the Bible will never succeed!
Posted on 08/05/2008 3:53:27 AM PDT by dascallie
This guy is beyond all belief! His sanctimonious full-faced hypocrisy exposed.
Just watch this video of him directly and specifically ridiculing scripture and beginning to build a case against the Judeo/Christian faith traditions.
We all know the Bible is filled with allegory, parables and symbolism as a means to teaching essential values.
Obama tries to use the words in a destructive way to imply they are "wrongheaded" and arrogantly questions adherence to this "book".
We have got a serious issue with this dude. folks,
He secretly wants to unravel it all...no doubt driven by his marxist influences, muslim lineage and atheist mother.
Save it before it’s gone! Then spread it around!
Save with savetube.com , and get a FLV file converter (google for it).
home
ping
Darn straight. Steel vault.
Obama has a strange interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount. He has also used it to justify support for same-sex marriage. Back in June (I think) he so happily told us that he could justify his stand by the Sermon on the Mount, after which he then stated, “I believe it’s more important than some obscure passage from Romans.”
So, Obama, the Great and Merciful Lord, now thinks he’s more knowledgable than St. Paul on what constitutes Christian behavior.
Folks, aren’t we blessed to have the Democrats nominating such a humble man to be POTUS?
I see the Devil is quoting scripture again.
KEEP IT IN SAFE PLACES.
Good stuff for further ADS
the Bible will never succeed!
I don’t believe Obama believes in anything he just sorta spouts whatever his handlers tell him the present audience wants to hear. Calling him an empty suit would be too kind.
Ping.
Obama umms and uhhs more than a Miss America contestant!
You can see in that video how badly he needs a teleprompter.
It's a good thing that the teleprompter's union is mostly Republican.
What did he say? (I can’t get YouTube where I am at the moment)
[I looked it up. Here’s part of Obama’s ‘Sermon Speech’]
Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.
And even 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? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.
This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.
We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.
Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God’s test of devotion.
But it’s fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason.
Finally, any reconciliation between faith and democratic pluralism requires some sense of proportion.
This goes for both sides.
Even those who claim the Bible’s inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages - the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ’s divinity - are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.
The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.
But a sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters ...”
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/
Lest those who believe not voting is a viable option ought to rethink the terrible danger that this evil man presents to the country.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Ping
BTTT
the antics of the democrat party make me think of russian tanks rolling through the streets of budapest.
Speaking of not reading their Bibles, maybe BHO should. God did not “send down an angel” to intervene at the last moment with Abraham and Isaac. If you’re going to lecture someone on something, you’d better make darn sure you have it right yourself. What a pontificating overblown arrogant empty suit — how dare he lecture me on religion!
Also, it’s clear that he does not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.
No real surprise - ping!
bttt
He wasn’t condemning The Sermon on the Mount, he was praising it. This is a big stretch.
Where does he come up with such an idea? This sounds like projection. Of course the only faith that actually practices such ideas... is Islam.
No longer a Christian nation? Those are strong words. ‘and a nation of nonbelievers’ — sounds like wishful thinking on his part.
“Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy?”
He doesn't even know. He doesn't WANT to know.
“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?”
This smacks of mockery.
“Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application?”
More mockery. And the tragedy is that pacifist leftists are the ones confusing Americas preachers in college.
“So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles.”
Who's getting carried away? This is trying to make Christians sound like nuts— character assassination of Christianity.
“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason.”
He has no clue what ‘reason’ is when Barackula called for the killing of BORN infants with the old Roman practice of leaving them to die. His ancient sense of ‘reason’ is borderline primitive, couched by ‘progressive’ leftist mumbo-jumbo.
“I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will.”
He's sophomoric when it comes to understanding how our legal system has been hijacked ever since FDR packed the courts. And his lack of common sense blinds him to the most fundamental building block of ethics— saving a helpless infant, even after the child is born.
“I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”
There's only one faith that kills a fully born baby— satanism.
“Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do.”
So they call for the stoning of people? Strong faith was the foundation of our founders. It worked really well until FDR packed the courts.
“But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible.”
ART OF THE IMPOSSIBLE? DID YOU SEE THAT? ART OF THE IMPOSSIBLE? IMPOSSIBLE? ART?
“ART OF THE IMPOSSIBLE.” There's an Obama keeper.
“If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.”
Essentially, he's saying that Christianity is dangerous.
“And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.
We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.”
Irony. Obama doesn't need God to DO THE SAME THING! But not in the name of religion— no. To him, killing a BORN infant is little more than a commitment to his deluded view of ‘reproductive rights’.
“But it’s fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham.”
But when a baby lies on the operating table and is left to die there, that's perfectly legal. The guy does not even see the parallel. He needs some faith badly. Should Obama and his ilk even be allowed to be dog catchers?
“Even those who claim the Bible’s inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages - the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ’s divinity - are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.”
We need more modifications I suppose?
“The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.”
Is it wise to marry a poodle? Is it wise to re-write dictionaries? Is it wise to take a word and strike it out with a new defininition? Marriage is clearly defined. The only ‘wisdom’ in sodomous marriage is the desire of people living a dangerous lifestyle seeking the same insurance beneifits of people who live more traditionally. Gay marriage is essentially theft.
“But a sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state.”
What boundaries? Sophistry once again. There is no wall of separation. We simply cannot establish a single way to ‘worship God’. We do not even have the right to worship Satan, constitutionally speaking. If a state made it illegal to dedicate a book to Lucifer, it has every Constitutional right to do so.
Louis Farakhan says this: “Obama is the “messiah” - The “sign” is that the youth are following him”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2055302/posts
Hope a transcript comes out from that youtube speech. FRegards ....
ping.
I call him "egObama" now.
Oh, it's not just Obama.
In order to be a leftist, you must believe that you and your ideological counterparts are
wiser than anyone that ever lived,
and wiser than God himself.
The former is evidenced by their attempts to implement the failed policies of socialism because THEY can make them work where everyone else wasn't able to. Also, you must believe that any traditional morality has no value in the face of your own superior "reasoning ability".
The latter, "wiser than God", is evidenced by their rejection of Biblical truth in favor of their own superior intellect. God had something to say about this:
Proverbs 3:5 "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;"
Remember that there’s a difference between inerrancy and literalism. The Scripture is always right, but maybe it does not address the concern we would like. The Bible is inspired by God to uplift man into a closer communion with Him, not to be a literal history in all cases.
We do not presume to say it was all dictated verbatim by God’s messenger. Only two religions do that.
I know the movies has some Scriptural inaccuracies, but the story is powerful.
Thanks for saving and posting this.
You might consider putting this on your home page and refer to it whenever, Obama, the Oreo CINO tries to convince us how Christian he is.
I would call him a horse’s patootie, but I don’t want to insult horse’s... or their patooties.
Thank you. I’ll put a link in my profile. FRegards ....
ROFL!
What Obama is saying is nothing new. For centuries some have cited what appear to be the most outrageous examples of violence and barbarism and to quote them to undermine the deepest meaning of Judeo/Christian religious faith. Of course, this is taking passages out of context and confusing the small part with the whole. But it’s more than that - it’s also ignorance. Jewish and Christian biblical scholars and higher critics have seriously addressed such things in the context of culture, revelation, and history for centuries. But this is a very difficult process which involves tremendous specialized knowledge within various disciplines (ancient languages, philology, history, comparative religions of the ancient world, cultural interactions and influences, etc.,etc.) It’s not a superficial game thst amateurs like Obama should try to play. For example, a person who has his own superficial agenda and is ignorant of higher biblical criticism, exegesis, and hermeneutical methodology can easily take a statement by Jesus (as in Matthew) such as “I come not to bring peace but the sword,” and put it into the context of any ideology of his choosing. This tells us nothing about the higher and deeper meaning of scripture but the ignorance of the commentator. That’s where Obama fits in - deja vu all over again!
“Remember that there’s a difference between inerrancy and literalism.”
It’s clear to me— he wants to put us down, make us look scary, and minimalize us by tearing down straw dogs. Religious people are a threat to him.
I think Obama considers religious people to be ‘bitter clingers’. In ways, that just about says it all. But I also like to study the mind of the ultimate legalistic death troll. FRegards ....
don’t know if it matters much, but the passage in Deuteronomy he’s referring to, about stoning your child, is not about doing so to a child who strays from the faith. That’s a convenient understanding for a person (or group of persons) who believes that faith is necessarily intolerant, but that’s not what it says. The passage talks about stoning a child (a son, actually) who is rebellious and won’t obey his parents and strikes or curses them. My copy of the Deuteronomy doesn’t have a faith-based test for staying alive.
I know a lot of FReepers say there is enough regarding political policy issues to attack Obama on, and in general I agree with that, but this bothers me on a very deep level. There is something seriously and pathologically wrong with someone who does this kind of thing.
Especially when you see the video and hear his tone of voice and see the sneer on his face.
Yes. Obama is a deeply anti-Christian candidate who attracts the arrogant and smug.
His prying open of that which is holy and beyond his understanding is indeed disturbing.
“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?”
His mockery of the Torah is similar to that of Joe Goebbels. He simply does not understand the Bible and has no desire to.
“Folks haven’t been reading their bibles..”
Obama has taken his arrogance to a whole new level. He thinks he’s Obama, Pontifex Maximus.
“we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.”
What is he talking about? America has long been a Judeo-Christian nation, with Christian origins, a population that is above 80% Christian, and 40% of the World’s Jews, with excellent relations between the two. Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu populations are each less than 1% of the population of the US.
“Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice.”
Translation: Evangelicals will have no choice but to accept Obama’s interpretation of the Bible, or else they are not welcome in a democratic society.
“Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality.”
Evangelism is about persuading people to the common reality of Christianity. In a country with separation of church and state, citizens will evangelize each other. He elevates politics above religion.
“...the majority of Catholics practice birth control...”
He goes after Catholics as well...
“It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing”
“If” God has spoken? Obama is not a Christian. In a democratic country, policy is guided by the people. When the people vote, they are exercising power, and must vote their conscience. Policy will always be decided by what bases one’s life on. Environmentalists and Marxists vote this way. So should Christians.
Amazing...
2 Peter 3:16(NIV)
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Besure to let Jeff Head, Beckwith and Nutmeg know, when you do it.
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.