Posted on 07/04/2008 6:15:12 PM PDT by johnstown
B. Hussein Obama has it in for America’s evangelicals. That is evident in his anathema of evangelical leader Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family.
Evangelicals stand at the direct opposite of B. Hussein’s creed. He is a moral relativist. That is, for B. Hussein there are no moral absolutes.
To state it in other terms, B. Hussein defines morality by “situation ethics.” That twosome was quite popular among liberals a few years ago; the term has since faded out as a frequency. However, it means that the specific situation governs the ethic of that situation.
For example, if a female concludes that her situation would be better served by slaying her womb infant, then her ethic is pure in having an abortion. There is no biblical absolute standing in her way.
Consequently, B. Hussein who believes in situation ethics supports killing womb babies. He is a prime celebrity among abortion enthusiasts. He goes so far as to aggressively support post-birth abortion.
Further, B. Hussein is a typical theological liberal and is encouraged nationwide by that religious block. There are denominations based on theological liberalism, the latter in opposition to biblical theology.
Such mainline Protestant denominations include the United Church of Christ (Congregational), Unitarian-Universalist Society and Episcopal Church. There are large segments within Roman Catholicism that are like unto the Protestant theological liberal base.
Evangelicals on the other hand uphold the biblical ethic as set by the Almighty God. Therefore, there is no situation ethics allowance. There is no moral relativism. There is no theological liberalism tolerated.
Evangelicals are theological conservatives, absolutists, adhering only to the Scriptures for their moral definitions.
B. Hussein has belonged to the theologically and politically liberal United Church of Christ, the latter’s administration now assertively supporting him in every move he makes.
In addition, B. Hussein was reared by a mother who believed all-religions-are-fine. That is what B. Hussein believes at the forefront of his so-called “faith.”
While he claims daily to pray to Jesus, it is the Muslim prophet Jesus who can fit quite conveniently alongside Buddha, Confucius and so forth. B. Hussein’s Jesus is not the incarnate deity of the Bible. If he were, B. Hussein would not transgress against Jesus’ moral teachings.
While he claims to be “Christian,” such is defined in the theologically liberal parlance, not the evangelical, biblical definition.
Add to this that he has Islamic trappings all over his history and mindset. In his book, “Audacity of Hope,” B. Hussein states: “I will stand with the Muslims. . .”
Yes, that is written in the context of Muslims coming under various injustices in society.
Therefore, the reality is that if elected to the Oval Office, Muslims within B. Hussein’s first week will claim injustices of some sort. With whom then will the new President align himself? He’s already told us. It is with the Muslims.
If Muslims go so far as to claim injustices leveled against them by evangelicals, evangelicals will be B. Hussein’s immediate enemy while Muslims will be his obvious friend.
Naturally Muslims know that sentence is in his book.
It is underlined in their consciousness. They will hold B. Hussein to it. If he moves away from that declaration, all hell will break loose. B. Hussein knows that. Even while courting evangelicals, B. Hussein knows his Islamic allegiance as stated on paper in his book.
In addition, B. Hussein’s father was Muslim and stepfather was a practicing Muslim.
Moreover, B. Hussein has stated in “Dreams of my Father” that “I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.”
And further in that same book: “I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.” This is a confession to his being anti-white and pro-blackism, the latter preached by Jeremiah Wright.
While being pro-blackism, B. Hussein adds to that his pro-Muslim persona.
Now B. Hussein proclaims that he will expand George W. Bush’s faith-based programming. And what is that move? It is a move to fool evangelicals in particular for they have much to lose if that program is deleted.
And why did B. Husseni conduct outdoor gospel concerts in the South? To fool evangelicals.
And why does B. Hussein meet cordially with America’s evangelical leaders? To fool them.
And he in fact did fool some of them. Take for instance Rick Warran of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California. Warren had B. Hussein speak from his so-called evangelical platform on a Lord’s Day.
Wait until B. Hussein gets into the White House. These evangelicals will wish they had stayed true to the traditional evangelical definition of being only biblically aligned, not politically opportunistic.
If B. Hussein gets onto Pennsylvania Avenue, it will be one hell of a nation for evangelicals, for certain.
Read “B. HUSSEIN OBAMA: 'I will stand with the Muslims. . .” at http://www.conservativecrusader.com/articles/b-hussein-obama-i-will-stand-with-the-muslims
Read “CAL THOMAS: OBAMA ‘FALSE PROPHET” at http://jgrantswankjr.blogspot.com/2008/06/cal-thomas-obama-false-prophet.html
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/swank/080701
Noted and thanks.
Yep.
Fixed, thanks and Happy Independence Day!
I would think that Jews and Catholics would come before or along with the evangelicals.
Much ‘preciation.
:-)
;)
AND Michelle has her own list of those to persecute...should we give her the chance.
No doubt you are correct with “along with.”
It’s just that surveys now show so many Catholics who are denying the Vatican positions on such issues as abortion that these are endorsing Catholics.
Further, I don’t know of Obama aggressively opposing Jews on issues.
However, Obama has let it be known that he has no liking for evangelicals. That is quite understandable considering Obama’s theological liberalism and membership in one of the arch-theologically liberal Protestant denominations.
However, if Obama gets onto PA Avenue, it could be as you predicted, sadly.
Michelle surely does have her own list.
And at least what is there in her list does coincide with husband’s for starters.
I suggest Franklin Graham’s book, THE NAME, which focuses on Islam.
“He’s (evangelical Franklin Graham) become the most outspoken and significant leader of a movement of Christian conservatives directly attacking Islam,” wrote Deborah Caldwell at http://www.beliefnet.com/story/111/story_11109_1.html
With Franklin Graham’s book as a resource, one can then see even more poignantly the contrast between Obama’s theology and evangelical theology, particularly as relating to Islam.
Are you also familiar with the miracle of Lepanto? Do a search for that name or I can send you the links through FReepmail.
Thank you. Will do the search you recommend.
Have read about what you suggested and again am all the more confirmed that it is prayer that will overcome the enemy.
The Bible accents the power of prayer over and over. It is faith in the God of the Bible to overcome the enemy for as the Bible states: “The battle is the Lord’s.”
We so often forget that. To remember that is our peace and assurance.
Jesus, further, tells us to pray for our enemies. Consequently, Christians should all the more pray for Muslims to come into the Truth as Jesus claimed to the “Way, the Truth and the Life.”
Yes, prayer is the answer.
I forsee a future time when all citizens of the United States will be united in prayer to prevent such an attack as Lepanto.
May it truly be so.
“The effectual, fervent prayer of the righteous avails much” per James 5:16.
Of course he’s a relativist. He is a relativist everywhere, except where his opinions are concerned - then he’s always right.
He is a marxist. He uses the Hegelian dialectic. He knows about the Alinsky method. He understands how to apply the Delphi Technique.
Why do you think the theme of his campaign is all about “change”?
The dialectic requires two opposing sides to ‘synthesize’ (ie compromise) to a new position somewhere in between the two opposites. When you use the Delphi Technique you (unbeknownst to the opposing sides) already know what direction you want them to go, and without them knowing, push things so that they go to the solution you want them to, but they think it just happened naturally.
ping
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.