Your Vote, Your Reasons

[hater]

Thank you for phrasing that, that way! That illustrates what I feel is so dangerous about Senator Obama.
He strives to incorporate religions as one, as shown on the video.



The one world religion is something I have always believed is going to be a pet tatic of the Anti Christ and so Senator Obama's tendency to subscribe to " all religions are the same" type thinking is what red flagged me.

My problem yesterday was that I focused on establishing and ended up rehashing the fact that I do not trust Obama farther than I can throw him,but gave no reason why.
I can see how that was counterproductive and why so many of you found that intolerable.


Senator Obama may not be the actual Anti Christ.
But I believe it is important to take a strong stance against his "all in on; all is okay" at ude because if people will accept it in part from Obama, they will all the more easily accept the whole lie when the actual AntiChrist comes on the scene.

After reflecting, I still don't trust Obama.

I still will not vote for him.
And I am still going to proceed cautiously in all that concerns him- will listen carefully to his speeches and am interested to learn his policy proposals with interest.

While this was not my best thread, debate argument wise, I do not regret having posted because it was worth it to help facilitate important discussion and raise awareness.


Most importantly, I absolutely stand by all I said about the world needing Jesus and that Jesus Christ is the ONE and ONLY way to salvation.

you do realize its a job Obama is applying to right? He is not running to be head priest of the country. He is applying to run the country.

It is illegal to discriminate somebody applying for a job based on his/her race, religion or phylosophical thoughts.

I am pretty sure it is illegal to discriminate an applicant for beleiving he is the antichrist as well.

You are basically going against everything this country stands for.

If you were a boss interviewing somebody for the job and denied him because of those reasons, you are breaking the law.

Newsflash. You live in a country where there is freedom of religion.

Advice. If you are really looking for an antichrist in the USA, look for someone that will be in the supreme court.

[2centsworth]

Why Angel? Why?


I need your vote.


Go see my good friends at ACORN. They'll set you up with a few hundred votes.

[JoeChalupa]

This kind of discussion happens all the time.

[hater]

Even if Obama was an open satan worshiper, I'd still pick him over Palin/Mccain

[AntiChrist]

Angel food cake?



or

Obama's food cake?



Discuss.



Obama's food cake black by accident? I think we all know the answer.

[01.20.09]

I'd rather have some of that Palin pie.

[tp2021]

I'd rather have some of that Palin pie.

+69

[MannyIsGod]

Veronica,

I basically think that you are cherry picking what you see out of Senator Obama in ways to substantiate your feelings. I wonder if you have scrutinized the things John McCain has said in the same manner you have with regards to Barack Obama. Early on in this thread you asked for proof of Obama's christianity and such proof has been provided to you.

I wonder why it is exactly you distrust him and I come to my own conclusions because you're not able to substantiate your feelings. Obama is a christian and this has been proven time and time again. While you take others words for it (like your boyfriend) you refuse to acknowledge the same in the Senator even when presented with several items of proof. You simply keep moving the goalposts in order for the current situatoin to fit what you want to view.

I don't doubt for one second that you won't cast a vote for Senator Obama. But where you see a gut feeling I see a psycological and sociological fear based upon teh color of the mans skin. And while you make think I'm calling you a racisist - and I may very well be although I don't mean it in the same sense as someone who is a memeber of the KKK - I feel as though this is a basic fear that many people have. I do not think it is possible for society to paint the black man as a phsyically strong, larger, intimidating figure who commits more crimes than the smaller, smarter, more noble white man and for there not to be an effect on the subcouncious of society.

I know its a horrible thing to consider being racisist, but the truth is that the vast majority of us associate black men with pretty negative traits until proven otherwise. When you're unable to substantiate your feelings of fear for the black candidate this is where I come back to. I come back to a way I can substantiate it for you because even for someone of your belief system feeling that Barack Obama has even the slightest chance to be the Anti-Christ is a fringe belief and should in no way - in my opinion (although I'm pretty sure in most others as well - be the main deturrent in how you decide your vote.

You admitidly acknowledge that your thought process here is not based on rational though and I have to admit that troubles me because I'm fairly certain that you believe God gave us our minds and our brains in order to use them to make the appropriate decisions when weighing all things equally and I don't believe thats something you've done in this case. And while I am a hardcore Obama supporter, I promise you I would be saying the same things (although I woudln't have a reason for why you thought it) if you believed Senator McCain to possibly be the AntiChrist.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

The fetus has unique DNA different from that of the mother. It is a separate organism. The skin on your finger has your DNA. A zygote is not just a collection of cells like a polyp. It grows into what we all easily recognize as a separate person.

So, it would be fair to say that you believe life is created at some point between cortical reaction and mitosis? Or do you use embryo implantation as the standard? Given the state of science today this would have implications for parents using modern fertilization methods that keep fertilized emrbyos in status or discard them, wouldn't it?

As I've already stated, my goal is to stop abortions from happening. The goal is not to criminalize the act. The goal is not to punish women. I live in the real world. I'm not interested in being a judge. I want society to place a priority on protecting and advancing life.

You questioned that I used the word arrogance in relation to your moral consistency. I was merely pointing out that I didn't use the word arrogance to characterize your consistency. I am not attacking your motives of social responsibility which I agree with. However, since you had mentioned consistency, I brought it up where I felt (and still feel) your beliefs contradict themselves. Please understand, I commend you for applying practicality to your personal belief system, I just pointed it out for debate's sake.

The infant does not cease to be physically dependent on the mother when it is born, so in my opinion that distinction is arbitrary.

You are applying a social standard to a matter of biology. Many babies have survived without mothers, although mothers certainly increase the odds. However, I do not necessarily refer to birth as passing through the birth canal. I believe life occurs when the en y can survive outside the mother's body and sustain it's own functions (breathing, taking in food, etc). The exact moment when this happens is not arbitrary, but as it is likely different for each case, it would certainly be tricky to legally define.

The most current research I have read said that EC's work by preventing ovulation rather than implementation.

This varies case to case and given how things happen in that 72 hour window often there is no way to know. ECs are believed to operate before, during, or immediately after fertilization, but, in most cases prior to implantation. I know a lot of people look at rape as an excuse for abortion, but 1 in 6 women in the US are likely to experience a rape or sexual assault (the estimated number is much larger) and approximately 5% of female rape victims become pregnant.

I appreciate your goal is not to criminalize. But when people start talking about selecting politicians based on how they will further a pro-life agenda (and cite it as their main concern), this is the kind of fine print that makes people like me want to keep the choice between a woman and her physician. Period.

[LnGrrrR]

Wait, Angel_Luv, does this mean you'd feel BETTER about him running for President if he said, "America, I'm here to tell you that the only true God is the Christian God. And if you don't like that, you're going to burn in .

PS. I'm not the Antichrist."

And, as has been said before... will VOTING for OBama turn him into the AntiChrist? I'm pretty sure that if Obama is the antichrist, voting for/against him will not undo that fact lol.

I mean, your logic is like if I said I was pretty sure that 2+2=5, then everyone gave cogent answers and proofs on why 2+2=4, and I responded with, "Yeah, thanks for all the evidence, but I'm still going to believe 2+2=5."

[hater]

I mean, your logic is like if I said I was pretty sure that 2+2=5, then everyone gave cogent answers and proofs on why 2+2=4, and I responded with, "Yeah, thanks for all the evidence, but I'm still going to believe 2+2=5."

pretty much. I beleive it's just due to limited intelligence unfortunately.

[BacktoBasics]

I mean, your logic is like if I said I was pretty sure that 2+2=5, then everyone gave cogent answers and proofs on why 2+2=4, and I responded with, "Yeah, thanks for all the evidence, but I'm still going to believe 2+2=5."

I presented that logic pages ago and it fell on deaf ears. If this discussion was about anything other than god warrioring she'd be considered insane and her friends and family would seek help but because its about god it can't possibly be bad.

[Extra Stout]

If we're going to go down the "God's choice that we can ignore" path, then I want to let you all know right now that I'm omniscient as well. In fact, I can predict the path of life for EVERY ONE of you.

Of course, if exactly what I said doesn't happen, then you took a wrong path.

Let's just take the easy shortcut and point out that it is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for God to be both omniscient and omnipotent. If God sees a future, a DEFINITE future, then it must be impossible to change that future. If God is able to change that future, then he can not be omniscient in regards to the future.

Or, to sum it up, God is unable to change his own future if he knows about it ahead of time.

If God is God, then he is a first cause. If he is a first cause, then there is nothing that comes before him. If nothing comes before him, then time cannot come before him. If God comes before time, then he is not necessarily subject to it.

We define causality in terms of causes coming before effects. To say that a cause comes before an effect is to make a statement in time. If God is not subject to time, then a statement in time does not necessarily apply to him.

If God is a first cause, then all other things are effects of that cause. But if statements in time do not apply to time, then we cannot conclude that effects come after his causation in time. Ergo, temporal causality does not apply to God.

If temporal causality does not apply to God, then the effects of his causation can be in the past, present, or future.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

If God is God, then he is a first cause. If he is a first cause, then there is nothing that comes before him. If nothing comes before him, then time cannot come before him. If God comes before time, then he is not necessarily subject to it.

God cheats at solitaire.

[angel_luv]

Would it bother you if he said 1)"All religions are equal?" or 2)"As President, I will treat all religions as equal?"

You asked me a political question.


My fear is that it is a downward slope we are heading down- that it will go from:
Step one: all religions have equal rights ( everyone having a choice to worship as they will),

- that is where we are now in America & as God Himself gave all men free will, I cannot begrudge anyone that, even as I hope and pray that everyone chooses Jesus.

The concern I have is that America seems to be trying to transition into step two- the beginning of a downward spiral.

to Step two:all religions being categorized as the same.

- I feel Senator Obama already began this with the speech of his that was posted. His saying that we are no longer a Christian nation, but a Christian, Muslim, and Jewish nation.
I feel like we are being conditioned now for things to be implemented later.
( Finish reading my post)

to Step three: A one world faith as an ideal

I think if you try to combine religions committed Muslims and Jews are going to have a problem with it along with committed Christians.
Those committed understand that like oil and water, religions don't mix.

Therefore, faith as an ideal is not going to work thus ushering in...

to Step four: a one world faith as a requirement.

It could take years for all these steps to happen- which is even more dangerous I think because people will find themselves in the midst of step four without realizing how it happened to them.

[TheMadHatter]

What was the purpose of writing down the Gospels versus writing the epistles? Paul wrote epistles to churches because he could not be there in person, either because he was travelling elsewhere or because he was in prison. The primary method of teaching in the early church was oral, which makes sense, since everyday people would not have their own books like we do today. The purpose of writing the Gospels was that the apostles were growing old, and their accounts needed to be written down so their teaching could continue. So it makes sense that the epistles were written down first, and that they would deal more with specific issues in the churches than with systematic theology.

The Gospels themselves state than even despite the miracles, when Jesus started talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, most people washed their hands of him, and then when he was arrested and crucified, they figured him to be a fraud, mocked him, spat on him. Why would the historians write about him further? Because there was an earthquake in a fault zone? Because some commoners thought that they saw dead Uncle Yitzhak walking around?

The evidence is that a fellowship of his followers persisted and grew. A legend does not appear out of thin air in 40 years. Whatever they thought they saw happened, they believed in.

Your dating on the Gospels is a bit late. John is from about A.D. 90. The date for Mark has been pushed up as early as the destruction of the temple in 70, and it stops there only because critical scholars don't believe Jesus could have prophecied its destruction. There is a fragment in the caves at Qumran that appears to be from Mark, which could be dated A.D. 68, but this is not certain.

And I'll see your Michael Jordan and raise you an Elgin Baylor (who did great things on the court which are largely forgotten).


The evidence of tampering would be why I prefer the Alexandrian family of manuscripts to the Byzantine, and why most modern translations use the Alexandrian critical text as the basis for Greek translation.


Christian moral philosophy is great. It laid the basis for most of the notions of human rights we take for granted as true. I hope we can hold that in common. But moral philosophy is not the same thing as faith, and my reading of the text is not just "do these things" but rather "you need Me in order to do these things."


I have no problem with epistemic humility, but I am still going to be vigorous in my apologetics. I don't believe that Cartesian certainty has anything to do with faith. Rather than certainty, what I have is trust. Sometimes in real life you still choose to trust in people even when you have doubts.


I believe N.T. Wright's treatise on the matter captures the available evidence best and concludes that the resurrection is historical.

I think the Western mind is predisposed to reduce something like faith to a set of facts, so that when a text like the Bible fails to be systematic according to modern standards, sometimes the baby gets thrown out with the bath water.

I wonder if your Catholic upbringing was like some of my wife's aunts, where the teachers just drilled dogma into your head and allowed no questions. That made them doubt for a while too when they gained the freedom to learn for themselves.

Isn't it funny how in Paul's epistles or in any of the early Christian texts nobody mentions anything about Jesus's birth, resurrection, miracles, etc? I mean this is a man who supposedly walked on water, turned water into wine, dazzled crowds with his magic, and yet we have absolutely no record of it until nearly 40 full years after his death. Don't you think his earliest followers would have thought it important to mention SOMETHING about this historical man named Jesus who apparently existed in their lifetimes? NONE of the early Christian writings make any reference to the kind of Jesus that is now portrayed in the New Testament Gospels. That is indisputable fact, we don't start hearing about Jesus the way he is thought of today until the NT Gospels came about.

Again no respectable historian can argue definitively the resurrection ever took place as the only evidence to support it exists in the NT Gospels, which we know to be fabricated in many instances. If we can't even argue that Jesus existed historically, it logically follows that we can't say anything definitively about his supposed resurrection. Furthermore the conflicting stories WITHIN the Gospels about the ascension of Christ make it even more baffling that someone with a functioning brain would believe them. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove to ME that Jesus really lived, died, and was resurrected. You need to make a convincing argument to me that all of this really happened before I ever consider the Christian faith.

The bottomline is that you CAN'T. You can't explain what you believe rationally, in order to rationalize Christianity one must make so many ad hoc assumptions that it puts into question your mental health. So quit hiding behind "historical" facts which simply do not exist about your religion. It is just as likely, if not more, that everything you believe about Jesus was completely fabricated by the NT Gospel writers and that the followers of Jesus, if they existed, died out early on and took his real faith with them.

I'm so glad this thread came about and forced me to do this research. So many things we just accept about Christianity today simply aren't true. The historical evidence and proof just isn't there, when it comes down to it the story of Jesus is as ridiculous to believe as the Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Islamic faiths are.

[angel_luv]

I'm going to regret this.

So, are you saying that you are su ious of Obama for trying to unite a bitterly divided and partisan country? And we should be su ious of anyone who tries to unite us and have us seek common ground with one another?

I can understand (well, almost) why you might take this view in your place of worship, but how, from a civil perspective, would you have someone lead such a diverse country as ours if not by attempting to unite us to one American cause?

As a Christian, I believe there is one way we should all be united in following and that is Jesus Christ.

The Apostle Paul said it best when he said, " Follow me as I follow Christ." ( 1 Corinthians 11:1)

I would love it if the whole country united under obedience to Jesus and the Bible.

An attempt at lasting peace through any means other than Jesus is going to ultimately fail and that is why I am against, on all points, looking to anyone else first.

[Findog]

http://www.stlouisreview.com/article.php?id=16247

Judgment Day is on its way. For many, this coming election may very well be judgment day, for this election will measure us. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus tells us in 10:32-33: "Everyone who acknowledges Me before others, I will acknowledge before My heavenly Father. But whoever denies Me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father."

Judgment Day is on its way. When my time comes, I will be measured by my Savior for the decisions I have made. I will either be acknowledged by Jesus or denied by Him in the presence of our heavenly Father. The question I need to ask myself is this: What kind of witness will I give to Him when I go into the voting booth this election day?

The decision I make in the voting booth will reflect my value system. If I value the good of the economy and my current lifestyle more than I do the right to life itself, then I am in trouble. Pope John Paul II, in his post-synodal apostolic exhortation Christi fideles laici tells us: "Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination."

The right of our children to be protected from destruction is greater than my right to a thriving economy. I am living proof of this, since I am here because my parents believed this priority and lived it. My desire for a good economy cannot justify my voting to remove all current restrictions on abortion. My desire to end the war in Iraq cannot justify my voting to remove all current restrictions on abortion.

[G.Q.]

Who cares....Obama has style!

[hater]

As a Christian, I believe there is one way we should all be united in following and that is Jesus Christ.

The Apostle Paul said it best when he said, " Follow me as I follow Christ."

I would love it if the whole country united under obedience to Jesus and the Bible.

An attempt at lasting peace through any means other than Jesus is going to ultimately fail and that is why I am against, on all points, looking to anyone else first.

you do realize there's millions of Muslims, Buddhist, Hinduist which are all american citizens and have as much rights as you right?

they don't follow Jesus and never will. and their children never will either.

what do you propose we do with them?

[Findog]

what do you propose we do with them?

In her world view, convert to Christianity or perish. You're either "with us" or you're "with them."

[Trainwreck2100]

you do realize there's millions of Muslims, Buddhist, Hinduist which are all american citizens and have as much rights as you right?

they don't follow Jesus and never will. and their children never will either.

what do you propose we do with them?

Hire them to answer phones for customer service issues

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

As a Christian, I believe there is one way we should all be united in following and that is Jesus Christ.

The Apostle Paul said it best when he said, " Follow me as I follow Christ." ( 1 Corinthians 11:1)

I would love it if the whole country united under obedience to Jesus and the Bible.

An attempt at lasting peace through any means other than Jesus is going to ultimately fail and that is why I am against, on all points, looking to anyone else first.

Is there any American politician, past or present who fits this criteria of achieving this in your estimation?

[JoeChalupa]

I never question another person's religious beliefs nor do I hold it against them if they are not a "Christian". I believe and let others believe or not to believe.

[nkdlunch]

I never question another person's religious beliefs nor do I hold it against them if they are not a "Christian". I believe and let others believe or not to believe.

that is not the point. She is saying that only lead by a true christian president will this country prosper. Led by any other leader from other religions, and this country will go to chaos. Not only chaos, but end of the world.

do you agree with her?

Scare tactics at it's finest. Mcain campaign should definitely hire her right away.