Obama Attends Church for 1st Time in5 Months.

Garbage or not, they are your words. The truth is what hurts.

Aaron wrote:I find it interesting that you base your opinion on President Obama-who some have claimed to be moderate by the way-as a socialist by comparing his actions to your views and personal opinions that you have developed over they years from the knowledge you have gained yet you expect Christians to automatically accept his statements without question even though his actions are opposite to everything Christians have learned over the years of study, faith and the knowledge they have developed.

Seems to me that what’s good for the gander should be good for the geese as well, don’t you think!!!

You're comparing apples and oranges, Aaron.

First of all, in the United States of America, we have freedom of religion and separation of church & state. People are free to practise any religion they desire, or no religion at all. An individual's religious views neither qualify nor disqualify them for public office. Whatever version of Abrahamic religion President Obama may hold dear, is irrelevant because the Constitution provides him, along with every other American, freedom to practice that religion and all Americans are protected from the President from imposing his religious views on them. The Constitution prevents him from making it a theocracy and the Supreme Court has done a good job of keeping that protection in place.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court has done a piss poor job of protecting private property and personal wealth. Time and again the Court has allowed the government to seize personal property and redistribute wealth. So there is a legitimacy when Americans who believe in individualism, capitalism, and the fundamental right of citizens to keep the fruit of their labors.

I'm sorry, I was playing poker (I just lost) while trying to respond to this and I see that Ziggy has posted something about "secular Christianity", a thing I have never heard of.

I was raised a Christian, of the Roman Catholic variety. It is the Catholic perspective of what makes a person a Christian the one I am most familiar with and understand best. To Catholics, all people who believe that Jesus Christ is messiah, that he was born, died and resurrected to pay for the sins of man, that is a Christian. PERIOD.

I was married to a Methodist and my maternal grandfatheer was a Methodist, they share that view. I have very good friends who are Episcopalian and Orthodox and Presbytarian, they believe the same thing and even all the Baptists I know share that view. I am completely unfamiliar with any "Christian" sect who believes otherwise. Now I know there is plenty of division over how a Christian makes it into heaven. I know some think it is through baptism and some through "works" etc.

In any event, no matter what religion Obama is, that has nothing to do with ME, or YOU, or the nation. Making accusations regarding his faith and denegrating him for his attendance record at church is a foolish distraction from the critical issues we all should be focusing on. The economy, our currency, the endless occupation of other sovereign nations, war in Afghanistan, government take over of massive chunks of the US economy, loss of liberty, these are all very real and those are the issues Americans need to be concerned about.

Christian humanism is the belief that human freedom, individual conscience, and unencumbered rational inquiry are compatible with the practice of Christianity or even intrinsic in its doctrine. It represents a philosophical union of Christian faith and classical humanist principles.

Ziggy, I fail to see where or how this article you posted disputes my statement. Where does it say that these people don't believe Christ is the savior?

Even the Pope is calling for a "New humanism":


http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=27579

VATICAN CITY (CNA) - In the face of the eruption of violence around the world, Pope Benedict is calling for a “new humanism” that includes moral and spiritual development, to combat the spread of warfare.

The Pope’s message, which was made public on Saturday, comes less than a week before his address to the U.N., where many expect him to address violence and the need for strengthening the family around the world.

Cardinal Renato Martino and participants in a seminar entitled: "Disarmament, development and peace, prospects for integral disarmament", being held in Rome April 11-12, received the Pope’s letter.

The Holy Father began his message by noting how the seminar’s topic is very relevant to humanity’s current situation. "Tension and war exist in various parts of the world, and even where the tragedy of war is not present, feelings of fear and insecurity are nonetheless widespread,” Benedict XVI noted.

“Furthermore, such phenomena as global terrorism blur the distinction between peace and war, seriously compromising the future hopes of humankind.”

"How", he adds, "can we respond to these challenges? How can we recognize the 'signs of the times'? Certainly, joint action on a political, economic and juridical level is needed but, even before that, it is necessary to reflect together on a moral and spiritual level. What is ever more vital is to promote a 'new humanism'".

However, the Pope cautioned, we cannot think of this “new humanism” in a way that reduces development to “simple economic growth,” rather, “it must include the moral and spiritual dimension. A truly integral humanism must, at the same time, also express solidarity," he said.

Achieving "True and lasting peace is unimaginable without the development of each person and of all peoples," Pope Benedict asserted. Yet, is it inconceivable “to think of reducing arms if first we do not eliminate violence at its roots, if man does not first turn decisively to searching for peace and for what is good and just".

The Pope also took aim at nations that spend exorbitant amounts of money on defense and in doing so, divert funds from “projects for the development of peoples, especially the poorest and those most in need of help".

Instead of allowing military spending to become a driving force of the world economy, the Pontiff called on States to “reduce military expenditure on arms and to give serious consideration to the idea of creating a global fund for peaceful development projects".
Benedict XVI affirms the need to do everything possible to ensure that "the economy is directed to serving human beings and solidarity, and not just to profit.”

"Nonetheless", the Pope acknowledges, "it will be difficult to find a solution to the various technical problems without man's conversion to good on a cultural, moral and spiritual level".

This transformation requires a “choral invocation of the culture of peace and for a joint education in peace, especially among the new generations. ... The human right to peace", he writes, "is fundamental and inalienable", and upon it "the exercise of all other rights depends," the Pope insisted.

Although the current situation in the world could give rise "to a justified sense of discomfort and resignation", the Holy Father points out that "war is never inevitable and peace is always possible. Even more so, it is a duty! The time has come to change the course of history, to rediscover trust, to cultivate dialogue and to nourish solidarity", he says.

"The future of humanity depends upon a commitment on everyone's part. Only by pursuing an integrated humanism of solidarity, in which disarmament assumes an ethical and spiritual dimension, can humanity progress towards the true and lasting peace for which it longs,” the Pope concluded.

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=27579

No Stephanie I am not comparing apples and oranges and this has nothing to do with his right to practice religion. You question his economic beliefs based on how his actions correspond to what you believe. In your view, his “walk” does not make him a moderate, it makes him a socialist.

I do the same. His “walk” leads me to believe his public actions are contrary to what he states. There is nothing apples to oranges about it. At any point, it is immaterial on this forum as my next post will explain.

Stephanie wrote:

Christian humanism is the belief that human freedom, individual conscience, and unencumbered rational inquiry are compatible with the practice of Christianity or even intrinsic in its doctrine. It represents a philosophical union of Christian faith and classical humanist principles.

Ziggy, I fail to see where or how this article you posted disputes my statement. Where does it say that these people don't believe Christ is the savior?

The term you used was "messiah". But either way, Christian Humanism does not require that Jesus was born of Immaculate Conception of a virgin, nor that he rose form the dead, nor that he exists anywhere today other than as spirit in the minds of people living today. If by "messiah" we mean spiritual savior, then OK, I guess- as long as we do not require blind faith based on doctrines of supernatural hocus-pocus to see or feel it that way.

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:

Christian humanism is the belief that human freedom, individual conscience, and unencumbered rational inquiry are compatible with the practice of Christianity or even intrinsic in its doctrine. It represents a philosophical union of Christian faith and classical humanist principles.

Ziggy, I fail to see where or how this article you posted disputes my statement. Where does it say that these people don't believe Christ is the savior?

The term you used was "messiah". But either way, Christian Humanism does not require that Jesus was born of Immaculate Conception of a virgin, nor that he rose form the dead, nor that he exists anywhere today other than as spirit in the minds of people living today. If by "messiah" we mean spiritual savior, then OK, I guess- as long as we do not require blind faith based on doctrines of supernatural hocus-pocus to see or feel it that way.

I have no clue what you're trying to say, Ziggy. Are you trying to say that a person can be a Christian and not believe that Jesus Christ is the savior? Or, are you trying to say that not all Christians believe every story in the Bible?

I promise you, Pope Benedict believes not only in immaculate conception, but all the other stuff I think you're calling "hocus-pocus".

Stephanie wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:

Christian humanism is the belief that human freedom, individual conscience, and unencumbered rational inquiry are compatible with the practice of Christianity or even intrinsic in its doctrine. It represents a philosophical union of Christian faith and classical humanist principles.

Ziggy, I fail to see where or how this article you posted disputes my statement. Where does it say that these people don't believe Christ is the savior?

The term you used was "messiah". But either way, Christian Humanism does not require that Jesus was born of Immaculate Conception of a virgin, nor that he rose form the dead, nor that he exists anywhere today other than as spirit in the minds of people living today. If by "messiah" we mean spiritual savior, then OK, I guess- as long as we do not require blind faith based on doctrines of supernatural hocus-pocus to see or feel it that way.

I have no clue what you're trying to say, Ziggy. Are you trying to say that a person can be a Christian and not believe that Jesus Christ is the savior? Or, are you trying to say that not all Christians believe every story in the Bible?

Both.

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:He may be a moderate compared to some. That's a range..far right to far left with most people falling somewhere in the middle. Not so with religion. A person isn't a little bit Christian. They either believe Jesus Christ was the messiah or they don't. Those who do are Christian, all of those who don't are not.

Not quite, Stephanie.

Christian humanism is the belief that .............

Your argument is, as usual, pure f'ing stupidity on your part and only being employed for the sole purpose of playing the part of a "sick-in-the-head" Devil's Advocate who is intent on posting "negatisms" about anything and everything posted by other Forum Members.

Christian Humanism is the belief that human freedom and individualism are intrinsic (natural) parts of, or are at least compatible with, Christian doctrine and practice. It is a philosophical union of Christian and humanist principles.

What are you going to claim next in your perverted postings, .... that Christian Pediophilism, ........ Christian Queerism, ....... Christian Adulterism, ....... Christian Idolworshippingism, or whatever, are all at least compatible with Christian doctrine and practice?

David Limbaugh:

In office, Obama has rarely attended church and has routinely snubbed Christianity and Christian symbols while consistently espousing values inconsistent with the biblical ethic. On the other hand, he has gone out of his way to glorify Islam. He told us in one of his books that the Muslim call to prayer was the sweetest sound he'd ever heard.

More significantly, he said in his Cairo speech to the Muslim world that Islam is a revealed religion. I'm amazed this didn't get more attention because it is extremely anomalous for a believing Christian to refer to Islam as a revealed religion.

The word "revealed" had to have been carefully chosen and was absolutely unnecessary to convey his overtures to the Muslim world. One needn't affirm another person's religion to extend him a hand of friendship and peace.

Words have meaning, and if Obama believes Islam was revealed, then he most certainly believes it was revealed by God. If it was revealed by God more than 600 years after Christ was on earth and contains beliefs wholly inconsistent with doctrinal Christianity -- such as that Christ was not God, but a mere prophet -- then, in that essential particular, it cannot possibly be reconciled with Christianity.

If Obama truly believes Islam was revealed by God, I can't fathom how he could be a believing Christian. I don't know that Obama is not a Christian, but I am dubious.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Is-Obama-a-Christian_-619952-101673328.html#ixzz11IAjQLma

Stephanie wrote:I just can't believe people are discussing Obama's religion and citizen status. I can't even tolerate looking at him because he's such a lying, socialist prick. He's caused so much damage to our nation because of his political ideology, his arrogance, and his total lack of respect for our Constitution.

I don't care if he prays to the Hale Bopp comet and was hatched on Mars. I don't understand why anyone else would either.

You think Obama is lying, ...... he doen't.

And to understand why, you need to read this in its entirety, to wit:

Transcript of: Glenn Beck: Understanding Obama's Worldview - Sept 30, 2010
Exerted from: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,601703,00.html

Last night, I told you facts about Obama's upbringing. They are facts.

The reason why I tell you these things is because we have to know who people are so we can navigate and we know what we're dealing with. I can safely arrive at a conclusion — an opinion — of what is happening and how the president is making decisions if I really look at the facts.

Now, these facts are really well put together in this book, "The Roots of Obama's Rage" by Dinesh D'Souza. Everybody should read this book. It's now the number one selling book on Amazon.com. And I think it's going to be that way for quite some time, because you must read it and pass it on.

But here's what we learned last night before we come to our own opinions and conclusions. First: Barack Obama's dad — Barack Obama's dad said this, "Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100 percent of income so long as the people get benefits from the government." You got it? So, in other words, they could take 100 percent if they want to as long as it's shared with everybody else.

Now, this was his father. His father was a Marxist — an anti-colonial Marxist — not the kind of Marxist that you found in the Soviet Union.

Now his mother, she was also …………….

Go to: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,601703,00.html for the remaining transcript.

SamCogar wrote:What are you going to claim next in your perverted postings, .... that Christian Pediophilism, ........ Christian Queerism, ....... Christian Adulterism, ....... Christian Idolworshippingism, or whatever, are all at least compatible with Christian doctrine and practice?

That depends on which Christian doctrines and practices you are talking about. There are "Christian" church denominations wherein adultery, including pedophila, is a routine occurance. The Catholic Church at all levels goes to great both financial costs and costs to its credibility to protect pedophile priests from exposure. Google "pedophile priests" and we get over a half million hits. Google "adulterer priests" and get over 11 million hits.

There are churches especially established by and for gay Christians.

There are Christians who worship all manner of idols- including money, cars, clothing, etc.

And as to "Christian Adulterism"- well, virtually every so-called Christian church around has its share of adulterers- and which often includes the clergy- who use the Christian label as cover for adultery, rather than as a guiding light against adultery.

What is Christianity? Christianity is as Christianity does.

Christianity can be- and I suggest that it often is- nothing more than social cover for all manner of less socially popular spiritual practices, to wit:

The open practice of paganism often invites criticism, ridicule, potential loss of job, social ostracization, and even bodily harm - while the open practice of Christianity more likely encourages a positive popular response. As the saying goes, "it doesn't take a rocket scientist" to realize that, for many people, "passing" as Christian can significantly simplify their public life. And, although this deception may be offensive to the purist, it is generally not very difficult for the closet pagan to participate in most ostensibly Christian practices.

http://twpt.com/christianpagan.htm

Welcoming Gay Friendly Churches in West Virginia - WV

St. Luke Lutheran Church Beckley Lutheran, ELCA

Raging Fire Ministries Bluefield Non-denominational
Trinity United Methodist Church Bluefield United Methodist Church

St. John's Charleston Episcopal
Mighty Vision Ministries Charleston Non-denominational
Asbury UMC Charleston United Methodist Church
Simpson Memorial United Methodist Charleston United Methodist Church

Zion Episcopal Church Charles Town Episcopal

Friends Catholic Community Church Huntington Friends Catholic Episcopate of the Resurrection
First Congregational Church Huntington United Church of Christ

St. John's Episcopal Marlinton Episcopal

Emmanuel Episcopal Church Moorefield Episcopal

First Presbyterian Morgantown Presbyterian
Westover United Methodist Church Morgantown United Methodist Church

St. Mark's Episcopal Church Saint Albans Episcopal
Appalachian MCC Saint Albans MCC

St. Agnes Shepherdstown Roman Catholic
Shepherdstown Presbyterian Church Shepherdstown Presbyterian

Integrity West Virginia Wheeling Episcopal
St. Luke's-on-the-Island Wheeling Episcopal

http://www.gaychurch.org/Find_a_Church/united_states/us_west_virginia.htm

And thousands more across the U.S.A.:

http://www.gaychurch.org/Find_a_Church/united_states/united_states.htm

A Safe Heaven for Pedophiles

The epidemic of clergy child abuse

A Safe Heaven for Pedophiles
What you're about to read will probably be upsetting to most of you. As you read through the newspaper article references provided in this series, keep in mind that these people aren't NAMBLA (North Amercan Man/Boy Love Association) members; they're not vague "Satanists," Mafia kingpins, or heroin addicts. They're Christian Clergy of all brand names.

They're the priests, ministers, preachers, and religious "leaders" of our communities. They're the same moral "leaders" who scream from their pulpits about the "evils of homosexuality" and the "sin of fornication." They're the same "leaders" who demand all men (they rarely mention women) need "redemption" that "only the good lord Jesus Christ!" can provide.

A few of you might want to close your eyes and glibly claim, "Oh, but they're not True Christians" and thereby sluff the epidemic problem off of your shoulders and try to pretend it's someone else's problem. If you want to play that game then you're responsible for allowing it to continue unchecked. If you want to pretend Christians some how stop being Christians when they rape their first child, then YOU are responsible for allowing it to continue. The fact is that ending child abuse is the responsibility of all of us.

There are four unavoidable facts here:

http://www.skeptictank.org/clrabuse.htm

Again, Christianity is as Christianity does.

ziggy wrote:

A Safe Heaven for Pedophiles

The epidemic of clergy child abuse

A Safe Heaven for Pedophiles
What you're about to read will probably be upsetting to most of you. As you read through the newspaper article references provided in this series, keep in mind that these people aren't NAMBLA (North Amercan Man/Boy Love Association) members; they're not vague "Satanists," Mafia kingpins, or heroin addicts. They're Christian Clergy of all brand names.

They're the priests, ministers, preachers, and religious "leaders" of our communities. They're the same moral "leaders" who scream from their pulpits about the "evils of homosexuality" and the "sin of fornication." They're the same "leaders" who demand all men (they rarely mention women) need "redemption" that "only the good lord Jesus Christ!" can provide.

A few of you might want to close your eyes and glibly claim, "Oh, but they're not True Christians" and thereby sluff the epidemic problem off of your shoulders and try to pretend it's someone else's problem. If you want to play that game then you're responsible for allowing it to continue unchecked. If you want to pretend Christians some how stop being Christians when they rape their first child, then YOU are responsible for allowing it to continue. The fact is that ending child abuse is the responsibility of all of us.

There are four unavoidable facts here:

http://www.skeptictank.org/clrabuse.htm

Again, Christianity is as Christianity does.

And wrong is wrong, whether a Christian does it, Muslim does it, Hindu does it, Agnostic does it, or athesit does it.

And wrong is wrong, whether a Christian does it, Muslim does it, Hindu does it, Agnostic does it, or athesit does it.

But religion provides cover- CYA cover- for nearly all manner of conduct that otherwise would be seen as reprehensible by almost everyone. Cloaking bad behavior in Christianity, Islamism, Catholicism, or some other anity or ism gives it a social respectability that otherwise would not accrue to that conduct- especially when religious "leaders" are complicit in that cloaking.

Rather than a deterent to wrong behavior, religion is but a convenient excuse or cover for it.

Doing or not doing the right things is about personal responsibility to one's peers for one's behavior- not about some Christian or other religious "doctrine" or other.

ziggy wrote:

And wrong is wrong, whether a Christian does it, Muslim does it, Hindu does it, Agnostic does it, or athesit does it.

Rather than a deterent to wrong behavior, religion is but a convenient excuse or cover for it.

And I have said just this a number of times. Religion is used as an excuse for some of the most horrible behavior ever. The question that begs to be answered is whether this type of action means religion, i.e. Christianity is itself evil, or is it evil people who spin religion, i.e. Christianity as a means to an end. The next question that begs asking is who is ultimately responsibile for this bad behavior, the people who spin the lie or those who blindly follow the lie.

ziggy wrote:Doing or not doing the right things is about personal responsibility to one's peers for one's behavior- not about some Christian or other religious "doctrine" or other.

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, nor am I the smartest individaul that posts here, but one thing I do know is my bible. The one major tenet of the bible is one's personal responsibility. One is personally responsible for knowing the scriptures, rightly understanding them, and applying them. God doesn't look at the group dynamic, he looks at the individual. That is why so many hate christainity, it holds the individual accountible for their behavior.

And I have said just this a number of times. Religion is used as an excuse for some of the most horrible behavior ever. The question that begs to be answered is whether this type of action means religion, i.e. Christianity is itself evil, or is it evil people who spin religion, i.e. Christianity as a means to an end.

The Church- any church- is complicit in the sin if it consistently lets itself be used as cover for the sinner.

The next question that begs asking is who is ultimately responsibile for this bad behavior, the people who spin the lie or those who blindly follow the lie.

Both.

ziggy wrote:

And I have said just this a number of times. Religion is used as an excuse for some of the most horrible behavior ever. The question that begs to be answered is whether this type of action means religion, i.e. Christianity is itself evil, or is it evil people who spin religion, i.e. Christianity as a means to an end.

The Church- any church- is complicit in the sin if it consistently lets itself be used as cover for the sinner.

I submit that any religious group, i.e. church that allows itself to be used as a cover for the sinner is not the church. I also submit that that everything that invokes God, is not of God or a part of the church he established.

ziggy wrote:

The next question that begs asking is who is ultimately responsibile for this bad behavior, the people who spin the lie or those who blindly follow the lie.

Both.

I don't disagree, but ultimately we each have to answer for ourselves.

Your argument is, as usual, pure f'ing stupidity on your part and only being employed for the sole purpose of playing the part of a "sick-in-the-head" Devil's Advocate who is intent on posting "negatisms" about anything and everything posted by other Forum Members.

As relates to religion, yeah, I do and will continue to post "negatisms". Religion itself is usually full of all manner of "thou shalt nots" and other "negatisms". Religious authoritarians do not deserve a free ride.

Define "religious authoritarian."

Religion, as far as I can tell, can involve a personal faith in God, a corporate worship of God, a set of rules, a source of social manipulaion, a refuge of scoundrels, or a combination of the above. "Religion" is like "gun," it can be used well or mis-used, depending on the motive of the practicioner.

SheikBen wrote:Define "religious authoritarian."

Broadly speaking, a religious authoritarian is one who proclaims, in the name of some religion, church, or in the name his or her God, that he or she has the only religious or spiritual truths, and the only correct and universally applicable rules of life for everyone everywhere. In addition, for some discussions- on this forum, for example- I consider one who presumes to define- including by either inclusion or exclusion, what is and is not the right kind of Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. to be a self-annointed religious authoritarian.

I recognize as legitimate no religious authority other than that which we devise for ourselves only- the free mind over its one free body.

Religion and religious authority is different than social morality and "law and order" as we know it in America. Our individual social morality can include our proclaimed religious beliefs, or, at our convenience and as is common, exclude them.

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Define "religious authoritarian."

Broadly speaking, a religious authoritarian is one who proclaims, in the name of some religion, church, or in the name his or her God, that he or she has the only religious or spiritual truths, and the only correct and universally applicable rules of life for everyone everywhere. In addition, for some discussions- on this forum, for example- I consider one who presumes to define- including by either inclusion or exclusion, what is and is not the right kind of Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. to be a self-annointed religious authoritarian.

I recognize as legitimate no religious authority other than that which we devise for ourselves only- the free mind over its one free body.

Religion and religious authority is different than social morality and "law and order" as we know it in America. Our individual social morality can include our proclaimed religious beliefs, or, at our convenience as is common, exclude them.

Religion - re·li·gion   /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled
[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA

–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8. Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow

One can use the word religion however they please, but the fact of the matter is religion is a set a beliefs a group of people agree upon and adheare to. Christainity is a religion as is islam and agnostisim, humanism, and atheism.

One can believe they have the truth and point to to all others as in error, but that does not make them an authoritarian. A religious authoritarian is one who uses force to push their views on another. Yes, Christains are guilty of using force to push their belief on others. However, so aren't muslims, hundus, butddist, Sheiks, and yes humanists, agnostics, and athesits. Right now the biggest authoritarian groups are muslims and atheists. Muslims use brute force and terror to accomplish their goal of domination and atheists use the force of a corrupt and bigoted grovernment. Little difference exists between the two.