP is no more or less inline with Christ then the Democrats.

You wrote: “Even if every Republican candidate is a blazing hypocrite it still doesn't mean that I would support a candidate that openly advocates death over life, evil over good, and behaviors that lead to failure over behaviors that lead to success.”

I understand your position, I just don’t agree that being pro choice is any more or less of supporting death over life than for people to support a death penalty system that by its nature has or will kill an innocent person.

And I don’t see any of them supporting Evil over Good any more or less then the other, both, of men, by men, simple as that.

You wrote: “Ziggy & Judy excellently communicated exactly where we stand and why we stand there.”

Again, WE just will have to divide on this issue, because I just don’t see it as you do. The only difference is, that I would not write you outside of the faith or claim that you are not Christian because in my opinion, you are being manipulated by hypocrites who brandish TWO ideological positions that they have no true desire to do anything real about.

If you all want to excommunicate me for not following the GOP line or your exegetical arguments, I guess it's happened to better people than I in the history of the church.

JudyBright said...

@DJBA

My commentary does nothing to defend the Republican party. It does not mention it AT ALL.

I deal specifically with BARACK OBAMA and his direct perversion of Scripture and him using it for his own purposes. Can you deal with that subject specifically? Do you like how he handled Scripture? (And no, giving some example of some Republican misusing Scripture does not qualify as an answer)

Yes, I know that Obama has not claimed specifically to be a prophet, but he is speaking in prophetic terms here, and many of his followers claim he is a prophet. Even if you take that out, I do believe he is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The transformation that he wants to bring will bring our destruction if it is allowed to happen.

The reality is: “The GOP is anti-abortion”, REALITY IS “if they were going to role back Roe v. Wade they had 8 years to do so, and sure as the hell didn’t”.I'd like you to explain, how, through our court system, Roe vs Wade was to be flat overturned in 8 years? And what does this have to do with my opinion of Obama's speech?

DJ Black Adam said...

@Judy:

You wrote: "Do you like how he handled Scripture?"

I don't care how he handled scripture, because, he is NOT a preacher and he wasn't making a theological arguement from it. He is NOT a prophet (and please show me what CHRISTIANS Black or otherwise who voted for him who are claiming that HE IS A PROPHET?)

He tried to make an analogy with scripture, he isn't the first and won't be the last. I hav heard people do it better and do it worse, in any case, I don't expect any politician to be real about it.

You wrote: "I do believe he is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The transformation that he wants to bring will bring our destruction if it is allowed to happen."

Now THIS I can accept, even if I don't agree with. A valid fear. Time will tell.

Sans Culottes said...

Firstly do you think the president, (any president) actually deals with issues like the physical backdrop to their speeches?

Secondly would any American politician ambitious and savvy enough to be elected president choose to look as though he thought he was greater than Jesus?

When the backdrop was being worked out, no one at Georgetown said "we shouldn't block out IHS", it stands for Iesus Hominum Salvator (or at least that seems most likely, it could also be In Hoc Signo or Iota Eta Sigma) but I guess since we all know Obama's Anti-Christy ways his evil obviously infected them as well.

Having been involved with politics and politicians from a fairly early age I am genuinely curious as to how scripture would lead someone to believe the Republican party was somehow more righteous. Does it just revolve around abortion or is there some added factor?

Conservative Black Woman said...

Sans Culottes~CNS reported to day that the name of Jesus was removed at the request of the White House. Now whether Obama was the impetus behind it is irrelevent. Actually the fact that GTU would acquiest to such a reply is even more problematic to me. If the White House didn't want the venue to offend non-Christians and wanted it all to appear "presidential" then they should have convene somewhere other than Gaston Hall. I'm sure there were more religiously neutral places on the campus.

Also I am bothered at how subtle this was. It just seems to me that if GTU is so easily moved then we are on shaky spiritual ground. As Southern Drawl writes:"Can they not see, our nation is the house on shifting sand. We moved off the rock long ago when we began to systematically remove God from every part of our lives."

This isn't a Partisan issue for me. It's a spiritual issue. But if you don't believe that the Bible is the Word of God or that we wrestle not against flesh and blood but principalities in high places then this will seem foolish to you.

I think it has already been addressed in this thread that there is no scripture that tells us to vote for republicans. But because our world view is informed by our faith we are compelled to choose or reject candidates based on their worldview and we can only go by what they tell us.

uptownsteve said...

"So, "negros" can't uphold the name of Christ. Blackness is the god you serve, I presume? Well, UTS knock yourself out -- but every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord."

Oh don't hand me this nonsense CBW.

The reason you and the other two Marveleetes of minstrelry (Katrina and Judy Bright) attack every move and utterance of Obama is because he is a BLACK MAN.

You will really have to explain to me how Bush and Cheney were more Christian than Obama.

Or Christian by any standard.

Particularly in light of Iraq, Abu Gharib, Gitmo, Katrina......awww, you get the picture.

DJ Black Adam said...

@CBW:

Again: "Can they not see, our nation is the house on shifting sand. We moved off the rock long ago when we began to systematically remove God from every part of our lives."

Again I ask: "I'm sorry, when was this "democratic republic" a Christian nation exactly? When George Washington and Thomas Jefferson was sexing their black female slaves OR when Andrew Jackson was giving small pox to Indians?"

Looking forward to your reply. Notice, JESUS' Name is absent from ALL government refernce, whenever they Say "GOD" I have never heard or seen Jesus referenced, not even in the constitution or bill of rights.

Looking forward to your response.

rockwebmedia said...

Some people have argued that Obama does not want to use religion to further a political ideology. However, Obama did
evoke the Sermon on the Mount, at this Georgetown appearance, to further his economic agenda. Although Obama failed to mention Jesus Christ by name for the Sermon on the Mount.

“There is a parable at the end of the Sermon on the Mount that tells a story of two men…‘the rain descended and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house…it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock,’” Obama said.

“We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand,” he added. “We must build our house upon a rock.”

The last statement is particularly ironic since building your house upon a ‘ROCK‘ means to build your house with Christ as the foundation. Obama decided to blot out the real foundation from the timeless parable.

See the hi-res pictures:
http://tinyurl.com/djtzgm

Conservative Black Woman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Conservative Black Woman said...

UTS you write~"The reason you and the other two Marveleetes of minstrelry (Katrina and Judy Bright) attack every move and utterance of Obama is because he is a BLACK MAN."Of course you believe that because your worldview is informed by YOUR faith. But the difference between you and I is I don't begrudge you from practicing your faith. But please understand that I don't serve the same god that you do. Therefore, PSBO's word and deeds to me are more than just the sum total of his racial composition.

DJBA you write~"Notice, JESUS' Name is absent from ALL government refernce, whenever they Say "GOD" I have never heard or seen Jesus referenced, not even in the constitution or bill of rights."Perhaps not but Thomas Jefferson writes in a letter to Benjamin Rush May 21, 1803:

In some of the delightful conversations with you, in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you, that one day or other, I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry & reflection, and VERY DIFFERENT FROM THAT ANTI-CHRISTIAN SYSTEM IMPUTED TO ME BY THOSE WHO KNOW NOTHING OF MY OPINIONS. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other.Again, I don't care how vile an individual Christian my be (I should know as I can be counted among the most wretched) it takes nothing away from the TRUTH. Are you attempting to make the case that our Nation was not founded by Christians because of their evil deeds or that Christianity is bogus because of their evil deeds?

DJ Black Adam said...

@CBW:

I wrote: "DJBA you write~"Notice, JESUS' Name is absent from ALL government refernce, whenever they Say "GOD" I have never heard or seen Jesus referenced, not even in the constitution or bill of rights."

Your reply: "Perhaps not..."

No, it is NOT. Simple as that, you think the founding fathers, some of whom were Christians (as you point out) FORGOT to add "in the name of JESUS" OR perhaps it was left out ON PUPRPOSE.

JudyBright said...

@UTS

It's interesting that you think you know so much about what motivates my opinions, when it's clear by your comments that you know very little about who I am and where I come from.

It also makes these arguments very easy for you, because instead of looking at the merit (or lack thereof) of our arguments, all you have to say is, "You're just saying that because he's black." End of argument.

And like I said to DJBA, neither Bush, Cheney, nor any other Republican 'demon' was mentioned in this article, and my comments had nothing to do with Republican vs Democrat. I am a Christian and a Conservative, and that is how I look at the world. Saying Obama's ok because some Republican is worse is hardly a valid line of reasoning.

DJ Black Adam said...

@Judy:

"Saying Obama's ok because some Republican is worse is hardly a valid line of reasoning."

I'm saying Obama was the better choice for me, even as a CHRISTIAN becuase the alternative was NO BETTER and in fact worse, weighing all things.. Which is where we disagree.

JudyBright said...

@DJBA

That's fine, and obviously we have to disagree on that point.

What I have a problem with is when an issue with Obama is brought up, like this article where he misuses Scripture, and to rebut, the argument is, "Well, Bush is a jerk."
or "How can you vote Republican." It's irrelevant to the topic.

DJ Black Adam said...

@Judy:

But, in the question of Obama's use of the scripture, I stll don't see the issue. Secular peopel often quote or mangle a scripture, as long as they aren't trying to start some new faith or cult predicated on improper theology, what is there to be concerned about?

uptownsteve said...

Judy,

You know damn well that you didn't go off on Bush this way.

Can you please explain to me how Bush was more Christian than Obama?

JudyBright said...

@UTS

You know damn well that you didn't go off on Bush this way.And the only possible reason is that Bush is white and Obama is black, right? It couldn't possible be because I disagree with the man, and in this particular case, am offended by how he used Scripture. I recall having similar negative feelings toward Bill Clinton. How do you explain that? Was that somehow racial too? That I criticized Clinton more than Bush? And of course you assume I never was critical of Bush, which is untrue. I did like him on some levels, but the dude frustrated the crap out of me sometimes. But you'll probably go on thinking I was in love with him because it fits your worldview better.

I'll just quote myself to make my other point:

What I have a problem with is when an issue with Obama is brought up, like this article where he misuses Scripture, and to rebut, the argument is, "Well, Bush is a jerk."
or "How can you vote Republican." It's irrelevant to the topic.
Which is what you just did, UTS. Instead of dealing with what the article is about, you say to the effect, "Bush is a jerk." He's not even mentioned in the article, and I didn't think about him when I responded.

You haven't dealt with the concerns CBW or anyone else has raised with Obamas actions, the ones specifically highlighted in CBW's post.

So no, I'm not going to play the "Who's more Christian" game with you. I mean, you're going to think all my points are horrible anyways, so why don't we cut out the middle man and you can feel like you've won without going through the trouble?

grace said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
grace said...

For anyone who claims to be a Christian -- a follower of Jesus Christ -- and chooses to give a political speech under a backdrop similar to a house of worship that included a parable as told by Christ, yet for some reason finds it necessary to remove all references to Christ as the storyteller and further blot out his (supposed) Savior's name, is enough grounds to question the validity of his acclaimed faith in Jesus Christ. I also think it is possible that he is trying to deceive the "elect", if that were possible. Some may fall for it. It looks like some already have. This is my opinion.

Gretchen said...

Wow, what an abomination. I'm using this strong word because I can't think of another. Thank you for your commentary.

One day every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord!

DJ Black Adam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DJ Black Adam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DJ Black Adam said...

@Gretchen and Grace:

Christians like you is why I am GLAD I became a Christian BEFORE I ran into "Christian Conservatives" or the "Evangelical Right"...shesh, you folks are enough to make someone become a Buddhist...oy veh.

People, Barack is the President of the UNITED STATES not "the heaad of the American Christian Church", what do you expect for him to do, not be inclusive of the non-Christians in the United States? He wasn't even making a theological point, he used the form of the story, why include religious imagry or even Jesus in something he wasn't trying to make a spiritual point with?

Anonymous said...

What's so presumptuous about "planting seeds for a harvest"?

Robert Louis Stevenson wrote, "Judge each day not by the harvest you reap but by the seeds you plant." Did he mean we could all in time become messiahs?

Sounds like you were predisposed to read the worst into Axelrod's comment.

---Irenaeus

Donna said...

You know, when I first stumbled across this blog while reading various articles about the Somali piracy issue, I thought I inadvertently found a place in which I could participate in some healthy and reasonable debate. Then I stumbled upon this thread and it all became remarkably clear: a mouthful of partisan hackery seasoned with a bit of religious bigotry.

So, once again, I am inclined to agree with one of the few level-headed and logical commentators on this thread: DJ Black Adam.

Let's all take a deep breath and think about the facts here before calling people, our President at that, godless abominations, something that some mercy-loving Christians seem to have a penchant for. President Obama was addressing a group at Georgetown with a policy speech and opted to have the inscription covered as to not present a policy speech in front of blatantly religious symbolism (http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Jesus-Missing-From-Obamas-Georgetown-Speech.html). Yes, Georgetown is a Catholic university, but imagine the roar that would ensue from those that would take offense that he DID NOT cover the inscription: “He thinks he’s the messiah, eh?” And I’m sure Georgetown would have objected if it were somehow an affront to the dogmatic faithful.

Now, once we all chew on the "separation of church and state" debate, we need to realize that the President intended to have the American flag draped, as is the norm and quite appropriate for a government official at a speaking engagement.

"Julie Bataille from the university's press office e-mailed me that the White House had asked that all university signage and symbols behind the stage in Gaston Hall be covered."

"The White House wanted a simple backdrop of flags and pipe and drape for the speech, consistent with what they've done for other policy speeches," she wrote. "Frankly, the pipe and drape wasn't high enough by itself to fully cover the IHS and cross above the GU seal and it seemed most respectful to have them covered so as not to be seen out of context."

In my opinion, using religion as a means to discount a leader's ability to govern fairly and lawfully is as senseless as some of the comments left on this thread.

Conservative Black Woman said...

"In my opinion, using religion as a means to discount a leader's ability to govern fairly and lawfully is as senseless as some of the comments left on this thread." (Donna)

Donna~No one has discounted his ability to lead fairly or lawfully in this thread. Not sure how you deduced that. Again, this isn't a partisan thing and again I'm more appalled with the University for complying than I am with the White House...and Again, this isn't a partisan thing this is a spiritual things and those who understand the things of the Spirit are on one accord and those who do not find the discussion foolish. It's really that simple.

Donna said...

CBW,

Things of the "Spirit" and religious man-made dogma are two different things.

My deduction is more of an inference based on the overall tone of some of the comments. It seems that most of the "Christians" here would prefer our President to act and legislate in a way befitting a "Christian nation" than a nation that adheres to separation of church and state as a way to ensure that we remain a nation of laws and not legislated religious dogma.

DJ Black Adam said...

@Donna:

"Then I stumbled upon this thread and it all became remarkably clear: a mouthful of partisan hackery seasoned with a bit of religious bigotry."

I am inclined to agree. One of the founding principles of this nation is "Freedom of Religion", there is no "church of the United States" as we broke away from the "church of England" for a REASON people.

I am a Christian, and sure, some Christian ideas were used to form our basis of government and law BUT the President of the United States SHOULD NOT appear before Christian imagery, that sends the wrong message especially since the last "conservative" either unwisely or just by not giving a damn, used imagery from the Crusades in his language to pit our nation against the whole Muslim world as opposed to just being against the enemies of the US who happen to be Muslim.

The President of the United States should represent the UNITED STATES, not Christianity!

Honestly, I would be afraid of what type of "Christianity" you folks would want to be the State Religion. I can imagine the fiasco: "Should we speak on tongues? Should we baptize by immersion or sprinkle? Should we allow laying of hands? etc., etc.,

Anonymous said...

Imagine the roar that would ensue [if] he DID NOT cover the inscription: “He thinks he’s the messiah, eh?” ---Donna

That's a telling point---all the more so when the blog host and some commenters are already making accusing Obama and his supporters of messianism. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

Donna said...

DJBA,

I couldn't agree with you more. Well said.

Despite the increasingly cantankerous and often times hateful speech being espoused by some of our media professionals, lol, I have found some glimmers of hope when it comes to logical debate.

DJBA, I respect the fact that you are able to stay true to your spiritual beliefs without allowing the vitriol spewed by some of your fellow "Christians" to poison your ability to reason.

JudyBright said...

Things of the "Spirit" and religious man-made dogma are two different things.Where is the man made dogma we are espousing?

My deduction is more of an inference based on the overall tone of some of the comments. It seems that most of the "Christians" here would prefer our President to act and legislate in a way befitting a "Christian nation" than a nation that adheres to separation of church and state as a way to ensure that we remain a nation of laws and not legislated religious dogma.Forgive me, but I think your deduction has to do with your prejudice against conservative Christians rather than what we've actually said. It is the centrists and liberal commentators here that have attempted to turn this into a partisan discussion.

I as a Christian am offended that President Obama perverted a passage of Scripture, the words of Christ himself, to try to promote his agenda. And he does this in an environment where the name of Christ was blacked out. I guess that makes me a partisan hack and a religious bigot. So be it.

Gretchen said...

DJ Black Adam, I just came back and read the comment thread. My first reaction to this story was very strong.
The problem (outside of covering up the name of Christ) is that as a guest in someone else's "house", one needs to be respectful of that persons "house". He came into a place that has a Christian affiliation and, in my opinion, disrespected the place of Georgetown U. If he didn't want distraction or religious symbols or names why not hold the speech somewhere else?
It came across not only disrespectful but brazen.

Donna said...

JudyBright,

If you cannot identify the man-made facets of your own religious belief system, then I recommend some wonderful religious studies courses presented in quality universities all over the world. Religious symbolism, and the sanctimonious rules created to exalt them, were all created by men. Interestingly enough, the very dogma most Christians adhere to specifically prohibits this kind of symbolism and material fixation. Being one that attended church 6 days a week and has read the bible and every Christian apologetic cover to cover, I can say that with some level of confidence. My ire is not with conservative Christians nor do I have any particular prejudice against them. What I do take issue with is the cherry-picked, cafeteria-style religious bias that is masqueraded as political discourse. How do I come to the conclusion that this is a partisan issue? Well, if you were to condemn the previous administration for using that same tactic to promote their agenda, then I would be less inclined to stick by my argument.

Yes, the intent is what matters, what is in the "spirit." If you believe the intention was to offend your deity, then JUDGE away (another thing I remember being expressly prohibited...funny thing that little bible is, isn't it?).

Conservative Black Woman said...

"I as a Christian am offended that President Obama perverted a passage of Scripture, the words of Christ himself, to try to promote his agenda. And he does this in an environment where the name of Christ was blacked out. I guess that makes me a partisan hack and a religious bigot. So be it" (JudyBright)

AMEN!!! Salt & Light.....

uptownsteve said...

Donna,

"Then I stumbled upon this thread and it all became remarkably clear: a mouthful of partisan hackery seasoned with a bit of religious bigotry."


OUTSTANDING!!!!!

JudyBright said...

Donna,

I have not judged the intent of Barack Obama. I have not said ONE WORD about what this man was thinking while he gave this speech. I judged his ACTIONS as wrong, which is permitted and even demanded by Scripture.

I even understand why he wouldn't want the IHS directly above him during a speech. However, the fact that he used a portion of Scripture that are the very words of Jesus, that describe the words of Jesus as the Rock, and replaced the Rock with a rock of his own making, while speaking where the name of Jesus was blotted out - that means something to me. And I don't even think he did it on purpose.

And since Georgetown was not named after George W Bush, he was not named in the article. So I didn't feel that it was relevant to mention him. But like I said before, you can go ahead with UTS and others and believe that I was in love with W if it fits your worldview better and prevents you from dealing with what I ACTUALLY SAID in my comments.

I love this gem If you cannot identify the man-made facets of your own religious belief system, then I recommend some wonderful religious studies courses presented in quality universities all over the world.I could say a lot of things about this suggestion, but I'll just say, "No thanks. I'm cool."

Conservative Black Woman said...

" a mouthful of partisan hackery seasoned with a bit of religious bigotry." (Donna)

Donna & UTS~ Yes, that sounds very erudite however, I challenge both of you to re-read this tread because all of the "partisan hackery" was espoused by our beloved and esteemed DJ Black Adam. The rest of us religious bigots only responded to the questions\accusations brought forth by the three of you (DJBA, Donna & UTS). If because those of us who identify as Christians and are salty(we actually believe that the bible is true and RELEVENT)and our worldview is informed by our faith makes us religious bigots then I will wear that moniker proudly. But let's be clear that not only I but others within this tread have not made this a partisan issue because it is not.

DJ Black Adam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DJ Black Adam said...

@Judy:

"...And I don't even think he did it on purpose."

That's good. I believe Jesus said: "“And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him:” Matthew 12.30. So I guess Barack is going to be O.K., If JESUS can forgive Him, maybe you Christians who profess Him can?

So AGAIN. Who here is going to say that the HOLY GHOST wanted Christians to vote for either Barack OR McCain / Palin?

Let me remind you all once more: “Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.” Matthew 12.31

DJ Black Adam said...

@CBW:

“I challenge both of you to re-read this tread because all of the "partisan hackery" was espoused by our beloved and esteemed DJ Black Adam”

Partison “Hackery?” If you call:

1. Pointing out that this country was founded as a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and not a CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY.

2. Pointing out that the President of the United States is a “Secular” position to represent a “Secular” nation.

3. Pointing out that in NO REFERNCE To the name of JESUS can be found in our pledge of allegiance, our constitution, bill or rights or anywhere else “under God” or “Creator” or “In God We Trust” is used to which I heard a preacher say: “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” James 2.19, or in other words, to mention God without Christ so many times does not signify to me Christianity, it signifies some monotheistic tendencies.

4. Pointing out that the RIGHT has no copyright, trademark or any other ownership rights in “The Name of Jesus” or the faith the message of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God inspired.

5. Stating that in my observation the RIGHT nor the LEFT are any more or less in line with the Will of God, and that being anti-abortion (in word) and anti-gay rights does not meet MY standard for what being about the work of the Ministry of Jesus Christ, even if that does impress and allow for Christians to be manipulated by people at worst POSING as Christians at best blatant hypocrites?

Yeah, I have a partisan hackery for THE TRUTH in the Spirit of Truth, which is the Holy Ghost/ And, I am sorry to inform you, the HOLY GHOST wasn’t for Barack and He wasn’t for McCain / Palin (regardless of those delusional enough to believe that He was.

Conservative Black Woman said...

DJBA~Let me be clear I completely disagree with Donna's assessment of this tread (although it sounded pretty), I was merely pointing out that if any partisanship was display at ALL that you were the one bringing it. Our (the religious bigots represented here) are concerned that a Christian University would comply and to add insult to injury by distorting the scripture he referenced in his speech he marginalized it. I don't care if this has been done before in the secular world or that it will be done again -- it's insulting!

You write:" And, I am sorry to inform you, the HOLY GHOST wasn’t for Barack and He wasn’t for McCain / Palin"

I'm not so sure I completely agree with you because if one candidate pro-life, and the other is not only pro-abortion but pro-late term and partial birth abortions, and against medical intervention for infants who survive botcheed abortions. So no the Holy Spirit didn't whisper or yell to me 'VOTE FOR MCCAIN\PALIN' but because of the Christ IN me I could not in good consciense vote for Barack Obama.

DJ Black Adam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DJ Black Adam said...

@CBW:

"I'm not so sure I completely agree with you because if one candidate pro-life, and the other is not only pro-abortion but pro-late term and partial birth abortions, and against medical intervention for infants who survive botcheed abortions. So no the Holy Spirit didn't whisper or yell to me 'VOTE FOR MCCAIN\PALIN' but because of the Christ IN me I could not in good consciense vote for Barack Obama."

The Gospel of the Kingdom of God is much more than who is for or against abortions. Honestly, where you and I seem to divide on this is that I don't think the GOP gives a damn about abortions, I perceive that they use it as a political issue to manipulate their base, that is why they haven't done much or anything about it while they HAD power to. Not to mention the duplicity of a position that supports life in one instance yet continues to support the executions of criminals in denial of the fact that some times a corrupt man made system puts people on death row who are not guilty, I advocate mercy in both positions, no candidate seems to line up with my Christian worldview overall or more than the other.

So our initial presuppositions are very different.

Again, I don't think "I" brought partisanship into it, only to point out that when you or any other right wing Christians question a Christians faith because they didn't support some candidate who SAYS they are pro life, is inane.

And as for that whole "scripture removed" or the "he didn't reference Christ when he quoted Him" stuff, YOU ALL ARE SOUNDING Dangerously close to those Muslims who went batty when some artist drew a picture of Muhammad.

Our faith is not in WORDS, or Creeds, our faith IS or SHOULD BE in Christ.

DJ Black Adam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DJ Black Adam said...

@CBW:

I have to ask. Your GOP says they are pro-life, many of you hear claim to be pro-life, BUT you are the same people who feel that health Care should not be available for that child when they get here, hell, you all believe if the woman is poor and works at Wal-Mart and has no health insurance she's "SOL" and that YOUR TAX dollars shouldn’t go to help her. FURTHER, if the woman happens to get unemployed later or still not making enough money at Wal-Mart or wherever MANY of YOU HERE have expressed that she shouldn't be able to get WIC or FOOD STAMPS?

So you all are pro life GETTING here, just not pro helping sustain that life?

Fascinating....

Donna said...

DJBA,

My favorite posts thus far:

"And as for that whole "scripture removed" or the "he didn't reference Christ when he quoted Him" stuff, YOU ALL ARE SOUNDING Dangerously close to those Muslims who went batty when some artist drew a picture of Muhammad."

Wonderfully placed allegory!

And...

"So you all are pro life GETTING here, just not pro helping sustain that life?

Fascinating...."

Yes, fascinating indeed!!!

Conservative Black Woman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Conservative Black Woman said...

DJBA~I am going to respond to your last comment but I'm not finished with this whole "Holy Spirit" thing. I must ask you do you believe that the Bible is relevent? If so, do you believe in Spiritual warfare? If so, why can't you understand our cause for concern about the direction this nation is headed -- not just because of Barack Obama we have been headed this way a loooooong time. This whole discussion reminds me of an article I read about Baal worship a couple of month ago here is a portion:

"Ritualistic Baal worship, in sum, looked a little like this: Adults would gather around the altar of Baal. Infants would then be burned alive as a sacrificial offering to the deity. Amid horrific screams and the stench of charred human flesh, congregants – men and women alike – would engage in bisexual orgies. The ritual of convenience was intended to produce economic prosperity by prompting Baal to bring rain for the fertility of "mother earth."
The natural consequences of such behavior – pregnancy and childbirth – and the associated financial burdens of "unplanned parenthood" were easily offset. One could either choose to engage in homosexual conduct or – with child sacrifice available on demand – could simply take part in another fertility ceremony to "terminate" the unwanted child.

Modern liberalism deviates little from its ancient predecessor. While its macabre rituals have been sanitized with flowery and euphemistic terms of art, its core tenets and practices remain eerily similar. The worship of "fertility" has been replaced with worship of "reproductive freedom" or "choice." Child sacrifice via burnt offering has been updated, ever so slightly, to become child sacrifice by way of abortion. The ritualistic promotion, practice and celebration of both heterosexual and homosexual immorality and promiscuity have been carefully whitewashed – yet wholeheartedly embraced – by the cults of radical feminism, militant "gay rights" and "comprehensive sex education." And, the pantheistic worship of "mother earth" has been substituted – in name only – for radical environmentalism.

But it's not just self-styled "progressives" or secular humanists who have adopted the fundamental pillars of Baalism. In these postmodern times, we've also been graced, regrettably, by the advent of counter-biblical "emergent Christianity" or "quasi-Christianity," as I prefer to call it. This is merely liberalism all dolled up and gratuitously stamped "Christian." It's a way for left-wing ideologues to have their "religion" cake and eat it too. Under the guise of "social justice," its adherents often support – or at least rationalize – the same pro-homosexual, pro-abortion and radical environmental policies pushed by the modern-day Baal worshiper.
Though the "Christian left" represent what is arguably a negligible minority within larger Christianity, the liberal media have, nonetheless, embraced their cause and seized upon their popularity among elites as evidence that the so-called "Christian right" (read: biblical Christianity) is losing influence – that Christianity is, somehow, "catching up with the times."
Because emergent Christianity fails the authenticity test whenever subjected to even the most perfunctory biblical scrutiny, I suspect it will eventually go – for the most part – the way of the pet rock or the Macarena. But this does not absolve leaders within the evangelical community from a duty to call leaders of this counter-biblical revolution on their heresy. It's not a matter of right versus left; it's a matter of right versus wrong – of biblical versus non-biblical.Nonetheless, the aforementioned pillars of postmodern Baalism – abortion, sexual relativism and radical environmentalism – will almost certainly make rapid headway over the next four to eight years, with or without help from the Christian left. The gods of liberalism have a new high priest in Barack Obama, and enjoy many devout followers in the Democratic-controlled Congress, liberal media and halls of academia.

Both Obama's social agenda and that of the 111th Congress are rife with unfettered pro-abortion, freedom-chilling, pro-homosexual and power-grabbing environmentalist objectives. The same kind of "hope, action and change," I suppose, that was swallowed up by the Baalist Canaanites of old."


So, now Donna, I've made it partisan. Yep, PSBO is the High Priest of Modern Liberalism! Chrisitans are engaged in spiritual warfare and those who are discerning are putting on the whole armor of God. Those who are not discerning will understand it better by and by.

Conservative Black Woman said...

"Your GOP says they are pro-life, many of you hear claim to be pro-life, BUT you are the same people who feel that health Care should not be available for that child when they get here, hell, you all believe if the woman is poor and works at Wal-Mart and has no health insurance she's "SOL" and that YOUR TAX dollars shouldn’t go to help her. FURTHER, if the woman happens to get unemployed later or still not making enough money at Wal-Mart or wherever MANY of YOU HERE have expressed that she shouldn't be able to get WIC or FOOD STAMPS?

So you all are pro life GETTING here, just not pro helping sustain that life?"

A)Yes, I am pro-life. You are as wrong as two left shoes if you believe that I am against poor children receiving health care? I'm not sure how you can make such a claim about anyone on this tread. It is my understanding that health care is available to everyone in this country -- it's called Medicaid. This country provides healthcare not only for the poor, but the elderly and the disabled. The reason I personally am opposed by Universal healthcare is because the system we already have in place is BROKEN I say FIX it before you MUCK up healthcare for EVERYONE. So, it is intellectually fraudulent for you to make the claim that me and/or the GOP or the other "religious bigots" on this blog don't care about our fellow man.

Yes, I am also Pro-Death penalty for the guilty. Guilty being the operative word and unborn child is guilty of nothing.

Conservative Black Woman said...

I meant to say an unborn child is guilty of nothing.

Conservative Black Woman said...

I can't believe that you and Donna actually think that caring for the unborn is wrong. That's utterly fascinating indeed!

DJ Black Adam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DJ Black Adam said...

@CBW:

You wrote: "Yes, I am also Pro-Death penalty for the guilty. Guilty being the operative word and unborn child is guilty of nothing."

The GUILTY? You trust a system of man to say who is GUILTY? A system that is rife with all kinds of corruption? Look if i KNEW someone was guilty, I would be for executing, but the probabilty of killing an INNOCENT PERSON is there, how can you support that? I heard a preacher say: "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord" Romans 12.19.

We surely seperate wheat from tares, but we surley will seperate some wheat with those tares.

As for spiritual warefare, Sure I agree with you, I just don't think THIS COUNTRY was ever on a path to serve Christ.

I am pro-life, I just don't think the GOP is, regardless of what they SAY.

Yep, pro life, make women have babies they don't want, underfund Child and Family services, cut spending on nutritian programs for the poor, etc., etc., THAT is fascinating and telling.

Donna said...

CBW writes, "The gods of liberalism have a new high priest in Barack Obama, and enjoy many devout followers in the Democratic-controlled Congress, liberal media and halls of academia."

Anti-intellectualism at its finest.

In the amount of time those engaged in spiritual warfare are "warring" with said evil spirits, I wonder how many people in Africa could be assisted with rudimentary irrigation and clean water systems created by us heathens in the "halls of academia." Or how many women are given viable options to choose their reproductive future in parts of the world that stay impoverished for this very reason (and a host of others)? Or how many trees can be replanted after deforesting in an attempt to preserve one of the most precious natural resource available?

While noble Christians engage in spiritual warfare for the sake of rampant solipsism (and that is all it is), there are students in the halls of academia working towards diminishing traditional aid programs that keep our brethren dependent on air-dropped bags of rice and using their liberal, bedeviled brains to bring technology to parts of the world that really know something about warfare. The “liberal media” is shedding light on the 1500 Indian farmers that committed suicide because their crops failed. And a Democratically-controlled Congress is trying to wrestle away our dependence on foreign oil and espouse environmentally and geo-politically RESPONSIBLE energy resources.

So, I hope all that armor isn't weighing the Christian warriors down...because it can get hot in those places.

DJ Black Adam said...

@CBW:

"Yes, I am pro-life. You are as wrong as two left shoes if you believe that I am against poor children receiving health care? I'm not sure how you can make such a claim about anyone on this tread. It is my understanding that health care is available to everyone in this country -- it's called Medicaid."

Well your udnerstanding obviously doesn't catch that there are nearly 50 millinon people unisiured, that don't qualify for MEDICAID and can't afford PPO's and HMO's like I have, hell, I can barely afford that.

Here is a fact: "Not all low-income individuals are eligible for Medicaid. Medicaid eligibility is based on a combination of income and population “category.” The population groups that qualify for Medicaid are generally children, parents of dependent children, pregnant women, the disabled, and the elderly. The income levels at which these groups qualify differs from state to state, and group to group, with coverage of children and pregnant women being available at higher income levels, followed by the disabled and elderly, then parents of dependent children last (though this varies by state). Childless adults who are not disabled or elderly rarely qualify for Medicaid, even at the very lowest income levels" from: http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/05/uninsured-cps/index.htm#income

The article states further:

"That the uninsured are concentrated among lower-income individuals is not surprising, given that low-income individuals are less likely to: be working, and if they do work they are less likely to be working full time,
receive an offer of insurance, and
be able to afford an offer of coverage."

THIS IS REALITY. And though you conservatives claim to be so compassionate for LIFE, you fight tooth and nail to perserve the screwed up health care system we have that FAILS many of the CHILDREN you FIGHT FOR to be BORN.

MANY of you hear have stated you don't like programs like WIC, are againts an increase in Food Stamps to the RECENTLY unemployed, let alone the regualr working poor, you want to act like you haven't seen those comments even if you have not made them?

I'm sorry, but though I am PRO LIFE, I think the right is full of base hypocrisy and only trumpants the issue of pro-life for VOTES not for any change. So, I felt, better for me to support pro-life programs and offer reasonable alternatives to abortion for women in ministry and my NFP work, then to depend on the RIGHT who would give womens clinics that are pro-life, LESS money to be able to provide those alternatives.

DJ Black Adam said...

@Donna:

I don't think it is a choice between "intellectualism" and "spiritual warfare". ALL Christians are called to war against spiritual darkness, in prayer and in demonstration of the Gospel of the Kingdom in all they do.

Intellectualism has its place, and it is not an either or. We pray and fight spiritually, but we are to not be so spiritual as to be of no earthly good.

Honestly, I think the Christian right has done damage to the work of the ministry of Christ in their hypocrisy and lack of compassion, HOWEVER; I feel the academia of our faith has failed our faith by in many cases either complicating the simple message of the Gospel or minimizing its message for the sake of political expediency.

And as for the Academics of the LFET, in my observation, there has been a concerted attack on the Christian faith, in the guess of the false dichotomy of "rationalism vs. faith" as Bill Maher calls it, and they hide behind being motivated by their opposition to the Christian right as they forward their atheistic and often times simple anti-Christ ideologies.

I see what you were saying, but it is not an either / or, in my opinion.

Donna said...

CBW writes (and this is classic, Jon Stewart-esque irony here):

"So, it is intellectually fraudulent for you to make the claim that me and/or the GOP or the other "religious bigots" on this blog don't care about our fellow man."

And, wait for it...the transition!

CBW writes immediately after: "Yes, I am also Pro-Death penalty for the guilty. Guilty being the operative word and unborn child is guilty of nothing."

You care for your fellow man as long as it has an umbilical cord attached and isn't on death row?

So much for that forgiveness thing I heard about that is apparently one of the bedrock principles of Christianity. The real one, anyway.

There’s a great (and old) movie called "Dead Man Walking" with Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon (played the role of Sister Helen Prejean, someone who really believed in). Worth a watch...you might learn something about that whole forgiveness thing, even if it is from Hollywood’s perspective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Prejean

DJ Black Adam said...

@Donna:

The issue is MERCY, GRACE and JUSTICE. Mercy for the guilty, grace for all and JUSTICE for the wrongly accused.

Conservative Black Woman said...

Donna~ Let's talk about intellectualism shall we?
The broadest definitions of "intellectual" and "intellectualism" are simply "having a highly developed intellect" and "the exercise of the intellect at the expense of emotions." So conversely anti-intellectualism would mean that I'm against really smart people (well, that's preposterous as I amd really smart) who deny their emotions-- I couldn't care less what you do with your emotions. So the idea that I am "anti-intellectual" is mere drivel that is often used by Atheist. Are you an Atheist? Just asking...

You write:"While noble Christians engage in spiritual warfare for the sake of rampant solipsism (and that is all it is)" Well clearly you aren't "that intellectual". Let's talk about solipsism shall we:

A solipsist or “solipsism (Latin: solus, alone + ipse, self) is the philosophical idea that ‘My mind is the only thing that I know exists’. Solipsism is an epistemological or metaphysical position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist” (Wikipedia.com)

Nothing to a solipsist, and equally to a liberal, exists, outside their own mind!
Solipsism and liberalism are one and the same. Both hold to these fundamental doctrines:
A) Nothing exists;
b) Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it; and
c) Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can’t be communicated to others.

I'm talking about Spiritual warfare in case you can't follow.

It all makes sense now. When I thought liberals were stupid, irrational, and senseless, they were just lost in their own solipsist mind of nothing exists outside their own mental state.
(Spiritual Warfare can't exist unless your liberal professors teach about it.)

Now that I have come to this realization, it was easier to understand you liberals. Maybe I shouldn’t use the world understand — PITY is a better word.

Donna said...

DJBA,

You wrote: “I don't think it is a choice between "intellectualism" and "spiritual warfare". ALL Christians are called to war against spiritual darkness, in prayer and in demonstration of the Gospel of the Kingdom in all they do.”

Who gets to define this “spiritual darkness?” I’m sure this darkness points towards homosexuality, premarital sex, overindulgence in drugs and alcohol, astrology and other witchcraft, money-worship, and anything that denigrates the Ten Commandments. Well, that’s great, but the only problem I have had to intellectually wrestle with, being an agnostic now but an ardent follower in the past, is that there are too many signs of the “spiritual darkness” in the very churches that promote these spirit wars. Creflo Dollar anyone? How about Benny Hin? Jim Baker? Maybe Jerry Falwell? Or how about Rev. Jesse Jackson? The list goes on…My point is that the plank is pretty big and it’s a-juttin’ out of the “eye” of the Christian Church.

DJBA wrote: “Intellectualism has its place, and it is not an either or. We pray and fight spiritually, but we are to not be so spiritual as to be of no earthly good.”

So how do you intellectually grapple with how prayer is used in our man-made religious landscape? People pray for their souls to be saved? Solipsism indeed.

DJBA wrote: “And as for the Academics of the LFET, in my observation, there has been a concerted attack on the Christian faith, in the guess of the false dichotomy of "rationalism vs. faith" as Bill Maher calls it, and they hide behind being motivated by their opposition to the Christian right as they forward their atheistic and often times simple anti-Christ ideologies.”

I would argue that people like Bill Maher are less concerned about being anti-Christ and more concerned about what you mentioned earlier: that doctrinal oversimplification that is used to legislate morality, something we are all affected by, regardless of creed or orientation. That is what irks so many people about the Christian right. You cannot legislate morality under the Christian banner – that is a theocracy and imposes beliefs on people that do not necessarily adhere to those religious tenets. For instance, the marriage debate could be EASILY solved by removing the state from the “religious” aspect of marriage. Let consenting adults choose their doctrinal preference for matrimony at their respective places of worship and allow the state to issue marriage licenses to consenting adults that agree to enter into an agreement on the terms of THAT state.

DJ Black Adam said...

@CBW:

GRACE...

Donna said...

CBW,

You took the WHOLE argument off the rails as it pertains to anti-intellectualism and solipsism. Completely out of context and it is quite clear that I'm not talking about existentialism...

But, you did prove my point.

DJ Black Adam said...

@Donna:

You ask: “Who gets to define this “spiritual darkness?”

The Bible defines it pretty well. Walking contrary to the will of God. You wrote: “I’m sure this darkness points towards homosexuality, premarital sex, overindulgence in drugs and alcohol, astrology and other witchcraft, money-worship, and anything that denigrates the Ten Commandments.”

The ten commandments are part of the mosaic law, whole different discussion, 613 mitzahs which the ten commandments are part of, Jesus summed it up for those of us who call ourselves Christians, that being: “The law (the Torah which the and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.” Luke 16.16

That being said, spiritual darkness is more than just garden variety sin that people may or may not have an issue with. It is walking contrary to the Will of God. And, in some extreme cases, walking in an anti-Christ spirit. I know the terminology that people choose can sometimes obscure the biblical based doctrine that CBW and myself would talk about, this is not arbitrary or light, this is not about ministries that demand you send in a couple of bucks for a prayer cloth, this is about understanding the spiritual dimensions of things that manifest themselves in our physical world.

I can’t speak for Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn or others, I can only speak for myself and what the Gospel of the Kingdom of God is in how Jesus gave it.

I wrote: “Intellectualism has its place, and it is not an either or. We pray and fight spiritually, but we are to not be so spiritual as to be of no earthly good.”

Donna replied: “So how do you intellectually grapple with how prayer is used in our man-made religious landscape? People pray for their souls to be saved?”

First you have to divide religion from the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, two different things. There is tradition and dogma, and then there is actual spirituality as Jesus gave us by word and demonstration. Of course we are to pray that people get saved, what real Christian would pray otherwise? But “spiritual warfare” is often a bit more precise, one has to understand that there are spiritual forces at work to understand the necessity of such warfare.

DJBA wrote: “And as for the Academics of the LFET, in my observation, there has been a concerted attack on the Christian faith, in the guess of the false dichotomy of "rationalism vs. faith" as Bill Maher calls it, and they hide behind being motivated by their opposition to the Christian right as they forward their atheistic and often times simple anti-Christ ideologies.”

Donna replied: “I would argue that people like Bill Maher are less concerned about being anti-Christ and more concerned about what you mentioned earlier: that doctrinal oversimplification that is used to legislate morality, something we are all affected by, regardless of creed or orientation.”

I used to think that was the case with people like Bill Maher, however; he has gone past that, even suggesting that those who have a religious faith, in particularly Christians, are not “rational” or that his faith in (some cases unproven) scientific theory is somehow more “rational” than a faith in God. Here is an excerpt of a letter I wrote to Bill Maher, which I believe may clarify my point regarding him from: http://djblackadam.typepad.com/damnitq/2008/04/catholics-the-p.html

“I have been meaning to write you anyway. I have heard your many statements about religion and religious people over the years, some of those statements I can agree with, some I can understand even if I don’t agree, and sometimes I have to stop watching your show for a few weeks because you go beyond commentary and into purposed offense to people who choose to accept the existence of a God (or gods as it were).

Mr. Maher, I think you are an intelligent man, but it is intellectually fraudulent to posit again and again that anyone who prescribes to any type of faith system that incorporates a deity is not a rational being, not only because such a statement is riducles at face value alone, but also such a statment implies that people who do not incorporate that belief are some how
more “rational”?

A cursory look at history shows that many crimes have been committed in the name of ideas and philosophies be they: religious ideas, secular ideas, fiscal ideas, political ideas, etc., many of these crimes committed by groups and individuals who claimed to be “rationalist” without any hint of religious overtones (i.e. Stalin).

My primary bone of contention with you is that you put the overwhelming burden on “religious ideas”. I’d be the first person to agree with you that religious ideas are often manipulated by people with POLITICAL AGENDAS to accomplish their goals, it happens here (i.e. the current administration) and elsewhere in the world. It has happened since our earliest empires in history. However; were you fail in your analysis is in not acknowledging that scientific ideas have been used to do the same damn thing (recently a noted noble laureate made statements that many will use to predicate hate ideology).

Look at things that were once “science”: Social Darwinism, Eugenics, etc, these all have been used as an excuse to do evil to people; however, as also with religion, undeniably science has also been used for great positive change as well.

You fail to make that distinction when discussing faith; you also fail to make the distinction between "religion" the institutions and the faith and spirituality of the individual. You claim that Christians believe this, that or the other, when in fact there is a broad range of thought within the faith that you purposely ignore in assigning a specific thought or view that may apply to some to the complete spectrum of Christianity (or people of faith in general).

That is where you come off as no different than people who believe generalities about gays, or Blacks or Jews, etc. People who conveniently ignore any evidence to the contrary of the generality that they desire to forward. That is PREJUDICE.

I am a Christian, so you PREJUDGE that I lack rationality, you PREJUDGE that I believe every word in the Bible as “word for word” or that I use the Bible to tell me everything in life from how to tie my shoes to how often I pray. That is prejudice pure and simple. Anyway, I could go on, but I have learned in life that people either get your point or don't (hell, you argued with Cornell West, what chance do I have?

JudyBright said...

And a Democratically-controlled Congress is trying to wrestle away our dependence on foreign oil ROTFL!!!!!!!! hAhHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!! omgOODNESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There, that's my partisanship for the day. Thanks for the laugh.

And by your reasoning on the Death Penalty, all criminals would go free because we'd forgive them and not punish them.

How can you equate a baby who's never done anything right or wrong with someone who's murdered? I'm not talking about someone falsely accused; I'm talking about people who have committed the most heinous crimes. 'Absurd' is the only word I can think of. The high value of life demands justice for those who have taken the life of an innocent person.

Of course we're totally off track, and no one yet has dealt with the content of what I actually said.

I've just been told not to judge while being judged harshly, and of course the standard: "How could you vote for McCain/Palin/Bush/Cheney." Because that's a valid argument against any point a conservative Christian makes.

But it seems from your tone Donna that you feel superior to us anti intellectual Christians and are here just to feel better about yourself. I hope I've entertained you.

DJ Black Adam said...

@Judy:

"And by your reasoning on the Death Penalty, all criminals would go free because we'd forgive them and not punish them."

I don't think anyone says "all Criminals should go free", I am saying, that as much as I'd like to personally execute some of the folks who have done some heinous crimes against women and childre (child molesters / killers / rapits etc), I'd rather see them do life in prison than to execute them all and execute ONE innocent man. Even GOD was willing to spare for the righteous (i.e. Lot).

It is easy to have MERCY for a child, BUT, it takes fruit of the SPirit of God to have mercy for people who say that they are innocent if we don't know that they are.

Donna said...

Judy,

"And a Democratically-controlled Congress is trying to wrestle away our dependence on foreign oil ROTFL!!!!!!!! hAhHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!! omgOODNESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There, that's my partisanship for the day. Thanks for the laugh."

Ummmm, read these articles after you lift yourself up from your rolling on the floor:

High speed rail initiative:

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/story?id=7306761&page=1

Wind Energy:

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/16930

Solar Energy:

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/obama-signs-stimulus-packed-with-clean-energy-provisions/

Fuel efficient vehicles (sourced out of Washington Post):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/10/obama-to-buy-over-17000-f_n_185451.html

Reading is Fundamental.

Donna said...

But DJ Black Adam,

Isn't purporting to understand the will of god a haughty and somewhat unattainable concept?

For instance, the recent elections bring an interesting argument to mind. I know you will be able to reasonably and intellectually dissect this one, but I enjoy your posts as they are well-thought out and cogent.

Barack Obama's presidency must, in your spiritual framework, represent god's will in some way, shape or form. Correct me if I'm off as I am sure I could very well be. If it IS god's will, wouldn't railing against the president's agenda be considered walking "against" god's will?

Donna said...

DJBA:

As for Bill Maher, well, lets just say I watched his documentary "Religulous" and I must say that it is hard to ignore his point of view, especially when dealing with the rampant absurdity that was on display during that filming. He finds it perplexing that some people (in his mind, most people)who espouse a faith like Christianity do not understand or even KNOW it's basic tenets, the history of the bible's authorship and how politics played a MASSIVE role in Jesus's deification. In kind, many are blissfully unaware of the "borrowed" and "acquired" facets of biblical scriptures (Virgin birth, resurrection, Satan in the desert, etc) from ancient religions and sects.

So, that said, it may seem to some that he is anti-Christ, but to be fair, he focuses his criticisms at Islam and Scientology, too. I will say that Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins do a much better job, intellectually speaking, of analyzing these arguments and presenting relatively sound and articulate theses on atheism, agnosticism and the like.

DJ Black Adam said...

@Donna:

You ask: “Isn't purporting to understand the will of god a haughty and somewhat unattainable concept?”

Not at all, if one is Spiritually led by God and if one actually reads scripture in its proper context.

For example, the Will of God (John 9.31 “[31] Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth) is that we are led by the Spirit of God (Romans 8. 14 “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God” and that we demonstrate the Fruit of that Spirit (Gal 5.22-23: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.)

The Bible is clear how we can know the things of God, by His Spirit, which is in every Christian (John 14).

As for Barack’s candidacy and winning of the election. Is that an example of the Will of God? I voted for Barack, but I am not quite sure that his election was “the will of God”. I think God’s will, is operative no matter who got elected. That will is that we 9as Christians) preach and demonstrate the gospel of the kingdom of God that people be led to HIM.

We pray God’s perfect will be done. And it WILL be done. However, our own will operates in God’s permissive will, meaning that, God is not in the business of making choices for us.

Conservative Black Woman said...

"Isn't purporting to understand the will of god a haughty and somewhat unattainable concept? (Donna)

Wow, yet another example of your solipsism! Facinating. But since you are imploring earnestly I will help you out. Understanding the will of God begins with an understanding of the nature of God Himself. At first this might seem presumptuous, until we begin to reflect on the great lengths He has went in order to express Himself to us.

Those of us who believe that the Bible is true and relevent understand that there is a difference between God's perfect will for us and his permissive will for us. The history of countries around the world have had good leaders and bad leaders, some by the will of it's people and some not. Is it or was it God's will for all of these leaders to be in power? The Bible says that God is the ultimate ruler to whom all must answer. The Word also says we should obey those that have rule over us unless it goes against God's law and will. God has a perfect will and a permissive will. His perfect will is fulfilled when we obey Him and His permissive will is when He allows us to make mistakes, like electing a President that is already proving to be bad for our country. Obama may be in God's permissive will because of the foolishness of those that elected him, but the rest of us do not have to like. We will have to tolerate him for at least 4 years and all we can do is to now is voice our opposition to his socialist policies and pray that God returns this great nation and its people back to its former glory, but only if the people choose God's perfect will instead of their own selfish will. Like I said the undiscerning will understand it better by and by.

DJ Black Adam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Donna said...

CBW,

Please, please, please stop misusing the word "solipsism." It really isn't helping your argument. It is contextually misplaced in this argument.

As for the perfect will versus permissive will piece of your argument...everything you just mentioned, including the "great lengths He has went" (nice) smacks of humanizing a God for the purpose of appeasing a faith.

The mere statement you made regarding believing the bible is true and relevant, in it's entirety I will presume, speaks volumes. Now, remember you said RELEVANT, so let's not go cherry-picking when it suits you.

Case in point #1: "But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)

Relevant you say? Back away from the lobster tail and drop those popcorn shrimp baskets!

Case in point #2: I Timothy 2:12 says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man but to be in silence."

Really? That's pretty relevant. Especially today.

Case in point #3: 1 Peter 3:3 says "Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel."

Hmm, sounds pretty relevant, right? Can't think of ANYONE that would find this relevant.

I have more, but I think you get my point.

DJ Black Adam said...

@Donna:

You wrote: “As for Bill Maher, well, lets just say I watched his documentary "Religulous" and I must say that it is hard to ignore his point of view, especially when dealing with the rampant absurdity that was on display during that filming.?”

That’s my point. I saw “Religulous” also, in my opinion what Bill Maher did was the equivalent of when a house burns down on the south side of Chicago and the reporters at Channel 7, 5 and 2 go past every sensible African American standing there to interview Pookie or Ray Ray saying: “I seeent it! We was smoking some weed right? And that building it burnt down an $#!t, we was like DAMMMNNN and $#!t…”

That is deceptive at best. Why talk to any sensible person who has a faith, when you can talk to people and put them in a context of absurdity even if they may not themselves be absurd?

Then you wrote: “In kind, many are blissfully unaware of the "borrowed" and "acquired" facets of biblical scriptures (Virgin birth, resurrection, Satan in the desert, etc) from ancient religions and sects.”

Well, I think that people should be more versed in what they believe, but the A&E, History channel pseudo scholarship that Maher was forwarding (al that silly and inane 17 crucified Messiahs schtick with all that Osiris, Mithras babble) is hardly representative of what doctrine Christians really should know. However, I have studied religion and mythology from the Enuma Elish to Scientology, I assure you, Bill Maher would NOThave wanted to interview me, or any other Christian with a grasp of the history of the faith, the church or the concept of Jesus as the Hebrew Moshiach, Yeshuyah HaMoshiach Adoani Shekinu, and the Salvation to the worlds, as foretold in the prophets and the law.

Nope, he took a page right out of bad journalism 101, BUT, in his case I guess, he can claim that it is edutainment.

You wrote: “I will say that Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins do a much better job, intellectually speaking, of analyzing these arguments and presenting relatively sound and articulate theses on atheism, agnosticism and the like.”

In my opinion Maher’s, Hitchens and Dawkins’ arguments still come down to one common denominator, that being; the false presupposition that rationality or faith are mutually exclusive.

For example, ridiculing people who don’t “believe IN the THEORY of evolution” no matter how they wish to play the semantics game on the “scientific definition of the word or term theory”, STILL it is speculation and educated guesses on what they think the processes where that lead to life, and later humanity, are these guesses possibilities, surely they are, are they good guesses predicated on some scientific facts, sure. However; If these things are proven at some point of time SCIENTIFICALLY, it really has no bearing on faith, a believer believes that GOD created all things, science can only explain the process, not the reason.

In any case, I don’t think that Maher, Dawkins and Hitchens are really atheist, the atheist I know, don’t believe in God, and really don’t care that I do; whereas Maher, Dawkins and Hitchens, have an “evangelical” agenda for their brand of “non-religion”, which to me smacks’ of the very real possibility that they are hurt and have feelings or resentment for religion for whatever reason.

Donna said...

DJBA wrote:
That’s my point. I saw “Religulous” also, in my opinion what Bill Maher did was the equivalent of when a house burns down on the south side of Chicago and the reporters at Channel 7, 5 and 2 go past every sensible African American standing there to interview Pookie or Ray Ray saying: “I seeent it! We was smoking some weed right? And that building it burnt down an $#!t, we was like DAMMMNNN and $#!t…”


Let's be fair. He did interview a Catholic priest (Father Coyne):

"Of all the believers we see, the only two who seem to measure up to Maher's standards of benevolence and reasonableness are two Catholic priests. One, the former Vatican astronomer Father George Coyne, explains why Roman Catholic teaching doesn't require scientific accuracy from Scripture. (The film doesn't allude to Coyne's recent departure from the Vatican observatory over his disagreement with Benedict XVI on the origins of the universe.) The other, a Vatican employee he encounters on St. Peter's Square, delights Maher by shrugging off the doctrine of hell as antiquated and the intervention of saints as superstition."

This is an excerpt that I pulled from a review since I couldn't remember the names (http://blog.beliefnet.com/idolchatter/2008/10/bill-maher-gets-religulous.html). The review isn't wholly positive, but I just needed the facts. Either way, the point is that although he used the most dim-witted to prove his point, he did manage to get some relatively reasonable people to argue some points so as to seem "balanced." I will admit that the documentary, more of a mockumentary, was lopsided at best.

Donna said...

DJBA wrote:

"However, I have studied religion and mythology from the Enuma Elish to Scientology, I assure you, Bill Maher would NOThave wanted to interview me, or any other Christian with a grasp of the history of the faith..."

So, how would you explain the similarities? I only studied Eastern Religions in college and studied Greek, Norse, Roman and Celtic mythology on my own accord. I will say with some level of certainty that the similarities are too common to ignore.

DJ Black Adam said...

@Donna:

You wrote: “As for the perfect will versus permissive will piece of your argument...”

Not hard to understand, God has what he would that WE would do, and allows for the fact that WE have to CHOOSE what He would have us do.

You wrote: “Case in point #1: "But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)”

Relevant you say? Back away from the lobster tail and drop those popcorn shrimp baskets!

Now you are being a bit disingenuous. Come now, You snatch a mitzvah of the Levitical Law, that only applies to HEBREWS, completely out of context, it is relevant to US to know the history of the Jewish People and the framework of the Torah. That’s like me pulling up a law from the Hammurabi Code such as this one: “If any one brings an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if a capital offense is charged, be put to death.”

Relevent today? Well, as our body of Western law starts at that Hammurabi code, and is even influence to a degree by the Torah, it is relevant in seeing how our laws evolved.

You wrote: “Case in point #2: I Timothy 2:12 says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man but to be in silence." Really? That's pretty relevant. Especially today.”

Yes it is. Understanding how certain churches operated and some of the problems they faced in the Apostolic age of the church, helps us understand different things even now. That scripture is in regard to a specific church and circumstance, taken in context, a valuable lesson can be learned. Sure, some churches take it out of context and do not allow women preachers, but what has been written in the past that has not been taken out of context by men in the modern times?

You wrote: “Case in point #3: 1 Peter 3:3 says "Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel."Hmm, sounds pretty relevant, right? Can't think of ANYONE that would find this relevant.”

Now THAT is WAAYYYY out of context. Verse 4 says: “But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.”

Apostle is comparing adorning ones physicals self with adorning ones character, spirit and temperament. THAT is relevant

DJ Black Adam said...

@Donna:

You asked: “So, how would you explain the similarities? I only studied Eastern Religions in college and studied Greek, Norse, Roman and Celtic mythology on my own accord. I will say with some level of certainty that the similarities are too common to ignore.”

Who said to ignore them, should they matter? Micheal Jordan and Magic Johnson have simlairites, but they are defined by their differences.

So to is the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. I ask, of the “similarities” mentioned, find me ONE GOD, who came in the form of MAN, and allowed himself to be KILLED that MEN could be saved from the penalty of SIN.

Conservative Black Woman said...

Donna~You write:"Please, please, please stop misusing the word "solipsism." It really isn't helping your argument. It is contextually misplaced in this argument."(Donna)


I'm not making a argument just a mere observation. However, I find it quite amusing is that I have shown that it is indeed you and not I would is the solipsist suddenly it's contextually misplaced. Then I will have to ask why did you use that word "in the context" of this discussion?

You see Donna if solipsism is an epistemological or metaphysical position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. Then you are guilty of it not I. You are the one who stated "Isn't purporting to understand the will of god a haughty and somewhat unattainable concept?" translation since understanding the will of God is too much for my brilliant mind it therefore can't be done. So please, please stop metaphorically pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining.

" As for the perfect will versus permissive will piece of your argument...everything you just mentioned, including the "great lengths He has went" (nice).

Touche, but I really do not how to conjugate the verb to go...lol we all make mistakes.

You continue:.. smacks of humanizing a God for the purpose of appeasing a faith.

No, it smacks of understanding the nature of God.

But this is what speaks volumes:

Case in point #1: "But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)<=====Remember, those classes you recommended to JudyBright you would do well to take these course. The Bible has two testaments Old, and New. In the Old testament Jews were under the LAW. We are now in the dispensation of the new testament and are thus not under the law as Jesus came to fulfill the Law for all that believe in Him.Case in point #2: I Timothy 2:12 says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man but to be in silence." <=====Since you seem to be big on "context" this scripture was in the context of a culture that was different from the one we have today. But that does not make it irrelevent and some of us actually believe it is unbiblical for a woman to have authority over a man in the Church. But it is not something over which we divide.Case in point #3: 1 Peter 3:3 says "Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel."<=== Peter clearly wishes to contrast outward adornment with inner beauty. The reference to hair, jewelry, and clothing simply provided an illustration of areas in which a woman could be carried away in trying to create external beauty. The goal of the Christian woman is adornment of the hidden person in your heart, with that imperishable quality of a humble and quiet spirit (as Michaels, p. 154, translates it). In contrast to outward adornment, Peter calls for care of the hidden person in your heart. In contrast to specific hairstyles, jewelry, and clothing styles he calls for a gentle and quiet spirit. The words gentle (literally meek) and quiet are best defined in terms of Jesus. What Peter calls for is Christlikeness. That virtue for both women and men turns attention from the outward symbols of success to the heart issues of obedience.

Donna said...

DJBA:

You wrote: “In my opinion Maher’s, Hitchens and Dawkins’ arguments still come down to one common denominator, that being; the false presupposition that rationality or faith are mutually exclusive.”

There is a real problem here, though. I will illustrate with an example; it will be somewhat elementary, but it is done for the purpose of metaphor and not condescension. If someone told you that they believed that souls ("thetans") reincarnate and have lived on other planets before living on Earth because that is what their faith claims, would you call that rational? Is it rational for a person only exposed to the natural realm to be concerned about a perceived natural death and supernatural resurrection, virgin conception/birth and talking animals when there is no physical evidence to prove that these things could happen? That is where rational thinking and faith are mutually exclusive. In order to believe something, on faith as one would say, you have to exercise willing suspension of disbelief in order to reconcile these things.

You also said: “However; If these things are proven at some point of time SCIENTIFICALLY, it really has no bearing on faith, a believer believes that GOD created all things, science can only explain the process, not the reason.”

Another good point made here: if you can’t prove something scientifically, it should have no bearing on faith. Conversely, if you can’t prove something by faith in the natural world, it SHOULD HAVE NO BEARING ON SCIENCE (example: stem cell research).

One more thing you said: “…whereas Maher, Dawkins and Hitchens, have an “evangelical” agenda for their brand of “non-religion”, which to me smacks’ [sic] of the very real possibility that they are hurt and have feelings or resentment for religion for whatever reason.”

Hurt? Maybe. Resentment? More likely. They probably resent religion for the atrocities committed in the its name, the freedoms and schools of thought that were stifled in an attempt to retain power, and its uncanny ability to be more divisive and dangerous (see Pope’s comments on condoms and AIDS prevention in Africa, just to name one example) than atheism or agnosticism could ever be.

Conservative Black Woman said...

Dang...I meant to say I really do know how to conjugate the verb to go..

Donna said...

DJBA:

To answer one point you made: "So to is the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. I ask, of the “similarities” mentioned, find me ONE GOD, who came in the form of MAN, and allowed himself to be KILLED that MEN could be saved from the penalty of SIN."

Horus claims to be the light of the world represented by the symbolic eye, the sign of salvation.

Horus is the Father seen in the son.

Horus says “It is I who traverse the heavens, I go round the Elysian Fields. Eternity has been assigned to me without end, Lo! I am heir to endless time and my attribute is eternity. (Jesus purportedly said: "I am come down from heaven, for this is the will of the Father, that everyone who beholdeth [sic] the Son and believeth in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.")

Horus says, “I am equipped with thy words O Ra [Father in Heaven] and repeat them to those who are deprived of breath. These were the words of the Father in heaven.” (Jesus: "The Father which sent me, he hath given me a commandment, what I should say and what I should speak. Whatsoever I speak therefore even as the Father said unto me, so I speak. The word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.")

There are a lot more...I'm just sayin'.

Donna said...

CBW,

For your amusement:

Solipsism, in the proper context of the argument I made, is the extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption.

I stated: "While noble Christians engage in spiritual warfare for the sake of rampant solipsism (and that is all it is)..." My argument is that spiritual warfare, like the idea of salvation, eternal life after death, blessings, et al, are rooted in solipsism, meaning that the "prayer warrior" has to indulge his or her own desire to be spared from the depths of hell. The self-absorption in thinking that god is as concerned about you, as one person, and a collective body of people in a vast universe of "who knows what." The ego involved in being extremely pre-occupied with all things godly as to win favor in the eyes of a creator that is "jealous", "merciful," yet vengeful, "forgiving" but will separate the flock on judgment day (Book of Revelation is as trippy as it gets).

Whatever the case is, the point is this: whatever makes you feel better, especially since what is outside of your own mind, or mental landscape, is that there are notions and schools of thought beyond your "brilliant mind" that are tossed out like wet, dirty rags because they do not fit what your mind has rationalized as right. That is solipsism in context of this argument.

Conservative Black Woman said...

Donna~

I have read about the Egyptian sun god Horus, who it is said predated the Christ character by thousands of years, shares the following in common with Jesus:

Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.
His earthly father was named “Seb” (”Joseph”). Seb is also known as “Geb”: “As Horus the Elder he…was believed to be the son of Geb and Nut.” Lewis Spence, Ancient Egyptian Myths and Legends, 84.
He was of royal descent.
At age 12, he was a child teacher in the Temple, and at 30, he was baptized, having disappeared for 18 years.
Horus was baptized in the river Eridanus or Iarutana (Jordan) by “Anup the Baptizer” (”John the Baptist”), who was decapitated.
He had 12 disciples, two of whom were his “witnesses” and were named “Anup” and “Aan” (the two “Johns”).
He performed miracles, exorcised demons and raised El-Azarus (”El-Osiris”), from the dead.
Horus walked on water.
His personal epithet was “Iusa,” the “ever-becoming son” of “Ptah,” the “Father.” He was thus called “Holy Child.”
He delivered a “Sermon on the Mount” and his followers recounted the “Sayings of Iusa.”
Horus was transfigured on the Mount.
He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, and resurrected.
He was also the “Way, the Truth, the Light,” “Messiah,” “God’s Anointed Son,” the “Son of Man,” the “Good Shepherd,” the “Lamb of God,” the “Word made flesh,” the “Word of Truth,” etc.
He was “the Fisher” and was associated with the Fish (”Ichthys”), Lamb and Lion.
He came to fulfill the Law.
Horus was called “the KRST,” or “Anointed One.”
Like Jesus, “Horus was supposed to reign one thousand years.”
Furthermore, inscribed about 3,500 years ago on the walls of the Temple at Luxor were images of the Annunciation, Immaculate Conception, Birth and Adoration of Horus, with Thoth announcing to the Virgin Isis that she will conceive Horus; with Kneph, the “Holy Ghost,” impregnating the virgin; and with the infant being attended by three kings, or magi, bearing gifts. In addition, in the catacombs at Rome are pictures of the baby Horus being held by the virgin mother Isis–the original “Madonna and Child.”

However, I have one question for you and Bill Maher...Did Horus die? If so, was the tomb empty?

Horus is simply a Pagan copy cat. What's so beautiful is that God's Word tells us that we would encounter this very thing.

Donna said...

CBW:

You wrote: "We are now in the dispensation of the new testament and are thus not under the law as Jesus came to fulfill the Law for all that believe in Him."

As your argument goes down this foxhole, if the Jews were under the old law in the old testament that contains the 10 Commandments, how are we not cherry-picking what is relevant today? Or do the 10 Commandments not fall under the law? Does Jesus fulfilling the law absolve you from following ANY of the old testament tenets, or just some? If so, then this one is cool?

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)

Or how about this one? (I heard that some thought this was A-OK because of that whole old law, new law caveat):

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)


"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them." (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

Because, in the end, when you have to reinterpret for the sake of modern-day relevancy, it is hard to hold up the “perfect word of god.” A lot of semantics gymnastics if you ask me.

Oh yeah, I’m not an atheist, by the way.

Conservative Black Woman said...

Donna~You write:"Whatever the case is, the point is this: whatever makes you feel better, especially since what is outside of your own mind, or mental landscape, is that there are notions and schools of thought beyond your "brilliant mind" that are tossed out like wet, dirty rags because they do not fit what your mind has rationalized as right. That is solipsism in context of this argument.Nothing could be further from the truth. I know what I believe and why I believe and I am unapologetic about it. But I absolutely do not toss out as dirty rags the ideas of others, just because I don't agree with them and may (or may not depending on my mood) challenge other's in their beliefs.

I quite enjoy engaging in debate with those who are of a different opinion and who hold a different world view than I do. Most of the those who disagree with me manage to do so without arrogance and condenscension. I generally manage to respond to dissenters without much vitriol, I have found it quite difficult to remain civil with you precisely because of your condenscending tone...but, hopefully we will work through it and find a way to disagree gracefully.

Conservative Black Woman said...

Donna~I will respond to your last comment when I get home. I'm leaving the office now and do not have time to do so now. This will be great fun!

Donna said...

CBW,

You wrote: "However, I have one question for you and Bill Maher...Did Horus die? If so, was the tomb empty? Horus is simply a Pagan copy cat. What's so beautiful is that God's Word tells us that we would encounter this very thing."

The story of Horus, a major Egyptian God, is told in the Book of Vivifying the Soul Forever over 3,000 years before the birth of Christ.

DJ Black Adam said...

@Donna:

you wrote: "Hurt? Maybe. Resentment? More likely. They probably resent religion for the atrocities committed in the its name"

Then why not resent atheism for Stalin, Mao and or resent science for positing that Blacks were intellectually inferior to Whites, etc.?

Just asking....

DJ Black Adam said...

@Donna:

Horus? Heru? lololololololol I don't even need the Wisdom of Zehuti for this one (ironic as that sounds considering my icon here is an Egyptian god powered super hero lol):

Please site where the information you just gave regarding Heru (Horus) came from.

Just asking...

DJ Black Adam said...

@Donna:

Tell me you just didn't write this:

"The story of Horus, a major Egyptian God, is told in the Book of Vivifying the Soul Forever over 3,000 years before the birth of Christ."

The Book of Vivifying the Soul Forever??? Oh come on, research your source material please.

Donna said...

Stalin and Mao (don't forget Pol Pot) did not commit atrocities in the name of atheism but in the hopes of further entrenching their dogmatic Marxist and communist belief systems.

Science cannot be reasonably resented in and of itself because it is not science alone that persecuted Blacks and relegated them to inferior beings worthy of nothing but human experimentation but SCIENTISTS, corrupt ones at that, that used shoddy interpretations of genetics to put forth such tripe. The scientists of that day were no different than religious zealots who try to use scripture to justify heinous acts.

DJ Black Adam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DJ Black Adam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DJ Black Adam said...

@Donna:

You wrote: "Stalin and Mao (don't forget Pol Pot) did not commit atrocities in the name of atheism but in the hopes of further entrenching their dogmatic Marxist and communist belief systems."

Irrelevent, if you posit the wars and atrocities done (i.e. the crusades) which were LAND GRABS and about MONEY with ideology as a manipulator were about religion, so to must atheism be considred as a motivating factor if not agitating one for people liek Stalin.

You wrote: "Science cannot be reasonably resented in and of itself because it is not science alone that persecuted Blacks and relegated them to inferior beings worthy of nothing but human experimentation but SCIENTISTS, corrupt ones at that, that used shoddy interpretations of genetics to put forth such tripe..."

Lets back this up, and re-mix what you JUST said: "CHRISTIANITY or FAITH IN JESUS cannot be reasonably resented in and of itself because it is not CHRISTAINITY OR FATH IN JESUS alone that persecuted Blacks and relegated them to inferior beings worthy of nothing but human experimentation but PEOPLE WHO CLAIMED A FAITH, corrupt ones at that, that used shoddy interpretations of SCRIPTURES to put forth such tripe..."

Fascinating how that works....Donna:e-mail me at djblackadam@yahoo.com, I'd like to send you something.

Donna said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Massey

Found at Temple of Luxor, in Luxor, Egypt, from the time of King Amenhotep III (1538-1501 B.C. as the original source of four of the elements of the Egyptian Horus story: The Annuncation (announcement), Immaculate Conception, Birth of Child-God, and the Adoration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cavendish_(occult_writer)

http://www.bobkwebsite.com/egyptianmythvjesusmyth.html

http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/ebod/

Just a few that I found in a short time. The wiki sites are interesting as they have references that can be double-checked.

Donna said...

DJBA:

You wrote: "Irrelevent [sic], if you posit the wars and atrocities done (i.e. the crusades) which were LAND GRABS and about MONEY with ideology as a manipulator were about religion, so to must atheism be considred [sic] as a motivating factor if not agitating one for people liek [sic] Stalin."

Not the same since Stalin and Mao CLEARLY stated their objectives were about Marxism and Communism, not atheism. They happened to be atheists, but atheism was not the banner under which their atrocities fell. The Crusades, however, were veiled in the idea of spreading Christianity. Whatever the underlying reason, quite clearly an agenda was at work to gain power politically, Marxism and communism are not about atheism and conversely atheism was not the charge for Marxism and Communism. The Crusades were supposedly about Christianity, and as it was interpreted at the time, Christianity justified the Crusades.

The argument, as you presented it, is not congruent.

Donna said...

DJBA,

You wrote: "Lets back this up, and re-mix what you JUST said: "CHRISTIANITY or FAITH IN JESUS cannot be reasonably resented in and of itself because it is not CHRISTAINITY OR FATH IN JESUS alone that persecuted Blacks and relegated them to inferior beings worthy of nothing but human experimentation but PEOPLE WHO CLAIMED A FAITH, corrupt ones at that, that used shoddy interpretations of SCRIPTURES to put forth such tripe..."

I would concede to this argument had it been for one thing:

Science, as defined by Wikipedia, is the effort to discover and increase human understanding of how reality works. Its purview is the portion of reality which is independent of religious, political, cultural, or philosophical outlook. Using controlled methods, scientists collect data in the form of observations, record observable physical evidence of natural phenomena, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. Knowledge in science is gained through research.

The fact that we can record observable PHYSICAL evidence to negate such claims that bogus scientists used to discriminate stands in distinction against faith, which demands the opposite in the hopes that what you believe pans out in the end with no physical proof to support said faith. Therefore, there is logic in the "resentment" (to use a less harsh word, skepticism) of faith because it does not HAVE TO STAND ON EVIDENCE THAT A COLLECTIVE CAN AGREE UPON TO EXIST by virtue of the physical realm. It has no burden of proof in and of itself, yet it can hold water next to science? Not really.

The mere fact that science stands independent of religion, philosophy, politics and culture makes it clear that those who use it to espouse bigoted and unfounded theories are using science to justify a cultural, political, possibly a religious belief or philosophy. We now know, through enlightenment, education, and ethics (a study that does not require religion) that those are opposing forces.

DJ Black Adam said...

@Donna:

"Not the same since Stalin and Mao CLEARLY stated their objectives were about Marxism and Communism, not atheism."

So Stalin and Mao stated their obejetcive about communisim, then by definition they stated that whererever their ideology went ATHEISM would follow, as it did in the Soviet Union and China. Atheism is PART of communism, you can seperate the two if you like, Stalin and Mao did NOT.

2ndly, these ideas are congrueent, because at abse, the masses were manipulated by an ideology, rather a dieity was professed or not, is of no consequence.

Difference in style, not form.

DJ Black Adam said...

Donna:

Let me take this one at a time. One, if you site a source, make sure it supports your psoition.

Regarding Mr. Massey: " However, Massey was not a trained Egyptologist and his work was never recognised in the field of Egyptology, and his ideas were seen as fringe theories that lacked critical support. Massey was also a Theosophist whose theories often support theosophical concepts and ideas."

From YOUR source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Massey

The story you forward about Horus is a fiction predicated on a myth predicated on a religion.

Now for this, you wrote: "We now know, through enlightenment, education, and ethics (a study that does not require religion) that those are opposing forces."

If you think the study of Ethics, law and /or Morality can be had independent of the study of religion and its affect on human society from Sumer till now, you are sadly mistaken.

Second, Science itself is a TOOL, building religions (in form if not fashion) predicated on scientifc THEORIES that have NOT been proven, is in fact, what the problem is.

Donna said...

DJBA,

"Atheism is PART of communism, you can seperate the two if you like, Stalin and Mao did NOT."

Only for their purposes, but not in its truest form. Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general.

Stalin wanted to promulgate the legacy of Lenin...one could argue that he was calling for a god-like worship of Lenin and his ideology of collectivism.

Again, you fail to prove how atheism in and of itself was responsible for their atrocities. It is as if you are trying to create a causal relationship where this isn't one at all.

DJ Black Adam said...

@Donna:

FURTHER, from that SAME ARTICLE regarding Heru (Horus, sorry mamma name em Heru, I'ma call em Heru):

"W. Ward Gasque has written that Egyptologists have rejected many of the specific claims made by Harpur and Massey as fallacious, pointing out that there is no evidence of a virgin birth for Horus, and that Harpur's main source, Alvin Boyd Kuhn, was a Theosophist whose books were mainly self-published and that his other sources were in the main not ancient Egyptian texts but out-of-date authors"

JUST saying....

DJ Black Adam said...

@Donna:

"Only for their purposes, but not in its truest form."

Doesn't matter, in practice in the Soviet Union ATHEISM was part of the ideology that formed the Communist Party, churches were destroyed, religion banned. Who can say if Stalin had of not dropped out of seminary, and if he valued something as simple as "Love thy neighbor" he would not have killed 12 million of his own countrymen?

You want to separate atheism from an ideology that was partly comprised of atheism as an element, but you can’t seem to make a distinction between powerful kings and popes who had their own agendas while often using religion to manipulate a largely illiterate group of people, many of whom couldn’t even READ the scriptures in question?

BUT, people who have resentment for religion, predicated on PERSONAL ISSUES not the crusades or the inquisition and such, often are willfully ignorant of the FACT That MONEY was the predicate for much of that strife, religion, at best an excuse.

Same motivator with Stalin and Mao if one wishes to be honest. Religious doctrine has been used as an excuse, scientific theories have been used as an excuse, MONEY is generally the predicate.

If you can’t see that, you are ignoring history and current events.

Donna said...

DJBA: I never said this: "If you think the study of Ethics, law and /or Morality can be had independent of the study of religion and its affect on human society from Sumer till now..."

What I did say was that ethics and religion can stand independently of each other and can be espoused independently of each other.

You also said: "Science itself is a TOOL, building religions (in form if not fashion) predicated on scientifc THEORIES that have NOT been proven, is in fact, what the problem is."

A) That's a sweeping generalization that is obviously incorrect as we have the Newtonian Laws of Motion that are very much proven, over and over again. Law = A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that is always under the same conditions. Meaning it always occurs in those conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_laws_named_after_people (a list of laws that are eponymous)

B) Scientific theory = a deductive theory, in that, its content is based on some formal system of logic and that some of its elementary theorems are taken as axioms. The problem some have with faith is that it has no legs to stand on, if you want to give science one leg for effort that is.

Donna said...

DJBA:

So, you leave your point WIDE open...

"...pointing out that there is no evidence of a virgin birth for Horus."

It seems that we may have missed on the irrefutable proof of jesus's virgin birth?

That is the point from the start. The lack of substantial proof for both Jesus's divinity and Horus's divinity, even correlation as one stolen from the other and vice verse, is missing. Woefully absent.

Holes everywhere.

DJ Black Adam said...

@DJBA:

I qouted: "...pointing out that there is no evidence of a virgin birth for Horus."

You wrote: "It seems that we may have missed on the irrefutable proof of jesus's virgin birth?"

The proof was not and is not did said event happen, the proof we are looking for is PROOF THAT THERE EVER WAS A STORY that said Horus ahd a virgin birth.

We have proof such a story is in the Gospels.

Further to the point, even when ONE Of these so-called "other messiahs" is looked at, there is little if any similarity between them and the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.

DJ Black Adam said...

@Donna:

I thought you were above word games. You wrote:

"Scientific theory = a deductive theory, in that, its content is based on some formal system of logic and that some of its elementary theorems are taken as axioms."

The problem I have with your theory definition, is that somehow you all miss the point that a scientific theory is NOT a scientific principle and is still SPECULATION not FACT. Logical speculation sure, but LOGIC is only as good as the POSTULATES and presuppositions one starts with.

You know, like that scientific theory you all had that the earth was FLAT. Or the one that humanity evolved from three different strain of primates, i.e. Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid?

My faith has much to stand on, even if it beyond your current ability or desire to apprehend. I respect scientific research and appreciate it, however; I know that it is only useful to measure the spatial and temporal reality we inhabit, and ill-suited to investigate or ascertain the greater actuality outside the bounds of this physicality.

Conservative Black Woman said...

Donna you write~"The story of Horus, a major Egyptian God, is told in the Book of Vivifying the Soul Forever over 3,000 years before the birth of Christ."There is no such book. It is not listed on the Library of Congress catalogue or on Worldcat. There is no mention of it in the 14 volume Encyclopedia of Religion. It is not mentioned in the Handbook of Egyptian Mythology or the Dictionary of African Mythology, The Ancient Gods Speak: A Guide to Egyptian Religion, or Legends of the Egyptian Gods.
There is no trace of this book! I submit to you that The “Book of Vivifying the Soul Forever” is just as much a myth as Santa Claus. Go ahead and look it up online or anywhere else. No such book exists, has been dated or found. Think about this-- Many people will say a book was found that was written between 3,000 to 5,000 years ago but nowhere does anyone say where it was found or even who it was found by. There are no archaeological photographs or eye witness accounts. It is too easy to re-write the story of Jesus and claim it was written 3,000 years in an effort to imply the biblical account is the counterfeit and horus is the true god The Bible was also written thousands of years ago but here is the big difference… It can be scientifically proven, historically backed up by secular eye-witness accounts, and archaeologically it can be proven via inscriptions and rolls that were found that corroborate the words of the bible. Cities and events have only been discovered in recent years that back up the Bible. And here is the biggest difference between the Bible and the “Book of Vivifying the Soul Forever,”…I can prove the Bible actually exists because I’ve got one sitting on my bed!

Conservative Black Woman said...

Donna~You wrote:

“if the Jews were under the old law in the old testament that contains the 10 Commandments, how are we not cherry-picking what is relevant today? Or do the 10 Commandments not fall under the law? Does Jesus fulfilling the law absolve you from following ANY of the old testament tenets, or just some? If so, then this one is cool?”

I maintain that the O/T is still very relevant as a historical document and as a prophetic document for the coming of Jesus. It is in the OT that we Christians learn not only our history, but also the significance of Jesus' act of opening up the promises made to the Jewish people to all nations and peoples. Jesus did not come to break the law (O/T) but to fulfill it – therefore we are not free to break the law. But if we do we have a Savior who redeems us. No it is not a sin to eat shell fish, but if my brother is offended by me eating shellfish and it will cause him to stumble then yep, I’ll drop the shrimp basket.

There are still many valid and important lessons to be learned from the O/T. I know Christians who grew up in the church and yet have never even read the O/T. To me, this is learning only half the faith. We can only understand the remarkable ministry of Jesus by understanding the O/T.

Donna said...

DJBA:

You wrote: "BUT, people who have resentment for religion, predicated on PERSONAL ISSUES not the crusades or the inquisition and such, often are willfully ignorant of the FACT That MONEY was the predicate for much of that strife, religion, at best an excuse."

Therein rests the problem. The personal issue, in their eyes, is legitimate grounds for contesting that these men of the cloth were corrupt while using religion as their cause, a faith system they imposed but obviously did not believe in.

If you cannot see that atheism has fewer burdens to carry in this argument, then you too are ignoring history. The fact that you mention Stalin's apparent lack of faith in a deity to his atrocities ("...if he valued something as simple as "Love thy neighbor" he would not have killed 12 million of his own countrymen?") is the very reason some might take personal issue with the idea that having a faith system in some deity would change that. For those would make that argument but then conveniently explain away Hitler's Christianity seems a bit convenient. If people were to truly espouse the true tenets of Christianity as one would interpret from the gospels, "earthly" pursuits and interests like having a career, possessions, family life, etc are not the priority. (See Matt 16:26, ""If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and
mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even
his own life, he cannot be my disciple.)

So, loving one's neighbor is tied to the golden rule in that, ethically speaking, it makes sense from a self-serving angle and a communal angle (inner harmony, communal peace and understanding). Of course it is the right thing to do, but you don't need a faith system to understand why it is important to help and love fellow man, despite his innate flaws and self-serving leanings.

Anonymous said...

DJBA:

Re your comment: "The proof was not and is not did said event happen, the proof we are looking for is PROOF THAT THERE EVER WAS A STORY that said Horus ahd a virgin birth.

We have proof such a story is in the Gospels."

We also have proof that virgin births were touted in mythology that predates (if not contemporary with) Christianity (Mahabharata, Greek/Roman mythology, etc). The advantage that Christianity had is that it was an organized religion that had religious scholars convene to agree upon texts to be included in the bible a few millennia ago. Another advantage, specifically over Egyptian mythology, is that it did not have to rely upon translating or transliterating hieroglyphs, but had a phonetic language from which to translate.

If you want to use proof that a story exists or does not exist to build your argument, then it becomes weak again.
You also said: “Further to the point, even when ONE Of these so-called "other messiahs" is looked at, there is little if any similarity between them and the Gospel of the Kingdom of God."
So, the fact that a piece of literature is relatively original as opposed to completely original is how you choose to verify the deity of Jesus? Not sure that one holds much water either. William Shakespeare had some very original works, too.

Donna said...

That previous post was mine, by the way...

DJBA, you also state: "You know, like that scientific theory you all had that the earth was FLAT. Or the one that humanity evolved from three different strain of primates, i.e. Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid?"

The great thing about science, theory, laws and all, is that it does not claim to be static and is always available for scrutiny and experimentation. The problem with Christianity is that it is not. Obviously, the theory of the earth's flatness was thrown out around the 4th century by educated scholars. But then again, science makes room for discussion and, debate and proof while Jesus's divinity, not so much.

Donna said...

CBW:

You wrote: "The Bible was also written thousands of years ago but here is the big difference… It can be scientifically proven, historically backed up by secular eye-witness accounts, and archaeologically it can be proven via inscriptions and rolls that were found that corroborate the words of the bible. Cities and events have only been discovered in recent years that back up the Bible. And here is the biggest difference between the Bible and the “Book of Vivifying the Soul Forever,”…I can prove the Bible actually exists because I’ve got one sitting on my bed!"

So, based on that logic, just because you have concrete evidence that a book exists (as does the Mahabharata and Homer's Odyssey), you claim that it has more basis in truth than one that is not catalogued in the Library of Congress? Just because a city exists in a literary work does not make all elements of that literary work true by default. I’m sure you realize that?

Two points to chew on...the Rosetta Stone was discovered in 1799, Library of Congress was established in 1800 and Egyptian hieroglyphs were being translated as late as the 1820s. Compare that with manuscripts of the New Testament dating as far back as the 2nd and 3rd century and you’ve got yourself a significant gap and presumable advantage when it comes to translation and transliteration.

The assumption that a book must be contained in the Library of Congress to be considered legitimate consists of a completely ethnocentric view of the world. The story of Horus, albeit variant, has been found in Egyptian hieroglyphics. Does that make it true? Because that can be "scientifically proven" by archeologists too.

The fact of the matter is is that you happened to be born in a place where the dominant religion is Christianity (my assumption). Based on your logic, Islam is just as legitimate by your standards, but it is not your faith system and therefore is less legitimate because...?

Donna said...

The notion that religious faith is somehow a prerequisite for a moral society is presumptuous and weak, not to berate a faith as a whole but the idea that one must espouse faith-based doctrine in order to be a morally "upright" person.

I leave you with this (pulled from Wikipedia for brevity):

“Socrates (469 BC–399 BC) was one of the first Greek philosophers to encourage both scholars and the common citizen to turn their attention from the outside world to the condition of man. In this view, Knowledge having a bearing on human life was placed highest, all other knowledge being secondary. Self-knowledge was considered necessary for success and inherently an essential good. A self-aware person will act completely within their capabilities to their pinnacle, while an ignorant person will flounder and encounter difficulty. To Socrates, a person must become aware of every fact (and its context) relevant to his existence, if he wishes to attain self-knowledge. He posited that people will naturally do what is good, if they know what is right. Evil or bad actions, are the result of ignorance. If a criminal were truly aware of the mental and spiritual consequences of his actions, he would neither commit nor even consider committing them. Any person who knows what is truly right will automatically do it, according to Socrates. While he correlated knowledge with virtue, he similarly equated virtue with happiness. The truly wise man will know what is right, do what is good and therefore be happy.”
Again, one does not have to espouse a faith doctrine to know what is right and wrong. Faith is not a predicate for morality.

And I'm done. Thanks guys - it's been real!

Conservative Black Woman said...

Donna~You write:"So, based on that logic, just because you have concrete evidence that a book exists (as does the Mahabharata and Homer's Odyssey), you claim that it has more basis in truth than one that is not catalogued in the Library of Congress? Just because a city exists in a literary work does not make all elements of that literary work true by default."

What I am saying is that based on the fact that there is archeological, eyewitness and physical evidence that that Bible exists that one can deduce that since none of this exists for the Vivifying The Soul Forever and the story of Horu closely resembles the redemptive narrative of Christ that one can logically conclude that Horu is a pagan copy-cat, and Vivifying the Soul Forever -- if a copy is ever discovered, produced, printed and mass distributed it is still a counterfeit.

grace said...

""The notion that religious faith is somehow a prerequisite for a moral society is presumptuous and weak, not to berate a faith as a whole but the idea that one must espouse faith-based doctrine in order to be a morally "upright" person.""

ROMANS 1:16-32:

16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.
17 For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,just as it is written: "THE RIGHTEOUS WILL LIVE BY FAITH"

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Conservative Black Woman said...

Grace~Yes and Amen!

DJ Black Adam said...

@Donna:

Like I said, Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant have many simlarities, they are defined by their differences.

Simple and Plain.

And this:

"The notion that religious faith is somehow a prerequisite for a moral society is presumptuous and weak, not to berate a faith as a whole but the idea that one must espouse faith-based doctrine in order to be a morally "upright" person"

The notion that religious faith is not or has not been instrumental in the human development of Law, Ethics and by mutual implication morality, is utterly inane.

Thuyen Tran said...

"Looking forward to your reply. Notice, JESUS' Name is absent from ALL government refernce, whenever they Say "GOD" I have never heard or seen Jesus referenced, not even in the constitution or bill of rights."

The treaty of Pars, while it does not use the term Jesus, it did use the term Trinity, which is reference to name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, with Jesus being the Son.

And the reference to the name Jesus was mentioned indirectly in the founding documents with phrases like "year of our Lord," who was Jesus back then. Yes, I know it is cultural thing to use that then, but that's precisely the point: the culture was Christian. Contrast that with the French Revolution that tried to go with year one and year two and so on starting in 1792, to get rid of the Christian influence on the country.

And finally, nearly state constitutions in their original forms do used terms like Christ, Christian, Old and New Testaments, Bible, etc.

The Declaration of Independence did refer to God. Granted, it does not use the word Jesus. But those who signed it came from the states that had constitutions at the time that did not make references to that, as so we can know what God they worshipped and promoted. And the terms like law of nature and law of God were indeed references to God's Bible, where the terms come form. Law of nature was defined by Locke and Blackstone and accepted by the founders as law of God written in the hearts of man via conscience and creation, and identified with the moral law of God, as opposed to the ceremonial and political aspects of the Mosaic law.

Not all founders to be sure were Christians, but nearly all of them, even Jefferson, had a Christian morality and worldview that shaped their views, even if they did not always lived by them.