Posted on 02/24/2008 11:26:54 PM PST by unspun
In February 2004, U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama's wife, Michelle, sent a fund-raising letter with the "alarming news" that "right-wing politicians" had passed a law stopping doctors from stabbing half-born babies in the neck with scissors, suctioning out their brains and crushing their skulls.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
I testified in 2001 and 2002 before a committee of which Obama was a member.
Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights. Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.
In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.
(As chair of that same committee, Obama once abruptly ended a hearing early, right before Scott and Janet Willis, the parents of six children killed as a result of Illinois' drivers licenses for bribes scandal, were to testify in favor of Choose Life license plate legislation. I was there for that one, too. The Willises had traveled three hours. Reporters filled the room. Obama stalled. He later killed the bill when no one was around.)
After reading this my first thought was Obama, the anti-christ.
All valid reasons, I suppose. But the more obvious reason is that he probably didn’t exist.
He is a POS.
folks who fall for him are either voting skin, guilt or ignorance
I don’t think Jesus would touch American politics with a 50 foot pole, so this a moot point.
“All valid reasons, I suppose. But the more obvious reason is that he probably didn’t exist.”
What “he” are you talking about?
The Obama Nation (Abomination) that causes desolation?
You mean Jesus wasn’t a big-government socialist?
That's not really the main subject of this article, but Christ taught his disciples to own up to their civic responsibilities. He also mandated that one should pracitice what he preached. And BTW, American politics are hardly more cynical than either Israel's or Rome's, when Christ tread soil.
A: Because Barak Obama directly used the public trust in his office as Illinois State Senator, to protect the practice of infanticide.
Jesus doesn’t have a vote. His Kingdom is not of this world.
And, he’s not an American citizen. But I hear he votes regularly for Conservative candidates in the Knesset.
would jesus even believe in democracy? We are talking about a rabbi who lived 2000 years ago in roman-occupied judea.
It is not clear to me that the background of anyone in that time and place would lend itself to regarding representative government as a good idea. Are the meek to inherit the earth, or are they to be allowed to vote upon the matter?
“And BTW, American politics are hardly more cynical than either Israel’s or Rome’s, when Christ tread soil.”
As you no doubt know, so many comparisons between late republican/imperial politics and modern american politics are easily drawn, perhaps as much as any other period in classical history (though my greek history is not up to snuff)....
Is there anything in US senatorial politics now that wasn’t seen over and over in the roman senate?
That is no big deal. Jesus's Dad had his henchmen kill all the first born of an entire nation just to make a point.
Jesus did whatever he needed to do, to be a responsible citizen, where he lived.
But, that is not what the article is about..........
yes... my gosh we are talking about killing babies
the better question would be: Would even mohammad vote for obama?
Well hello, blasphemy.
This just in: God kills every human who has ever been born. Genesis 3. Film at 10.
Now, go pee on something else, please.
Hasn’t come up in the Democraic debates.
What are the odds this issue will be discussed between Obama and McCain??
My bet is that while the Maverick might be rough and tough enough to beat up on his “fellow conservatives” in the Republican primary, such questions might be deemed too “indelicate” to discuss on a national platform.
I hope that I am wrong, yet again.
Maybe I could vote for McCain?
Someone in a punk-rock band looking for a name should give Jesus’ Dad a try.
Listen all you liberals who read here daily...Jesus ALLOWING someone to do what they please is not GOD’s Endorsement for that activity.
Just a few things you need to consider, walking around saying that the following actions are GOOD because it helps (fill in the blank) is no excuse, but will be dealt with directly one day.
Abortion (The wanton murder of human life for personal convenience)
Homosexuality (The purposeful perversion of intended nature)
socialism (The purposeful destruction of self determination and motivation to succeed robbing from those who produce and giving to mostly people who can do for themselves)
Adultry (Thanks to one liberal its not sex and thus Okay)
We ALL know that the list is longer than this...but liberals do not care. Their goal is to increase the size of the list and replace God with themselves.
Politics, no. But life is more than politics, and some of our decisions, the ones that affect the lives of so many, are of immense importance to us and more so to Him. We cannnot be callous to the laws of nature’s God and walk away as if He doesn’t exist. The very thing which emboldens so mnay to keep up the culture of death is that they see God’s failure to zap us as meaning it is of no consequence. But, just as He gave Israel time to repent and desist from its sin, and received warning after warning, He finally allowed a more sinful nation to take them away into captivity, and He wil do the same to us.
The biggie is “Thou shalt not covet...anything that is thy neighbor’s”
Daddy also didn’t like class envy.
He is King. Kings don't vote. They decree. There will be no political parties, no committee's, no lobbyists, no quorum calls, no SCOTUS, no appeals, and absolutely no United Nations Security Council.
One of the things both political parties have forgotten is a King is sovereign. Back in the monarchy times, they knew what a King could do. We have forgotten over the centuries.
If you don't know Jesus Christ and have no personal relationship with Him, it is impossible to understand God or His ways or His purposes or His Word.
That would include understanding the fact that God hates sin and understanding the ways that God deals with fallen, sinful mankind.
after 9/11.....who but a lib/dem would vote for b. HUSSEIN for POTUS????
Agreed. This brings to mind King Arthur saying, "You don't vote for a king!"
Q: Why Jesus would not vote for Barack Obama
A: Because he’s not a US citizen, and wouldn’t vote illegally?
Mark
Mohammed was a conquering warlord, less voting, more raping and pillaging.
The biggie is “Thou shalt not covet...anything that is thy neighbor’s”He son did though:
Daddy also didn’t like class envy.
Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
He couldn’t vote democrat because He is not dead.
At no time in the Gospels, did Jesus ever suggest taking the wealth from the rich by force. He did, however, state that those who do have wealth should, voluntarily, exercise that wealth fully for the glory of God.
That isn't class envy. That is acknowledging that humans who spent a lot of time trying to accumulate weath and stuff may tend to be more focused on the material rather than the spiritual.
His son said no such thing. The immediate verse after that statement was the apostles replying “Lord, then how can ANYONE be saved?” The Old Testament is fairly clear that one of the signs of favor by God is wealth. The apostles were astonished, since Jesus was saying that the wealthy man who followed all the laws of Moses would have a hard time getting in. Jesus wasn’t stating that the man wasn’t following the law, or was evil, or any other such thing. What Jesus was pointing out was the need for total commitment to Him and God to be saved.That sounds like a bit of revisionism to me.At no time in the Gospels, did Jesus ever suggest taking the wealth from the rich by force. He did, however, state that those who do have wealth should, voluntarily, exercise that wealth fully for the glory of God.
21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."So Peter sells his possessions to pay Paul or he becomes a "Camel passing through the eye of a needle".
The end of the passage compounds that interpretaton:
28Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother[f] or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.Sounds pretty open and shut to me. "last shall be first" etc...
That isn't class envy. That is acknowledging that humans who spent a lot of time trying to accumulate weath and stuff may tend to be more focused on the material rather than the spiritual.Read Jesus' earlier admonition that the questioner give away all his possessions to the poor.
Every person that I have ever known that died left all their worldly possessions right here on earth. This was an analogy for the 'eye of a needle' was a gate that only allowed people in and unloaded camels to crawl through at night. So if your camel is loaded with ill gotten gains it is NOT going in with you. Nothing about class envy about it.
Christ told Peter, who was already a commercial fisherman to ‘fish’ from the ‘right’ side. Oh and Christ also told Peter he was not fishing for literal fish but for mankind.
However, the days seem to have come when there is NOT a whole lot of difference in the left and right side of any boat.
Good post.
Just prior to this 'RULER' coming to Jesus, Jesus had called his disciples unto Him..Luke 18:16 "Suffer little children to come unto ME, and forbid them NOT: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Luke 16:17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein."
verse 18 And a certain *RULER* (not just an everyday, run of the mill questioner) asked Him, saying "Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?'
verse 19 And Jesus said unto him, "Why callest thou ME good? none is good, save one, that is, GOD.
Matthew 19:17 And He said unto him, "Why callest thou ME good? there is none good but One, that is, GOD: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."
Luke 18:20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother."
Notice that Christ did NOT quote the first five to this guy, and that is what he was meaning when He told this 'rich' man verse 22 "Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow ME."
See this man's riches was his 'god' and what he spent all his time focusing upon. He did not have time to follow the first five commandments.
Every person that I have ever known that died left all their worldly possessions right here on earth. This was an analogy for the 'eye of a needle' was a gate that only allowed people in and unloaded camels to crawl through at night. So if your camel is loaded with ill gotten gains it is NOT going in with you. Nothing about class envy about it.Oh? Then why did he tell the man to give all his possessions to the poor earlier? The gate "idea" is a common, unfounded, heresy.
No revisionism at all. That’s the way that I was taught it. That’s the way that all of the great theologians in history (St. Augustine, St. Aquinas) that I am aware of interpret it.
The sell your possessions part was stated because Jesus knew that the man was really attached to them, not because there is anything wrong with possessions. It’s a story about commitment, not about possessions specifically.
In any case, there are a few immediate contradictions in your interpretation:
1) If possessions are bad, why give them to the poor? Won’t that harm the poor in the process?
2) If the last shall be first and the first last, then doesn’t that mean the first shall be first and the last shall be last?
The real interpretation is this. Possessions need to be consecrated in the service of God. If you have a farm, then give the harvest to the poor, but you should keep the land, tools, seed corn, and enough to eat yourself and maintain the tools, since providing for next year is paramount. The difficulty is that when a rich person is administering the wealth, the temptation is always there to indulge oneself instead of being a good steward, since the owner is by definition the final temporal authority over the property. Avoiding this is extremely hard, and that’s what Jesus was concerned about.
In addition, at the time of the Gospels, the main concern was spreading the word. Jesus needed footsoldiers to go out and get the word out. Encumbering oneself with a lot of stuff is detrimental to that task. Today, however, there are plenty of sources for getting the immediate word, but most people are still going to have to work jobs to keep everyone fed and clothed. Giving away all possessions in this environment is unnecessary unless you are going to be a full time preacher, who today would still need a website, church building, place to keep religious reference materials etc.
Finally, there is also the question of which poor are you going to give it to? Is anyone who is poor okay, or are some poor more deserving than others? I would assume that a microloan to a struggling person who wants to work would be a far more effective use of my money than a drunk who has no intention of getting off the bottle. If there is a prioritization of resources, who decides? The poor certainly shouldn’t nor should the goverment. The rich person has to use their own best judgement informed by God and the Gospels.
My best reading of the Gospels and the Bible is this:
1) Unless you are going to be spreading the Gospels professionally, don’t be quick to give away your stuff. Most people are not and are not expected to.
2) Keep your personal expenses way down. Buying things to impress people or indulge yourself are right out.
3) The first poor people that you can help immediately are yourself and your family. Taking care of the elderly also means preparing for yourself in your old age.
4) Investment in production, R&D, business expansion, etc. are completely legit. This is how you make more for everyone. It also creates jobs and gives the poor more practical opportunity.
5) Given the above, at least 10% of income should be given to the church or other appropriate charity every year. There are needs that need to be taken care of today. We can’t put it all towards the future and this is a good guideline.
6) Those that produce get to decide! They can be criticized, they can be strongly reminded of their divine obligations, people can consider them jerks, but the person who made it decides what to do with it.
This means that the society works out to:
1) A laizze-faire capitalist society in most respects.
2) A strong goverment focused solely on rooting out force and fraud, funded through levied fines and/or taxes levied based on how hard it is to defend each individual against force and fraud. The rich would probably end up paying more, since the goverment probably has to do more work to defend their stuff, but it’s clearly based on fee for service.
3) A vibrant healthy church, which is well funded through voluntary donations and provides the professionals with experience in distributing charity.
4) A clear vision of the wealthy deserving their wealth through their administration and production, while the poor are seen as untapped potential who can develop into self-supporting individuals, given a little assistance. (The old and terminally ill actually have quite a lot to give to the larger society in spiritual fruits. You probably know this through experience, we’re just covering their expenses.)
No revisionism at all. That’s the way that I was taught it. That’s the way that all of the great theologians in history (St. Augustine, St. Aquinas) that I am aware of interpret it.Then you need to learn some aramaic here
Good article. That’s the correct interpretation. If you get to the last paragraph of it, you’ll see it is what I have been saying all along.
Good article. That’s the correct interpretation. If you get to the last paragraph of it, you’ll see it is what I have been saying all along.Having engaged in enough sophistry I'll come right and say what I think. Too many Americans, conservatives especially, don't worship god. They may think they do, but really they worship Mammon.
The amusing revisionist gymnastics that go on with the camel passage are just one example of that.
You know, of course, that the Eye of the Needle was a gate going into Jerusalem where they often had to unpack the camels so they could get through it.
I tend to believe that the 10 Commandments are social laws that need to be followed if a society is to be peaceful and cohesive so it will survive. Yeshua spoke more about psychological laws for the peace and cohesiveness of one’s heart and mind and the survival of the individual soul.
Ultimately, governments and political parties are the vanities of man.
You know, of course, that the Eye of the Needle was a gate going into Jerusalem where they often had to unpack the camels so they could get through it.No it wasn't. A quick google or the link I provided earlier in the thread will disprove that misunderstanding.
Well, I tend to believe my now elderly pastor who taught us this when I was in Confirmation.
Google is controlled by Lefties.
Well, I tend to believe my now elderly pastor who taught us this when I was in Confirmation.Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh....Google is controlled by Lefties.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.