That Old Rugged, Neon, Explicit Cross
posted at 11:25 am on May 14, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Remember when Mike Huckabee offered an innocuous and pleasant Christmas ad, only to be accused of Christianism for supposedly having a floating cross in the background — which turned out to be a bookshelf? Well, apparently the cross has suddenly become cool for politicians. Barack Obama has made it the centerpiece of his appeal in Kentucky with literature that shows a golden cross beaming down as he speaks. Note the sublety of the message in this image, with light bulbs blazing light while Obama addresses the congregation from the pulpit. Also note how “Faith” has suddenly appeared ahead of “hope” and “change” in the Obama sloganeering department:
Given the hysteria generated by Governor Huckabee’s Christmas greeting, we should see at least three of the ten plagues of Egypt accompanying such a “Christianist” advertisement for a presidential candidate. I’ll await the Andrew Sullivan excoriation with bated breath.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Akzed – Glad I am not the only one who sees his man as evil.
Pat in NC on May 14, 2008 at 1:50 PM
If I’m thinking of the same letter you are, which was written in the 1800’s I believe LONG after the Constitution was ratified, that’s the letter from which the libs grab the phrase separation of church and state and always harp on it to justify their draconian agenda.
INC on May 14, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Can someone please provide a link to an Obama-campaign-supported site that hosts these images as they appear? I’m suspicious of the first one for sure.
DrSteve on May 14, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Hear, hear! You are correct, sir! The First Amenmdent is to protect the Church from the State, not to protect the State from the Church. The very amendment that was intended to protect religious expression is misinterpreted in ways to restrict religious expression. A 180 degree turn around that began in the late 1940’s.
America was founded as a Christian nation.
The Supreme Court of the United States said so itself in 1892.
Statements in multiple Supreme Court opinions from the founding of the this nation until the 1940’s confirmed that this nation was founded as a Christian nation and that our Constitution and its first ten amendments are based on the Bible.
Why do you never see Supreme Court Rulings that occured before 1947?
Red Pill on May 14, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Mallard T. Drake on May 14, 2008 at 1:46 PM
There is a crude approach that would start a new church on those grounds, demolishing the old, as though that would address or settle the problem of Progressive over-compensation. So it goes in a parallel universe.
maverick muse on May 14, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Red Pill on May 14, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Good show!
maverick muse on May 14, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Excellent point Ed, and i’m grateful you pointed that out.
I think the big difference here is the media understand Obama’s “Christianity” is not the same as Mike Huckabee’s Christianity. For the most part the liberal Christian has no problem allowing gay people to be ministers, they endorse abortion, they generally ignore as much Scripture as possible to make sure they don’t have to change the way they live. You see, none of this is a threat to the media’s mentality. This type of “Christianity” is different than Mike Huckabee’s. The cross Obama associates himself with is not a threat.
apacalyps on May 14, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Ah, the Messiah candidate doing the Lord’s work just got NARAL’s endorsement, knocking out Hillary.
Buy Danish on May 14, 2008 at 2:02 PM
I remain comforted in the knowledge that the Pit is wide enough, deep enough, and hot enough to accommodate the liars who will populate Hell throughout eternity, regardless of political persuasion.
oldleprechaun on May 14, 2008 at 2:06 PM
If Obama is going to say (and publish) that he is a “Committed Christian”, it is perfectly acceptable to ask him to confess with his mouth that, “Jesus is Lord“.
He. Will. NOT. Do. It.
He’ll say something else, but he will not say those three simple words.
Red Pill on May 14, 2008 at 2:09 PM
I just left this same comment at baldilocks blog but will ask the question here.
.
I’m still trying to figure out why BHO is supported by the Muslim world despite his apostasy of Islam which is, for everyone else, punishable by death by the chopping off of one’s head. Anyone have any clue on this? Do you think the Muslim world believes he is practicing taqiyya?
abinitioadinfinitum on May 14, 2008 at 2:10 PM
I found the letter from the Danbury Baptists, dated October 7, 1801.
Here’s the pertinent excerpt:
Here’s Jefferson’s reply, dated January 1. 1802, with another excerpt.
It’s obvious Jefferson was giving his personal opinion on the intrusion of government in making laws regards “governing” the Christian faith.
INC on May 14, 2008 at 2:15 PM
And it just goes to show the sad state of affairs we are all in when the media can get away with such hypocrisy, such a double standard, we are like cattle they deceive us right before our very own eyes, in plain daylight, lie to us, and we sit idle and allow it to happen. We have no one to blame but ourselves for letting them do it. By rights we should have all been outside CNN, FOX, et al, along time ago, with our picket signs in hand demanding the biased coverage stop so we can decide the future of the country and not them!
apacalyps on May 14, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Rev. Barack X. Obama
Chakra Hammer on May 14, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Obama must be going through some financial troubles. Why else would he be clinging to religion all of a sudden?
TheNolan on May 14, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Keep in mind that “Messiah” ~~ “Christ”
A false “Messiah”?
Wars and rumors of wars?
Famines?
Earthquakes in various places?
Sound familiar?
Red Pill on May 14, 2008 at 2:20 PM
I hope you don’t mind, I c/p’d your post. Thank you for it.
fossten on May 14, 2008 at 2:21 PM
The Dem nomination is all about the super delegates. Obama can’t afford to lose KY as badly as he lost WV. If he does, the supers could side with Hillary!
Red Pill on May 14, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Just poking y’all again — do we know that these are in fact his ads?
DrSteve on May 14, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Please tell me you’re not a closet Obamanaut.
fossten on May 14, 2008 at 2:29 PM
This story is now the Drudge headline.
Buy Danish on May 14, 2008 at 2:29 PM
“As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith.”
-Thomas Paine (1794 The Age of Reason)
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their “legislature” should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”
-Thomas Jefferson (1802 letter to Danbury Baptists)
Annar on May 14, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Thank you so much for helping to set the record straight.
Liberals have turned our founders’ intent around 180 degrees, and now try to use the 1st amendment to take away, rather than protect, religious liberties.
The 9th
CircuitCircus tried to say that it is unconstitutional to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because it contains the words “under God”.The Supreme Court split two rulings on display of the Ten Commandments because a single Justice was riding the fence.
We are one Justice away from having a majority of Justices on the Supreme Court who view our Constitution the way the founders viewed it.
“Taking this country back for Christ” is not about taking rights away from anyone else; it is about taking back the rights that have been taken away from us.
Red Pill on May 14, 2008 at 2:33 PM
No, I’m most definitely not. I don’t want Susan Rice within 1000 yards of the State Department ever again.
I was just surprised by the heavy-handedness of the ad and I noticed that it doesn’t seem to mirror the visual style of his other campaign materials. It could be locally produced. I just didn’t want to see people go off half-cocked if it was a hoax.
I note that notwithstanding the garish pandering the ad represents (if it’s authentic), the first line of text on his Kentucky campaign site is “It’s time to put an end to the say-anything-to-win politics of the past.”
That’s a helluva juxtaposition.
DrSteve on May 14, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Agreed.
fossten on May 14, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Well, then you can hold your breath on that one.
Entelechy on May 14, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Good for Obama.
Dont let the christian right lay sole claim to christianity. The political left is finally going to wake up and use it as a marketing technique just as the political right has been doing.
Some day, we may focus on issues…and then the conservatives will win.
But until then, its a scramble for the stupid. So, use crosses and phony religionism a la Obama and Huckabee…two peas in a pod.
Exit question: who is less of a real christian: Obama the muslim or Huckster the rat?
discuss
Roger Waters on May 14, 2008 at 2:53 PM
That’s certainly OK. There’s nothing like some primary documents from the source to shed some light on the heat!
See above. :-)
Many libs seem to avoid the use of ordinary reading comprehension to try to understand the plain intent of the authors!
INC on May 14, 2008 at 2:53 PM
And to be fair, what Obama is doing is not that much different from what Hillary did in WV or John McCain’s “Sell-Out Express”.
It is important to realize that in 2000, McCain was fighting the fight against the “Ultra-Right“. Go back and read what David Limbaugh wrote about John McCain on February 29, 2000:
Red Pill on May 14, 2008 at 2:54 PM
I understand the joke you’re trying to make here but it doesn’t make sense. The NOI practice of adding an ‘X’ to one’s name is to repudiate one’s “slave name”–the last names of the “slave masters,” i.e. European names. By definition, B. doesn’t have a “slave name” unless you count ‘Hussein.’
baldilocks on May 14, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Inquiring minds want to know. Will Lord Barry enter the DNC convention riding a donkey with the faithful waiving palm leaves and then leave as Imam B. Husein riding Burak and praising Allah in order to get the supernatutal multicultural vote?
Annar on May 14, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Red Pill on May 13, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Red Pill on May 14, 2008 at 3:06 PM
The url says it all. You will need to apply ky in order to ease in the message barackobama is screwing you with.
As clean as I could muster.
geckomon on May 14, 2008 at 3:09 PM
PinkPill,
thanks for that link to the flying pig issue by the way. Very cool.
That was interesting. The comments were ill informed and dumb on that thread… but it was funny.
Roger Waters on May 14, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Yes, the Drudge headline reads (re: Obama):
‘READY TO ‘DO THE LORD’S WORK’
A leader pushing us to be “tolerant” of all sorts of immoral behavior (Judges 21:25) is NOT doing the Lord’s work. God will not be mocked, this nation is playing with fire.
apacalyps on May 14, 2008 at 3:15 PM
Faith in what? Jeremiah Wright and God d@mn America? That’s the only faith Obama has ever known!
Steve Z on May 14, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Matthew 7:21–where your treasure is, there is your heart. Obama gave how much of his treasure to Jeremiah Wright?
Steve Z on May 14, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Speaking truth to power!
Red Pill on May 14, 2008 at 3:21 PM
“My Obama, what a big cross you have…” Is he running for President or Pastor? Good thing he doesn’t have a bookshelf in the background, or they really would crucify him…
Faith. Hope. Change….How about “Break”, as in “Give me a break”…this guy is such a putz he’s making McCain look almost decent!! …almost…
charlie36r on May 14, 2008 at 3:30 PM
The “end of the age” referrs to the end of jerusalem as the covenant center in AD 70. It has nothing to do with our day. Sorry.
Akzed on May 14, 2008 at 3:34 PM
As long as blacks continue to deliver 90% of their vote to the Democrats, they will continue to view black churches as the harmless indulgence of a primitive, but useful, constituency. Besides, such churches are a handy organizing tool for herding the black voters around, as well as providing a club for beating the Religious Right (”See! Liberals are spiritual, too!”) Replace that photo of Obama with McCain, and I guarantee you the church he’s standing in would be facing an IRS audit by the end of the day. Black churches are harmless toy guns, in the hands of people the Left regards as children, while they view white churches as loaded with live ammunition. The old-style Klan racists are pathetic, while the new high-toned liberal racist is sickening.
Doctor Zero on May 14, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Indeed. Mike Huckabee is the “real deal”, surrounded by charlatans.
Red Pill on May 14, 2008 at 3:38 PM
My God I’m going to puke. Mr. Partial-Birth Abortion himself. You’ll have to excuse me.
Jungliszt on May 14, 2008 at 3:39 PM
And what makes you the authority on that?
Red Pill on May 14, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Actually, wouldn’t this be a great time for McCain to put out his own picture of him with a cross in the background?
How Rovian.
faraway on May 14, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Powerful truth.
Red Pill on May 14, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Huckabee is an idiot, Red Pill, as are his fervent supporters.
I’m just hoping for McCain to pick him as VP and give the election to Obama, who at least has the balls to put a real cross in his ad unlike Mr. Hickslimypastor boy who said anything that looked like a cross in his ad was “unintentional”.
jim m on May 14, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Move over Rev. Wright, and Huckabee, here comes your national Preacher in Chief. Lordy, lordy, how the rest of the world will view this, especially the elitist Europeans who so desire the Black Kennedy. I love this, actually, the irony of it all. It also will attempt to cover up a lot of his ‘perceived’ shortcomings.
This year can’t get any more bizarre. Oh, wait, not so fast, it can.
Entelechy on May 14, 2008 at 3:53 PM
How many headlines, and lines did the media, here and abroad, write about Mr. Bush’s religion? This is getting to be really entertaining, to see how the lefties reconcile all this.
Entelechy on May 14, 2008 at 3:58 PM
It doesn’t matter, Hussein’s still a Muslim sleeper cell, I’m sure of it!
Typhonsentra on May 14, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Hey, I got it! He’s the Obama-nation of Desolation!
psrch on May 14, 2008 at 3:59 PM
I don’t consider myself the authority on anything. Obviously you consider yourself an authority on this topic.
Jesus said in both Mt. 23 and Mt 24, “All these things shall come upon this generation.” Therefore, it couldn’t possibly refer to us, could it?
Akzed on May 14, 2008 at 4:00 PM
You might want to research that again Akzed. It has everything to do with our day bro. In Matthew chapter 24 the Lord Jesus Christ is describing the end of the world (ie, end of age). This is today’s physical world as we know it, it will come to a definite end and a new heaven and a new earth will be created.
Revelation 21 says:
“And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away.” Revelation 21
The first two chapters of the Bible describe the first heaven and the first earth in their original “very good” created state (before the world-wide flood destroyed it – we are now living in that destroyed earth). The last two chapters of the Bible describe the new heaven and new earth, once again made, “very good” by our Creator. That is, the new earth will be the old earth made new again by purging out all the evidence of sin and the curse, decay, and death.
Hope that helps.
apacalyps on May 14, 2008 at 4:03 PM
“KY.BARACKOBAMA.COM”…..
Does the “KY” imply that he’s at least going to use lubricant when, if elected, he proceeds to shove it up our collective asses?
Kowboy on May 14, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Don’t be fooled. Usually when Democrats start carefully speaking “Christianese” to you it’s because they want your vote, not your values.
apacalyps on May 14, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Nope. The end of Revelation describes the Church proceeding from heaven to earth -present active participle- not heaven. Think spiritually, not materially, when interpreting a spiritual book.
So tell me, what did Jesus mean when He said, both before and after the Olivet Discourse, “All these things shall come upon this generation”? See also Rev. 1:1; 22:6,10.
Akzed on May 14, 2008 at 4:14 PM
The exact same flyer was put under my car’s windshield wiper in the parking lot of First Baptist Church in College Station the day of the Texas primary. I was sort of surprised to see the controversy erupt just now; I guess no one noticed earlier.
Anyway, it’s definitely neither a fake nor just a local thing.
vonspringer on May 14, 2008 at 4:18 PM
2 Cor. 5:17, “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”
Does “all things” include heaven and earth? SEe also Heb. 12:25-28. You should pick up Milton Terry’s “Biblical Apocalyptics.”
Akzed on May 14, 2008 at 4:20 PM
The media was outraged as well
MSNBC, Mika Brzezinski and Chris Matthews
Donny Deutsch on Huck’s “Frightening” Christmas Ad
freedomplow on May 14, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Just when I thought Drudge was completely in the tank for Barry.
The_Freeze on May 14, 2008 at 4:23 PM
Hold on now, Akzed. I think you have things a little mixed up here. What do you think Revelation 21 is saying:
“And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away.” Revelation 21
Remember to keep this passage in context. Here the disciples ask Jesus for signs of the last days and His return:
“And as he (Jesus) sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” Matthew 24:1
Jesus gave them a list of general signs (a rise in natural disasters, false christs, wars & rumours of war, etc) in verses 4 to 31, but in verse 34 He says something different. With this simple warning He said:
“Verily (truthfully) I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.”
What “generation shall not pass”? This one, the one we are living in, the one that started in 1948. The generation of the fig tree began on May 14, 1948 when Israel once again became a nation. That is, this generation will not have completely died away until all these things have taken place (”all these things” meaning the Rapture, Battle of Armageddon, the return of Jesus Christ, etc!). All these things will happen during the period of this generation. And according to Psalm 90:10 a normal lifespan (ie, generation) is approx. 70-80 years.
The Bible says, “When the Lord builds up Zion (Israel), He shall appear in His glory.” Psalms 102:16
1948 + 70 years is 2018. (rough estimation according to a generation)
apacalyps on May 14, 2008 at 4:58 PM
This is talking about being born again and baptized by the Holy Spirit by virtue of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, it has nothing to do with the end times.
apacalyps on May 14, 2008 at 5:07 PM
On target!!
INC on May 14, 2008 at 5:19 PM
You know, Christ would have never been crucified if he had this cross…the extension cord wasn’t long enough.
A whole new meaning to “up in lights”.
right2bright on May 14, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Obama 4:20
Oh, that was in my past. It’s nothing more than a distraction.
onlineanalyst on May 14, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Faith Hopenchange
I’m pretty sure, I saw her perform at a Holy-Roller Tent Revival.
franksalterego on May 14, 2008 at 6:15 PM
I know the left owns MSM and all that, but to think the American people don’t
seereject and condemn the double standard on crap like this isdisgustingdepressing.petefrt on May 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM
At least he’s able to walk into a church without bursting into flames. That’s a good start.
moxie_neanderthal on May 14, 2008 at 7:41 PM
If Obama were to revert to Islam tomorrow and start hitting the rug 5 times a day and doing the Friday thing at Farrakhan’s mosque you could be sure that the MSM would be doing specials on the beauty if Islam and over the hill celebrities would be converting en masse.
Getting Nancy Pelosi into a full Burqa would however bring joy to many.
Many members of the 6000 year old Earth club who post here would miss the show since they would be hurling Johns, Lukes and Numbers back and forth at each other.
Annar on May 14, 2008 at 7:44 PM
It was only a matter of time before the left realized they could build their own Christian coalition. Theirs is based loosely on liberation theology, the right’s is based on fundamentalism. The results will be the same, a committed voting bloc that integrates their party affiliation with their faith. Kind of sad to watch…
RightOFLeft on May 14, 2008 at 7:50 PM
Now someone just needs to track down that church and have their exempt status revoked for participating in the political arena.
I’ve been suggesting the same for Rev. Wrights church as well.
Brad on May 14, 2008 at 7:52 PM
RightOFLeft on May 14, 2008 at 7:50 PM
On the left they know it is only a political ploy but until now they have not written a believable script. They’ll probably promise to put crucifixes over the entrance to the abortion mills thinking that such a compromise will attract the christian youth vote.
Nonetheless, if the fundamentalist christians keep pushing their comical beliefs as a brand for the Republican party the left won’t even need an outreach program.
Annar on May 14, 2008 at 8:04 PM
Wait…I thought that Obama wasn’t in the “Rev” Wright’s church that much…nevermind. Typical politician pandering.
SouthernGent on May 14, 2008 at 8:09 PM
Heh. Very true.
I think the religious right is losing its grip on Republican politics, or maybe a better way to put it is that the Republican Party is backing away slowly from the religious right. So long and thanks for all the votes.
Then again, the Democrats’ efforts to get Christian support on environmental and social justice grounds could ignite a theo-political arms race between the parties. Which can only mean American politics are about to get a heck of a lot wackier. You might not be too far off the mark about crosses over abortion clinics. Give it ten years, the cross could become the new flag-lapel. Not good, not good at all.
RightOFLeft on May 14, 2008 at 8:22 PM
Coincidence. I was wondering earlier tonight would it come to liberation theology of the ‘progressive’ Obama left versus the
evalgelicalpopulist (demagogue) right a la Huckabee. What a fight it’d be.But regardless, the Alinsky left is driving this to the streets. Hard times ahead.
petefrt on May 14, 2008 at 8:45 PM
RightOFLeft on May 14, 2008 at 8:22 PM
The main problem for the Republican party today is that it has been letting others define the issues in such a way as to be continuously on the defensive. For all practical purposes there is no positive agenda except in the most vague and general terms. From within Hovind’s crusaders, fundamentalist Baptists and their allies were pushing a religious agenda with Huckaflea and it is still going on. From without the gang of innocents in congress have lost the will to fight back on important questions and letting themselves be defined as anti-environment, against the middle class, for the rich etc.
Barring some unexpected turn of events I fully expect to see a congress that will rubber stamp the entire liberal agenda if Imam Obama wins or be able to override any initiative that McCain could put forward if BHO is too much for the electorate to swallow.
So, in either case, it will probably be start from scratch in 2010.
Annar on May 14, 2008 at 9:12 PM
Mt. 21:35-36, “That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.”
Care to rethink your position, dude?
Right. And Walvoord and Lindsey and a host of others, Scofield as I recall, said that it was 40 years. Now it’s 70. Or 80. Hitler was the “anti-Christ. no wait, Mussolini.
Wait – Stalin. Wait, Ronald Wilson Reagan. No wait: Saddam Hussein. And on and on ad nauseum.
St. Paul says in Gal 6:16 that the Church is the new Israel. See also Hebrews 12:
18For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,
19And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more:
20(For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:
21And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake:)
22But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
24And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
Why would the shadows be re-established now that the substance has been revealed?
Akzed on May 14, 2008 at 10:06 PM
Mt. 23
21:35-36, “That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.”/dang
Akzed on May 14, 2008 at 10:07 PM
Then again, maybe Huseein is not the far end of the spectrum.
Akzed on May 14, 2008 at 10:33 PM
That is the lie that the Communists would like people to believe.
If fundamentalist Christians aren’t an important and powerful voting block, then why are politicians pandering to them?
Red Pill on May 14, 2008 at 10:57 PM
So it’s “faith” now, is it? I heard he was a sore loser, but I had no idea he was becoming bitter.
smellthecoffee on May 14, 2008 at 11:03 PM
Since this post is about the mixing of Politics and Religion, let’s recap a few of the highlights of that in our country’s history:
1) The Declaration of Independence asserted that all men are created
2) The Declaration of Independence asserted that all men are created equal
3) The Declaration of Independence asserted that all men are endowed by their Creator (God) with certain unalienable rights
4) The Constitution was formed on Biblical principles. For example, the following verse provided the inspiration for our three branches of government:
5) The first amendment limits the government in order to protect the church (Not limit the church in order to protect the government!)
Red Pill on May 14, 2008 at 11:10 PM
Red Pill, you were on a pretty good roll until you brought up that senseless anti-McCain propaganda at 2:54. McCain is moderately conservative, & the only alternative is militantly leftist.
jgapinoy on May 15, 2008 at 12:28 AM
The passage above isn’t Mt. 21:35-36 as you posted, it’s Matthew 23:35-36. No biggie. Just clarifying. Secondly, you’ve pulled the phrase “All these things shall come upon this generation” from chapter 23 where Jesus condemns the Pharisees. We’re dealing with chapter 24, the next chapter of Matthew which deals with the end times. So you’re taking the term “generation’ from chapter 23 and applying it to the term “generation” in chapter 24 which is wrong and is taking it out of context.
No he wasn’t. Look Akzed, it’s a false doctrine to believe that the Church is the “new” Israel. Israel’s re-birth is the key to the imminent return of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. If God destroyed Israel for her sins and did not restore her, Jesus could not come back as He had foretold. So, God was forced by His own Nature to restore Israel after His punishment of her had ended. This theme is told so often in both Old and New Testaments it is impossible to miss it, unless you close your minds completely to this obvious truth. You appear to be writing from the amillenialist point of view. An amillenialist believes prophecy is not to be taken literally. That’s a dangerous position to take especially since 30% of the Bible is about end time prophecy, and prophecy was given to man to warn him.
No thanks, Akzed. Anyways, I don’t feel like arguing or explaining things again. I stand by my post above. Here’s probably the best website on the internet for prophecy. I agree with pretty well everything it teaches. So no hard feelings and I hope it helps you some way in your understanding of Bible prophecy. Good luck!
apacalyps on May 15, 2008 at 1:54 AM
Quoting David Limbaugh isn’t senseless.
fossten on May 15, 2008 at 8:34 AM
The Olivet Discourse is framed by the same verse, beginning (Mt. 23:36) and end (Mt. 24:34): “All these things shall come upon this generation.” Mt. 23:35 is described in Mt. 24. I cannot imagine a less valid criticism of the use of context in the history of theological debate.
Israel was condemned for what the prophets called “harlotry,” e.g. being found with her skirt over her face, Nah. 3:5, like a wife caught in adultery. So God divorced her and married a spotless virgin acc. to St. Paul, Eph. 5:22f; Rev. 21:2,9. God is not a bigamist.
Your view was absent from the church until john Darby made it up in the 1800’s and C.I. Scofield popularized it in his reference notes.
Akzed on May 15, 2008 at 9:17 AM
The words do not match the teachings the Wronged Rev. Wright had drilled into Obombem’s head.
Beware, when word and actions do match you have the foundation for a lie.
MSGTAS on May 15, 2008 at 9:22 AM
I realize that the “Sell-Out Express” link at 2:54 was from a site that I don’t endorse, per se, but the emphasis was on McCain’s own words. McCain did say
McCain did call himself a “Reagan Republican” and termed Bush a “Pat Robertson Republican”. Put two and two together, and McCain was calling President (then Govenor) Bush an “agent of intolerance Republican”. McCain said that Bush couldn’t defeat Al Gore. McCain said, after the speech, that his remarks were very intentional…they were exactly what he wanted to say.
After McCain lost the Republican Primary in 2000, he decided to take a different approach…not because his thoughts had changed, but because he realized that speaking those thoughts would prevent him having any chance at the nomination in the future.
The “sell out” link, while from a leftist perspective, adequately shows how McCain changed his approach. That change in approach, however, is not a change of heart. McCain still wants to “Defeat the Ultra-Right”.
Is McCain moderately conservative? Does he really deserve a B- (80%) conservative rating? Well, he voted conservatively on 8 of 10 votes…but didn’t vote on 15 other issues…some call that an 80% rating, I call that a 32% rating.
8 out of 25, not 8 out of 10.
Red Pill on May 15, 2008 at 9:26 AM
Indeed.
I’m working on a post to my own blog (not ready yet) that shows how words out of Obama’s own mouth connect his thought process very directly to Wright’s thought process.
Red Pill on May 15, 2008 at 9:39 AM
If you really worry about accurate stats, then take his whole tenure and ratings for the past couple of decades. The fact that he missed some votes while campaigning is not unusual. It happens every election cycle. Difficult to be in two places at once. But since you have a couple of decades of voting records to look at, you don’t need these past few months to know where he stands…unless you want to distort.
But let’s keep it in perspective:
right2bright on May 15, 2008 at 10:06 AM
And what exactly is the “Lord’s work” according to you Barack? I somehow think your definition is considerably different from mine.
abcurtis on May 15, 2008 at 10:36 AM
This is the part the liberals always seem to leave out. When they hijack “Judge not” they always leave out the “go and sin no more” part.
abcurtis on May 15, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Paul says no such thing in this verse. Tell me, to whom did Paul write the letter of Galatians, and what were their circumstances?
Israel is not replaced and never will be.
From Paul’s letter to the Romans, 11:1-2:
“1 I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew.”
Paul also says the Christian is “grafted” into the olive tree as branches. In Romans chapter 11 he says that if the root (Israel) of the olive tree is holy, then so are the branches (church).
abcurtis on May 15, 2008 at 10:56 AM
You appear to be out of context. Where did God divorce Israel? First you have to show He married her. Who was the OT prophet who took a harlot wife at God’s instruction? This was a picture of God still keeping and restoring Israel even after Israel had turned from Him many times. Btw – the prophet was Hosea.
Ephesians 5:22ff has to do with comparing a marriage to Christ’s relationship with His church, the virgin bride, made spotless through His shed blood on the cross. Jesus has not yet returned for His bride. That is when she will be raptured off the earth to avoid the Tribulation spoken of in Matthew 24. And the rapture itself is spoken of by Paul in 1st Thessalonians 4:
“16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.”
Darby didnt “make up” anything – it’s right there in scripture.
abcurtis on May 15, 2008 at 11:08 AM
abcurtis said:
Yeah, the Bible says for YOU to go and do the Lord’s work, not take other people’s money by force, keep some for yourself, then use it to accomplish your own will (mostly just get re-elected). Leftists are so dishonest.
a097005 on May 15, 2008 at 11:29 AM
He wrote to the Galatians, and the circumstances were that some false apostles were teaching them that to become Christians they must first be circumcised. “Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham,” Gal. 3:7,24. It is not by race or circumcision, Romans 2:28-29. The “Israel of God” to which he refers could not be national Israel, which he refers to as having mere allegorical value in Gal. 4:25-26.
Once heir has matured, what need is there for a pedagogue, Gal. 4:1-4?
What about those whom He didn’t foreknow? Romans 9:6,27, “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel,” “Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved.” And Ro. 11:7 says, “Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.“ So God is not a universalist, either regarding the Jews, the baptized, or humanity generally. In Ro. 11:14 he hoped that some of them might get saved (become Christians). So, you are painting with a very broad brush here.
>Paul also says the Christian is “grafted” into the olive tree as branches. In Romans chapter 11 he says that if the root (Israel) of the olive tree is holy, then so are the branches (church). abcurtis on May 15, 2008 at 10:56 AM
The olive tree was around a long time before Israel was. Israel is also called branches. The root bears the branches, so the root and the branches are different. Read vv. 16-21 again more carefully.
Akzed on May 15, 2008 at 11:34 AM
AD 70.
You’ve answered your own question. Also, the fact that God equated harlotry with idolatry in the OT speaks for itself.
Granted.
So? Then again, maybe He did: Compare John 14:18, “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.” With Acts 2.
This has nothing to do with anything, but I have given my view of Mt. 24 above.
Oh sure it is. But no one saw it until he came along 1800 years after Christ? Right.
Akzed on May 15, 2008 at 11:41 AM
This is just another indication of the growing desperation of the Obama campaign.
They know they can not win without the one demographic that they and all their LLL friends have spit on, denigrated, ridiculed and flat out hated for the last 30 years.
I find it so ironic that the one segment of the population that they need to win is the same one that they have spit on, denigrated, disenfranchised, bludgeoned and flat out hated for the past 40 years. The one “identity” that has been the whipping boy of all the “identity politicians”-including Obama. Yup, he needs all of us “typical white people”-the middle class white Christians.
Memo to Obama:
You have shown you sheer contempt and hatred for all of us “typical white people” on more then one occasion. We are not as stupid as you think we are, either.
Enjoy what is left of your Senate career, Barak. You will not be President and I doubt you will be reelected to the Senate, either. You see, Chicago may be controlled by the most corrupt Democratic party machine in the country but there are too many “typical white people” there that are going to remember what you said about them.
Nahanni on May 15, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »