Santorum questions Obama's Christianity

[MDC 5,933]

Dunno.

 

The easy interpretation is that you've got a real sad empty life and prodding people you don't even know into a reaction means a lot more to you than anybody else. You don't seem like a bad guy to me, I just don't understand what you get out of this. But I'm old and tired so I'm going to bed.

[Gepetto 994]

 

 

Actually, it's not the first time I've heard a Christian question another person's faith. I've heard these kinds of remarks before. And it's not the first time I've heard the Right attack Obama's faith either.

 

I suggest you spend the next few weeks soaking in Santorum before he's bounced from the race.

 

On "Face the Nation" on CBS on Sunday, Santorum said he wasn't talking about the president's religious faith, but his liberal ideology. "I've repeatedly said I believe the president is a Christian,' Santorum remarked."He's says he's a Christian. But I am talking about his world view and the way he approaches problems in this country, and I think they're different than how most people do in America."

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_162-57381228/santorum-remark-on-obama-theology-draws-ire/?tag=contentMain;contentBody

[drobeski 3,061]

Christianphobes are such pussays

[penultimatestraw 473]

Christianphobes are such pussays

Maybe they get that way after being focked over by Christians acting like d!cks?

[drobeski 3,061]

Maybe they get that way after being focked over by Christians acting like d!cks?

Boo hoo

[FeelingMN 273]

On "Face the Nation" on CBS on Sunday, Santorum said he wasn't talking about the president's religious faith, but his liberal ideology. "I've repeatedly said I believe the president is a Christian,' Santorum remarked."He's says he's a Christian. But I am talking about his world view and the way he approaches problems in this country, and I think they're different than how most people do in America."

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_162-57381228/santorum-remark-on-obama-theology-draws-ire/?tag=contentMain;contentBody

 

Ok...then say you disagree with the man's theology...his liberal theology. To say his theology isn't bible based sends a very specific message in my opinion.

 

[DankNuggs 305]

Ok...then say you disagree with the man's theology...his liberal theology. To say his theology isn't bible based sends a very specific message in my opinion.

 

He is saying that the presidents liberal IDEOLOGY is not based on his stated christian THEOLOGY. This isn't hard to figure out, unless your goal is to slander anything that comes out of azzfroths mouth... Which isn't particularly difficult.

[FeelingMN 273]

He is saying that the presidents liberal IDEOLOGY is not based on his stated christian THEOLOGY. This isn't hard to figure out, unless your goal is to slander anything that comes out of azzfroths mouth... Which isn't particularly difficult.

 

I thought he said Obama's theology wasn't based on the Bible

 

Maybe Santorum doesn't know the definition of theology? It'd have been no biggie really if he had said Obama's ideology wasn't Bible based...but he said theology which is an entirely different message.

[ZeroTolerance 582]

http://www.ocrpl.org/?p=103

 

(4) QUESTION: What would your opinion be of this stance: Obama has been very honest in the past about his faith. He said he was attracted to the church because of its non-literal approach to the Bible. Now that’s coming through Wright. His speech before the United Church of Christ, he very much embraced the basic theological approach of the United Church of Christ. So you could say that he is a very sincere, liberal Christian, with a non-literal approach to Scripture, who would argue that, voicing Niebuhr, that the primary application of the Gospel is in issues of economic, social justice. And that he accepts his church’s teaching on sexuality, in the same way that you accept your church’s teachings on sexuality. So in that case he is a sincere liberal Christian. Would you buy that?

 

ANSWER:

I could buy that. Again, yes, it goes to the larger question of whether I could buy that overall from that point of view. But is there such thing as a sincere liberal Christian, which says that we basically take this document and re-write it ourselves? Is that really Christian? That’s a bigger question for me. And the answer is, no, it’s not. I don’t think there is such a thing. To take what is plainly written and say that I don’t agree with that, therefore, I don’t have to pay attention to it, means you’re not what you say you are. You’re a liberal something, but you’re not a Christian. That’s sort of how I look at it.

 

When you go so far afield of that and take what is a salvation story and turn it into a liberation theology story, which is done in the Catholic world as well as in the evangelical world, you have abandoned Christendom, in my opinion. And you don’t have a right to claim it.

 

From a 2008 interview discussing Obama.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Apparently this "issue" is important to all the R's: My link

SHELBY TOWNSHIP, Mich. (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Tuesday that President Barack Obama's administration has "fought against religion" and sought to substitute a "secular" agenda for one grounded in faith.

 

Obama's campaign seized on the characterization, calling Romney's comments "disgraceful."

 

Romney rarely ventures into social issues in his campaign speeches, but people participating in a town hall-style meeting one week before the Michigan primary asked how he would protect religious liberty.

 

"Unfortunately, possibly because of the people the president hangs around with, and their agenda, their secular agenda — they have fought against religion," Romney said.

 

The Obama campaign linked Romney's remarks to recent comments by rival Rick Santorum, who has referred to Obama holding a "phony theology" only to say later that he wasn't attacking Obama's faith but the president's environmental views.

 

"These ugly and misleading attacks have no place in the campaign and they provide a very clear contrast with what President Obama is talking about: how to restore economic security for the middle class and create jobs," said Lis Smith, an Obama campaign spokeswoman.

 

Religious liberty has been a leading topic in recent weeks because of the Obama administration's mandate that insurance companies provide free birth control even to people employed by church-affiliated organizations, including schools and hospitals. Opponents frame the debate as one of religious liberty while proponents of the mandate say it's about women's health and access to contraception.

 

Romney hasn't faced voters or reporters very often since Santorum's surge and the rise of social issues in the campaign, largely avoiding questions on the subject. But he's clearly focused on the conservative Republican base that's still skeptical of him, calling himself "severely conservative" during a speech to activists in Washington earlier this month. And his lengthy, detailed answer Tuesday on religious liberty showed clear attention to the issue.

 

Romney implicitly invoked his own Mormon faith, also rare for the former Massachusetts governor. He said Tuesday that he cares about the issue because he is "someone who has understood very personally the significance of religious tolerance."

 

He also took questions on gay marriage, Supreme Court appointments and abortion — and when asked about whom he might select as his vice presidential running mate, he listed "pro-life" as the first credential he would look for.

 

Romney faces an unexpectedly difficult fight in Michigan, his native state and a place where his advisers had long assumed he could do well. He's facing a tough challenge from Santorum, who has excited the GOP base with strong anti-abortion rhetoric and appeals to blue-collar voters.

 

"I care about Michigan. This is personal for me," Romney said.

 

The former Massachusetts governor has stepped his attacks on Santorum in recent days. On Tuesday he argued that tea party voters should prefer him over the former Pennsylvania senator — a renewed focus on the fiscally conservative voters who identify with those groups.

 

"I think the tea party would find it very interesting that Rick Santorum voted to raise the debt ceiling five times without getting compensating reductions in spending," Romney said, echoing the negative campaign ads his campaign and their wealthy allies are airing in the state.

 

Michigan's GOP primary electorate has grown increasingly conservative in recent years. Tea party voters played a key role in the 2010 midterm elections, and local tea party groups are still active.

 

When one questioner at Romney's town hall stood and introduced himself as someone from the tea party, the crowd cheered.

 

Romney's focus on those voters shows in his schedule. He's set to address a coalition of tea party groups Thursday in Milford — a rarity for the former venture capitalist, who normally holds events at local businesses. Romney has scheduled just one or two public events per day in recent weeks.

 

Organizers said Romney, who accepted the invitation last week, will take questions from the crowd. Wes Nakagiri, the chairman of the tea party group, RetakeOurGov, that is hosting the event, said many of the group's members want to "root for the hometown boy" but that most would "prefer somebody else."

 

"The favored son helps if you are a longtime establishment Republican, knew his father," Nakagiri said. "But it's not going to be the same with people that are newly motivated to get into the process. Tea party people that have gotten into the process in the last two years don't have those relationships and are focused on policy."

 

There are signs that Romney's campaign has stepped up its outreach to the GOP establishment in the state, a group that he's counting on in the Feb. 28 primary.

 

After Santorum won contests in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado, tickets for the Oakland County Lincoln Day Dinner — he was already booked as the keynote speaker — skyrocketed, according to Jim Thienel, the chairman. Romney's campaign hadn't responded to the party's earlier request to have him address the dinner.

 

After the Santorum victories, Romney's campaign called to say his wife, Ann, would be glad to attend. She spoke, too. Romney grew up in Bloomfield Hills, which is in Oakland County.

 

Romney himself has shown confidence that he'll win in Michigan. When asked in interviews earlier this week what would happened if he lost, Romney said, "That won't happen."

 

Still, supporters are trying to scale back expectations. Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette introduced Romney at his Tuesday town hall as "The Comeback Kid."

 

"We've got a barn burner of a campaign right now here in Michigan," Schuette said, "and Mitt Romney is fighting like an underdog."

 

Romney left Michigan for Arizona, where he's set to debate his GOP rivals Wednesday night. Arizona also holds its primary Feb. 28. Then he will return to Michigan on Friday to deliver a major economic speech at Ford Field, the NFL football stadium in downtown Detroit.

 

Romney said Tuesday he'll use the speech to outline his economic plan. He said he will have details on a plan for tax policy, cutting spending and adjusting entitlement programs.

[Gepetto 994]

About time Obama was called out for being the phony that he is. The only thing he should really claim is being a socialist, but he denies that so he's a faker once again.

[penultimatestraw 473]

About time Obama was called out for being the phony that he is. The only thing he should really claim is being a socialist, but he denies that so he's a faker once again.

As Nikki said, isn't a Christian just a person who believes in the teachings of Jesus? We're all imperfect sinners, after all.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

As Nikki said, isn't a Christian just a person who believes in the teachings of Jesus? We're all imperfect sinners, after all.

 

As I recall, Jesus was much more about helping your fellow man than he was about personal responsibilty and whatnot.

[drobeski 3,061]

As I recall, Jesus was much more about helping your fellow man than he was about personal responsibilty and whatnot.

U were there ?

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

U were there ?

 

Nah, his boys wrote all his stuff down in this book. It's a somewhat dry read, but its not bad.

[FeelingMN 273]

You’re a liberal something, but you’re not a Christian. That’s sort of how I look at it.

 

 

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum yesterday denied questioning President Barack Obama’s Christian faith

 

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2012/02/20/santorum-obamas-a-christian.html

 

 

 

Job 13:4, "But ye are forgers of lies, ye are all physicians of no value."

[penultimatestraw 473]

Nah, his boys wrote all his stuff down in this book. It's a somewhat dry read, but its not bad.

It's better if one doesn't take it literally - although I'm sure all translations/versions say the same thing.

[Casual Observer 597]

Apparently this "issue" is important to all the R's: My link

 

What about this article would lead you to the conclusion that this "issue" is important to all the R's?

[MDC 5,933]

The church has expressly denounced pre-emptive war and enhanced interrogation techniques - two things that Santorum strongly supports. I like how these holy rollers can always pick and choose the parts they want and then question the Christianity of other people.

[Casual Observer 597]

The church has expressly denounced pre-emptive war and enhanced interrogation techniques - two things that Santorum strongly supports. I like how these holy rollers can always pick and choose the parts they want and then question the Christianity of other people.

 

No one should question the President's commitment to his Christian beliefs. Especially after he condemned the attacks on Coptic Christians by Muslims in Egypt at Christmas time and threatened to send in the military to protect his Christian brothers and sisters from their less tolerant Muslim brethren.

[DankNuggs 305]

No one should question the President's commitment to his Christian beliefs. Especially after he condemned the attacks on Coptic Christians by Muslims in Egypt at NON DEMONINATIONAL HOLIDAY time and threatened to send in the military to protect his Christian brothers and sisters from their less tolerant Muslim brethren.

Fixed... Ya he was sitting around his holiday tree, singing holiday carols.

[hoytdwow 202]

I don't like George Will, but I read his column today and he is right in suggesting that Santorum should be a priest. He has no business in government.

[penultimatestraw 473]

What about this article would lead you to the conclusion that this "issue" is important to all the R's?

Maybe too strong a statement. Just the two front runner R candidates. Judging by the media coverage it's received, a whole of people must be interested, right?

[Casual Observer 597]

Maybe too strong a statement. Just the two front runner R candidates. Judging by the media coverage it's received, a whole of people must be interested, right?

 

I'm quite certain there's a population of R's to whom this is important, but I don't know what percentage of the R's that would be or even of Michigan R's. As the two frontrunners have made it an issue of late, I think that's driving the media attention. That's the drama of the current R race.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I'm quite certain there's a population of R's to whom this is important, but I don't know what percentage of the R's that would be or even of Michigan R's. As the two frontrunners have made it an issue of late, I think that's driving the media attention. That's the drama of the current R race.

The frontrunners must think it will decide voting behavior. Hopefully they are wrong.

[hoytdwow 202]

But I am talking about his world view and the way he approaches problems in this country, and I think they're different than how most people do in America."

Is that why more people voted for him than have ever voted for a president?

[penultimatestraw 473]

"SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!!!" (Librards)

Don't worry, your boy doesn't believe in this nonsense My link

WASHINGTON - Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said Sunday that he doesn't believe in the separation of church and state, adding that he was sickened by John F. Kennedy's assurances to Baptist ministers 52 years ago that he would not impose his Catholic faith on them.

 

"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute," Santorum, a devout Catholic, said in an interview from Michigan on ABC's "This Week."

 

"The First Amendment means the free exercise of religion and that means bringing people and their faith into the public square."

 

Santorum's latest foray into the hot-button, faith-based issues that so fire up the party's evangelical base comes as his chief rival for the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney, begins to pull ahead slightly in the state of Michigan, where he was born and raised.

 

Both Michigan and Arizona hold their primaries Tuesday.

 

While Romney's been battling Santorum in Michigan for the past two weeks, polls suggest he's got a comfortable lead in Arizona, a winner-take-all contest in terms of delegate allocation. Michigan's delegates, on the other hand, are rewarded based on results.

 

The former Massachusetts governor got a boost Sunday from Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who endorsed him as "the man that can carry the day" on NBC's "Meet The Press."

 

"He has that pro-business background, and he has that political history that I think he would serve America the best."

 

Brewer's endorsement is considered a boon to Romney's insistence that he's the toughest in the Republican field on illegal immigration. Brewer has been a fierce defender of her state's strict immigration policies, and Romney called Arizona a "model" on the issue in the last Republican debate.

 

Romney is the native son of Michigan, however, where his father served both as governor and a car company executive. A loss there would be regarded as devastating to his campaign.

 

Nonetheless, both Romney and Santorum have said they opposed the federal government's bailout of the auto industry in the state where millions work for car manufacturers.

 

Romney even penned a New York Times opinion piece four years ago with the headline: "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt."

 

Republican foes have seized upon that headline in advance of a speech by President Barack Obama on Tuesday to the United Auto Workers conference in Washington to celebrate "the rescue of Detroit."

 

The autoworkers plastered "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" on 26 American-made vehicles at a Romney event in Detroit on Friday.

 

Beyond Michigan, however, Santorum's startling stances on social issues like birth control and religion are getting the most attention countrywide.

 

He's been unapologetic about some of his more controversial remarks, even reiterating Sunday his past remarks that Kennedy's 1960 speech in Houston made "me want to throw up."

 

"To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? What makes me throw up is someone who is now trying to tell people that you will do what the government says," Santorum said.

 

"That now we're going to turn around and impose our values from the government on people of faith."

 

America is all about embracing diversity, he added.

 

"What we saw in Kennedy's speech was just the opposite, and that's what's so upsetting about it," he said.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Don't worry, your boy doesn't believe in this nonsense My link

 

Yet another reason why assfroth has no chance.

[IGotWorms 3,367]

Yet another reason why assfroth has no chance.

 

Does he really think he has any chance of winning with this approach? Even if he got the nomination he would be slaughtered in the general election on this faith based social conservative platform he has going.

[jerryskids 5,276]

Does he really think he has any chance of winning with this approach? Even if he got the nomination he would be slaughtered in the general election on this faith based social conservative platform he has going.

 

I'm not sure he thinks of it that way. I actually respect that he is running his campaign his way, and being totally up front about his positions. Then again, I'm not nearly the social conservative he is so I tend not to agree with those positions...

[naomi 347]

A whole conversation isn't being had.

 

He says "I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute."

 

What would 'absolute' mean? People who have a generally opposing worldview to his are going to think he looks at the state as a slight arm of the church (and really 'the church', in his case) by saying that.

 

Is he saying he simply disagrees that 'respecting an establishment of religion' means that any acknowledgement of religion, or faith based inspiration for recognition of right and wrong should be out of the question, but rather he interprets it to mean the state cannot literally serve to establish or strengthen a religion? Either directly, or by discriminating against what would be subversive religions from the state's point of view if it was entwined with a religion. It's not its business. And he would be right on that. Is he mad that Kennedy went out of his way to clarify he wasn't pro-theocracy because the assumption isn't worth dignifying and publicly denying? Or mad because he thinks the Catholic church should be entwined with the state?

 

With articles like that people on either side go away thinking (and possibly being upset about) what they want.

[IGotWorms 3,367]

A whole conversation isn't being had.

 

He says "I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute."

 

What would 'absolute' mean? People who have a generally opposing worldview to his are going to think he looks at the state as a slight arm of the church (and really 'the church', in his case) by saying that.

 

Is he saying he simply disagrees that 'respecting an establishment of religion' means that any acknowledgement of religion, or faith based inspiration for recognition of right and wrong should be out of the question, but rather he interprets it to mean the state cannot literally serve to establish or strengthen a religion?

 

The problem with that line of rationale is, what does it mean for the state to establish a religion? Obviously we can all agree that it means Congress can't say "Christianity is the official religion of the United States and everyone must practice it." But what if it's just a little less than that? Like what if the government heavily subsidized a church but did not require actual worship? Would that still be establishment of religion? How about taking it one more step away from the furthest establishment--what if the state provided tax breaks for some religions but not others? What if it allowed some religious doctrines to be taught in schools but not others?

 

The problem is line-drawing. The only way to draw a decent line is to truly keep church and state separate. That means the government doesn't get involved in religion, period. And if it does permit something of one religion, it must permit the same of all other religions (and those who don't wish to practice organized religion at all).

[naomi 347]

The problem with that line of rationale is, what does it mean for the state to establish a religion? Obviously we can all agree that it means Congress can't say "Christianity is the official religion of the United States and everyone must practice it." But what if it's just a little less than that? Like what if the government heavily subsidized a church but did not require actual worship? Would that still be establishment of religion? How about taking it one more step away from the furthest establishment--what if the state provided tax breaks for some religions but not others? What if it allowed some religious doctrines to be taught in schools but not others?

 

The problem is line-drawing. The only way to draw a decent line is to truly keep church and state separate. That means the government doesn't get involved in religion, period. And if it does permit something of one religion, it must permit the same of all other religions (and those who don't wish to practice organized religion at all).

People who have morals, which is everyone, comprise government. Voters have morals. People should vote their conscience. For some that's secular humanist morality, for some that's Judeo-Christian, for some it's hybrid, and so on. People don't like the idea of Christian morals (or others, but it tends to be Christian ones in sep. of church and state discussions) being reflected, even if the democratic process in our republic is honored. That happening is not a breach of separation of church and state though. Think of what the opposite of allowing that would be.

 

I don't know if Santorum was dramatically summarizing Kennedy's statement (haven't read the speech he was reacting to) when he said

 

"To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? What makes me throw up is someone who is now trying to tell people that you will do what the government says," Santorum said.

 

"That now we're going to turn around and impose our values from the government on people of faith."

 

If the bold is pursued by an interpretation of sep. of church and state, there actually is a belief based worldview being advocated- not just given room -by the government...secular humanism. Not limiting anyone, including the secular humanist, from having his voice and whatever inspires it in the public square, makes for liberty.

[IGotWorms 3,367]

OK naomi, let me ask you this: what if Congress and the President wanted to govern from a set of religious beliefs markedly different than yours? Lets say they suddenly all became Buddhists or (God help me for stirring up the hornet's nest with this analogy) Muslims? Would that still seem right to you?

[naomi 347]

OK naomi, let me ask you this: what if Congress and the President wanted to govern from a set of religious beliefs markedly different than yours? Lets say they suddenly all became Buddhists or (God help me for stirring up the hornet's nest with this analogy) Muslims? Would that still seem right to you?

 

Well you should assess the right or wrongness of situations based on principle, not convenience.

 

With the principle of honoring how our republic is meant to operate-including the results of what happens when you do, when there's morals being reflected in policy that don't match up with mine, I'll naturally find the morals in question wrong, but it's not unjust to me that they've been able to be recognized.

 

Almost a random aside- what would make a right unalienable?

 

It's possible for people to be treated as if they have no rights. So what does it mean that a person has rights, when in practice they're being regarded to not have any? Before a God who holds men accountable, they have rights, whether men are recognizing them or not. That's how it's possible for them to be unalienable. While those men may not be held accountable by the State, they're still accountable to their creator.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

It's better if one doesn't take it literally - although I'm sure all translations/versions say the same thing.

 

Oh, I'm far from a bible literalist. The Bible was written years after Jesus' death by men looking to gain and preserve power over other men.

 

That said, if either political ideology is "biblically based" it is the liberal, not the conservative. The supposed teachings of Jesus were all about loving thy neighbor as you love thyself. Taking care of other people. Being selfLESS rather than selfISH. Easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than a rich man into heaven, and all that. The good Samaritan. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Etc. and so on.

 

If you are a true Christian, the plight of the poor concerns you more than the justice of the effects of taxation upone billionaires.

 

Just sayin.

[naomi 347]

Oh, I'm far from a bible literalist. The Bible was written years after Jesus' death by men looking to gain and preserve power over other men.

 

That said, if either political ideology is "biblically based" it is the liberal, not the conservative. The supposed teachings of Jesus were all about loving thy neighbor as you love thyself. Taking care of other people. Being selfLESS rather than selfISH. Easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than a rich man into heaven, and all that. The good Samaritan. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Etc. and so on.

 

If you are a true Christian, the plight of the poor concerns you more than the justice of the effects of taxation upone billionaires.

 

Just sayin.

 

What in the bible gives you that impression?

 

I don't have a blanket aversion to organized Christianity, but the model of organization that's in the bible is that of local, autonomous as far as men are concerned, assemblies (with Christ's word as the authority, a bishop should be critiqued in light of it, not the other way around). The bold definitely happens under the umbrella of Christianity, despite the bible.

 

Regarding wealth:

 

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

 

23Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 25When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? 26But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

 

You can do things right by the letter, but the stronger your affection to the world is, the more dangerous of a situation you're in. "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" If your affections are set in this world, you're not knowing Christ.

 

Who can be? We all naturally have pride of life, lust of the flesh, etc. Notice what Christ said 'with men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.' A rich man has more stubborn affections in this world than a poor man, naturally. If you're a poor man setting out to be selfless in your actions, are you saving yourself? Apparently that's impossible. I won't disagree that you're talking about a right orientation to have, but Christ's purpose was to reconcile men to God, something they can never do on their own.

 

John 1:1-5 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."

 

Hebrews 4:12 "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Oh, I'm far from a bible literalist. The Bible was written years after Jesus' death by men looking to gain and preserve power over other men.

 

That said, if either political ideology is "biblically based" it is the liberal, not the conservative. The supposed teachings of Jesus were all about loving thy neighbor as you love thyself. Taking care of other people. Being selfLESS rather than selfISH. Easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than a rich man into heaven, and all that. The good Samaritan. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Etc. and so on.

 

If you are a true Christian, the plight of the poor concerns you more than the justice of the effects of taxation upone billionaires.

 

Just sayin.

 

It's funny when an atheist goes off on how he knows how the religious takes care of the poor. You really should investigate exactly what the Mission trips from the thousands of churches around the country actually accomplish. Not what some politician touts, but what actually happens.

 

I have first hand knowledge, cuz my kids have traveled to New Orleans rebuilding houses, St. Louis renovating kids shelters, as well as many other trips.

 

None of this is done with a penny of what you libs call "compassion". It's done with our money, not something taken from someone else and spent so you can pat yourself on the back.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

What in the bible gives you that impression?

 

 

Nothing in the bible per se. I've read about the council of Nicea and how the bible was put together. Some gospels (Mary Magdelene's for example) were discarded. Many things (Such as the book of Liviticus the fundies like to quote so much) was included to appeal to the Jews they hoped to convert, even though Jesus said specifically that the law was now replaced by a new covenant. That he was the way and the light.

 

As the church grew in power, much of their interpretations of the bible were made to further their own power.

 

It's funny when an atheist goes off on how he knows how the religious takes care of the poor. You really should investigate exactly what the Mission trips from the thousands of churches around the country actually accomplish. Not what some politician touts, but what actually happens.

 

I have first hand knowledge, cuz my kids have traveled to New Orleans rebuilding houses, St. Louis renovating kids shelters, as well as many other trips.

 

None of this is done with a penny of what you libs call "compassion". It's done with our money, not something taken from someone else and spent so you can pat yourself on the back.

 

Not that its any of your business, but I'm not an athiest.

 

I'm not saying religion isn't a force of great good. It is. I'm saying that a certain, very vocal, segment of Christianity (of which Rick Santorum is a good example) has perverted Jesus' message of love and non-judgment to a message of hate and moral tyrrany.

 

Deny it all you want, but its the truth.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

Not that its any of your business, but I'm not an athiest.

 

I'm not saying religion isn't a force of great good. It is. I'm saying that a certain, very vocal, segment of Christianity (of which Rick Santorum is a good example) has perverted Jesus' message of love and non-judgment to a message of hate and moral tyrrany.

 

Deny it all you want, but its the truth.

Um, your are conveniently changing your position again. And I'm not in the mood to argue with you until you come up with a vaguely coherent position.

 

 

I'll wait until that happens.......if ever.