the Bible will never succeed!
Posted on 08/05/2008 3:53:27 AM PDT by dascallie
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.
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.