Obama's anti christian speech

Originally posted by AshleyD

Then he mentioned the Abraham and Isaac story if I recall correctly. Totally inappropriate. It appeared to me he was pointing out things he personally felt were absurd concerning the Christian and Jewish faiths. For what reason I don't know. It was very awkward to watch and I feel embarrassed for him. He should have stuck to the political issue of church and state instead of ridiculing his voters and their sacred texts. Not very smart.

Okay, I see what you're saying. Without the whole context as far as what the "rest" of this video was, I'm not going to agree or disagree with that, but you're probably right that he was overstepping his bounds a bit and making it a bit personal. However, I still agree with the general idea of what he was saying.

Well, like most of Obama's speeches, this one leaves me wondering how he plans to implement his changes and exactly what he wants changed. I hear an important issue being addressed without any specifics whatsoever. Instead it's just the typical 'change and unity' message he has become known for.

Agreed. I doubt there will be any radical change if he gets into office, but anything to get the vote, eh? It's a catchy slogan, at least. And we silly Americans do love us some catchy slogans.

Ok... Seperation of church and state is not in the constitution. It was written in a letter as a personal belief of jefferson, and is not law.

Furthermore, he does mock the bible, and it seems that he is adverse to it. Soon, you will see his adverseness turn to outright hatred, then he will start passing laws regulating what you can and cannot believe.

All of his biblical references were from the old testament, and if you are farmilliar with the christain religion, you would know that christ nullified the old laws with his death, taking away the need for sacrafice.

The establishment clause basically prohibits what happened in england, and the other european contries, where the pope used religion to take charge of the government, and force people to do as he wished. It does not prohibit having a(n) religion(s) in government, but prohibits having a religion as the government.

Originally posted by AshleyD


Then he mentioned the Abraham and Isaac story if I recall correctly. Totally inappropriate. It appeared to me he was pointing out things he personally felt were absurd concerning the Christian and Jewish faiths. For what reason I don't know.

Are you serious? You don't know??? So let's make a fictional name, say...Mohammad Atta...took his son, Mustafa, into the middle of Time Square, strapped him to a manhole and proceeded to stab him screaming Allahu Akbar, you'd be okay with that? You wouldn't be on this very board the next day saying something about how deranged that was? And if you were there in Time Square at the time of incident, would you just stand and cheer "Go Mo!"??? and when he was done say "Hell, yeah!" Is that what you're saying? Because that being unacceptable is the point Obama was making - not in case you missed it, but BECAUSE you missed it - I point this out.

It would be LEGALLY unacceptable in this country to allow a father to sacrifice his son because he claimed his God told him to. And there's legal precedence to back that statement.

GOOD GAWD HAVE MERCY...DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT?

Originally posted by Valhall
Are you serious? You don't know??? So let's make a fictional name, say...Mohammad Atta...took his son, Mustafa, into the middle of Time Square, strapped him to a manhole and proceeded to stab him screaming Allahu Akbar, you'd be okay with that? You wouldn't be on this very board the next day saying something about how deranged that was? And if you were there in Time Square at the time of incident, would you just stand and cheer "Go Mo!"??? and when he was done say "Hell, yeah!" Is that what you're saying? Because that being unacceptable is the point Obama was making - not in case you missed it, but BECAUSE you missed it - I point this out.

Slow down on the errors so I can keep up, please. Abraham never stabbed Isaac so your analogy is off. Do I particularly approve of this story? Nope. But for some reason you ass/u/me/d that I did. You, Obama, and I can believe what we wish concerning religion and religious stories- it's a private matter. But in a political speech was highly inappropriate (especially considering his speech's topic). And was this the only example Obama mentioned? Nope but it was one of the examples I pointed out because it had nothing to do with religious law (more on this in a moment). So no that is not what I am saying.

You also state Obama claiming this was unacceptable is the point he was making. I agree but I never missed it or else we wouldn't be talking about it now would we? What you seem to miss is the fact of the matter: Why is Obama presenting his own opinions of biblical stories in a political speech... ironically a speech about church and state separation. Second, this incident with Abraham and Isaac, you erroneously assume I approve of, has nothing to do with religious laws (the only real reason that would have been relevant). Obama was making judgments on Bible stories (even if we agree with this opinion) and not only on religious law, therefore not involved in separation of church and state.

It would be LEGALLY unacceptable in this country to allow a father to sacrifice his son because he claimed his God told him to. And there's legal precedence to back that statement.

You don't say. I completely agree. Oh, by the way... human sacrifice is forbidden according to the Jewish law and Christianity. And in this case, the religious laws (NOT religious beliefs or Bible stories) would have been the only thing remotely pertinent to his speech because Obama is not hosting a theological debate but instead a political speech about separation of church and state. The Abraham and Isaac episode was not done according to law and Isaac was never sacrificed. Not to mention it was misleading how Obama talks about religious laws found in the Torah (that no Jewish or Christian group is trying to implement as American law) and mentions this story as if implying it was somehow legally acceptable according to Judaism or Christianity. Your analogy is wrong, you leap to numerous assumptions, and you end with this rude outburst:

GOOD GAWD HAVE MERCY...DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT?

And do you not understand the irony of a man preaching about separation of church and state yet giving his own personal opinion on stories that happened in religious texts in a political debate for the office of president? Ironic and hypocritical. Separation of church and state is something I agree with strongly as I have mentioned on ATS numerous times. You never know when you will suddenly find yourself in the religious minority so, yes, separation of church and state has my full support. I feel so strongly about the subject of separation, that I find Obama's speech distasteful and strangely hypocritical. Do you not understand the contradiction Obama displayed by doing this? "Separate church and state! But while I am up here running for president, let me point out some things in the Bible I find odd, disturbing, oh, and let me talk about Christian and Judaic Bible stories." Bush left the same sour taste in my mouth when he used his soap box to talk about religion as well. So, the Abraham/Isaac story was one example but he also drifted off into more obvious theological discussion. This goes against the grain of the point he is trying to express.

[edit on 8/25/2008 by AshleyD]

Anything thats a part of the CFR isnt good, globalism at its finest enough said.

They wanted a "black" president though, lol. Why wouldnt they find at least one that isnt crooked? Of all people..

reply to post by Valhall


Valhall,

I am with AshleyD on this. She got it exactly correct.

Abraham indeed did not kill Issac...but instead God provided another sacrifice in his stead...just as God would do in later years and as foretold.

Now if you want such drama...please feel free to speak of the Heathen Pagan nations sacrificing their first born into the red hot arms of Molec.

You can also see the involvement of the Hebrews in such religions and also giving up their first born to such forbidden practices. Abomination.

For you see ...Valhall ...The God of the Bible does not require such sacrifice...this is what is meant in the New Testament phrase......"It is finished!!"

Any god which requires such sacrifice in order to gain paradise or heaven is a counterfeit god...this is plain by the text. "It is finished!"

What the counterfeit gods and counterfeit religions are saying..is that it is not finished and we are going to finish it...in perpetuity..over and over and over and over ..ad nauseum.

You want another version of it....in Humanistic terms...

We can rebuild Eden here on earth by our intellect by reason ..by logic. If you just vote us enough power and office in perpetuity.

another variation of this Eden doctrine is that a....creature by and act of will ...free will...can reach divinity. By following certain rules..by logic, by reason, by gnosis...by sophism. Advancing by degrees in the wisdom of this world.

There is nothing new here in this. It is simply that most of us are never taught to connect the dots. This pattern is very olde. Solomon had it correct in that "There is no new thing under the sun."

Politicians and their legions of priesthoods, the media, are still trying to sell us this religion under the guise of Humanism.

Orangetom

Originally posted by AshleyD

Anyways, question one: Why is a presidential candidate sticking his nose into religion? If I had never heard of Obama before or knew he was a presidential candidate, it would have been fair to assume that was a video of a unitarian preacher.

Question two: Why is a presidential candidate criticizing his own (supposedly) religion and ridiculing the Bible which is his own (supposedly) sacred text?

Question three: Why were most of his criticisms taken from the Old Testament? That was more of a massive slam against Judaism in my opinion than it was Christianity due to the fact we believe the OT is the old covenant while we are under the new covenant of the NT. But then he says we also need to realize the country consists of Jews. Way to go, Obama. You just totally displayed ignorance. The Christian Old Testament is essentially the Jewish Tanakh with a few differences.

Answer one: Everyone else has made religion an issue in this. You can't expect to batter a man with propaganda and rumours about what his religion may or may not be, and then expect him not to respond. And in fact, that speech wasn't about religion. It was about policy making, with religion as a sub-context.

Answer two: Please point out - with direct quotes from that hack job video - where the criticisms were. I'm interested.

Answer three: Your 'question' (which isn't a question at all, more of a commment) speaks to exactly what he was saying. When you say 'we' are you referring to a specific group, or using it in the royal sense? Because if you mean 'Christians' then I assure you, there are many who follow the Old Testament still. What if it was the Old Testament Christianity that was being taught? That was his point, and I'm not sure why you're re-making it for him.

I feel bad for some of you people on here who got tricked into thinking what he said was anti-christian with that sorry excuse of propaganda. He pretty much said we are diverse nation. I don't even like Barack either.

Believe what you want, but religion has no place in any government.

Originally posted by davion
I think this sums it up well:

i think it's more like this:

Zealots with persecution complexes WOULD believe that.