Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Should pastors preach such words from the pulpit?

Should a pastor preach such words from the pulpit?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$1,048.00
Goal
$1,038.00
vic C. said:
Personally, I DO NOT want anyone in that Office who may have ties with our enemy. There is enough going in the political world already. :-?

I don't think any of the three candidates have any ties with the enemy, other than perhaps if we follow the money trail, it would lead to some pretty shady people and organizations. (It always does.) My problem with the three candidates is that while they probably would seek America's best interests in the way they genuinely feel they should do, I doubt any of them will be effective and keeping American safe from enemies. Obama's vision is to be the great diplomat of the world, able to smooth all paths and unite old enemies; Clinton and McCain are compromisers. What we need today is someone like Reagan or JFK, someone who has the finesse to be popular both nationwide and world-wide, yet have the strength and determination to stand and stand tough against adversaries both here and abroad. Bush has the strength and determination, but doesn't have the finesse. Bill Clinton had the finesse, but not the strength and determination.

Out of the three this time around, McCain is probably the best bet for foreign policy, but I don't see him being all that strong.

Sadly, this election seems to be shaping up to be a pick over which one won't get America so far into the toidy that we can't get out. If the Republican's make a come-back in Congress, then McCain probably would be a lot stronger President. That's unlikely though, and with a Democrat congress, Clinton is probably a better choice than Obama.

Partial birth abortion is the law of the land now. The only way it would come back is if the Democrat congress decides to rewrite the law and allow for it. If the Dems gain even more seats in Congress and decide to go for this, they would probably have enough votes to over-ride any veto by McCain anyway.
 
vic C said:
You are always looking for some sort of empirical proof while most of us rely on our spiritual discernment.
I am merely calling people on it when they speculate. And we both know that one cannot, legitimately anyway, claim a "spiritual discernment" defense when one is clearly abusing principles of fair and right thinking. And as I hope you know, I am not accusing you of this.

One of the very dangerous temptations that the Christian often falls for is the belief that they no longer need to do the hard and unpleasant work of actually making a rational and sound case. There are no shortcuts here - we still need to think and be responsible and back up assertions with with reasonable evidence - or at least make it clear that one's position is pure speculation.
 
vic C. said:
You can't vote here, but whoever gets in can and will affect you in one way or another.
I could not agree with you more - who becomes US president deeply affects Canada (and the world). And if I could vote in the Democratic primaries, I would pick Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. I do not think Obama is experienced enough for the job. Even though Clinton seems more like an - ugh - politician, I would choose her because she is older and because she appears to have more experience. Plus, I think Obama gets too much mileage out of his charisma. I distrust charisma and will take experience over it every day.

But I think that the connection to Wright is pretty wobbly and I would not be surprised if Clinton and McCain both have connections to equally shady people - who doesn't have a whack-job either in the family or in one's circle of movement.[/quote]
 
vic C. said:
Personally, I DO NOT want anyone in that Office who may have ties with our enemy. There is enough going in the political world already. :-?
Let's suppose that George Bush (the son) was allowed to run again. There are allegations of a connection between the Bush family and the bin Laden family. Would such "ties" with the enemy count against Mr. Bush as far as your vote would be concerned? I see no reason to have any more confidence in the Obama-Wright connection than in the Bush-bin Laden connection. From the point of view of the typical citizen, both connections are murky and ill-defined. True, we know Obama has a direct and tangible connection to Wright. But I still think there is oodles of speculation here as to the nature of that connection.
 
Well, if my pastor were ranting things like murdering people because of their race from the pulpit, and I continued to sit there and listen and allow that person to be my adviser-- it would definitely say something about my character and lack of good judgment. IMO

But then again, if I were making it as easy as I could, through legislation, to kill the unborn-- that would say something about my character too, eh. :-?
 
You know, after hearing all about this, (ad nauseam, gosh is there ANY thing else going on in the world?) and listening to the kudos and the kranks about Obama's speech yesterday, and thinking the whole thing through, I decided, I'm not giving him a pass on this one, after all.

For one thing, if John McCain's pastor was something akin to a KKK'er, McCain would never ever get a pass. I'm tired of the double standards.

Secondly, like you Destiny, if my pastor was ranting like this, for an extended period of time (not just having some kind of event driven 'off' day), I too would walk out and not turn back.

I not only would, I actually have. I was door-to-door witnessing once and we we're inviting the unchurched to come visit our church. When we knocked on the door of a black man, I was flabbergasted to hear the person I was witnessing with encourage the man to visit a different church in the city!?!

If little ole' me, a houswife in Idaho, can figure out that some things just are plain wrong, surely the man seeking the highest office in the world should be able to.
 
.

Obama church published
Hamas terror manifesto

Compares charter calling for murder
of Jews to Declaration of Independence


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 20, 2008
12:45 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily


JERUSALEM – Sen. Barack Obama's Chicago church reprinted a manifesto by Hamas that defended terrorism as legitimate resistance, refused to recognize the right of Israel to exist and compared the terror group's official charter – which calls for the murder of Jews – to America's Declaration of Independence.

The Hamas piece was published on the "Pastor's Page" of the Trinity United Church of Christ newsletter reserved for Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., whose anti-American, anti-Israel remarks landed Obama in hot water, prompting the presidential candidate to deliver a major race speech earlier this week.


marzookga6.th.jpg

Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook

Hamas, responsible for scores of shootings, suicide bombings and rocket launchings against civilian population centers, is listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department.

The revelation follows a recent WND article quoting Israeli security officials who expressed "concern" about Robert Malley, an adviser to Obama who has advocated negotiations with Hamas and providing international assistance to the terrorist group.

In his July 22, 2007, church bulletin, Wright reprinted an article by Mousa Abu Marzook, identified in the newsletter as a "deputy of the political bureau of Hamas." A photo image of the newsletter was captured and posted today by the business blog BizzyBlog. The Hamas piece was first published by the Los Angeles Times, garnering the newspaper much criticism.


According to senior Israeli security officials, Marzook, who resides in Syria alongside Hamas chieftain Khaled Meshaal, is considered the "brains" behind Hamas, designing much of the terror group's policies and ideology. Israel possesses what it says is a large volume of specific evidence that Marzook has been directly involved in calling for or planning scores of Hamas terrorist offensives, including deadly suicide bombings. He was also accused of attempting to set up a Hamas network in the U.S.

Marzook's original piece was titled, "Hamas' stand" but was re-titled "A Fresh View of the Palestinian Struggle" by Obama's church newsletter. The newsletter also referred to Hamas as the "Islamic Resistance Movement," and added in its introduction that Marzook was addressing Hamas' goals for "all of Palestine."

In the manifesto, Marzook refers to Hamas' "resistance" – the group's perpetuation of anti-Israel terrorism targeting civilians – as "legal resistance," which, he argues, is "explicitly supported by the Fourth Geneva Convention."

The Convention, which refers to the rights of people living under occupation, does not support suicide bombings or rocket attacks against civilian population centers, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America noted.

Marzook refers to Hamas' official charter as "an essentially revolutionary document" and compares the violent creed to the Declaration of Independence, which, Marzook states, "simply did not countenance any such status for the 700,000 African slaves at that time."

Hamas' charter calls for the murder of Jews. Among its platforms is a statement that the "[resurrection] will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them, and the rock and the tree will say: 'Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, kill him!'"

In his piece, Marzook says Hamas only targets Israel and denies that Hamas' war is meant to be waged against the U.S., even though Hamas officials have threatened America, and Hamas' charter calls for Muslims to "pursue the cause of the Movement (Hamas), all over the globe."

Trinity Church did not respond to a phone message requesting comment.

Obama's campaign also did not reply to phone and e-mail requests today for comment.


source: wnd.com


.
 
.

Obama church published
Hamas terror manifesto

Compares charter calling for murder
of Jews to Declaration of Independence
I must speak out yet again in response to such reprehensible material. Surely the body of Christ is not called to sink to such misleading and irresponsible rhetoric.

I do not challenge the claim that the church published this manifesto.

And I have no sympathy for terrorism.

And I do not deny that perhaps Mr. Obama should have been more vocal in rebuking the church.

But the kind of "sloganeering" expressed in the above is sad and unfortunate. For starters, the expression "Obama church" subtly (or perhaps not so subtly) suggests that the views of the church line up with those of Mr. Obama on the Hamas matter. We do not know this. So to use the expression "Obama church" is like referring to Mr. Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama" - they are both misleading and highty rhetorical.

And we get more of the same with the sub-text "Compares charter calling for murder
of Jews to Declaration of Independence". There is a rather clear attempt to smear Mr. Obama with the stink of anti-semitism.

Those who resort to such rhetoric will, no doubt, protest innocence - claiming that there are no "untruths" in such a headline. This is true in a strictly technical sense. But any of us who have lived in this world a while know what is going on here.

I cannot strictly define what constitutes misleading rhetoric.

But, as they say, I know it when I see it.
 
The revelation follows a recent WND article quoting Israeli security officials who expressed "concern" about Robert Malley, an adviser to Obama who has advocated negotiations with Hamas and providing international assistance to the terrorist group.
Let's explore this a little bit. If indeed Mr. Malley really is an adviser to Mr. Obama - not in the soft sense of being someone that has merely interacted with Mr. Obama - but actually an adviser in the sense we normally use this word, then presumably there is evidence of this.

When people read "Mr Malley is an advisor to Mr. Obama", a certain kind of relationship pops to mind. I trust you do not object if I ask for some of the details so that the reader can judge the nature of this relationship?
 
.

Obama's church founded on radical creed
April 1, 2008
By S.A. Miller -

The church where Sen. Barack Obama has worshipped for two decades publicly declares that its ministry is founded on a 1960s book that espouses "the destruction of the white enemy."

Trinity United Church of Christ's Web site says its teachings are based on the black liberation theology of James H. Cone and his 1969 book "Black Theology and Black Power."

"What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love," Mr. Cone wrote in the book.

Mr. Cone, a professor at the Union Theological Seminary in New York, added that "black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy."

Mr. Obama's campaign, which for weeks has weathered criticism about inflammatory racial language by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. at Trinity, said the candidate "vehemently disagrees" with those tenets.

"It's absurd to suggest that he or anyone should be held responsible for every quote in every book read by a member of their church," said Obama spokesman Reid Cherlin.

"Barack Obama is not a theologian, and what he learned in church is to love Jesus Christ and work on behalf of his fellow man, regardless of race, class or circumstance. This is a faulty and disingenuous approach to a church, and a flawed way to judge a candidate," he said.

Mr. Obama has been a member of Trinity, on Chicago's South Side, since finding religion there 20 years ago under Mr. Wright's mentorship. Mr. Wright married the Obamas and baptized their children, and a sermon of his inspired Mr. Obama to title his book "The Audacity of Hope."

There is no evidence to date in any of Mr. Obama's public comments or speeches that he espouses the radical features of the black liberation theology practiced at his church.

Critics say Trinity's message verges on separatist philosophy and at the very least advocates exclusively for blacks.

"The liberation theology and the black-values system to which his membership ascribe is a clear commitment to the social and spiritual enhancement of only the black race," the Rev. Corey J. Hodges, who is black, wrote last year in the Salt Lake Tribune. "Even more troubling is Wright's use of the pulpit to perpetuate racial division."

For years, Mr. Wright delivered sermons and endorsed articles in the church bulletin that called the United States and Israel racist regimes.

The bulletin's "pastor's page" included essays that said Israel and South Africa "worked on an ethnic bomb that kills blacks and Arabs," compared Israel to Nazi Germany and quoted leaders of the terrorist group Hamas calling Israel a "deformed modern apartheid state."

In a bulletin last year, Mr. Wright lashed out at the news media for scrutinizing the church, blaming "racist United States of America" and "white arrogance" for distracting the country from more important issues, such as the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina victims.

The church declined to comment for this article, but the Rev. Otis Moss III, the church's junior pastor, who took over for Mr. Wright, wrote in the bulletin in October that media conglomerates "operate with contempt and disdain for the black community, women, and people of the African Diaspora."

Conrad Worrill, a leader of the Chicago-based National Black United Front, said attention directed at Trinity United demonstrates that racist attitudes persist in the United States.

"Even if [Mr. Obama] did support some of the tenets of some of the ideas embedded in that theology, I still don't think it has anything to do with his vision and his candidacy," said Mr. Worrill, whose organization promotes black political and cultural education and activism.

"I think most black people would agree that what Jeremiah Wright said is the truth. ... What we see playing out on the public stage is how black people still see America and the world and how white people cannot see the truth. It has nothing to do with Barack Obama."

Mr. Wright, who recently retired as the church's pastor after 36 years, defended Trinity's religious views in "talking points" posted on the church's Web site (http://www.tucc.org).

"To have a church whose theological perspective starts from the vantage point of Black liberation theology being its center, is not to say that African or African-American people are superior to anyone else," he said.

Mr. Cone recently told Forbes magazine that he doesn't know how much Mr. Obama knows about black-liberation theology.

"I've read both of Barack Obama's books, and I heard the speech [on race]. I don't see anything in the books or in the speech that contradicts black liberation theology. If he had it explained to him, I think he would [understand it]," he said.

Mr. Cone calls his own teachings a fusion of teachings of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King.

In a debate last month with his rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Mr. Obama rejected the church's decision last year to honor Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who is known for anti-Semitic remarks.

The senator also disavowed some of Mr. Wright's racist sermons after they were publicized in video clips on television and the Internet and on talk radio.

But in a March 18 speech on race, Mr. Obama said he could not sever ties with the pastor. He said Mr. Wright is like family and that the pastor's outlook is scarred by civil rights struggles of the 1960s.

Mr. Obama said he was unaware until last month that his longtime spiritual mentor and friend used incendiary racist rhetoric in his sermons, such as denouncing the "U.S. of KKKA" and proclaiming, "God damn America."

Mr. Obama said rants against whites were never part of the Sunday services he attended.

"I don't purchase all the DVDs [of Mr. Wright's sermons], and I didn't read all the church bulletins," Mr. Obama said Friday on ABC's "The View." "It's not to excuse it."

Mr. Obama said his mixed-race heritage  his mother was white and his father black  gives him a unique vantage point from which to help bridge the nation's racial divides.

"The church itself, though, is a wonderful, welcoming church. And if you guys went there on a Sunday, you would feel right at home," he told the panelists on TV's "The View," most of them white. "You would see people talking about Jesus, and mercy, and sin, and family ... and forgiveness."

"That doesn't excuse what [Mr. Wright] said, but I do think it's important just to put it in context."

The Rev. Jane Fisler Hoffman, a member of Trinity who serves as a pastor in Southern California, said the Chicago church does not follow a radical doctrine, despite the angry words of Mr. Cone's treatise.

"It may have had some influence on what unfolded, but [Trinity] is a wonderful church, not a separatist church," said Mrs. Hoffman, who is white. "Anyone who tries to paint the church as hateful would be missing the mark."

OBAMA"S CHURCH

The following is doctrine of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, where Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. Barack Obama has been a member since finding religion there 20 years ago.

Motto: Unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian.

Official statement: Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

First tenet of the black values system: Commitment to God.

" 'The God of our weary years' will give us the strength to give up prayerful passivism and become Black Christian Activists, soldiers for Black freedom and the dignity of all humankind."

Source: Trinity United Church of Christ


~End of Article ~

article source: washington times
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------






Booker T Washington said:
bookertft1.th.jpg


" There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his greivances because they do not want to lose their jobs. "
Click Here for Complete Book

from My Larger Education, 1911
by Booker T. Washington



========================

"No race can prosper till it learns that there is as much dignity in tilling a field as in writing a poem. It is at the bottom of life we must begin, and not at the top. Nor should we permit our grievances to overshadow our opportunities."
Click Here for Complete Book

from Up From Slavery, 1901
by Booker T. Washington

.
 
Relic said:
.

Obama's church founded on radical creed
April 1, 2008
By S.A. Miller -

The church where Sen. Barack Obama has worshipped for two decades publicly declares that its ministry is founded on a 1960s book that espouses "the destruction of the white enemy."
While the above headline and the introductory statement may be true, it is deeply misleading. Once again, Relic has posted such material which attempts to use such rhetorical sloganeering to smear Mr. Obama. Criticizing Mr. Obama is indeed fair game, but an obedient Christian will not be resorting to the tactic of posting such material. One of the problems is that the reader will see the headline and the first few lines and recieve the message "Mr. Obama supports destruction of white people". And, of course, there is no evidence for this at all.

Note what is said deeper in the article:

Mr. Obama's campaign, which for weeks has weathered criticism about inflammatory racial language by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. at Trinity, said the candidate "vehemently disagrees" with those tenets.

"It's absurd to suggest that he or anyone should be held responsible for every quote in every book read by a member of their church," said Obama spokesman Reid Cherlin.

"Barack Obama is not a theologian, and what he learned in church is to love Jesus Christ and work on behalf of his fellow man, regardless of race, class or circumstance. This is a faulty and disingenuous approach to a church, and a flawed way to judge a candidate," he said.

and this:

There is no evidence to date in any of Mr. Obama's public comments or speeches that he espouses the radical features of the black liberation theology practiced at his church.
So it is clear that Mr. Obama has disavowed the controversial racial teachings. Is that implied in the headline and the first paragraph? No it is not. And that is the problem.

I trust that readers will see what's going on here. We have a headline that is deeply, deeply misleading and irresponsible, since it implies that Mr. Obama is a racist. Now the writer of the headline or the person who posted this article may well object that the headline is factually true. And it may well be.

But you all should know that this is not the point. We all know what the headline is implying. And while the headline might be true, the implication that Mr. Obama is a racist has no evidence to support it.

More irresponsible "contributions" to the discussion of the presidential election.
 
The material that Relic posted would be irresponsible enough without the use of the bolding and the underlining. Note how particularly inflammatory statements are rendered in bold. It is interesting that none of the statements from the Obama camp disavowing the racist position are likewise bolded.

Why do you suppose that is?

Perhaps because whoever added the bolding and the underlining wants to draw your attention to the unsavoury claims about the church while hoping you will not see the "non-bolded" stuff where Mr. Obama distances himself from such positions.

Relic said:
.

Obama's church founded on radical creed
April 1, 2008
By S.A. Miller -

The church where Sen. Barack Obama has worshipped for two decades publicly declares that its ministry is founded on a 1960s book that espouses "the destruction of the white enemy."

Trinity United Church of Christ's Web site says its teachings are based on the black liberation theology of James H. Cone and his 1969 book "Black Theology and Black Power."

"What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love," Mr. Cone wrote in the book.

Mr. Cone, a professor at the Union Theological Seminary in New York, added that "black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy."

Mr. Obama's campaign, which for weeks has weathered criticism about inflammatory racial language by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. at Trinity, said the candidate "vehemently disagrees" with those tenets.

"It's absurd to suggest that he or anyone should be held responsible for every quote in every book read by a member of their church," said Obama spokesman Reid Cherlin.

"Barack Obama is not a theologian, and what he learned in church is to love Jesus Christ and work on behalf of his fellow man, regardless of race, class or circumstance. This is a faulty and disingenuous approach to a church, and a flawed way to judge a candidate," he said.
 
Drew YOUR inferences are YOUR OWN. What you make out of these articles is YOUR OWN OPINION.

IF you choose to pick apart these articles by pointing out 'suppositions" that YOU think up in your mind and then act as if I'm trying to smear Obama by doing so, that's YOUR OPINION.

IF I belong to a church for 20 years and had to listen to sermons and abide by "the churches" doctrines THAT would say a whole lot about me. IF I didn't agree with the "DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH" I would NOT continue to attend that church for 20 years.

MY CHURCH is a representation and IS characteristic of MY BELIEFS. I don't know about YOU DREW, but I attend a church because I AM A MEMBER. When I AM A MEMBER of anything, I CALL IT MY CHURCH, MY CLUB, MY GROUP. When I say I belong to a certain group, or organization, I DO NOT DENY ANYONE referring to it as "RELIC'S CHURCH" or, RELIC'S GROUP, or RELIC'S CLUB.

IF I belong to a church or any organization for 20 years. I am going to know a whole lot about that church, it's doctrine and about the type of preaching and teaching that takes place. I WOULD CALL IT "MY CHURCH" and anyone would refer to it as being "Relic's Church". Can't deny that!

You Drew are once again, drawing straws in order to disassociate Obama from his association with this HIS CHURCH. The article never said Obama believes what YOU are saying the article is INFERRING. It' ain't working Drew. Of course the article states what Obama said about certain thing, but YOU DREW make up your own inferences that the article is smearing Obama because it refers to THAT Church as being Obama's Church. The article states truth and makes no inferences. However, If truth smears the face of what is fact within that church then so be it.

.
edited for spell check
 
I can see both sides of this issue. Media driven campaign scandals are an unfortunate part of the game these days, and I see the "Obama's church scandel" as just that, media driven.

However, as with most of these media driven scandals, from Monica, to Bush's National Guard duty, to the Swift Boat Veteran's, these things work simply because there is truth behind them. (Well, we all found out that there was no truth about the letter regarding Bush's National Guard duty.)

It is truth: Obama has been voluntarily associate with a racist church for over 20 years now. The pastor who is a vehemet rascist, has been a close friend and mentor of Obama's, to the point that Obama titled his book after one of the man's sermons.

Everyone will have to decide for themself wether or not this impacts Obama's ability to be President.

Me? Racism is racism and it's wrong. I don't want a President who will tolerate it. If a President is willing to overlook racism for other reasons, then what else is he willing to overlook.
 
I had the pleasure of watching Sen. McCain on David Letterman last night. Somehow they got on the subject of Mike Huckabee. John McCain mentioned that during one debate, Mike was asked a question; the question was:

"What would Jesus do". Mike's response was "I believe Jesus would be smart enough to not run for political office."

;-)
 
Relic said:
Drew YOUR inferences are YOUR OWN. What you make out of these articles is YOUR OWN OPINION.
Incorrect. You are responsible for the misleading ideas that you are attempting to place in people's mind. You are doing here what all skilled rhetoricians do - they carefully craft a message "M" that clearly conveys a certain idea "X", yet without ever explicitly stating this idea. Instead, they leave themselves the "out" of saying "I never said X, so if you think I am saying X, that is your "interpretation".

That is what is so dangerous about your posts. You indeed can truthfully say "I never said Obama was a racist". Indeed you did not. But we all know that this is precisely your intent.

People cannot (legitimately anyway) craft a propaganda message "M" that conveys the idea "X" and then blame the recipient of the message for concluding that X is the case.

Suppose that on September 12, 2001, someone gets up in front of a crowd of Americans and says "Fred here has spent a lot of time in mosques, mosques that promote attacks on America. Some of Fred's friends go to such mosques, etc. etc."

An angry crowd then beats Fred to a pulp.

Did the speaker tell the crowd to beat up Fred? No he did not. But he knows what he is doing. He is clearly inciting the crowd to beat up Fred. He knows that the crowd is spoiling for revenge (understandably perhaps).

You simply have no solid reason to justify the message you are trying to send with these posts. It is true that it is indeed fair to inquire as to the nature of the nature of Mr. Obama's relation to the church. But a Christian approach to this is to be open to the very real possibility that Mr. Obama was constructively engaged in this church despite its shortcomings.

You cannot claim innocence here and "blame" the reader for the inferences that you are clearly leading him/ her to make.
 
handy said:
It is truth: Obama has been voluntarily associate with a racist church for over 20 years now. The pastor who is a vehemet rascist, has been a close friend and mentor of Obama's, to the point that Obama titled his book after one of the man's sermons.
All this is true. But, as usual, more information is needed to reach a responsible conclusion. Any person or group we choose to associate with probably has a dark side. If we wanted to escape the "guilt by association" tomahawk that Relic is wielding, we would have no friends at all and live on a desert island.

If you are going to be involved in real life and not take the Amish "escape route", you are going to be involved with fallen people. We should not too easily assume the worst about such involvments - that they drag us down into sin. Instead we should investigate to find out whether such associations are indeed a problem. Just because you consort with sinners, this doesn't necessarily make you one.

I think we all know someone who ate and drank with sinners and yet did not fall.
 
Drew, you're being extreme, You are inciting, not me. so it is YOU who is doing the implanting by your accusations , as if YOU KNOW the directive of my posting the article. YOU are attacking me personally! and THAT is totally out of line!

No Drew, YOU are responsible for the misleading ideas that YOU are attempting to place in people's mind. I only posted the article, YOU are the one who is taking this to the extreme by insinuating I am like someone who is inciting a riot. How absurd! :lol: It is YOU who is doing just that by bringing up all kinds of things YOU SAY are there behind the article. When IN FACT DREW. The article is stating truth, And YOU are the one taking this way out off in left field.


I just posted an article about Obama's church, it's doctrine, what the preacher said. I stated clearly how someone who is involved with a church for 20 years makes one wonder why would anyone stay in such a church for 20 years. If I was in a church for 20 years I would be greatly influenced by what has been going on in that church. The articles do not say Obama professes, but the clearly state that Obama has denied much of what Wright has said. And as far as the doctrine of the church? Well, that's up to Obama to say what he thinks of it. All I know, Drew, is that IF I stayed in a church for over 20 years, I'd question the doctrine, and I'd pay close attention to what the pastor of that church is preaching and teaching.

And stop insisting that YOU know what I am inferring just because I posted an article that speaks the truth! You attack the messenger, rather than the content of the message, of which, by the way, is totally true article. YOU have no idea of why I post any article, and all you can do to defend your side is to bash me for posting articles. I provide information, and yet you continually attack me on a personal basis each and every time. Shame on you! Stick to the subject and stop throwing your personal attacks at me. If you don't like what is posted then disprove it yourself rather than attacking me personally which only sways the attention away from the topic! Stick to the TOPIC! And STOP ATTACKING ME PERSONALLY just because I posted an article that speaks truth about Obama's church!



.
 
Back
Top