Obama Just Compared Christianity With Islam…At National Prayer Breakfast

[emilynghiem]

Steve_M actions and words prove that he is closer to a militant Muslim then a peaceful Christian.

I'm a conservative Christian, not a Muslim..

Hi Steve_McGarrett That's the whole point.

JakeStarkey and Obama are both saying that when you reject others judgmentally with condemnation,
you come across to them as the Jihadists who punish without due process to prove who is guilty of what.

You automatically act as judge jury and executioner and don't wait on God to judge but you assume and declare it so.
They are saying "on its face" how can you tell the difference between one group or the other issuing public judgments???

 

[Edgetho]

When he started rambling about Christianity and slavery in the past in America as compared to in the here and now slavery continuing every single day in far too many Islamic countries I wanted to bazooka barf.

The man is a complete and utter douche bag.

An insult to self-respecting douchebags everywhere

 

[emilynghiem]

Edgetho and Jroc are off topic.

Both are as bad as militiant IS, just afraid to act out their deepest hopes and desires.

Well the DIFFERENCE JakeStarkey
is that as fellow believers, if we follow the scripture and rebuke our neighbors in Christ,
then even these we least relate to can be reined back in.

So that is the difference, we are checked by laws we commit to follow in Christ,
and can use this authority to rebuke and redress abuses and resolve them.

 

[BlindBoo]

righteously drop bombs all across the middle east in the NAME OF CHRIST

Nah it's all in the name of Oil.

ie Mammon or Material Greed
instead of God or Greater Good for all humanity.

Okay. It's just business. That business is oil.

 

[tinydancer]

Channeling his Rev Wright..

..

"And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ."

Both the crusades and the Inquisition happened in the 13th Century or earlier, many hundreds of years before the establishment of the United States.

"In our own country, slavery, Jim crow, so often was justified in the name of Christ," Obama continued. And he mentioned the collision of faiths in India.

"So it's not unique to one group or one religion. There is a tendency in us -- a sinful tendency -- that can pervert and distort our faith."

Obama People Committed Terrible Deeds in the Name of Christ CNS News

As someone who is Jewish i have no problem with his statement, Christianity was a savage religion too to non christians in the dark ages in europe

We evolved thank heavens.

Other religions sadly have remained in the dark ages. And not just segments of the Islamic world like those that still love their Bacha bazi in Afghanistan or those that routinely practice slavery in the here and now.

Look at the Hindus in India and the caste system that still does exist.

So Obama and like minded assholes can kiss my ass for what happened centuries ago in Christianity.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Channeling his Rev Wright..

..

"And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ."

Both the crusades and the Inquisition happened in the 13th Century or earlier, many hundreds of years before the establishment of the United States.

"In our own country, slavery, Jim crow, so often was justified in the name of Christ," Obama continued. And he mentioned the collision of faiths in India.

"So it's not unique to one group or one religion. There is a tendency in us -- a sinful tendency -- that can pervert and distort our faith."

Obama People Committed Terrible Deeds in the Name of Christ CNS News

Such is the nature of the sub-human, OKA: Evil.

 

[BlindBoo]

Hojy toledo! I just heard clips of his speech on Hannity and I had freaking coffee shoot out my nose.

Hilarious Hannity clips? Hahahaha. Was it hot coffee?

Has he started up the Stop Hillary Express yet?

I think he helped Obama more than he hurt him.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keyes, you and some others here act as sub-human, yes.

 

[tinydancer]

Comparing Christianity and Islam?

Why that's absurd. That would be like comparing "stone" and "rock".
Any fool can see their invisible jealous sky pixies' names are spelled completely differently.

They have Christ in common don't you know?

 

[guno]

amazing he christianists think the annual prayer breakfast is for christers

 

[Pogo]

Comparing Christianity and Islam?

Why that's absurd. That would be like comparing "stone" and "rock".
Any fool can see their invisible jealous sky pixies' names are spelled completely differently.

They have Christ in common don't you know?

Actually I think they have Jesus in common. "Christ" is a title.

 

[emilynghiem]

This is where Emily's premise fails: "where is his ACKNOWLEDGEMENT that his health care bill passed "in the name of the law" violates the law, and by the party of choice and inclusion, instead "excludes free choice."

The law passed by the guidance of how we make laws under the Constitution.

That you dislike the law does not make it illegitimate.

Dear JakeStarkey and what you miss is the entire premise of the law
was already out of bound.

Even when laws were put through the prescribed process to
pass the "Defense of Marriage Act" the CONTENT of the law was unconstitutional.

So that should NEVER have passed, and to do so violated laws by abusing Govt this way.

It is NOT okay to commit robbery and then wait until after you get caught
and it gets charged and convicted in court to "prove" a crime was committed.
the crime was committed when it was FIRST DONE not when it is proven in court afterwards.

That's what is wrong with our system.

So rape and abuse can be prevented if we listen when people say NO.
We don't have to commit crimes by not realizing we are violating someone's consent and beliefs.

In the case of ACA mandates, there WERE beliefs being run over and these were ignored.
The objections were made, but were deliberately CHOSEN to be overruled by using the system.

The dissent was bypassed by doing things like
* presenting the bill as a "not a tax" so that it wasn't blocked but could get through Congress and have to
get to the Courts to check that decision
* but when it got to Courts, the winning argument was that it WAS a tax, but that's not how it passed through Congress

So the system of checks and balances was bypassed there

Also these beliefs were treated as expendable:
* belief that federal govt had no capacity to create this exchange and tax system because
of Amendment 10, and requires a Constitutional Amendment first
* belief by First and Fourteenth Amendment in people's liberties and state rights
even IF people don't believe in the other arguments.

So even IF people don't agree on political beliefs, then these beliefs
should be treated EQUALLY and not impose one or the other by laws.

What you showed me JakeStarkey is the same reason the pro-ACA side DEPENDS on govt
to tell them how to interpret law, this side does NOT have the ability to see or say the above argument.

This argument comes from the pro-liberty belief that people consent first, and then govt reflects that
and cannot impose on their BELIEFS or creed without CONSENT.

So you cannot even see the argument I am making because your beliefs preclude it.
That's how serious this conflict is.

It is like explaining the right to have colors to someone who is black/white color blind
and doesn't see that any choices, beliefs or freedom are lost by passing a law in black/white.

the whole process was flawed to begin with because
one side believed that Govt does have the right to pass a law like that in that format and procedures as used
and the other side protested from the start that federal govt cannot be used that way
but must have CONSENT of the people to do so, not just "majority rule vote to decide by Congress and Courts"

The freedom of the people to choose how to provide and pay for health care
is NOT the jurisdiction of the Congress and Courts to make except by CONSENSUS
because PERSONAL beliefs are involved that are not the role of govt.
and when this got put through govt, then these personal beliefs became political beliefs.

so that's even harder to separate once they've been injected into govt laws.

Like forcing a woman to have sex and a baby though she said NO I don't consent,
but not only is the sex forced on her, but once she is pregnant
then you are forcing her either to "go through abortion" or "go through child labor,"
when she never consented to sex or pregnancy in the first place.

The consent was never there to begin with
so the whole process was coerced and not by consent of the people affected by the policy.

No amount of saying the elected people did it and the vote was counted
and the court approved it. If the woman said NO the whole time, it isn't a consensual contract
and not binding. But once the woman is pregnant, then you put the burden on her to deal with that
which she objected to the whole time, but wasn't counted. Only the man pushing for the sex and baby counted.
The two sides in the interaction were not considered equally, where the woman did not even WANT the relationship
in the first place, much less the forced sex, pregnancy with the baby.

 

[emilynghiem]

amazing he christianists think the annual prayer breakfast is for christers

All people tribes and nations are supposed to be joined in Christ.
There is no contradiction there.

The US govt can be national as the one central authority
and still include all the States.

The UN can be the one global center and still include all the Nations.

Christianity is supposed to be the central connector among all the branches of one Tree.

Just like the Constitution is supposed to be the law of the law for all States.

And natural laws are supposed to be universal for all humanity and governance.

 

[Edgetho]

This is where Emily's premise fails: "where is his ACKNOWLEDGEMENT that his health care bill passed "in the name of the law" violates the law, and by the party of choice and inclusion, instead "excludes free choice."

The law passed by the guidance of how we make laws under the Constitution.

That you dislike the law does not make it illegitimate.

Dear JakeStarkey and what you miss is the entire premise of the law
was already out of bound.

Even when laws were put through the prescribed process to
pass the "Defense of Marriage Act" the CONTENT of the law was unconstitutional.

So that should NEVER have passed, and to do so violated laws by abusing Govt this way.

It is NOT okay to commit robbery and then wait until after you get caught
and it gets charged and convicted in court to "prove" a crime was committed.
the crime was committed when it was FIRST DONE not when it is proven in court afterwards.

That's what is wrong with our system.

So rape and abuse can be prevented if we listen when people say NO.
We don't have to commit crimes by not realizing we are violating someone's consent and beliefs.

In the case of ACA mandates, there WERE beliefs being run over and these were ignored.
The objections were made, but were deliberately CHOSEN to be overruled by using the system.

The dissent was bypassed by doing things like
* presenting the bill as a "not a tax" so that it wasn't blocked but could get through Congress and have to
get to the Courts to check that decision
* but when it got to Courts, the winning argument was that it WAS a tax, but that's not how it passed through Congress

So the system of checks and balances was bypassed there

Also these beliefs were treated as expendable:
* belief that federal govt had no capacity to create this exchange and tax system because
of Amendment 10, and requires a Constitutional Amendment first
* belief by First and Fourteenth Amendment in people's liberties and state rights
even IF people don't believe in the other arguments.

So even IF people don't agree on political beliefs, then these beliefs
should be treated EQUALLY and not impose one or the other by laws.

What you showed me JakeStarkey is the same reason the pro-ACA side DEPENDS on govt
to tell them how to interpret law, this side does NOT have the ability to see or say the above argument.

This argument comes from the pro-liberty belief that people consent first, and then govt reflects that
and cannot impose on their BELIEFS or creed without CONSENT.

So you cannot even see the argument I am making because your beliefs preclude it.
That's how serious this conflict is.

It is like explaining the right to have colors to someone who is black/white color blind
and doesn't see that any choices, beliefs or freedom are lost by passing a law in black/white.

the whole process was flawed to begin with because
one side believed that Govt does have the right to pass a law like that in that format and procedures as used
and the other side protested from the start that federal govt cannot be used that way
but must have CONSENT of the people to do so, not just "majority rule vote to decide by Congress and Courts"

The freedom of the people to choose how to provide and pay for health care
is NOT the jurisdiction of the Congress and Courts to make except by CONSENSUS
because PERSONAL beliefs are involved that are not the role of govt.
and when this got put through govt, then these personal beliefs became political beliefs.

so that's even harder to separate once they've been injected into govt laws.

Like forcing a woman to have sex and a baby though she said NO I don't consent,
but not only is the sex forced on her, but once she is pregnant
then you are forcing her either to "go through abortion" or "go through child labor,"
when she never consented to sex or pregnancy in the first place.

The consent was never there to begin with
so the whole process was coerced and not by consent of the people affected by the policy.

No amount of saying the elected people did it and the vote was counted
and the court approved it. If the woman said NO the whole time, it isn't a consensual contract
and not binding. But once the woman is pregnant, then you put the burden on her to deal with that
which she objected to the whole time, but wasn't counted. Only the man pushing for the sex and baby counted.
The two sides in the interaction were not considered equally, where the woman did not even WANT the relationship
in the first place, much less the forced sex, pregnancy with the baby.

Allow me to summarize........

dimocraps are lying scum

 

[emilynghiem]

Comparing Christianity and Islam?

Why that's absurd. That would be like comparing "stone" and "rock".
Any fool can see their invisible jealous sky pixies' names are spelled completely differently.

They have Christ in common don't you know?

Actually I think they have Jesus in common. "Christ" is a title.

Yes Pogo
All people seek God's Perfect Justice which is what Jesus represents.
The difference is whether we invoke the Retributive side of Justice and get what we give by Retribution back and forth.
Or we invoke the Restorative side of Justice and submit equally to restore good faith relations together to correct wrongs.

One is Antichrist, the other is Christ Jesus.

The Muslims who practice peace and justice can be abused
by an EXTREME form of Jihadist/Islamist militants which is Antichrist.
The Christians who practice justice with mercy can be abused
by an EXTREME form of Zionist or Armageddon/Apocalyptic cults that are Antichrist.

The Jews Christians and Muslims who follow the laws
and unite in Christ can check against abuses.
Together, they can do more to stop the violent extremists who invoke Retribution and
go against the meaning and purpose of Christ Jesus or Restorative Justice,

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The OP is a lie.

 

[Freewill]

Americans are not Christians but are satanic-cultists.

Christ's church doesn't close 6 days a week and open only one day to collect money.

And My guess is that you think "church" is a building.

 

[emilynghiem]

He wasn't off-topic

Whats that have to do with comparing Christians to radical islamist nutjobs? are Christians chopping off people's heads? Maybe i missed it

You can't complain about Obama's comparisons when Americans are satan worshipping fascists and don't know the first thing about Christ while they righteously drop bombs all across the middle east in the NAME OF CHRIST causing reprisals against Christ's church in the Dar-es-Salam.

You satanists are killing Christians.

Dear ChristOrthodox
If you want people to see the distinction between true and false Christians,
it might help to make a distinction between helpful and hurtful Americans.

If you call all Americans as satanists
how is that different from calling all Christians greedy Crusaders
or all Muslims as terrorist Jihadists.

Remove the beam from your own eye first,
and then you can see how to help your neighbors with theirs!

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Always the sniveling apologist.....twas expected

 

[emilynghiem]

Edgetho, if you don't have something worthy to offer, then you are simply a piece of used toilet paper.

Yes, Christians have a real problem with pedophilia as do the Muslims.

Eat shit scumbag. There is no comparison; and only a shit eating piece of filth like you would compare Christianity to the goat-fucking ragheads that rape little girls AND little boys every single day for fun without even the fear of prosecution in their own Countries

You are truly a piece of fucking shit

Hi Edgetho
What people of all groups have in common is we ERR when we fail to FORGIVE one another
and then project the blame elsewhere.

Of course the degrees of abuse and torture/killing are NOT comparable.

What is comparable is the root cause which is unforgiveness.

When Hitler had Unforgiveness against Jews blamed for greed, this motivated the Holocaust.

Does it MATTER what Hitler's denomination was?

If there is Unforgiveness and RETRIBUTION this is what can spread like a mob contagion.

What Obama failed to credit is that the point of Christianity is to CURE the seeds of unforgiveness.
But at least he started by pointing out the PROBLEM is common to all tribes,
though he should have explained it more and NOT taken one side over the other
which shows his OWN bias and causes divisive reactions.

If you can FORGIVE that, then you can show where Christianity has authority
by divine forgiveness that breaks the cycle of retribution regardless which group started it.

Christianity is supposed to bring the unity to FINISH it.