It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dobson accuses Obama of 'distorting' Bible

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar

Please, quit with the fear-mongering


OH give me a break no one is fear mongering here. Were only reporting what Obama is saying. If you fear that then he’s the one who put it in you, not me or anyone else on here.


I think that's what it's saying, it is entirely too vague to really know what's being talked about.


Exactly why you think this is?


Obamas own words. "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?" Obama said. "Would we go with James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's?" referring to the civil rights leader.
Obama, citing “chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus' Sermon on the Mount,”

Why would Obama say things like this to begin with?


Well you ARE making a mountain out of a mole hill. I think he is only giving those two names as an EXAMPLE where they were the first two name he could come up with off the cuff. The part about leviticus Obama is trying to suggest as one of the most used by Atheists because it fits in well with their contradictions of the Bible BS.

I think Obama is too clever to be suggesting anyting like the NWO or ANY so called future legislation having anything to do with a Government endorsed Government sanctioned religion.

While George Bush has made statements about "Faith Based" initiatives, NONE of them have received a damn dime and have given up on it.

I just don't see what all the fuss is about

- Con




posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by mental modulator


Finally would you guys ban science that was contrary to the bible??? How about banning dinosaur books - would you ban the studies into genetics that investigate mutations and further the XY studies of evolution??? How would you address human settlements that are determined to be older the most christian models of the world???
I bet some of you would if you got mad enough at some of gods real secrets!
It is this very reason that the founding fathers (free masons not christians) saw fit to separate church and state.


Ha ha ha Let me be BLUNT when I say, if it were up to me or any other candidate that would ban anything having to do with a Science predicated on an Idiot named Chuck Darwin,, That guy would get my vote.

Don't like it, TOO BAD.

Evolution is crock and so is your version of church and state. Free Masons are not a religion but many Christians are Free Masons.

If you can show me where the separation powers are in the constitution ANYWHERE I'd sure like to see that. Just try and you will see the founding fathers never made any provisions for anything like that in the original document. It is a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the danbury Baptists that Atheists have enlisted the services of the Communists in the ACLU to use to sue in supreme court using that letter and is to this day as what we now call the separation of church and state.

This is the NWO at work, NOT Obama.

Atheist's then used the ruling to get creationsim removed from schools so that they could use the manufactured evidence Clarence Darrow used in the scopes monkey trials using a fraudulent Piltdownman to give credibility to a replacement pseudo science called Darwins Theory of Evolution. Once they got control the usurped every aspect of religion in Government ever since replacing it with the theology of Neo Atheism.

- Con





[edit on 25-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Umm, it's called Freedom of Religion, and that's why we try to keep things fairly non-biased in our government. Our whole country was founded by the principle of freeing ourselves from a State/Church that was oppressive. By advocating a State/church bond you are going against the very principles this country was founded on. Yes our country was founded by a Protestant movement, but our country is filled with many different religions who are all citizens under the same roof. Athiest, Jews, Muslims, Catholics, etc. etc. Our country represents all of them, and they represent our country as well.

I think you may need to re-examine your narrowminded views on religion in America.

[edit on 25-6-2008 by Azurus]



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azurus
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Umm, it's called Freedom of Religion, and that's why we try to keep things fairly non-biased in our government. Our whole country was founded by the principle of freeing ourselves from a State/Church that was oppressive. By advocating a State/church bond you are going against the very principles this country was founded on. Yes our country was founded by a Protestant movement, but our country is filled with many different religions who are all citizens under the same roof. Athiest, Jews, Muslims, Catholics, etc. etc. Our country represents all of them, and they represent our country as well.

I think you may need to re-examine your narrowminded views on religion in America.

[edit on 25-6-2008 by Azurus]


Thats BS quit reading Atheist revision history and read the original documents for god sake

I am a Christian and I could care less what other religions believe I am NOT a liberal Christian or a luke warm Christian that thinks tolerance means I have to give up the Christian values THIS COUNTRY was BUILT ON. Got it?


- Con

[edit on 25-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


That's very amusing considering your statement. I doubt you will find many Athiests that are hateful towards your religious views. Who is being more oppressive?




Some of the first colonists of the nation for which the Constitution was written had been seeking to escape religious persecution. The constitutions of several of the states prohibited public support of religion (though some did explicitly support or demand adherence to Christianity). Above all, the many varying sects of Christianity in America required that to be fair to all, there could be preference to none. It would have been disgraceful for anyone to wish to leave the United States because of religious persecution. So the authors decided it best to keep the government out of religion. This is not to say that the United States was not or is not a religious nation. Religion plays a big role in the everyday life of Americans, then and now. But what the authors were striving for is tolerance... something I fear contemporary Americans are lacking.


The type of contemporary American he is referring to is you...

[edit on 25-6-2008 by Azurus]



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azurus
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


That's very amusing considering your statement. I doubt you will find any Athiests that are hateful towards your religious views. Who is being more oppressive?




Some of the first colonists of the nation for which the Constitution was written had been seeking to escape religious persecution. The constitutions of several of the states prohibited public support of religion (though some did explicitly support or demand adherence to Christianity). Above all, the many varying sects of Christianity in America required that to be fair to all, there could be preference to none. It would have been disgraceful for anyone to wish to leave the United States because of religious persecution. So the authors decided it best to keep the government out of religion. This is not to say that the United States was not or is not a religious nation. Religion plays a big role in the everyday life of Americans, then and now. But what the authors were striving for is tolerance... something I fear contemporary Americans are lacking.


The type of contemporary American he is referring to is you...


And just who would "HE" be, since I have no idea where you got that quote from. Yes I am oppressive to rapists and murderers too. What I find so interesesting is that you constitution revisionist's constantly leave out the part of the passage that says "Nor will the Government prohibit the religious expression thereof" That means they will have no say in it EITHER WAY. It is Atheist's who have bastardized this to mean freedom "From" religion when in the context it was written and according to the events that brought it about in the first place. It was Judaeo Christian values under persecution. You ever wonder why the supreme court is surrounded with the ten commandments? Ever wonder why the preambble of just about all but two state constitutions refers to GOD?

You ever wonder why Jefferson wrote back to the Danbury Baptists when his convictions were called into question he wrote "First and foremost, I AM a Christian." ?

Government can't do Jack about church and state unless we remove God from public schools and have generation upon generation of kids becoming voters without a Christian consiousness.

We see what happens with that all the time when Atheist morality is why Jeffery Dahmer said he felt no remorse about killing all those people and why the two shooting up all the students at columbine were chanting how wonderful Natural selection and Darwinism was and why Godless regimes like stalin and mao murder millions but all we ever hear about in our history these days is the hundreds of thousands of witchs Christians killed when it was only a dozen. That the Crusades, which was a land or territory battle steeped in politics but as usual the winners always have God on there side. It just happened to be advertised as Christian.

We see them revising the history of the holocaust and now even Christ himself never really existed and is a myth. Funny thing is most of the mytholgy in the world, Archaeologists are finding more proof they really existed all along.

I am a Christian who is also a 6 year veteran who served his country so that YOU could have the freedom to call me oppressive

Jeez I should BE so damn oppressed

- Con


[edit on 25-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 



I believe you are twisting my words sir. It is notes on interpreting the first amendment of the constitution based on history in 1791. If you forgot the exact words of the first entry in the Bill of Rights, it states...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I see your logic, but the fact is that times have changed. America was founded on Judeo-Christian forefathers, but now it is not composed of only Christians. It is composed of many different religions, and also many different sects within those religions. This is where you must come to terms with. How would you feel if you were born into a country who didn't "recognize" your religion as valid?

Our government represents the PEOPLE. Not our forefathers or even our forefather's religions, so if the current people cannot be accurately represented religiously by the state, then we are forced to make changes. This is what Obama is saying. Like it or not, it's the way things work and it's called tolerance. Jesus Christ is the one who taught it.

By not advocating the separation of church and state you are automatically being oppressive to someone in our nation, under our same laws, with the same religious freedom that you have. Tolerance is understanding that, yet keeping and practicing your religion yourself.

I fully respect that you are a veteran and I honor anyone who fights for our country's freedom, including you, but it has no impact on our discussion.




P.S. - The quote I used earlier was written by Steve Mount. He is a veteran of the Vermont Army National Guard 1987-1992; tank loader, driver, gunner (M60A3). Stationed: Det. 1 1/172nd HHQ, Swanton, Vermont; Basic training and AIT at Fort Knox, Kentucky. Honorable Discharge 1992.

He did his research using these sources: Source List




[edit on 25-6-2008 by Azurus]



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azurus

I believe you are twisting my words sir.


The names "Conspiriology" you can call me "Con", my father is "sir" and yes I know what the constitution says.


I see your logic, but the fact is that times have changed.


Times have changed but the constitution is NOT a living document as many like to call it and according to the Neo Atheists who are pushing this crap, NO religions are valid but especially Christianity which by the way is the biggest one in the country.



This is where you must come to terms with. How would you feel if you were born into a country who didn't "recognize" your religion as valid?


This is exactly what I am talking about! MY religion isn't VALID! At least not anymore. Just take a look at the boards here and see which one is getting attacked most, which one Atheists claim are destroying ATS under the alias "Creationists" . Life was given to me free so it doesn't owe me a dime but Ill be damed if I am going to allow anyone to take more of it from me which I have a right to.

Ya know that self evident thing endowed by our creator.


Like it or not, it's the way things work and it's called tolerance.
Jesus Christ is the one who taught it.


No he didn't.

Jesus was not a sap. He was no respector of Gay rights no lover of sin and even had a temper when it came to the corruption of Government and The church. The latter he was down right Pissed, and intolerant of.

So don't be giving me this crap about what you think you know about Tolerance. Tolerance is one thing but asking me to bend over an take it is OUT of the question.

I have a RIGHT to be intolerant in that regard and THAT is what you have to accept.



Not me

- Con
PS;

Don't play the military card on me

By the way,, Ill play any damn card I want






[edit on 25-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Azurus
 



Whats that a DEMON graphic avatar?

Its the Buddhists and New Agers that are ruining this country. We should take them all in Guantanomo Bay for a little recreational waterboarding before they corrupt the country any further. They are trying to take over and start a Buddhist World Order where this sort of limp wristed tolerance will weaken the country untill a Buddhist theocracy is implemented.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   
You seem to take offense at my words, yet you are missing my point. First off, we aren't talking about Athiests. If that's what you want to discuss, then you may want to go to a different thread. The discussion was about Obama's remarks on the tolerance of ALL religions, not the oppression of any, and especially not Christianity. I grew up as a Christian myself and so did Obama.

You say:



This is exactly what I am talking about! MY religion isn't VALID! At least not anymore.


What makes you think preaching tolerance invalidates your religious views? Tolerance means accepting all religions as valid religions, including your own. I feel like you are being oppressive because you think that yours is so special as to have only your religious views be forced on people who differ in their views.

Jesus Christ may have not taught tolerance for sins against his word, but he did very much teach to tolerate your enemies and those who have different views. He loved and respected everyone, including those with different beliefs.

Maybe you should read this:




John 3:17. This follows the verse that is perhaps the most recited verse in the Bible. Jesus was still talking in plain and simple terms. "For God sent His Son into the world not to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." In his letter to the Romans, Paul carried forward with the same theme: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus." Christianity does not carry a message of intolerance or condemnation, but a message of reconciliation and salvation.

Christ exercised tolerance in ways that amazed the people He encountered during His years of ministry. A woman "caught in the act" of adultery was brought to Him. It was all a ploy. Christ had said He came to fulfill the law. Jewish leaders thought they knew the law, so they decided to confront Jesus with a "simple" case. Under "the law," a woman "caught in the act" had to be killed. (Keep in mind that the people doing the "catching" took her to Christ. They didn't bother following their own interpretation of the law.) The trick was obvious. Romans occupied Jerusalem and applied Roman law. Roman laws allowed people to be executed, but only for reasons allowed under Roman laws. Capital offenses under Jewish law didn't count. If Christ followed "the law" (i.e., the Jewish law as interpreted by His antagonists), He would violate Roman law and could be executed for that offense. On the other hand, if Christ honored Roman law, He would fail to fulfill "the law," right?

WRONG! Christ demonstrated the message that God had shared since the days of the prophets. "He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?" Christ turned the tables on His antagonists. He made them consider their failures to act justly. To the woman he showed mercy. As she turned to walk away, He told her to go and sin no more. It is another way of saying "walk humbly with your God."

Today's social activists seem to have lost the message. They continue to challenge Christians with the very same ploy used on Christ. Under Jewish laws, homosexual conduct also led to execution. Homosexuals confront Christians today, challenging Christians to stone them to death. Why? Do they feel that they are more deserving of death than the woman caught in adultery? You would have to ask them. As for me, there can be no doubt that Christ would have addressed a homosexual person in exactly the same way that He addressed the woman caught in adultery. He would act justly and show mercy. He would tell the person to go and sin no more. He would leave a message of love and tolerance.

Where is tolerance? It is not in today's social activism. It is in the Christian walk.

If you would know true diversity, inclusion, and tolerance, embrace Christ. Be Christ-like. Be Christian.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by rileytardell
reply to post by Azurus
 



Whats that a DEMON graphic avatar?

Its the Buddhists and New Agers that are ruining this country. We should take them all in Guantanomo Bay for a little recreational waterboarding before they corrupt the country any further. They are trying to take over and start a Buddhist World Order where this sort of limp wristed tolerance will weaken the country untill a Buddhist theocracy is implemented.


Is he a Buddhist? I should have known,, the Dawkins allies he mentions he will eliminate after he gets rid of all the Christians but not until he is done using them to help get rid of us lol

- Con



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by rileytardell
 



That's funny! Thanks for the laugh. I doubt any sort of demon would bear any resemblance to my avatar (which is very peaceful).

I grew up a Southern Baptist Christian in the Bible belt if you are curious. I have studied the Bible for years, and have seen a lot of hypocracy and intolerance that I wasn't very fond of. My views are my own, but I do believe in a God who is my creator and that I can pray to.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azurus
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


That's very amusing considering your statement. I doubt you will find many Athiests that are hateful towards your religious views. Who is being more oppressive?



You're joking...right???? Have you actually read some of the threads on here in which Athiests participate??? Have you ever heard Christopher Hitchens on the subject who tours the country for the express purpose of bashing believers? Or Dawkins who flips out when asked reasonable scientific questions by believers? Now I enjoy hearing Hitchens simply because he is a gifted speaker and sharpens my own thinking as a believer but to be honest I never experiencd the level of sheer hatred and contempt for believers as I have on ATS/BTS....its off the hook.....



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by realshanti
 


I apologize, because I haven't read many threads regarding religious views here, so you may be right. But I am speaking for tolerance across the board. I disagree with anyone who is oppressive, whether they are Athiests or not.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azurus


What makes you think preaching tolerance invalidates your religious views? Tolerance means accepting all religions as valid religions, including your own. I feel like you are being oppressive because you think that yours is so special as to have only your religious views be forced on people who differ in their views.


Make no mistake, MY Religion IS Special so you can EXPECT me to act like it. I have no probem with Obama's comments.



Jesus Christ may have not taught tolerance for sins against his word, but he did very much teach to tolerate your enemies and those who have different views. He loved and respected everyone, including those with different beliefs.

Maybe you should read this:


So you're a Christian right?


Today's social activists seem to have lost the message. They continue to challenge Christians with the very same ploy used on Christ. Under Jewish laws, homosexual conduct also led to execution. Homosexuals confront Christians today, challenging Christians to stone them to death. Why? Do they feel that they are more deserving of death than the woman caught in adultery? You would have to ask them. As for me, there can be no doubt that Christ would have addressed a homosexual person in exactly the same way that He addressed the woman caught in adultery. He would act justly and show mercy. He would tell the person to go and sin no more. He would leave a message of love and tolerance.


No it is when they say the Bible doesn't say Homosexuality is a sin is when they bait us into an argument correcting the false witness then hitting the alert key calling it bigotry that I have a problem with.

Again, you 're a Christian right?

- Con



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Azurus
 


ahh no worries, luv...."They will hate you because they have hated Me" ....so I take it all with a double dose of salt...Its been a good lesson for me in learning how to temper my arguments, toughen up, and try to see through to the spirit of a person...all grsit for the mill



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   
The basis for my religious beliefs is Christianity, because that's how I came to know of religion.

Religion is a product of man and not God, and I believe that man is imperfect in everything he does. God gave the Bible as a handbook to live by and that is the only thing I accept as full truth. I think a personal relationship with God is the only thing that matters, and I choose not to listen to advice from men who wish to intrepret the Bible in ways they choose.

The basis for my reasoning is that nothing is perfect except for God, so what right do I have to claim that any other interpretation is more "correct" than another?

I believe this is where Obama is coming from and it's why I chimed in on this thread to begin with. Not to defend myself from posts condemning me for my tolerance of others while calling me a buddhist and associating me with "demons".



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by realshanti

Originally posted by Azurus
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


That's very amusing considering your statement. I doubt you will find many Athiests that are hateful towards your religious views. Who is being more oppressive?



You're joking...right???? Have you actually read some of the threads on here in which Athiests participate??? Have you ever heard Christopher Hitchens on the subject who tours the country for the express purpose of bashing believers? Or Dawkins who flips out when asked reasonable scientific questions by believers? Now I enjoy hearing Hitchens simply because he is a gifted speaker and sharpens my own thinking as a believer but to be honest I never experiencd the level of sheer hatred and contempt for believers as I have on ATS/BTS....its off the hook.....


Wow How did I miss that one! Ha ha lucky thing I did, I would have spent the entire day collecting samples of the "Best of Hatred and Bigotry" comments. You are right about the "training" one gets in this area.

- Con



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azurus
The basis for my religious beliefs is Christianity, because that's how I came to know of religion.

Religion is a product of man and not God, and I believe that man is imperfect in everything he does. God gave the Bible as a handbook to live by and that is the only thing I accept as full truth. I think a personal relationship with God is the only thing that matters, and I choose not to listen to advice from men who wish to intrepret the Bible in ways they choose.

The basis for my reasoning is that nothing is perfect except for God, so what right do I have to claim that any other interpretation is more "correct" than another?

I believe this is where Obama is coming from and it's why I chimed in on this thread to begin with. Not to defend myself from posts condemning me for my tolerance of others while calling me a buddhist and associating me with "demons".


Yeah Ok thats all I am asking but like the poster before me,, I AM in those other threads defending Christianity's rights to raise our children as we see fit and many other rights we are denied. So I may be more sensitive or more suspicious of those using the word tolerance when it means the exact opposite around here or tolerate anything as long as it doesn't include God, Jesus or religion.

- Con



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azurus
The basis for my religious beliefs is Christianity, because that's how I came to know of religion.

Religion is a product of man and not God, and I believe that man is imperfect in everything he does. God gave the Bible as a handbook to live by and that is the only thing I accept as full truth. I think a personal relationship with God is the only thing that matters, and I choose not to listen to advice from men who wish to intrepret the Bible in ways they choose.

The basis for my reasoning is that nothing is perfect except for God, so what right do I have to claim that any other interpretation is more "correct" than another?

I believe this is where Obama is coming from and it's why I chimed in on this thread to begin with. Not to defend myself from posts condemning me for my tolerance of others while calling me a buddhist and associating me with "demons".


Bless your heart
The basis for your belief is actually the Word of God then and not "Chistianity"....Christian was the name that was given to believers by their enemies...and it is possible for men and women to be perfect and "sin no more" otherwise Yeshua/Christ would not have said "be ye perfect as you father in heaven is perfect" nor would He have told the adulteress to "go and sin no more"....He does not ask us to do what we are not capable of...

Okies - apologies - not trying to hi-jack the thread folks - go back to arguing over Obama



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join