Obama’s point was that there are many different versions of “Biblical morality,” and when people go around insisting on applying it to America, they should make clear just what they mean by it.

That wasn’t clear to me.

the Bible does, in fact, command the things he mentions.

No. It does not. Your word “command” is present tense; it should be past perfect tense. “The Lord in times past had commanded . . .”

What you consider “troubling” is petty compared to other things the Lord has done. He destroyed entire cities (Sodom and Gomorrah), destroyed everyone on earth except eight people (Noah and his family), and killed the firstborn of everyone in Egypt who did not have the blood of the lamb on their doorways.

Speaking of The Lamb, He’ll be back:

“…the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;” – 2 Thessalonians 1:7b-9

He did not destroy Nineveh when they turned from their evil ways.

God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. – 2 Peter 3:9

Report comment to moderator

Your leftist political goals trumps all else and renders you unconcerned about far more than just the two items mentioned in your last sentence of #258. The context includes the many other posts you have authored that brush aside any concern over Obama’s past, his associations, and his current dissimulations.

So your bogus charge of “lifting out of context” does not fly.

You and Senator Byrd are “birds of a feather”—the flightless and witless Dodo.

Report comment to moderator

Damage like an enormous peacetime economic expansion, or a balanced budget for the first (and last) time in recent history?

I think we’ve recovered pretty completely from such “damage.”

Report comment to moderator

So long as Obama’s spoken politics is what Steve likes, he doesn’t care about anything else. He is a soul mate of Senator Byrd, as previously noted, and willing to accept anyone or anything that advances his own leftist political views.

Well, I suppose it’s telling in the way you want to be if you lift it out of context.

IN context however, it’s clear that I was not saying we don’t care about actual and substantive evidence of real character flaws. Even the sentence you lifted that partial quote out of goes on to say, quite specifically, that what I’m not caring about is whether his Muslim step-father listed his religion as Islam when Obama himself was seven years old, nor do I care that he experimented with cocaine many decades ago.

Now if you had some real evidence that he has secret radical Muslim sympathies now, or is still a habitual coke-snorter, my evaluation of his fitness for office would be quite different. But you don’t have that. You have facts about the distant past and only rumor and innuendo about anything recent.

Report comment to moderator

As long as Obama convinces us he’s a patriot who will be a capable and inspiring leader, we really don’t care…”

This is the most telling thing that Steve writes, “…we really don’t care…”

So long as Obama’s spoken politics is what Steve likes, he doesn’t care about anything else. He is a soul mate of Senator Byrd, as previously noted, and willing to accept anyone or anything that advances his own leftist political views.

I have often wondered how the German people could so enthusiastically accept Adolph Hitler despite all the evidence of his flawed character, background, and intentions. He promised them what they wanted and, like Steve, they didn’t care either. All the other baggage he brought along with him was of no concern. To use Steve’s words, he was an inspiring, capable, and patriotic leader—they thought. In their own naivety and delusions this is what they allowed themselves to believe. Then he brought them disaster. After the war, to cover up their shame, they said, “We didn’t know.” That was just as much of a lie as those lies of Hitler that deluded them in the first place.

Steve calls me a liar when I point out Obama’s past, most of it from Obama’s own written word. But it’s somewhat of a fair trade I suppose. I consider Steve to be naïve and deluded by a charlatan.

It is my hope that the majority of the American people will not be similarly deluded. The full scope of the changes that Obama promises to bring to this country, if elected, is currently unknown.

At a minimum we know that it will be continued millions of deaths from the willful murders of abortion. We know that it will mean wholesale surrender in Iraq and Afghanistan—just what our terrorist enemies and Muslim sympathizers want. We know that it will mean skyrocketing taxes for most Americans to support multitudes of giveaway programs designed to redistribute income by government force—just what any Marxist thief revels in. We know that it will mean the vengeful pummeling of business by reams of new oppressive regulations and the leech-like infliction of parasitic taxes that could very well plunge us into a major depression. But that’s OK with the Marxists since it is their traditional means of grabbing ultimate power.

These are just a few of the known and possible consequences for our nation if Obama and his ilk get their way.

I remember coming in to work on the morning after Clinton’s first election to be greeted by a big banner that read, “Happy Days Are Here Again!” Eight years later the nation was not singing the same tune as the most horrible president in history left office in utter and thoroughly deserved disgrace. We have still not recovered from the damage he did in so many areas.

Can we survive another and even more lethal dose of his kind of politics? Obama and his new campaign partners, Hillary and Bill, promise us more of the same. Plus, Obama will bring us his own new baggage of racist, Marxist, and Islamic sympathies. I believe that if Obama is elected this November, four years from now Steve will be attempting to cover his shameful complicity with a lame, “I didn’t know.”

Report comment to moderator

Obama’s personal history of Muslim devotion is an open fact.

Lie. He has no such history. It’s not that I don’t think it would be important, it’s that there’s no evidence of any such thing.

He grew up exposed to a variety of faith traditions and embraced none of them. When, as an adult, he did become part of a religious affiliation, it was Christianity.

Your strongest evidence of “Muslim devotion” is that when he was seven years old his Muslim step-father wrote “Islam” on a school form for him.

His critics, ludicrously, accuse him in one breath of being a Muslim and then, in the next breath, of being the wrong kind of Christian. This is a strategy of throwing every smear you can at the wall and hoping some will stick.

His history of Marxist sympathies in college and Chicago politics is an open fact.

“Marxist” is one of the words ultra-Conservatives toss around freely against anyone who advocates any sort of redistribution of wealth. I guess it sounds dirtier than “commie” these days.

Show me solid evidence that he wants to make America a communist country, and I’ll worry. If the best you can do is that he favors some programs that spend tax funds on programs to aid the poor, then I’m not concerned.

His history of alcohol and hard drug abuse is an open fact.

Admitted by him and left behind long ago. George Bush’s history of alcoholism is also an open fact.
So?

Another point for you to remember: Most of us outside the ultra-conservative Christian community don’t get freaked out by this stuff. As long as Obama convinces us he’s a patriot who will be a capable and inspiring leader, we really don’t care what somebody said about him when he was a small child or whether he experimented with drugs 25 years ago in college.

Report comment to moderator

Obama’s point was that there are many different versions of “Biblical morality,” and when people go around insisting on applying it to America, they should make clear just what they mean by it.

He used hyperbole to make the point, following in the footsteps of others who have used the same technique (like, speaking of camels going through the eyes of needles), by pointing out — completely correctly — that the Bible does, in fact, command the things he mentions. The fact that Christians today don’t insist on those same things doesn’t change the words of the text.

And if you believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, then you worship a God that at one point did demand parents execute their own children for straying from the faith and who laid out the rules under which the ancient Hebrews had to govern their slavery system by. The fact that those rules are no longer operative doesn’t make them less troubling.

(The defense that “those rules no longer apply so we don’t have to justify them” is like a thief on the witness stand saying “I don’t steal things anymore, so I shouldn’t be held responsible for what I did two years ago.”)

Report comment to moderator

Thank you!! I’m happy that you would included me with posters like MM. You shouldn’t have left out the rest though, MIM, Victoria, NJL, Bob Buckles, Llama, and others, just to name a few. I’ll wear that as a badge of honor.

Just so I make sure I’m current on the definition thing, I’ll summarize, and you can tell me where I’m wrong.

#1-truth=swiftboating/and is equal to smoking crack

#2-questioning BO=smear/racism

#3-pointing out his associates=distractions

Did I leave anything out? Please let me know if I did. I gotta make sure we’re all working from the same sheet of music here. Or I could just ignore your constant whining, and just continue on as before.

I’m gonna go with B.

Report comment to moderator

You seem not to have grasped a fundamental concept. The quote of Mr. Obama is:

“[E]ven if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?

Whose Christianity teaches that slavery is OK now? Whose teaches that eating shellfish is abomination now? Whose teaches the stoning of their children for straying from the faith now?

None! It’s a complete strawman argument!

Christianity obliterated slavery from all but the fringes of the Roman Empire. (As a teenager, St. Patrick was kidnapped from Roman Britain by Irish pagans and kept as a slave until he escaped)

Centuries later, the British resumed slave trading over strenuous Papal opposition.

Christianity stamped it out again in the British Empire and then in America.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator