Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!
Bart Stupak's amendment barring federal funding for abortions did pass but could be removed from the final bill.
Click to Print
Include Comments
Obama and the danger of a divinized ruler
Upon clinching the Democratic nomination Barack Obama said, “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” His campaign slogans exhort us to “Believe.” One of his posters gives biblical concepts a new object: “Faith. Hope. Change. Barack Obama for President.” There’s even a website titled “Is Barack Obama the Messiah?” But as WORLD’s Gene Edward Veith reports, Obama’s messianic image is more than just over-the-top political rhetoric. Many Americans are actually giving him religious veneration. Some are even hailing him as savior.
Topic: Campaign 2008, WorldMagBlog
Keywords: barack-obama, messiah
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top95 Comments to “Obama and the danger of a divinized ruler”
“Barack Obama said, “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.””
He said this? He actually said this?
I can see this being used in a campaign ad against him, too. And if people are indeed hailing him as a “savior” — maybe somebody (and I’m not saying McCain) — should bring this nonsense to the attention of all the American people via some commercials.
I wonder what a psychiatrist would say about a statement like that.
Report comment to moderator
The “Obama messiah” meme is mainly pushed by partisan hacks… in this case Mickey McLean and Edward Veith.
You’d think a Christian blog would have a little trouble mocking their own concept of a messiah, but I guess when it comes to throwing chum to the partisan sharks nothing is sacred.
I notice that WORLD’s “journalists” made no such inane and childish “messiah” jibes after McCain’s speech in which he outlined how he was going to fix the world by the end of his first term (watch the video from McCain’s own website).
The audacity in that speech from McCain eclipses by far anything Obama has ever said.
Report comment to moderator
He, also, on Super Tuesday said:
We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. We are the hope of those boys who have little; who’ve been told that they cannot have what they dream; that they cannot be what they imagine.
This from a rookie senator with an undistinguished record who made his way via Chicago machine politics. The fellow is a colossal fraud.
Report comment to moderator
This is all quite amusing.
Obama the Messiah, hmmm…
Report comment to moderator
What is the best (and easiest) way for white people to prove that aren’t racist?
Vote for a black man to be President.
Report comment to moderator
Adam Beckham writes: “The “Obama messiah” meme is mainly pushed by partisan hacks… in this case Mickey McLean and Edward Veith.”
I’ve heard Obama called this on ABCNews and by at least one German.
I don’t think it is this blog that is mocking the concept of the messiah — it is Obama and his followers who do that. It is Obama himself who is claiming the power to heal the planet and stop the oceans from rising. It is Obama with the God complex.
Report comment to moderator
That was probably one of the worst articles I’ve read here and that says something after years of reading Olasky. Illama could have constructed a more coherent argument.
Watch the McCain video Adam alludes to — the low voice of the narrator is priceless. By the end of 2013 McCain promises an end to original sin.
The “we” Obama is referring to is the American people — he is preaching the American gospel of self-reliance and neighborhood cooperation. Nothing radical, nothing self absorbed just a call for a renewal to the American dream which has been laying dormant for the last 8 years.
Report comment to moderator
just throw some words in a text generator and out comes another world opinion piece.
of course i share your doubts about Hussein I am just honest enough to recognize that the same doubts apply equally to Yosemite McSame.
Report comment to moderator
A German, a Black Muslim, and a New Ager… this is what counts for evidence?
I don’t think it’s partisan to ask for a redo on this. The evidence does not support the charge.
As to the bit about “Believe.” Well, as a matter of fact, I do want to believe in my country’s government once again. I want to believe that it will not torture. I want to believe that it will ask for the best not merely the most partisan. I want to believe again in a country that is big enough for principled disagreement.
That was the government I grew up with; it was Republican and Democratic. I want to believe because the sad mess of the last eight years really is unbelievable.
Report comment to moderator
OK, look. You guys need to get a life.
Read the second news item I posted here well over a year ago: Suspicious Ole Me
Report comment to moderator
5 – And that’s exactly what it’s about.
Report comment to moderator
The shrill squeals show that this charge hits home.
The leftists have lost all ability to think independently or use their own brains (presuming they still have any) – instead, obediently and on cue, they worship (literally) a man who has been hastily constructed in the past six months by a prostituted and kept media, a man whose chief claim to fame is his roots in the criminal Chicago political machine, deep and long term ties to bigots, terrorists and cop-killers, a visceral hatred for middle America and Americans (with a specific loathing of their faith and liberties), and a self worshiping narcissist as well.
Yeah, he can read a speech that is full of moronic absurdities and impress dim-wits and morons; but put him in an unscripted environment and he becomes less articulate than a transmission going bad on my 1982 Ford pickup truck.
“We are the ones we have been waiting for. Uh. We are them who we are hoping for. Um. We are them who hopes. Um. Um. We are us. We are we. Um. We need a change, we who are us.”
What’s that? A change of underwear?
“I, whom I have been waiting for, merely speak the command and the sun grows cooler, stars stop going super-novae in distant galaxies, the seas recede, yea, even the Polar bears and the seals lie down and start smooching each other. Also the outhouses all over the world suddenly smell much, much better.”
Surely the Left can come up with a better Messiah that THIS. How about Daffy Duck?
Or Howard Dean or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid?
No, no. Let me be serious. Daffy Duck.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, Obama didn’t say “we” when he said “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” He’s saying but for him coming along, the oceans will inundate us with water, our planet will die. Oh, woe is me.
This is one of the most arrogant statements I have ever heard. He believes his own press.
Harris, the thread posters here didn’t invent the word “Obamessiah” so don’t feign this “this is evidence” stuff. The MSM dubbed him that, and you know it.
And you could believe in the government if you weren’t so susceptible to conspiracy theories and had a full grasp on reality.
Report comment to moderator
Drill, brilliant, though I prefer Mickey Mouse.
Report comment to moderator
Lessee – so my choice is:
A – rising oceans, the perpetuation of the planet becoming diseased and infested with leeches and sucking scum, an ever warming yellow star situated a mere 93 million miles away, hirsute women, apes in Spain who have rights and lefts, and Daffy Duck for a messiah…
OR…
B – The big BO for president.
I’m gonna pick option “A”.
Surprised? Woo-hoo woo-hoo woo-hoo!!
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know really how to post a link but there is a great (funny) article on Obama and the Democrat problem at
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTRjNjQ1ZDAyNTY1MzA2Mjc1YjIxMzgyZDQ5OTRjZmI=
I hope I don’t get in trouble here for posting a link.
I’m in enough trouble right now for running over my wife’s lemon cucumber plant with my tractor the other week.
Report comment to moderator
The striking thing in this campaign is that many supposedly hard-headed reporters have fallen for the hollow Obama pizazz as this comment in an IBD piece, Media’s Obama Crush Flunks Smell Test, by Peter Schweizer makes clear:
As reporter John Harris has written: “As one who has assigned journalists to cover Obama at both Politico and the Washington Post, I have witnessed the phenomenon several times. Some reporters come back and need to go through detox to cure their swooning over Obama’s political skill.”
Report comment to moderator
i can’t say that i really think there is a difference between either of these clowns, but i reckon i hope the black one wins just so i can watch you guys get more and more irrational for four years. although I suppose that is going to happen either way.
Report comment to moderator
First, NJLawyer, I am surprised that you haven’t heard this quote before. I consider you an astute observer. If this slipped by you then there is hope that this will be news to many voters out there.
Second, all you lefties and Democrats are complaining about how much John McCain promised that he will never be able to deliver. He will try though. We conservatives and Republicans are afraid that Obama will get much of his mostly unpublicized agenda pushed through. It is hard to get rid of political $ give-away stuff, even though most people soon realize it is just throwing $ away.
Third, why don’t all of you lefty Democrats anwer the assertation that Obama claimed God-like powers. Don’t try to change the subject.
Report comment to moderator
So we should vote based on a candidate’s positions, leadership, wisdom, and record. We shouldn’t vote based on some vague notion of his spiritual worth.
Agreed.
And where were you guys in 2000 and 2004 when George W. Bush was being sold to evangelicals as a “man of God and a fellow believer”?
Report comment to moderator
JJF: Well, I am not sure about George Bush being a ‘Man of God’ (that is a strong term for anyone) but it would seem he at least verbally qualifies as a ‘fellow believer’.
Obama, on the other hand, emphatically does not.
He is ABSOLUTELY no Christian since he maintains that Jesus Christ is a liar and a fraud. So, he is certainly not a ‘fellow believer’.
As far as being a ‘man of God’, perhaps he is.
That is if you define God as Moloch.
Report comment to moderator
#20 JJF
“So we should vote based on a candidate’s positions, leadership, wisdom, and record.”
I did consider both Gore (I took the initiative in creating the internet.) and Kerrey (“I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”) before voting. George Bush seemed more truthful than either of these two.
#21 Drill
I agree with you.
Report comment to moderator
By the way, you lefties think Bush is a buffoon You came to believe this after he was elected. I saw Gore, Kerry and now Obama as buffoons before voting.
Besides all that, I am tired of Democrats cheating.
Report comment to moderator
Let’s assume he is a fellow believer.
Is voting for him on those grounds not voting for him based on some vague notion of his spiritual worth? Much like buying into someone’s promises of elusive hope and unspecified change?
Report comment to moderator
re 18 – “i can’t say that i really think there is a difference between either of these clowns, but i reckon i hope the black one wins just so i can watch you guys get more and more irrational for four years. although I suppose that is going to happen either way.”
You know – the big BO is as much white as he is brown. I’m sure you didn’t mean for that to escape your attention.
Can we get past skin pigment already?
Report comment to moderator
To Bob Buckles
Since all these people are buffoons where would you classify McCain?
* He “hopes” to win the Iraq War by 2013
* He will be sending more troops to fight the unwinnable war in Afghanistan
* He almost certainly will bomb Iran Why? Because they are a few years away (if at all) from developing a rudimentary atomic bomb.
Report comment to moderator
jjf, you’re way off base. Pres. Bush compiled a creditable record as a two-term Republican governor of Texas with a record of accomplishment dealing with a Democratic legislature. He, also, stemmed from a family with considerable accomplishment in war, diplomacy, and politics.
Report comment to moderator
oh when the chimp says it (I am a christian) drill laps it up.
but then the black messiah says it drill is hyperskeptical.
drill what’s up? don’t think black liberals can be christian?
and who made you the arbiter of who is a christian and who is not? I suggest you sit back, shut up and let Jeeeeesus be the judge. Wouldn’t that make all of this circus surrounding the wizard of oz parade presidential race much more bearable? it will be over soon and i guarantee you that it doesn’t matter who ‘wins’.
Report comment to moderator
mickel, that’s the only difference. and mccain wouldn’t be so white if 1) he wasn’t a living fossil and 2) didn’t wear as much makeup as a car wreck victim lying in a coffin.
he is so old and forgetful he doesn’t know how many houses he owns for petes sake. and Cindy c*nt help him out.
Report comment to moderator
Peter:
He “stemmed from a family” with accomplishments? What is this, the divine blood of kings argument?
His accomplishments as the governor of Texas were minimal. His accomplishments in private life before that were non-existent. In fact, his private life before that was pretty much a total wreck.
But that’s beside the point. He was sold to evangelicals on his supposed spiritual credentials. And I didn’t hear any evangelicals back then warning about the dangers of political messiahs.
Too bad we didn’t. Then we might have weighed the man on his merits, and found him wanting.
Report comment to moderator
#24 & #20 JJF
“So we should vote based on a candidate’s positions, leadership, wisdom, and record.”
I don’t like Obama’s positions. They are socialist and unthinkingly “environmental.”
Have you looked into Obama’s one real position of leadership? It was judged a failure.
Wisdom? Didn’t he believe the Surge wouldn’t work? You can give some examples, I suppose.
Record, his record in the US Senate is sparse. He hasn’t done much of anything. His record in the Illinois state Senate is much better. Barack was given all the pent up Democratic supported bills as his when he the Democrats took control of the state Senate. Other Senate members who had been pushing legislation for years were forced to give the bills to Barack to introduce as his own. So, yes, Barack has a record; he rests on others’ laurels.
Now, as for his record before the State Senate, it is being hidden. Reporters are being stonewalled from looking into it.
Report comment to moderator
18
o i can watch you guys get more and more irrational
Impossible, some believe that the Republican party represent the interest of evangelicals. the very definition of irrational or perhaps delusional.
19
I often wonder why conservatives are afraid Obama will give away the store when the Bush administration has allowed thier friends to loot the gov’t wholesale
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/08/0082132
Report comment to moderator
#26 Nick H Peters
“Since all these people are buffoons where would you classify McCain?”
You caught me answering about Bush and not keeping to the thread, “Obama and the danger of a divinized ruler”.
Meanwhile, I see MCain as flawed but generally reliable as a conservative, a Republican, and not a liar. I see him as rather straightforward. His stands are rather honest and consistent.
I think that his goals are to be applauded. Are they reachable? Maybe. Probably not. Are they laudable? Yes. Do I generally agree with them? Yes. Do you agree with them?
Report comment to moderator
re 29 – Erasmus – I’m sensing that you’re leaning towards the development of some stand-up material!!
Got any more?? Of course – it’s harder to present good stand-up via the keyboard vs. in person. But I think you may have a hidden talent there!
Report comment to moderator
mickel it is hard to make comedy out of a tragedy. fortunately these two trained idiots are doing everything they can to make it easier.
Report comment to moderator
JJF, He was sold to evangelicals on his supposed spiritual credentials.
Evangelicals are smart enough to distinguish between between “supposed” and real spiritual credentials. Pres. Bush made a true and heartfelt decision to accept Christ and his action on stem-cell research rather proved this in that he sacrificed popularity for principle. He, also, appointed two Supreme Court justices who in the long run will find a proportionate way to overturn Roe v. Wade, assuming Obama doesn’t get elected and appoint liberal justices.
Also, evangelicals are smart about deciding who has the best basic character along with a real record of political accomplishment as in the case of both Bush and McCain. Most of them are properly very skeptical of Obama’s spiritual and political accomplishment.
Obama is an ordinary Ivy League leftist elitist who appeals to academics, yuppies, and a few evangelicals seeking approval from the mainstream.Fortunately sensible Americans are in the process of catching on to this.
Report comment to moderator
Nah, erasmus: You need to move beyond pigmentation in the skin as criteria for anything.
Obama claims there are many ways to the Truth.
Christ said there was one way, Himself.
You must not have been listening in Sunday School, erasmus. A real trial for your teachers, no doubt.
So Obama is no Christian – sure he claims the word for political purposes, but calling yourself a poached egg doesn’t mean you are a poached egg, especially if you are on record as stating that poached eggs don’t exist.
Report comment to moderator
but of course drill what is meant by “Himself” or “by me” is more than unclear.
what it is clear that it by no means necessarily implies your interpretation of that statement. hence my suggestion that prudence would dictate that you worry about your own salvation and not that of anyone else. i realize that as a fundie you are deeply wedded to the notion that you should force your arbitrary interpretation of ’scripture’ on everyone else, but what I don’t realize is how you justify that to yourself (perhaps I do, but I have in the past suspected you as being more intelligent than that).
the point of this exchange that all of these losers claim to be christians, and that this is most likely pandering to folks like you and the rest of the congregation. hussein is a salvation pluralist, McSame is an adulterer who c*nt speak to his wife civilly in public and Bushie parrots what he is told and thinks jesus was a great philosopher.
yeah, pitching your lot in with any of this clown troupe is a sure sign that you drink the same brand of kool-aid.
Report comment to moderator
solon, and you are an ordinary ivy league….. what?
curmudgeon?
are you not skeptical of McSame’s ’spiritual accomplishment’?
is c*nt in your vocabulary of words you use to describe your wife? did they teach you that in Elitist 101 up there in MA? it sure is an accomplishment, you should be proud of your representative.
Report comment to moderator
Peter:
So your argument is that our trust in evangelicals’ judgment is determined by their giving George W. Bush 8 years in office.
I agree.
But you still seem to be excusing political messianism when he’s your political messiah, and distrusting it when he’s not. So your argument is not against the dangers of political messianism per se, just against the left trying to co-opt the right’s stamped and branded method.
Report comment to moderator
I hope the leftys will answer Bob Buckles questions, but I fear they will wait until the 3 p.m. cutoff and hope we conveniently forget about this by Monday. We won’t.
Yes, it did get by me, Bob — that’s because I have a limit of how much BO (or Bsomething) I can take when I watch the news, so I frequently switch stations.) This is why I think it would make a great ad!
See you guys Monday — we’ll know BO’s VP by then, but this will come back. I want to know the justification for BO having the powers of God, or at least the lefty view of that.
Report comment to moderator
I hope the leftys will answer Bob Buckles questions, but I fear they will wait until the 3 p.m. cutoff and hope we conveniently forget about this by Monday. We won’t.
Yes, it did get by me, Bob — that’s because I have a limit of how much BO (or Bsomething) I can take when I watch the news, so I frequently switch stations.) This is why I think it would make a great ad!
See you guys Monday — we’ll know BO’s VP by then, but this will come back. I want to know the justification for BO having the powers of God, or at least the lefty view of that.
Report comment to moderator
I find this passage of Veith’s particularly ironic:
He doesn’t even argue for the first statement (that the divinized ruler is a greater danger to a free republic than religious influence), just throws it out there. It seems like one of those entirely arguable vagueries that would get a red “explain” in the margin on any freshman comp paper.
Then, after the second sentence, I must pick my incredulous jaw up off the floor. I was discussing the unconstitutional overreaching of the executive branch with an evangelical friend. She said, straight up, “Well, I wouldn’t want Hillary or Obama to have those powers. But I trust George Bush with them because he’s a Christian.”
The priest-king phenomenon and “the cult of the Leader” quite aptly describe the reverence of Bush’s 25 percenters.
Report comment to moderator
erasmus: If I applied the rule that ‘A is not equal to A’, as you seem to be suggesting that I do, it would be impossible to have meaningful conversations, or really do much of anything of use in life at all.
It really boils down to mathematics.
See, when Obama makes the statement that there are MANY paths (’N’ paths where ‘N’ is some large integer, presumably) to the Truth and Christ makes the statement that there is only ONE path (’M’ where ‘M’ is exactly equal to 1.0) to the truth, I can say with precise mathematical and scientific certainty (no theology required at all) that N is NOT equal to M, hence Obama is not a Christian.
One of the two theories is mathematically incorrect, you see. That is not ‘interpretation of scripture’, Erasmus. That is just plain arithmetic, old-fashioned style. Maybe Sunday school wasn’t the only place you didn’t pay much attention.
If it makes you feel any better, I am very certain that Christ is not an Obamaite, either. (The respective roles of the two being so frequently confused these days).
Since when have I said I am going to ‘force my interpretation of scripture’ on anyone else?
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus – your cynicism is giving me the chuckles! This is, of course, exactly the kind of attitude that one must maintain in these types of matters.
Remember that you, as well as I, are just one person – and cannot possibly make or break this election with one single vote. It’s even possible that your vote and mine will cancel each other out. Keep in mind that no matter who is president – we will continue to get up in the morning; breathe in and breathe out; root for the good guys and the underdog; complain about gas prices and the time we waste on hold; and just live our lives.
Be of good cheer, don’t lose your sense of humor and don’t stop with the barbs!
Report comment to moderator
if by the ‘one path’ this supposed person was referencing a trait shared by the ‘many’ paths, then we have a succint and logically sound solution to this supposed problem.
i can ‘go to my house’ many different ways. all of them ‘go to my house’.
Report comment to moderator
mickel i am positive that your vote will more than cancel mine out. because i abstain. i will not be responsible for any of this circus so don’t blame me. i blame all the voters.
i am amused that you find this amusing.
i’ll extend your example. no matter who is president, wars will be fought for blood and treasures and people will continue to be shepherded by the illicit union of corporate, legislative and marketing interests. neither one of these turkeys is going to a single drotted thing about what is important to speckled trout or ramp patches.
Report comment to moderator
‘Only one path’ is numerically different than ‘many paths’.
‘One’ does not equal ‘one million’. Or even ‘two’.
Except for large values of ‘one’, I suppose?
Integers can be a pain. They are quite inflexible, you know. So distressingly pre-modern.
They have been responsible for the untimely demise of many an elegant, beautiful argument.
And some arguments neither elegant nor beautiful, of course.
Report comment to moderator
jjf: But you still seem to be excusing political messianism when he’s your political messiah
I am far from regarding Pres. Bush as a political messiah He never made such a gaseous remark as “We are the ones that we are waiting for.” Bush, based on a solid record as governor of Texas, claimed that he would do the best he could to run a decent government. In fact, though he has made the usual quantum of presidential mistakes, he has made some excellent decisions in both foreign and domestic affairs and bids fair, like the vilified Truman, Eisenhower, and Reagan in their time, to be regarded as a respectable president.
Report comment to moderator
drill, i know you are being intentionally obtuse but may i suggest that you are presuming that these two statements my refer to different scales of measurements?
give it up. you can’t take “Except By Me” literally. it doesn’t mean anything without added assumptions, many of which do not contradict what you are claiming Hussein holds.
Report comment to moderator
solon, mcsame’s spiritual accomplishment?
Report comment to moderator
You see – I didn’t think that last paragraph of your latest post packed the punch of some of your earlier attempts.
Alas, I admit that I agree with you that a president is not likely to give a whit about the ruby throated warbler or the whistling marmot. But, on the other hand…should they be?
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt is right. If Bush or anyone else had ever wigged out to the extent of saying such ’self-Messianic’ bilgewater as Obama has, I would have gladly certified him as a complete loon and a danger to society. As would have almost everyone I know.
But note that the Left has no such problem with such hilariously dangerous (or dangerously hilarious) comments by their own media-generated cardboard Messiah.
Report comment to moderator
“And where were you guys in 2000 and 2004 when George W. Bush was being sold to evangelicals as a “man of God and a fellow believer”?”
JJF, you seem to have “man of God and a fellow believer” confused with messianic pretender. They’re not the same thing at all. Your question is an irrelevant red herring.
Report comment to moderator
#1 NJL,
It is way worse than you think. He actually thinks he is the Savior. It’s best to have him show us the mark of the mark of his beast at his crowning in Denver.
Report comment to moderator
Drill:
I agree with you theologically, but I cannot let this faulty logic stand.
…OK so far…
Woah, that’s quite a leap. Your logic seems to be this:
(1) Christ says X.
(2) A says not-X.
(3) Therefore, A is not a Christian.
Does this logic work in all circumstances?
(1) Christ says “do not resist an evil man with force.”
(2) Drill says we must resist evil men with force.
(3) Therefore, Drill is not a Christian.
Where does this logic fall apart? In two places. First, it’s invalid. I am sure we are all, in some important theological point or other, in diametric disagreement with God. I do not believe that nullifies our salvation, which is based not on my having all the right answers, but on Christ’s grace alone.
Second, even if it were valid and Christ rejects people who score lower than a B+ on their theology exams, how do you know my interpretation of “do not resist an evil man” is correct? How do we know your interpretation of “no one comes to the Father but by me” is correct? We both seem to be taking the statements at face value, but does that mean that both you and Obama are not Christians?
Report comment to moderator
llama?
gogmagoggogmagoggogmagoggogmagog
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus: Man, I bet you really WERE a major certifiable royal pain in math class, especially when it came to proofs.
Did you happen to have a lot of your teachers quitting right in the middle of the school year, getting hospitalized, doing drugs, trying to run you down with their cars, trying to bit you, wierd stuff like that?
Well, I did too.
I was pretty good in math class, though.
It was biology where I had all the trouble, if that makes you feel any better.
Report comment to moderator
#7 HRW,
Thank you. For once you are correct about part of your post. I could do a better piece. The rest of your thoughts are tripe though, nothing more than slop swilled from your masters to brainewash the weak minded.
Report comment to moderator
drill i have never had any problem with math, but most of my professional expertise is in statistical analysis and not in theoretical maths.
of course, this involves neither. it was your silly suggestion to use an analytical form of argument, when as i have pointed out there is no reason to take ‘except by me’ to be any sort of empirical statement but a metaphorical one.
Report comment to moderator
JJF: How can you agree with me theologically? (I mean, based on your following comments).
We are not talking about a sort of besetting sin or failing after one becomes a Christian, here, either out of ignorance or residual rebellion.
We are talking about what it means to become a Christian, in the first place; the understanding and acceptance of who Christ is, to begin with.
You can’t be a Christian and yet not believe or accept Christ on His terms (not yours).
You cannot be a Christian and proclaim that ‘Christ is NOT the only begotten Son of God.’
(Unless perhaps you are mad or addled in the brain – but that is not really relevant here. Obama may be addled in the brain but that is an epidemic these days, he is hardly alone.)
Like I said before, you cannot simultaneously be both A and B when A and B are mutually exclusive.
If you believe that one can be a Christian (actual) and yet not believe that Christ is who He says He is, we are certainly NOT in agreement theologically.
Report comment to moderator
#5 Nick,
Oddly, black Marxists, like the Reverennd Wright say the easiest way that white people can prove they aren’t racists is to just kill themselves. I think for white Marxists, black ones may have have a point
Report comment to moderator
one way (home) and many ways (individual paths to home) are not mutually exclusive, O Obliviot.
Report comment to moderator
llama, prove it.
Report comment to moderator
“Bill Clinton’s reluctance to provide the Obama camp with a prepared speech has the Obama camp on edge.”
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_bill_clinton/2008/08/22/124160.html
Report comment to moderator
#8 ERASMUS,
Our Yosemite McSame is better than your Maessiah Insane.
Report comment to moderator
The fellow is a colossal fraud.
Let’s think about his parallels with Lincoln, another lawyer, Illinois assemblyman, and one-term member of Congress, and woefully “unfinished statesman” compared with his experienced rivals.
Lincoln wasn’t just a railroad lawyer, he was a constitutional scholar, and his greatest contribution to history was his powerful conception of the living Constitution. Obama has a subtle understanding of it too, forged in an environment where our most well-considered ideas about our legal traditions are contested, the U Chicago.
More importantly, I think, Obama’s impressive gifts as a writer enable him to verbalize his vision of the American Constitution, just as Lincoln did as a writer, if not with Lincoln’s transcendent prose. We’ll have to wait and see about that part, just as America had not yet seen Lincoln’s amazing gifts in 1960.
Finally, Obama shows skill in following Lincoln’s model for answering personal challenges to himself during a political campaign by changing the terms of debate. Lincoln had to answer doubts that he was a John Brown anarchist. He replied by giving his audience at Cooper Union a new picture of the American Union. Similarly, Obama had to answer doubts that he was a Black anti-american radical. He replied by giving a watershed speech about race and American Union. Just as Lincoln’s speech impressed the likes of William Cullen Bryant, Obama’s speech impressed intellectuals of various stripes.
One might not be impressed, but neither politician came to the American people with false proffers.
Report comment to moderator
Llama, a race to the bottom!
Don’t make the mistake of assuming that I support obama. So as much as it pains me to disappoint you, there is no urination contest here. A pox on all their houses, I say.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus, hardly silly in my thinking; as I said, mathematical.
It doesn’t work on the ’spiritual’ level either.
Trying to make ‘only one path’ fits a ‘many path’ scenario is the spiritual/intellectual equivalent of trying to fit a 500 pound woman in some teensy little bikini.
It just don’t work – you just end up with a handful of shredded fabric along with one big naked lady, mad as a hornet and with killing on her mind.
Anyway, I am of the mind that ultimately there is nothing metaphoric about Christ at all, in terms of who He is, or what really is.
We are more the metaphors, as it were. At least in terms of the thin construct of what we, absent Him, perceive to be reality, including of how we perceive ourselves.
I am sure you did just fine in mathematics, Erasmus.
I did not do so bad in biology, truth be told. I had a good-looking teacher, so I had incentive – I don’t remember much about the technical aspects, but I do remember her.
Report comment to moderator
Obama’s gutsy remarks at Saddleback merit a rubric in the log of American civil liberties! Amazingly, Obama told the chieftan of the stronghold never to expect agreement on principles, then insulted the tribe’s favorite Justices as either strange (Thomas) or dangerously authoritarian (Roberts).
It was a major rhetorical achievement that rallied advocates of liberty while yet earning sympathy from the 12% sliver of evangelicals who remain undecided.
Report comment to moderator
PL – I almost forgot the “gaseous and frothy” part!
This thread is really too entertaining!
But do we remember yon months ago when Algore saved the planet by dragging a host of rock stars and their respective entourages through pristine antarctica? It was the same “divine” and “holy” attitude that we are witness to with the big BO.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth: Ummm. Supporting a most brutal form of infanticide is not exactly worth a ‘rubric in the log of American civil liberties’. It is, however, a sort of a log that Obama laid.
Stinks too.
Report comment to moderator
Moth – 70
Yep, Obama’s gutsy, he can’t remember what he’s going to say – folks, its because he needs cue cards, and prompters. His time at Saddleback proved it over again.
Obama gaffe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxBX8sz3tO8
Report comment to moderator
#9 Harris,
‘As to the bit about “Believe.” Well, as a matter of fact, I do want to believe in my country’s government once again. I want to believe that it will not torture. I want to believe that it will ask for the best not merely the most partisan. I want to believe again in a country that is big enough for principled disagreement.
That was the government I grew up with; it was Republican and Democratic. I want to believe because the sad mess of the last eight years really is unbelievable.’
That is the problem isn’t it? Marxists will believe almost anything said by the worst of the propagandists for the weakest of minds.
Untested but always false assumptions lead them to bad conclusions. Their bad conclusions leads so quickly to false hope and dreams for a better future that are Utopian fiction – but still they believe. They want to believe so bad. They be real sick puppies wishing for a cart with a wheel gone missing but they can still believe.
The first young, inexperienced snake oil salesman that comes along, easily steals what little brain matter they have left and, voila !!,they have found their Messiah – their real saviour, one that they suffered so horribly, so long and hard for for all these years. The savior that has stopped the oceans from rising, the dead from dying and bad from ever happening again forever. He is the one.
They work themselves into a victims frenzy, a whirling dervish of insane ideas, thoughts and actions. They are the ones they have been waiting for – there is no doubt – just ask them – they are the them and all the wrong in the world is gone, the sky is blue, the ocean receding, the children, all of them who are them, are smiling, singing softly, but urgently, to their god and picking flowers that do not die.
Then we are left with the mess. We have to build huge quantities of nuclear power plants to provide the electricity to give these whack jobs electroshock treatments, cut down entire forests to switch their childish bottoms, let in millions of illegal Mexicans to baby sit their sore hides and then pray that they never come back again like the million killing influenza they really are – always does.
Report comment to moderator
#21 Drill,
I forgot he said Christ was a liar and fraud. This guy has some chutzpah – him being the pathological liar and fraud that he claims he is not.
But you can’t believe anything a lefty says unless he says he’s lying adn I’m not sure that you can trust them then.
Report comment to moderator
drill it is not a mathematical argument. the referents for the separate claims are by no means equivalent.
you have a second hand report of an offhand remark by the black messiah and a third or fourth hand report of an offhand remark by the jewish meesiah. what makes you think that these are epistemic equals?
i know the answer, you don’t think that. you are more interested in rhetorical blustering and obfuscating. that’s ok, i find that entertaining too.
Report comment to moderator
#72 yeah it is much better to just bash the heads of the little ones against the stones, AFTER they are born.
Report comment to moderator
Drill,
Don’t tell me the anti Christ can’t be a poached egg if he says so. I don’t think that would be Christian.
Report comment to moderator
Bob : I did consider both Gore (I took the initiative in creating the internet.) and Kerrey (“I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”) before voting. George Bush seemed more truthful than either of these two.
Even though both of those statements (from Gore and Kerry) are absolutely true?
Gore DID take the initiative in creating the Internet. He did not “invent” it and never said he did, but he did sponsor and co-sponsor several pieces of legislation that (1) funded the research in the government that led to the invention of the Internet’s key technologies and (2) allowed to move out of the government and into the hands of private companies so that we all could use it.
Truth.
Kerry DID vote for the $87 billion … when the bill contained language that would have paid for it by rolling back some of the Bush tax cuts. When he had to vote on a new version later, that paid for it by increasing the deficit, he voted no.
Truth.
Republican spinsters lie to you by claiming that Gore inflated his role in creating the Internet or that Kerry just randomly changed his mind on the funding bill, and you lap it up. You’d rather believe the lies than the truth about people you don’t like.
Report comment to moderator
George W. Bush isn’t merely The Man of God — he’s the man in bronze! Buy your own graven image through the ads at the National Review! A moving treasure of strength and belief you will pass on to the grandkids! God’s agent of wrath in the Great War on Evil, rendered either in cowboy boots or flight suit (your choice, $1,295).
Hi, Bob Buckles! If you’re still free of age-related dementia, you might recall crawling out of the early 70’s with the assurance that “Nixon is the One.” Remember? There were belles in Nam and you heard them Singing because there was Dick! The One’s staff wore imperial livery.
Report comment to moderator
Obama camp warns stations not to air ‘radical’ ad
http://tinyurl.com/5tb8wp
Report comment to moderator
Even Fox refuses to air the ad because of its libelous nature and considering libel rules in America re famous people, the ad must be really outrageous.
The stations airing the ad is owned by the same man who aired the infamous Swift Boat “documentary” and later refused to allow his ABC affiliated stations to air a special Nightline to commemorate the Iraqi war dead in May of 2004. His refusal sparked this comment from McCain:
“There is no valid reason for Sinclair to shirk its responsibility in what I assume is a very misguided attempt to prevent your viewers from completely appreciating the extraordinary sacrifices made on their behalf by Americans serving in Iraq,” the Arizona Republican said in the letter Friday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4864247/
But now McCain is happy to be on the same side as this group. The one man show “American Issues Project” is funded by billionaire Harold Simmons of Swift Boat fame and donor of the legal maximum to McCain, Romney, and Giuliani. He knows who’s protecting his tax breaks.
Report comment to moderator
Anyone can watch the VIDEO by linking to the article, it’s in the middle part of the article.
http://tinyurl.com/5tb8wp
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for bringing it to my attention, I scroll through anything that resembles an ad.
Ayers admits to being part of the Weatherman but nowhere in his biography does he admit to being personally involved in bombing the Capitol as stated in the ad. And yes I read the book — its on my book shelf, a good read.
Police were killed in a Brinks robbery in the 1980s. By that time, Ayers had been purged from the group and surrendered to the authorities. Ironically because of the gov’t’s own illegal activity at the time, they couldn’t bring him to trial for any offense. The ad implies he had something to do with the robbery; he didn’t.
“left wing board” innuendo which means nothing.
As for the quotes they are selective quotes from the NYT article which was already selective in the words they published from their interview. He later said I probably said those wonders but I wonder what was missing between all the ellipses.
Report comment to moderator
But really Victoria address the issues I raise in 82. McCain’s flip flop on his association with people like Simmons and Smith (owner of Sinclair). The self interest of billionaire producing distorted ads to be shown on an other billionaire’s TV stations.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
To my knowledgee the VIDEO is being aired in many places. We will wait and see.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, take into consideration Obama’s associations!
Obama seeks to silence ad tying him to 60s radical
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D92PL7400&show_article=1
______________VIDEO BELOW_____________
American Issues Project – Know Enough
http://tinyurl.com/5jrsgf
Report comment to moderator
I don’t see why associating with Ayers in the present somehow links him to events which occurred when he was eight.
Answer with substance to my analysis posting links that only discuss the original claims doesn’t further your claims or your support for the original claims.
Report comment to moderator
Huffington Post
Larry C. Johnson
No, He Can’t Because Yes, They Will
Posted February 16, 2008
“Obama’s mantra, “Yes, We Can” is inspiring and heartwarming, but in the end is an empty phrase that will founder once the Republican political attack machine spins up. I realize that most Obamatons are so wedded to his vision of hope that any effort to point out the cracks in the foundation of the new Democratic Savior are met with fury and disdain.”
_____________________Another QUOTE from article___________________
“Obama’s untested achilles heel is his relationship with three men — Tony Rezko, William Ayers, and Rashid Khalidi. These names will become shorthand for Corruption, Terrorism, and the Destruction of Israel. Oh yes, I know. I am going to extremes. Well, let me lay out the facts and explain how the Republicans will likely use these relationships to bludgeon Obama’s presidential aspirations into dust. My challenge to you Obama supporters is to explain to me and other readers of this blog how Obama will defuse these issues.”
_____________________Another QUOTE from article___________________
“Feelings of hope and inspiration about Obama will evaporate when the commercials tying him to a convicted felon slumlord, an unrepentant terrorist who hates the troops, and a Professor of Middle Eastern Studies who has been a PLO official spouting anti-Israeli rhetoric. Oh, YES THEY WILL! YES, THEY WILL.”
http://tinyurl.com/yuuy3q
Report comment to moderator
You found Huffington Post how impressive. But you realize the article you cite written in February in the middle of the primary campaign was written to support Clinton. Huffington Post was very supportive of Clinton and critical of Obama.
Larry C Johnson was a registered Republican and facilitator of the “Michelle Obama” whitey tape rumour which isn’t anywhere to be found. Through his connections with Orrin Hatch, he was hired by the CIA. He supported Bush in 2000 but became disenchanted with Bush due to the Plame affair. He maintains a right wing attitude in foreign affairs and the intelligence community.
The article you cite lacks substance — Ayers — i;ve discussed; Rezko – chicago politics I see your Rezko and raise you the Keating Five, Khalid — loose association with a U of C prof; the nature of his and his wife’s work leads to many of these loose associations.
Report comment to moderator
HRW
I certainly knew the date of the article when I posted it. Yes it was written during the primaries, so what? – it also shows the connections Obama had/has that’s the whole point -
The middle quote from my post #89, is priceless –
—–“Obama’s untested achilles heel is his relationship with three men — Tony Rezko, William Ayers, and Rashid Khalidi. These names will become shorthand for Corruption, Terrorism, and the Destruction of Israel. Oh yes, I know. I am going to extremes. Well, let me lay out the facts and explain how the Republicans will likely use these relationships to bludgeon Obama’s presidential aspirations into dust. My challenge to you Obama supporters is to explain to me and other readers of this blog how Obama will defuse these issues.” —–
Report comment to moderator
Victoria you amuse me. Even after I have demonstrated the links to the Republican party of the so called Clinton supporters,(seee Meet Debra the Democrat) and even after I point out Johnson’s background you still think there’s validity to these commentators beyond a right wing smear.
Rezko vs Keating Five — a loss in the McCain column
Ayers — to drag up Ayers past risks the Democrats dragging the pasts of McCain’s associates including their lobbying ties, Jack Abramoff, and others. Essentially, McCain needs to be very careful using guilt by association.
Rashid Khalidi — a prof he knew through his wife work, to tie Obama through Khalidi to Iran requires more hoops than the public attention span can tolerate.
Report comment to moderator
I’m glad that I amuse you. LOL
You don’t live here, you have little to do with our country – YOU from the outside trying to look in, with very little visibility to what we are about – socialism obscuring the view – it’s a common problem with those who live to the north of us, nothing to be alarmed about, but nevertheless we do try to accommodate.
It would accomplish little to try and instruct you as to why Ayers would be significant. I’m certain McCain would love to have your input into his thoughts about any of these characters, you being so accomplished. LOL
Try to keep up, even though you don’t get it.
Report comment to moderator
__________________Several QUOTES from article_____________________
Ayers Unrepentant for Radical Group’s Violence in 1960s, 1970s
by FOXNews.com
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
In the interview, conducted three years after the September 11 attacks, Ayers argued the U.S. government had carried out “many other acts of terror … even recently, that are comparable,” and claimed he and his bomb-planting comrades were “restrained” in their actions.
Ayers, now a professor at the University of Illinois, Chicago, served with Barack Obama on the board of the charitable Woods Fund of Chicago for three years and helped launch Obama’s political career in Illinois by hosting in his Hyde Park home an informal campaign event for the future state senator in 1995.
Ayers claimed the Weathermen were driven by “hope and love,” not despair, and said he did not think the group’s violent acts, targeting federal officials and local law enforcement officers, were “a big deal.”
http://tinyurl.com/6g7ew3
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the link — great read
“I mean, the only group of people that I know who weren’t weeping for the next several weeks [after 9/11] were the people who were busy typing legislation into their computers,” Ayers continued.
And he’s right. 9/11 was a crisis used by the Bush administration to concentrate power, minimize civil rights and attack Iraq. Read the Shock Doctrine for a detailed explanation of how gov’ts use the shock of a crisis to quickly pass laws that the populace would normally wouldn’t tolerate.
How far are you willing to take that step into what I consider the abyss of violence? And we really never did,
Again he’s right. During his involvement in the Weatherman no one was killed other than three members when a bomb exploded prematurely. In comparison to the violence of CONINTELPRO, the Vietnam War, Kent State and the Chicago police, his acts pale in comparison.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!