Obama apparently does not know the Holy Bible well at all. If he did, he would immediately be able to cite the passages that say "And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." -- ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 16:31 (King James Version) and JOHN 14:6 (King James Version) "Jesus saith unto him, I Am The Way, The Truth, and The Life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me."

Obama does not mention being BORN AGAIN (does he even know what that means?), a very important factor in attaining Salvation and Heaven after one's passage from this earthly life, as all Christians know. Again, he lacks the knowledge of what actually gets people into Heaven. "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be Born Again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." -- JOHN 3:3 (King James Version) So, it appears that Obama is misinformed about the Christian faith if he does not fully recognize these very important Scriptures that speak to us on what it takes to be Saved. He is very wrong if he is teaching people that one need not Believe in Jesus Christ in order to be Saved and that all they have to be is "good", as Scriptures in the Holy Bible say Belief in Jesus and becoming Born Again are the most essential elements in Salvation!

Obama contends belief in Jesus Christ not necessary for salvation (OneNewsNow.com) (http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=73553)

To each his own. If that is what he believes then all the best to him. Heavy topic. Politics And religion don't mix very well.

As a matter of fact, those who do good works, not necessarily in the name of god, but for their own peace of mind will find their own salvation.

To each his own. If that is what he believes then all the best to him. Heavy topic. Politics And religion dont mix very well.

Except that Obama is purporting to be a Christian. That's where this comes into play. If he left religion completely out of his politicking, then it might not affect him as much, politically speaking, but he continues to say he is not Muslim that he is Christian. Therefore, he needs to show us that indeed he understands the Christian basics for Salvation otherwise it's just talk on his part.

As a matter of fact, those who do good works, not necessarily in the name of god, but for their own peace of mind will find their own salvation.

In another belief system or religion perhaps. But if one is a true follower of the Christian faith then Belief in Jesus Christ and His important role in Salvation of mankind coupled with becoming Born Again is essential to Salvation and Heaven. This is not just my opinion but incontrovertible Biblical Fact.

In Christianity there are many opinions as to being born again, is this their baptism, is this their confirmation, is this their speaking in tounges, there are denomination within Christianity that accept each of those as being born again.

Assuming their Baptist Church teaches the basics of the Baptist Church, then he would have at one point went forward to accept Christ and be baptised and became a church member.

As for quotes, I doubt most church members can quote chapter and verse, they can tell you what the beleifs are.

And he has been a member of a Baptist church for how many years? This may not make him save but then 1/2 of church members are not saved, they are church members, But by US meanings belonging to a christian church makes them a christian. It is not in God's eyes but in mans.

But really so if he is a muslim, his religion has little to do with his leadership,

Now look at the facts easy to prove that should scare everyone, he is the most liberal member of Congress, his programs would bankrupt American and his tax programs would hurt all of the working class and small busienss people.

Now look at the facts easy to prove that should scare everyone, he is the most liberal member of Congress, his programs would bankrupt American and his tax programs would hurt all of the working class and small busienss people.

Good points!

Let me add that he is the candidate that Hamas Supports! That scares me more than anything, Hamas wants Obama, DUH? Wonder what that could mean?

Really though, when it comes right down to it, if you are a conservative, we have NO good choice for this election. Sad but True.

Really though, when it comes right down to it, if you are a conservative, we have NO good choice for this election. Sad but True.
I'm not sad at all. I'm delighted. This situation is the appropriate outcome, and a direct result of the damage done by so-called conservatives. The fact that John McCain could get the Republican nomination ought to tell you something about the depth of support for conservative ideology among even the Republican electorate. The religious right and the neocons WAY overplayed their hand, and they richly deserve the smackdown they're getting.

As far as Obama's religious beliefs, or lack thereof, here's what Article VI of the Constitution says about it:
no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.I doubt if you'd vote for him even if he believed just like you do about what's necessary for salvation.

I understand the constitution, but, it was written before men, women, and children started strapping bombs to themselves in order to kill innocent people who believe differently then they do. It was written before airplanes could be crashed into skyscrapers, or a single bomb could wipe out a huge populated area, killing millions of, again, innocent people.

Much has changed in this world since the constitution was written, the founders were not clairvoyant and could not foresee our world as it exists today. I'm confident that had they been able to, we would have a much different document than exists today.

I understand the constitution, but, it was written before men, women, and children started strapping bombs to themselves in order to kill innocent people who believe differently then they do. It was written before airplanes could be crashed into skyscrapers, or a single bomb could wipe out a huge populated area, killing millions of, again, innocent people.

Much has changed in this world since the constitution was written, the founders were not clairvoyant and could not foresee our world as it exists today. I'm confident that had they been able to, we would have a much different document than exists today.
Which parts of the Constitution do you think have been rendered obsolete by modern conditions? Do you think religious tests should be allowed (required?) for public service? Should only (properly vetted) Christians be allowed to serve? What else needs changing?

We see the Constitution has to change, we have had many admendments to it over time. And there will be more as it has to change to protect society

[QUOTE=ordinaryguy]I'm not sad at all. I'm delighted. This situation is the appropriate outcome, and a direct result of the damage done by so-called conservatives. The fact that John McCain could get the Republican nomination ought to tell you something about the depth of support for conservative ideology among even the Republican electorate. The religious right and the neocons WAY overplayed their hand, and they richly deserve the smackdown they're getting.

I just wonder how much of McCain's success is owed to DEMOCRATS crossing over to vote for him the early primaries, as they viewed him as either the easiest Repub. To defeat or the easiest to live with if he wins? All the people I would have preferred were out of the race before I had a chance to vote! How many of you feel the same?

[QUOTE=ordinaryguy]I'm not sad at all. I'm delighted. This situation is the appropriate outcome, and a direct result of the damage done by so-called conservatives. The fact that John McCain could get the Republican nomination ought to tell you something about the depth of support for conservative ideology among even the Republican electorate. The religious right and the neocons WAY overplayed their hand, and they richly deserve the smackdown they're getting.

I just wonder how much of McCain's success is owed to DEMOCRATS crossing over to vote for him the early primaries, as they viewed him as either the easiest Repub. to defeat or the easiest to live with if he wins? All the people I would have preferred were out of the race before I had a chance to vote! How many of you feel the same?

So TRUE!

There is no conservative candidate this go around, and, as has been said already,
Much of the problems have been brought on by "conservatives" like McCain and
Our current leader, with out of control spending, bigger government, poor decision
Making and liberal policies.

My party, has all but destroyed themselves from within. No matter what happens this November, it going to be a long 4 years, hell, possibly even 8!

I understand the constitution, but, it was written before men, women, and children started strapping bombs to themselves in order to kill innocent people who believe differently then they do. It was written before airplanes could be crashed into skyscrapers, or a single bomb could wipe out a huge populated area, killing millions of, again, innocent people.


Do you really think there weren't wars and senseless killing for different beliefs prior to the writing of the consititution? Granted a lot of the technology around today to cause even more destruction wasn't around then, but the concept is far from new...

You have to understand that many politicians are simply paying lip service to religion to the Christian vote. I'm not 100% sure about Obama, but I'd be very surprised if someone like Hillary Clinton believed in gods. My guess is that Obama probably does go through the motions, but is not that strong of a believer.

We see the Constitution has to change, we have had many admendments to it over time. And there will be more as it has to change to protect society
What changes do you think need to be made now to "protect society"?

My party, has all but destroyed themselves from within.
I hope you're right, maybe a phoenix will rise from the ashes. I'd still like to know what you think needs changing about the Constitution.

I hope you're right, maybe a phoenix will rise from the ashes. I'd still like to know what you think needs changing about the Constitution.

I'm sure many dems are relishing in our misery, you are not alone.

When one group or religion, believes that they have not only the right, but the duty, to kill anyone who believes differently than they do, then yes, religious tests may be required.

[QUOTE=Izannnah] Do you really think there weren't wars and senseless killing for different beliefs prior to the writing of the consititution? Granted a lot of the technology around today to cause even more destruction wasn't around then, but the concept is far from new...

I was not disputing the concept. Just making the point that we have come a long way since muzzle loaders, and swords, which were the most feared weapons available at that time.
Now, with suitcase dirty bombs, biological weapons, and suicide bombers of every age and gender, yes, a religious test needs to be done.

Anyone who believes that their religion gives them the right, and the duty, to kill those that do not believe the same as they do, cannot be allowed to serve as an elected official in this country.

Yes, and the Rep canidate ( the one everyone is forgetting about) they interviewed his minister, while he has been there for decades he has never formally joined. But this news acticle gets little notice.

To each his own. If that is what he believes then all the best to him. Heavy topic. Politics And religion dont mix very well.

As a matter of fact, those who do good works, not necessarily in the name of god, but for their own peace of mind will find their own salvation.


Couldn't have put it better myself, absolutoly right politics and religion definitely do not mix and in my opinion should be kept apart.
You can't please all of the people all of the time.

Last time I checked Obama was running for president not pope! It does not matter what he knows from the bible it makes no impact on how to run this country.

Couldn't have put it better myself, absolutoly right politics and religion definitely do not mix and in my opinion should be kept apart.
You can't please all of the people all of the time.

When the religion is a threat to the majority of the population, you can't keep them apart.

This discussion is not about pleasing the people, any of the time.

When the religion is a threat to the majority of the population, you can't keep them apart.

This discussion is not about pleasing the people, any of the time.

The religion itself is not a threat, it is the individuals who happen to believe in that faith that have a skewed view that are the threat. It is a great offense to generalize an entire group of people based on the actions of some.

For what it's worth, I don't care if the next president is a snake-handling, tarot-reading, polygamist, bible-thumping surfer for Jesus who turns Camp David into an ashram... as long as the duties of the office and responsibility to the public are upheld for the general good of all. Isn't that what we're supposed to be looking for anyway? (Granted that's a big over-simplification... but sheesh!)

When one group or religion, believes that they have not only the right, but the duty, to kill anyone who believes differently than they do, then yes, religious tests may be required.
Do you think we're likely to nominate presidential candidates who advocate murder and/or genocide? I doubt it will take a constitutional amendment to prevent it. Of course, murder and genocide are secular crimes regardless of the motive for committing them, so it wouldn't take a specifically religious test to exclude someone who advocated them.

Now, with suitcase dirty bombs, biological weapons, and suicide bombers of every age and gender, yes, a religious test needs to be done.
Why do you think the existence of these weapons and techniques for committing mass murder requires a "religious test" to be imposed on office seekers? What do you mean by "a religious test", and what form would such a test take?

Anyone who believes that their religion gives them the right, and the duty, to kill those that do not believe the same as they do, cannot be allowed to serve as an elected official in this country.
Constitutional amendments aside, it's pretty clear that Obama doesn't hold such beliefs, so the issue has no bearing on his candidacy.

Is there anything else about the Constitution that you think is out of date?

Forget about the term "religious test", I was only echoing that term, as it was used in other posts here. It is not so much a test, as a matter of common sense. If someone has close ties to racists, bombers, and haters, and they do not denounce them and what they believe, we have to lean towards the fact that they themselves must share some, if not all, of what these associates believe. Is that really such a stretch? I don't think so.

He is doing his best, to dance down the middle of the road on these issues, saying just enough in hopes that the people who question these associations, will back off, and just enough to try not to piss off the people who agree with the hatred, racism, and bombings as acceptable forms of dissention. He wants to appease the white voters, without angering the black voters. The saddest thing though, is he is so damn good at it. He is charming, he is well spoken, and he gives new meaning to the term silver tongued devil in my book.

As for other changes, I didn't bring my copy of the constitution to work today, and it's been a while since I read the whole thing, so I'll have to get back to you on your last question.

He is doing his best, to dance down the middle of the road on these issues, saying just enough in hopes that the people who question these associations, will back off, and just enough to try not to piss off the people who agree with the hatred, racism, and bombings as acceptable forms of dissention. He wants to appease the white voters, without angering the black voters. The saddest thing though, is he is so damn good at it. He is charming, he is well spoken, and he gives new meaning to the term silver tongued devil in my book.



This could also describe the other candidates... it could describe anyone who has ever run for a political office where the constituency is diverse.

I still think you're Hillary... :p

This could also describe the other candidates...it could describe anyone who has ever run for a political office where the constituency is diverse.

I still think you're Hillary... :p

Darn, how the heck did you figure it out?:eek:

Forget about the term "religious test", I was only echoing that term, as it was used in other posts here.
OK, let's review. This thread is titled "Obama's Lack of Understanding of Jesus Christ's Important Role". I pointed out that his understanding of Christian doctrine is irrelevant in terms of his qualification to be president because the Constitution prohibits any "religious test" for public service.

You responded that so much has changed since the Constitution was written that we really can't go by that anymore, and in response to my further questions, you said that yes, a religious test should be a requirement for public office. So no, I won't forget about the term. It's central to the topic of this thread, and if you want to advocate for such a change in the Constitution, you need to put forward a coherent and convincing case to support it.

So far, you've provided nothing but innuendo to imply that Obama is sympathetic to the goals and methods of "racists, bombers and haters". If you want to be taken seriously here, you have to do better than that.

But the issues of religion does apply to how they will go on signing laws or appointing Supreme Court or Federal Judges that will represent those people who have certain beliefs and values

he can not be pro life and pro abortion, he can not be pro voucher system for schools and against them, so it may not be religion, but it is view points on issues, many of these issues are based on religion values normally.

And of course while there is no religious test, that does not stop a president from being elected or not elected by voters because of their beleifs in religion.

I can easily vote of not vote for someone because of their values that will effect their actions, and those can be based on religious view points.
But they are also based on their social and economic view points, their view points on taxes, econnomy and other things.

And of course while there is no religious test, that does not stop a president from being elected or not elected by voters because of thier beleifs in religion.
Sure, voters can decide not to vote for somebody because they don't like the way they do their hair. The Constitutional prohibition just means that no one can be prevented from running for office, or if elected, cannot be prevented from serving based on their religious beliefs.

Do you think the Constitution should be amended to allow religious tests for public service?

OK, let's review. This thread is titled "Obama's Lack of Understanding of Jesus Christ's Important Role". I pointed out that his understanding of Christian doctrine is irrelevant in terms of his qualification to be president because the Constitution prohibits any "religious test" for public service.

You responded that so much has changed since the Constitution was written that we really can't go by that anymore, and in response to my further questions, you said that yes, a religious test should be a requirement for public office. So no, I won't forget about the term. It's central to the topic of this thread, and if you want to advocate for such a change in the Constitution, you need to put forward a coherent and convincing case to support it.

So far, you've provided nothing but innuendo to imply that Obama is sympathetic to the goals and methods of "racists, bombers and haters". If you want to be taken seriously here, you have to do better than that.

So, you believe it would be just fine if we end up with a president who based upon his religious beliefs, feels he is doing God's will, by killing everyone who does not believe
What he believes?

Do you really believe that because of the constitution, a radical extremist Muslim should be allowed to be the President of The United States Of America?

I believe that it cannot ever be allowed, if that means changing the Constitution, give me a bottle of white out, and I'll get to work on it.

I'm not saying that Obama is a radical extremist Muslim, but he does seem to have some ties and associations that may fit that description.

So, you believe it would be just fine if we end up with a president who based upon his religious beliefs, feels he is doing God's will, by killing everyone who does not believe what he believes?The reason we won't have such a person as president is that he could not get nominated or elected, not because the Constitution prohibits any religious test for public office.

Do you really believe that because of the constitution, a radical extremist Muslim should be allowed to be the President of The United States Of America?
Do you really believe that "a radical extremist Muslim" could win both the nomination and the general election? In order to do that they would have to convince a majority of the electorate to vote for them. If they were able to do that, then yes, they should be "allowed to be the President of The United States Of America".

I believe that it cannot ever be allowed, if that means changing the Constitution, give me a bottle of white out, and I'll get to work on it.
Well, that's exactly the point, isn't it? It does NOT mean changing the Constitution. The voters are quite capable of deciding who they want to elect, and arbitrary exclusions based on religious affiliations and beliefs are fundamentally at odds with the spirit of US democracy.

I'm not saying that Obama is a radical extremist Muslim,
Of course you aren't, because you know full well that it isn't true. Still, you are perfectly willing to imply and insinuate it in hopes that the idea will gain currency and credibility by repetition.

but he does seem to have some ties and associations that may fit that description.

I like the way you pick apart answers with the quotes, and respond to each one, very "attention to detail" oriented.

I didn't see any response to my last quote though?

IF there were a radical extremist Muslim candidate, do you think they would come right out and announce it? OR, would they do their best to conceal it, until someone is willing and able to dig into their specific associations, friendships, and even church Pastors, to try to discover the possibility of a hidden agenda.

It is obvious that most of our main stream media would not be willing to do such investigations, hell, they won't even report the facts when they are discovered, unless
They fit into the leftist agenda.

When the national media is no longer objective, when they have their own private agenda to protect, and will do so no matter what other facts are available, how can anyone be expected to trust what they present?

As far as credibility goes, this candidate has none, so my repetition of anything really makes no difference either way.

I must say, if I were a debate coach, I'd want you on my team!

I didn't see any response to my last quote though?
It was implicit in what came before:
Still, you are perfectly willing to imply and insinuate it in hopes that the idea will gain currency and credibility by repetition.

IF there were a radical extremist Muslim candidate, do you think they would come right out and announce it? OR, would they do their best to conceal it, until someone is willing and able to dig into their specific associations, friendships, and even church Pastors, to try to discover the possibility of a hidden agenda.
And you think a Constitutional amendment that says, "Radical extremist Muslims may not run for public office" would prevent this?

It is obvious that When someone begins a statement this way, I interpret it to mean, "I don't have a convincing basis for what I'm about to say, but I'm hoping you'll accept it anyway."

most of our main stream media would not be willing to do such investigations, hell, they won't even report the facts when they are discovered, unless
they fit into the leftist agenda.

When the national media is no longer objective, when they have their own private agenda to protect, and will do so no matter what other facts are available, how can anyone be expected to trust what they present?
Sorry, but I don't accept it. If you want to debate the quality of journalism in the US, start another thread. This one is about the relationship between religious beliefs and qualification for public office.

As far as credibility goes, this candidate has none, so my repetition of anything really makes no difference either way.
It's your credibility that's in question here, not Obama's, and your repetition of discredited rumor and innuendo doesn't help it at all.

I must say, if I were a debate coach, I'd want you on my team!
Thank you, I guess.

[QUOTE=ordinaryguy]
It's your credibility that's in question here, not Obama's, and your repetition of discredited rumor and innuendo doesn't help it at all.

I am not concerned about my credibility on this topic.

This is nothing more than opinions and personal beliefs, period. You have yours, I have mine, and everyone else has theirs. Because it is your opinion, does that make it credible? No. Because it is my opinion, does that make it credible? No. They are just opinions.

The candidate Obama is the one with the credibility issues, not you or I.


Quote:
Originally Posted by progunr
It is obvious that
[QUOTE=ordinaryguy]
When someone begins a statement this way, I interpret it to mean, "I don't have a convincing basis for what I'm about to say, but I'm hoping you'll accept it anyway."

I am also not concerned with how you interpret things, that again, is up to you. Also, if you want to quote me, please include the entire sentence so that the context is not lost in your editing. It was very clever of you to separate those four words from the remainder of the sentence.

Anyone who pays any attention to the coverage of the political news by mainstream media in this country is well aware of its bias, so the need for a convincing basis has already been established here regardless of your acceptance or not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by progunr
I must say, if I were a debate coach, I'd want you on my team!

[QUOTE=ordinaryguy}
Thank you, I guess.

You're Welcome, I guess.

So, it appears that Obama is misinformed about the Christian faith if he does not fully recognize these very important Scriptures that speak to us on what it takes to be Saved.

And you're supporting Hillary Clinton? Wow! I've got news for you the last time the media even questioned Hillary on church attendance she snarled up a lip and said it was "not relevant." Did it ever occur to you that Obama may not ultimately be judge and jury? Isn't that G-d's job? There's bound to be something in your Christian testament about not judging others.

Stop the fight. Poor old progunr is taking a beating here.

Can you honestly not see the point being made? You want the constitution amended to prevent "radical extreme muslims" from being elected to president but then in the next sentence admit that a "radical extreme muslim" would never announce as such. What the??

How many more people over there acutally think like you? Gee, for the worlds sake I hope it is a minority but I'm getting more scared by the day that it isn't so.

Stop the fight. Poor old progunr is taking a beating here.

Can you honestly not see the point being made? You want the constitution amended to prevent "radical extreme muslims" from being elected to president but then in the next sentence admit that a "radical extreme muslim" would never announce as such. What the????

How many more people over there acutally think like you? Gee, for the worlds sake i hope it is a minority but im getting more scared by the day that it isnt so.

First. This is not a fight, it is a spirited exchange of thoughts, ideas, and opinions.

Second, don't worry about progunr, he is tougher than the Energizer Bunny, and can easily take anything you libs care to throw this way.

And third, the idea here was that because the constitution allows "no religious test", that no matter what your religious beliefs are, you should be able to be president of the United States.

I'm simply saying that the world has changed enough in the past 200+ years that we do need to be wary of certain religious beliefs and that there is a real danger from anyone who leans towards the belief that killing innocent people is a duty assigned by God, so you can get all your virgins when you get to heaven.

This is my opinion, and I stand by it.

I'm simply saying that the world has changed enough in the past 200+ years that we do need to be wary of certain religious beliefs and that there is a real danger from anyone who leans towards the belief that killing innocent people is a duty assigned by God, so you can get all your virgins when you get to heaven.

This is my opinion, and I stand by it.
Which you keep repeating, even though it has no bearing on Obama or his candidacy except by innuendo.

It's easy enough to expose and vote against people who advocate stupid things.

The "real danger" lies in allowing or disallowing public service based on religious beliefs. If you want a current example of such a political system, take a look at Iran. If the mullahs won't certify your orthodoxy, you can't run for office.

Repetition seems to be rampant here so I guess I'm in good company when it comes to that.

Actually, I had never mentioned getting all your virgins when you get to heaven, so your accusation of repetition is just a little off base.

You cannot convince me that we should not disallow anyone who shares these "repeated" beliefs from being, or even running, for President Of The United States. You admit that the chance they could ever be elected is zero, so why not just come right out and be honest and up front and just amend the constitution to say:

Anyone known to follow the radical teachings of the Muslim Religion, or to have very close personal ties to such an individual or group, may not seek any form of public office in the United States of America.

I'm sure that my views appear just as radical to those who side with this religion, as their views appear to me, so in that regard, we are even.

I'm sure that my views appear just as radical to those who side with this religion, as their views appear to me, so in that regard, we are even.
Bingo!

I personally believe that one does not have to have any spiritual affiliation to be the President of the United States. Too many people put way too much emphasis on this subject. Just because the idea of Jesus does not consume someone , does not mean they are a bad or incapable person. You Christians have to get over yourselves and realize we are all HUMAN and must all take resposibilty for our OWN actions WITHOUT the benefit of being able to blame them on some Deity.

Handyman:

Maybe you should know something about Christian theology before stating that Christians blame "some deity."

Blaming a deity is the tact that those who do not believe in said deity blame that deity for suffering in the world and that is one of the reason that they don't believe in a deity.

It is the whole why does not God heal an amputee? Argument.


You have it the exact opposite:

This Christian does realize that he is a sinner and responsible for the consequences for his sin. No excuses. I don't "blame" God. I ask for His mercy and forgiveness and know that through the sacrifice of His son , Jesus Christ, this is granted.

And why would you ask God for foregiveness if you know in your heart that You and only you are to blame for your sins? You are responsible for your actions,, you must find foregiveness within yourself not any one or anthing else. I have a very healthy understanding of God... God is a strength from WITHIN not out in the universe or in the sky. BTW, My Christian theolgy education is pretty good... I left the priesthood in 1992 because I personally found that God is within me,,

And as a priest you could not tell anyone that God can be met through a personal relationship?

Obama apparently does not know the Holy Bible well at all. If he did, he would immediately be able to cite the passages that say "And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." -- ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 16:31 (King James Version) and JOHN 14:6 (King James Version) "Jesus saith unto him, I Am The Way, The Truth, and The Life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me."

Obama does not mention being BORN AGAIN (does he even know what that means?), a very important factor in attaining Salvation and Heaven after one's passage from this earthly life, as all Christians know. Again, he lacks the knowledge of what actually gets people into Heaven. "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be Born Again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." -- JOHN 3:3 (King James Version) So, it appears that Obama is misinformed about the Christian faith if he does not fully recognize these very important Scriptures that speak to us on what it takes to be Saved. He is very wrong if he is teaching people that one need not Believe in Jesus Christ in order to be Saved and that all they have to be is "good", as Scriptures in the Holy Bible say Belief in Jesus and becoming Born Again are the most essential elements in Salvation!

Obama contends belief in Jesus Christ not necessary for salvation (OneNewsNow.com) (http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=73553)

What is the relevance of this? What has being born again have anything to do with being president? Is Hilary or McCain born again? Who care's? It politics..

RELIGION IS A JOKE

I am a christian and I agree with you. Religion is a big Joke! But having a personal relationship with your creator is the greatest thing.

my "creator" is not a imaginary invisible superhero in the sky..
my creators are my parents....

Your parents conceived you yes, however they did not "create" you. They just happen to be beneficiaries of an amazing, already established biological process created by God that enable's man to procreate.

Your parents concieved you yes, however they did not "create" you. They just happen to be beneficiaries of an amazing, already established biological process created by God that enable's man to procreate.Do you take responsibility for anything or do you just foist it off to a god?

Thank You Karma,, my point also.

that is your belief.............it is NOT a fact...

I do not believe in god or any such nonsense


In the same way it is your belief that God does not exist. Your belief is not a fact either, niether is it based on any evidence but rather based on faith. So your faith in God's non existence is just as nonsensical to me.

So Bsouthe, you are proud to be secular/liberal/ democrat?


One only has to look at the late USSR and the China of Mao to see how that worked out. :D

some of the posts here prove the point that the most idiotic people are normally
christians,conservatives,or republican......medieval minds

Let me just make a clarification here, I am a Christian a democrat, not republican.

And I have question for you: What make my beliefs compared to yours medieval?

So Bsouthe, you are proud to be secular/liberal/ democrat?


One only has to look at the late USSR and the China of Mao to see how that worked out. If you believe that Mao's China and the USSR are examples of liberal/democratic governments then you are screaming your ignorance out loud.

Needkarma, FYI you are still on my ignore list, so if you are commenting on my post, I wouldn't waist my time if I were you because I don't see what you write. Sorry

Nope, not this time but thanks for the heads up, I can pretty much write anything about you now and you'd never see it. :)

NK

The analogy is that both those Communist countrys were anti- religious.


Today's liberals, most of whom are Democrats, want the government involved in everything -
Healthcare, welfare, regulating gas price, limiting the right to bear arms, killing the unborn

This is closer to socialism and communism than



True Christian, Republican, Conservative that believes in limited government and looks to individuals to work, serve , and take personal responsibility. This is closer to JFK's "ask what you can do for your country" than any current liberal / secular / Democrat.

So Canada is communist in your eyes?

No socialist

Doesn't sound like it to me: Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism)

And I live here!

So Bsouthe, you are proud to be secular/liberal/ democrat?


One only has to look at the late USSR and the China of Mao to see how that worked out. :D


That just proves my point... medieval minds

What makes you say I am secular? Liberal? Or democrat?

This whole labeling and dividing of people would make people like those buffoons bush and cheney so proud...

p.s. Jesus is my gardener

I don't get that part. On the one hand they say christians are loving and forgiving and all men and women are created equal, then out of the same breath they divide people into groups and label some as a societal problem. :confused:

that just proves my point....medieval minds

what makes you say I am secular? liberal? or democrat?

this whole labeling and dividing of people would make people like those buffoons bush and cheney so proud...

p.s. Jesus is my gardener

How ironic because you are the one who began labeling and dividing people with your ignorant steriotyping and name calling. It seems like you are the one who has a medieval mind because you seem very bitter, ignorant and intolerant. That what I gather at least.

Sassy,
I love you, I've always loved you.
NK

A few posts deleted, name calling gone too far. And inthebox response to the deleted posts, which did not make sense with the posts deleted