U.s. "one Of The Biggest Muslim Countries"

[GreenBat]

Too bad you didn't apply this same logic to Bush.

Why is ok for conservatives to throw Bush's name around when it fits their agenda, but when someone who thinks Bush was wrong***, brings up his name, they talk about how it's history. I'll never understand conservative thinking, or should I say conservative non-thinking.

***And yes more thanjust liberals think Bush was a total tool.

Edited June 3, 2009 by GreenBat

[UNTflyer]

Why is ok for conservatives to throw Bush's name around when it fits their agenda, but when someone who thinks Bush was wrong***, brings up his name, they talk about how it's history. I'll never understand conservative thinking, or should I say conservative non-thinking.

***And yes more thanjust liberals think Bush was a total tool.

Aren't you the one who is saying as long as Obama is trying it's OK??? An "A" for effort? No critical thought into what adding $19 trillion in debt over 8 years will do to your buying power?

Talk about being a non-thinker!

[GreenBat]

Aren't you the one who is saying as long as Obama is trying it's OK??? An "A" for effort? No critical thought into what adding $19 trillion in debt over 8 years will do to your buying power?

Talk about being a non-thinker!

You did not read my first post and have not answered the question it asked

What exactly is President Obama's adiministration doing, except attempting to get the country back on track.

[UNTflyer]

You did not read my first post and have not answered the question it asked

I don't see him as attempting to get it back on track.

I see them taking the opportunity to advance a socialist agenda like this country has never seen. In less than 4 months, they have seized how many companies? And not just becoming owners, but making policy regarding the control and means of production. Obama has essentially seized nearly the entire auto industry.

How much debt has been incurred in less than 4 months? Almost 70% of the debt incurred in the entire Bush administration.

What has he done? He has steered America dangerously towards European socialism, and that's not just hyperbolic rhetoric.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

It is important to note that "if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world".

So says President Barack Obama. Or I should say: Barack Hussein Obama.

That's right: Barack Hussein Obama. Say it proud. Say it out loud. The middle moniker that dared not speak its name during the election campaign is now front and centre of the US president's attempt to woo the Muslim world, the theme of his visits to Riyadh on Wednesday and Cairo on Thursday.

Petrified of the potential political fallout of being branded a Muslim, Candidate Obama - a practicing Christian - never used the name "Hussein" and its use was frowned upon as a forbidden code for the nutty accusation that he was some kind of Islamic Manchurian candidate.

No more. To say Barack Hussein Obama - BHO for short - now appears to be the height of political correctness.

As I argue in this analysis for the Telegraph dead tree edition, Obama is seeking to return to a Middle East policy based on realism - buttressed by the bona fides of his own multi-cultural (including Muslim) background.

change.

Now, implicitly contrasting himself with the born-again, evangelical Bush who pursued a pst-9/11 "crusade" against terrorism, Obama is presenting himself to the Islamic world as the personification of a new, tolerant - and, yes, partly Muslim - America.

Adoph (Dolph) Briscoe. and Adoph Coors...... German radicals ...... give me a break.

Are all the Joseph "Communists".... (Stalin) or (Dr. Mengle )

Julius is not that great of a name either...

Obama was born long before anyone heard of Saddam..

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

It is.. I have never understood why the Old Testament doesn't count as the Bible anymore.

Deuteronomy 17

17:2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

...and maybe we should be rioting in the streets for having Jesus in a cartoon:

24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

That's the old law. Jesus said don't kill or hold grudges (Matthew 5:21-24), he who lives by the sword will die by the sword (Matthew 26:52), and if someone didn't believe in the gospel you were to simply walk away and let God handle their punishment of the judgment day (Matthew 10:14-15).

While it's still true that those not on board on the judgment day will die, the method and time of delivery was taken out of Israel's hand and put into God's hand solely with Christ's teachings.

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

It is.. I have never understood why the Old Testament doesn't count as the Bible anymore.

Me too...seems like it should be viewed as more of a historical documentation. I'll bring it up to my pastor the next chance I get.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

. I have never understood why the Old Testament doesn't count as the Bible anymore.

--- Maybe it is because the Old Testament is very violent... and most of the men there had multiple wives... David and Solomon had 100's. Very few preachers ever mention that, if fact they seem blind to a lot of what is in the Old Testament and the actions of many people. . Even the New Testament is often distorted by some of them. I have heard preachers refer to Mary Magdalene as a prostitute. Not one verse mentions that or any other writings that date from the first few Christian centuries. Some Pope dreamed it up centuries later to put women down as a method to help keep them out of positions of power in the Catholic Church. I see a lot of difference in being Christian (I am) and being a church fanatic.

---It is odd that more wars have been caused by religion and more people have been killed in war for religious beliefs than for any other reason. Even WWII had a religious overtone... they tried to eliminate followers of the Jewish religion....although not stressed and very few in number, Islamics and others were eliminated from their lands as they were caught as well.

Edited June 4, 2009 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Michael Scott]

--- Maybe it is because the Old Testament is very violent... and most of the men there had multiple wives... David and Solomon had 100's. Very few preachers ever mention that, if fact they seem blind to a lot of what is in the Old Testament and the actions of many people. . Even the New Testament is often distorted by some of them. I have heard preachers refer to Mary Magdalene as a prostitute. Not one verse mentions that or any other writings that date from the first few Christian centuries. Some Pope dreamed it up centuries later to put women down as a method to help keep them out of positions of power in the Catholic Church. I see a lot of difference in being Christian (I am) and being a church fanatic.

Well...it's more the by-product of your biblical scholars (the loveable tax collector, physician and friends who didn't write for a living) not giving the characters enough different names.

I don't usually source the Wikipedia, but they had sourcing in here too that worked for me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene

Jeffrey Kripal, a religion scholar, wrote, "Migdal or Magdala (meaning "tower" in Hebrew and Arameic respectively) was a fishing town known, or so the legend goes, for its perhaps punning connection to hairdressers (medgaddlela) and women of questionable reputation. This is as close as we get to any clear evidence that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute."[11]According to Kripal, the identification of Mary Magdalene as a prostitute also goes back to the above-mentioned sermon by Pope Gregory.[11] However, Gregory identified Mary merely as a peccatrix, a sinful woman, using her as a model for the repentant sinner, not a meretrix, a prostitute. However, he also identifies Mary with the adulteress brought before Jesus (as recounted in the Pericope Adulterae, John 8), concurring with 3rd and 4th century Church fathers that had already considered the sinful woman's sin as "being unchaste". Gregory's identification and the consideration of the woman's sin as sexual later probably gave rise to the image of Mary as a prostitute.

[Green Guy Bass]

I don't see him as attempting to get it back on track.

I see them taking the opportunity to advance a socialist agenda like this country has never seen. In less than 4 months, they have seized how many companies? And not just becoming owners, but making policy regarding the control and means of production. Obama has essentially seized nearly the entire auto industry.

How much debt has been incurred in less than 4 months? Almost 70% of the debt incurred in the entire Bush administration.

What has he done? He has steered America dangerously towards European socialism, and that's not just hyperbolic rhetoric.

You are losing so much cred with me.

[eulesseagle]

Responding to the above in bold and your comments below, why is it that the left/liberals resort to namecalling, etc...?

When one can not refute the truth they slander.......like bigot.....like racist.....like zealot......like extremist. It is pure Marx and Saul D. Alynski used plenty of examples on how to use it.

Unfortunately, with the neo-politically correct crowd that has been nutered through our "highly developed" educational system these new "pavlovian pups" cower and put their tails between their legs when they are overtly confronted with those key words (bigot, racist, zealot, extremist).

You have got to remember that the left runs on lies....not truth. Like vampires running for their coffins at daybreak to escape death so do liberals when they hear the truth. They run from the light and find safety in the dark abyss.

"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

[FirefightnRick]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/03/...in5058482.shtml

Bin Laden accuses Mr. Obama of ordering Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari to "prevent the people of Swat from implementing the Shari’a law by fighting and killing them through bombings and destruction. This has led one million Muslims, elderly people, women and children, to flee their homes and villages and live in tents after they’d been living with dignity in their homes.

"This simply means that Obama and his administration have planted new seeds of hatred and vengeance toward America," the translated message continues. "The number of these seeds equates that of those who have suffered and been made homeless in the Swat valley and the tribal areas in northern and southern Waziristan as well as those who sympathize with them.

"In this manner, Obama appears to have followed the same path taken by his predecessor, in creating more enmity towards Muslims, and adding on to the fighting enemies, thus paving the way for new long wars.

"Let the American people prepare to continue harvesting what their White House leaders grow, in the years and decades to come." (Read more on CBS News Investigates: Terror Monitor)

Bin Laden’s statement comes a day after al Qaeda’s number two, Ayman al Zawahri, said President Obama was not welcomed in Egypt, where he is expected to address Muslims on Thursday.

You have to wonder why Bin Laden and Al Queda doesn't lay off BHO? Bin Laden must have bad intel on what is going on stateside with the damage that has been done here these past 4 months? It would seem BHO is Al Queda's greatest ally. And how freakin stupid are the clowns in D.C. to release BHO's itinerary on his whereabouts during this Middle Eastern trip?

Good post Flyer.

Rick

Edited June 4, 2009 by FirefightnRick

[Mean Green 93-98]

It is.. I have never understood why the Old Testament doesn't count as the Bible anymore.

Deuteronomy 17

17:2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

...and maybe we should be rioting in the streets for having Jesus in a cartoon:

24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

The Old Testament was a covenant between Israel and God, and served as a civil law to govern their nation. Though we can learn from it, Christians have never been bound by the Old Testament.

"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matt. 26:28).

"For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth" (Heb. 9:16-17).

"Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace" (Eph. 2:15).

"But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (Heb. 8:6).

[oldguystudent]

It is.. I have never understood why the Old Testament doesn't count as the Bible anymore.

Some of it does, some of it doesn't. I've never been able to understand the discrepancies. To this day I refrain from shell fish and enslave the daughters of my vanquished foes just to be on the safe side.*

*As a last vestige of my very odd religious upbringing, I really do still abstain from shell fish. I just can't bring myself to eat shrimp, lobster, clams, oysters, et al.

[UNTflyer]

The Old Testament was a covenant between Israel and God, and served as a civil law to govern their nation. Though we can learn from it, Christians have never been bound by the Old Testament.

Then the Religious Right needs to stop quoting Leviticus in their opposition to gays. They can't selectively choose what parts of the Old Testament to follow and what parts to ignore.

Jesus had one commandment: "That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."

If Jesus were alive today, he'd be branded a liberal.

[Mean Green 93-98]

Then the Religious Right needs to stop quoting Leviticus in their opposition to gays. They can't selectively choose what parts of the Old Testament to follow and what parts to ignore.

Jesus had one commandment: "That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."

If Jesus were alive today, he'd be branded a liberal.

You are just Mr. Misrepresentation today. No, He referred to that as a new commandment, but not His only commandment. Just 19 verses later, He said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15).

The only reason one might use Leviticus against homosexuality is to show that God has always opposed it. And He still does under the New Testament (Rom. 1:26-27; I Cor. 6:9-10).

[oldguystudent]

Here's one from Matthew that has always confounded me

5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

So if I'm reading this correctly, not one letter of the old law is to be changed until all is fulfilled. Even though the word commandment is used in verse 19, I have to assume that the laws of Leviticus also apply. If not, then the abomination of homosexuality is out the window because it is not in the commandments. So either all the laws of Leviticus apply or none of them do. Further, when you cite Corinthians and Romans as proof of continuation of God's condemnation of one act over all others, you're citing the words of Paul, not God. Even so, going back a verse to 25, you get:

25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Which I see to imply that the people Paul speaks of changed the truth of God -- in other words, they changed the rules, or the laws. This says to me again that all the old laws still apply, so you can't go cherry picking. They all apply.

This is God we're talking about here, and it IS a zero sum game. I can find no evidence in either the old nor the new testament that God is one to compromise. So if he said it in the old, it must be also be true in the new.

[Guest JohnDenver]

I always liked John. We need to love one another, except those non-Christians. Stay far away from them. (See verses 7-10)

1:5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.

1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.

1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

1:8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.

1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

[UNTflyer]

This says to me again that all the old laws still apply, so you can't go cherry picking. They all apply.

This is God we're talking about here, and it IS a zero sum game. I can find no evidence in either the old nor the new testament that God is one to compromise. So if he said it in the old, it must be also be true in the new.

Then we're all in trouble:

Leviticus 19:19

Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

I once wore a linen shirt with wool slacks... I knew it was wrong in the eyes of Ralph Lauren, but who knew I would also be condemned to Hell???

[Shuke-D]

Then we're all in trouble:

Leviticus 19:19

Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

I once wore a linen shirt with wool slacks... I knew it was wrong in the eyes of Ralph Lauren, but who knew I would also be condemned to Hell???

Hope all ya'll clean-shaven MFrs like warm weather:

Leviticus 19:27

Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

I know everyone thinks of New Testament Jesus as the hippie, but a long-haired, bushy-bearded dude sounds an awful lot like a hippie to me. The whole text is liberal. San Francisco is the New Jerusalem. REPENT!

[Guest JohnDenver]

Or Shrimp... God HATES Shrimp.

Leviticus 11:9-12 says:

9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcasses in abomination.

12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:

9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:

10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

[hickoryhouse]

Or Shrimp... God HATES Shrimp.

Leviticus 11:9-12 says:

9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcasses in abomination.

12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:

9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:

10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

That explains my complete abhorrence of anything that isn't fish that comes from water.

[Mean Green 93-98]

Here's one from Matthew that has always confounded me

So if I'm reading this correctly, not one letter of the old law is to be changed until all is fulfilled.

He did fulfill the old Law. He lived under it, met the conditions of it, and fulfilled its prophecies and purpose:

"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me" (Luke 24:44).

Here is the purpose of the Law:

"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster" (Gal. 3:24-25). Law = schoolmaster we are no longer under since Christ has come and fulfilled the Law.

Further, when you cite Corinthians and Romans as proof of continuation of God's condemnation of one act over all others, you're citing the words of Paul, not God.

I understand you are not a Christian, so you are not going to attach the same significance to Paul's words as would a Christian. But what Paul wrote, he wrote as directed by God: "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him [i.e., the things of the Gospel]. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? [i.e., we cannot read minds--we have to tell each other what we are thinking] even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we [the apostles] have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but [in the words] which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual [words]" (I Cor. 2:10-13). Paul went on to say, "We have the mind of Christ" (v. 16). Christ had promised that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles into all truth (John 16:12-13), and this is what Paul had.

Even so, going back a verse to 25, you get:

Which I see to imply that the people Paul speaks of changed the truth of God -- in other words, they changed the rules, or the laws. This says to me again that all the old laws still apply, so you can't go cherry picking. They all apply.

Paul is certainly not speaking about those who brought the New Testament in place of the Old Testament. In verse 16, Paul had just said, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to every man that believeth . . ." Paul is speaking in verses 18 and following about those who chose not to think about God and follow their own ways.

I agree you cannot go cherry picking. If you say we need to follow the Old Law, we need to follow all of it (cf. James 2:10). But you suggest a good reason of why we can look at the Old Testament:

This is God we're talking about here, and it IS a zero sum game. I can find no evidence in either the old nor the new testament that God is one to compromise. So if he said it in the old, it must be also be true in the new.

God is unchanging in His nature. But that does not mean that He could not change the law. As a matter of fact, He had to change the law: "For the priesthood being changed [from the sons of Aaron to Christ], there is made of necessity a change also of the law" (Heb. 7:12). The old law had to have different sacrifices, because they did not have Christ. They had to have a different priesthood, because they did not have Christ. They had to have a law to indicate their need for a Savior, since they did not have a Gospel that could tell them about one they already had. They also had a law which was intended partially to govern a civil nation, while the New Testament gives precepts to all people. And these differences demanded a law that, while morally very similar to the New Testament, also had many dissimilarities.