The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; Who can know it? I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, even to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings. - Jeremiah 17: 9&10
This is another long one. I hope you keep reading. Another important-question-at-the-end post.
The main reason I stopped blogging about politics was because it seemed in vain. I felt I wasn’t making a difference, merely repeating what everyone else was saying. But God has revealed to me it’s not in vain, if my purpose for blogging about politics edifies Christians and encourages them to adopt and maintain a consistent biblical worldview.
We all know Barack Obama supports infanticide. Nothing new here to see. But I caught him attempting to obscure the real reason he voted against a bill protecting infants born alive during failed infanticide attempts. That tends to happen when you don’t have good moral grounding and a consistent worldview, biblical or otherwise. These days, Obama tries to make it sound as if he’s always cared about these infants and opposes abortion on religious grounds.
I contend that both statements are false. Obama believes women and so-called doctors should be allowed to kill unborn babies, and that babies born alive during these attempts should be allowed to die.
Recently interviewed in Relevant magazine, whose motto is “God. Life. Progressive Culture,” Obama was asked about his stance on child killing. He wanted to clear up “rumors.”
An excerpt: (emphases added)
I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.
The other email rumor that’s been floating around is that somehow I’m unwilling to see doctors offer life-saving care to children who were born as a result of an induced abortion. That’s just false. There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the “Born Alive” bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill. The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn’t think it was going to pass constitutional muster.
Most bloggers I read focused on the “mental distress” flip-flop. Apparently, Obama at one time believed “mental distress” qualified as a medical exception to a ban on infanticide. But he told Relevant he doesn’t believe in such an exception. As blogger Jennifer Rubin at the Commentary magazine blog alluded, Obama doesn’t seem to know the law he supposedly taught at the University of Chicago law school.
But people failed to notice what I consider the more important flip-flop or more precisely, obfuscation, found in the second paragraph cited. Obama said he voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act as a senator in Illinois because of the constitutionality issue and some other law in place protecting babies born alive. That makes for a pithy sound bite, but Obama the “Christian” glossed over the real reason for his opposition, a reason that should stop any genuine Christian from voting for him.
(See Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act and Catholics Citizens article)
Obama opposed the bill protecting infants because of a so-called burden it would impose on women and doctors. Jill Stanek, a former labor and delivery nurse who testified before the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote that Obama voted against the bill when it was in committee in March of 2001. In the full Senate, he was the only one who spoke against it, again referring to the burden it would place on women and doctors.
Obama voted against the bill, according to his spokesman, because he believed it would take away doctors’ “professional judgment when a fetus is viable.” But the Born Alive Infant Protection Act defines “born alive” as “the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.”
That definition makes it very plain what born alive means, and a doctor’s professional judgment would not be compromised in any way if he/she were to commence life-saving measures on an infant born during a failed infanticide attempt. Did Obama read the definition before he voted against the bill? Whether he had in fact read it or not, he voted against the bill all the same. His opposition didn’t turn on definitions or burdens, in my opinion. He clearly believes a woman’s desire trumps a baby’s right to live.
I could go on, but here’s the important point: politicians will revise history and compromise on just about anything to win over the media and win elections. Obama is a liberal who supports child murder. Plain and simple. It’s on record. Anything he says to the contrary now can be contradicted by that record. Obama tried to soft-pedal his position on infanticide before a “Christian” audience, and only his fellow Christians-in-name-only would fall for it.
My view on abortion is very clear and consistent. I believe life begins at conception. Consequently, deliberately extinguishing that life is murder, whether the fetus is a “clump of cells” or close-to-term. I’m rigid that way.
Politicians can craft all the “right to privacy” laws they want. Murder called by any other name is still repugnant in the eyes of God. Even some who call themselves pro-life just can’t seem to hold their position when it comes to rape and incest. It’s OK to murder the baby if he was conceived during these acts. That’s what George Bush believes. For me, there is no exception, and I will maintain that position for the rest of my life.
When God asks you on Judgment Day what you believed during your lifetime about abortion, what will you tell him?
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 39 comments }
In all seriousness, it would really help the pro-life cause if the same fervor used to denounce abortion were also used towards abstainence, adoption, and “crisis care”/unmarried pregnant woman “wrap around” services.
I don’t see how Christian Democrats can vote for this man.
I don’t see how Christian Democrats can discount this issue and put it on the same level as jobs, taxes, etc. when deciding who to vote for.
Darkstar,
Christians already put a lot of money, time and effort into trying to get abstinence education into schools, establish crisis pregnancy institutions, and trying to keep adoption agencies open (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/) among many things. We do so with much fervor. But it’s kind of important to stop the wanton destruction of life that’s going on, wouldn’t you think?
I really hate this trope that comes out every time Christians righteously rant against legalized child murder. Once we step into this politically charged arena, all of a sudden, all of the work that we do and have been doing since the founding of the nation disappears into the ether.
And aside from the false premise, it’s also a specious idea that addressing those things more fervently somehow gives legitimacy to addressing the larger issue. Our contention is that abortion in this country amounts to this nation’s Holocaust. This criticism is akin to saying that more effort should have been made to set up grief counseling centers for Jews who’ve lost family members rather than to shut down the ovens.
The only way to stop government sanctioned abortions is to get Roe v. Wade overturned.
That’s nothing new.
The only way to get it overturned is to have a majority pro-life Supreme Court, appointed by a pro-life President.
Until then, there is NOTHING that one can do but address the issues that lead to people having abortions in the first place, which happen to fall under the weightier matters of the Law, which are Justice, Mercy, and Faith. This is not a part of the contemporary Christian mantra outside of partisan politics, and it should be.
In that vein both camps depend on government to do their bidding.
Purity, in all aspects of life, is what makes for a more godly and acceptable society. This is obviously very difficult, given the secular and spiritual landscape, but it starts with individuals lifting Him up instead of Caesar and his pundits.
It’s a long way off, but one day the light bulb will come on.
Intentionally killing the human life in the womb anytime after conception is 99% against God’s will.
The extreme cases of saving the mother’s life or of keeping a dead mother’s body on life support until a safe delivery can be accomplished are the rare challenges that help to clarify our ethos.
Roe v Wade made a mockery of justice and our moral code and revealed the bankruptcy of moral relevancy. The fact that people cling to Roe v Wade on the basis of “choice” and “privacy” is proof of how little they care about life.
Abortion as birth control insults every aspect of the extended meaning of the 14th Amendment, let alone a denial of God’s Law.
heliotrope,
What do you mean “extended” meaning of the 14th amendment?
As far as Yahweh’s Law, I’m not sure about that…I think that all of mankind ignores most of His instruction, and contemporary faiths actually teach contrary to it..but I can dig what you’re saying on general principle.
Kansas is the leading place in the country to obtain a late term abortion. Our governor, Kathleen Sebelius, is tied in with the pro-choice group and vetoes every Kansas congressional attempt to strengthen our late term abortion laws. (Note: She is highly touted as a possible running mate for Obama). The MEDIA has made a laughing stock out of our Johnson County district attorney, Phill Kline, for his pursuit of Dr. George Tiller (Tiller the Baby Killer) and Johnson County Planned Parenthood. Because of this, he faces an uphill reelection battle this fall.
I want you all to please read the following link from Operation Rescue in Kansas. They have recent eye witness testimony of an alleged murder of a child born alive after an abortion. The alleged murder was committed by Dr. Tiller’s associate after a failed abortion. She allegedly literally stabbed the baby to death. Apparently, there is a legal investigation into this matter but not a word in the news papers or a word on television. I am certain, however, this is not news to Governor Sebelius or the media. They just don’t want anything out there that would wake people up to the realities of what is going on in this state.
Please read: http://www.operationrescue.org/?p=977
THEBIGDODDY,
The 14th Amendment lay dormant until the SCOTUS decided that a corporation was a “person” and subject to its provisions. That was an “extended” meaning vis a vis the original intent of the 14th amendment.
The first part of the amendment is: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
We have only a traditional understanding of what “born” means. Certainly a corporation is symbolically “born,” but not literally born. Other cultures mark birthdays from the date of assumed conception.
The SCOTUS could decide that the baby in the womb is protected by the 14th Amendment. In effect, they did so under Roe v Wade by entering into the junk jurisprudence marked by pseudo-scientific trimesters. If the SCOTUS will protect the baby to greater degrees as it develops in the womb, the SCOTUS is tacitly extending due process rights to the baby in the womb.
This, I contend, extends the meaning of the word “born” in the 14th amendment.
The SCOTUS has also found a way to read the 14th amendment to require states to educate the children of illegal immigrants and to extend due process rights to certain detainees in Gitmo.
Protecting the baby in the womb from conception seems like a natural extension of the SCOTUS understanding of the 14th amendment if they were to choose that course.
The SCOTUS has twisted the 14th amendment into a useful pretzel for their purposes of interpretation already, so their dalliance on fully protecting the unborn should be a no brainer.
Heliotrope says:
“The SCOTUS has twisted the 14th amendment into a useful pretzel for their purposes of interpretation already, so their dalliance on fully protecting the unborn should be a no brainer.”
Pedat says:
Wow.. that’s a stretch sir. Infants in the womb haven’t been born yet, though they are living human beings.
“Born” usually starts at crowning and ends at the cutting of the umbilical cord, right?
LaShawn,
At this time Obama Kool-Aid Drinkers like my liberal friends and most of my co-workers would vote for him even if he denounced Christ and said he favored Communism.
You missed the part where he explained how Roe already established some manner of protections for the unborn by making trimester delineations.
His point was that the definition has already been stretched and twisted. He’s simply pointing out how the SCOTUS could do the same thing but in the other direction.
Now, I disagree with that, but I don’t think he was being unclear about the fact that his idea was a stretch to begin with.
I’d accept them merely leaving it alone for now until we can get a majority pro-life SCOTUS instead of them continually making a mockery of the whole matter.
It’s just retarded.
Citizenlink (Focus on the Family’s Action network) has reprinted Jill Stanek’s article about Barack Obama’s TRUE stance on abortion and infanticide. Required reading for any Christian who claims to be pro-life and supports BO.
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm#
THEBIGDODDY: Now I will ask for clarification. Would you oppose having the SCOTUS finding that the baby in the womb has equal protection and due process rights from the time of conception?
Gabe has read my statement 100% correctly. The SCOTUS has already “given birth” to corporations and “partial birth” to babies in the third trimester. If they can “see” that far into the meaning of word “born” or “person” why can’t they see further? Politics, maybe?
The Supreme Court has made a mockery of many things. That is the price that is paid when elected liberal representatives prefer to stack the court to the process of making tough legislative decisions.
Elected conservative representatives would stack the courts with judges who abide by the written law. It they do not find the basis, they toss the case out and send the plaintiffs to the representative branch to enact legislation. It is a pretty simple formula that is laid out brilliantly in the Constitution.
The fact is, the SCOTUS will at some point overturn Roe v Wade for the farce that it is and return the abortion question to the states.
And by the way, nothing whatsoever prevents Congress from passing a law making abortion the law of the land or outlawing it.
Heliotrope says:
“Now I will ask for clarification. Would you oppose having the SCOTUS finding that the baby in the womb has equal protection and due process rights from the time of conception?”
Not at all.
Also Heliotrope, they would have to change the language of that Amendment to include the updated definition of what being “born” meant.
Other than that, I’d have no problem with it. But I simply do not see it happening, though exploring the mechanics and catalysts to this occurring would make for interesting discussion.
THEBIGDODDY:
No definition need be written into the 14th Amendment. In fact, that is the heart of the point about strict interpretation and loose interpretation. We are looking at “stare decicis” here. (”stare decisis et non quieta movere” which means “stand by decisions and do not move that which is still”.
When the court tightly defines or liberally expands a meaning, the lower courts follow the definition. Furthermore, future Supreme Courts also follow the “established” meaning, unless they choose to overturn the meaning. An example of this is Plessy v. Ferguson when the SCOTUS said that “separate, but equal” did not violate the 14th Amendment. Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas overturned Plessy by ruling that “legal separatation by race is inherently unequal.” That led to a whole complication of what constitutes “de jure” segregation and “de facto” segregation.
We conservatives believe that the Affirmative Action interpretations violate the 14th Amendment’s equal protection and due process clauses. But that is a complicated argument all of its own.
I do not see the SCOTUS defining “born” to cover the unborn from the time of conception. In fact, I believe that the best we may ever see is a great lessening of abortion, but not its elimination. But those are only musings from my perspective.
However, there is strong sympathy for charging a person with two killings who slays a pregnant woman who is near term. So, the issue is not really too far fetched.
La Shawn,
As a survivor of sexual abuse, I have to say that I was a person who believed that abortion was okay for those who had been raped or abused in an incestuous situations. I was indoctrinated in the public school system to accept “Choice,” as normal and good. That was 23 years ago.
For me, the issue of abortion has been tied to faith and trust in God’s sovereignty. First I had to agree with Him that it was okay that He chose to allow a man that I loved and trusted to abuse me as a seven year old girl. It took me quite awhile to wrap my brain around that! God called me to AGREE with Him that it was okay…to understand that God is sovereign over good and bad, and that He works ALL things for good.
It wasn’t until I was able to do accomplish this act of faith, through the power of the Holy Spirit (because let me tell you…that just isn’t natural) that He was able to get through to my heart that ALL babies, no matter what circumstances they are conceived in are from Him. And that if such a baby were to be conceived that God will provide for them, just as He provided for me.
I suffered as a child. And for a very long time I was not okay emotionally. Post Traumatic Stress…wrong thinking, wrong behavior, etc… But I received Christ. I believed Him. I’m here and I’m whole. I’m convinced that the only reason I can say that is because I have learned Christ everyday for the past twelve years.
So what would I say to God on judgement day about abortion? Hmmm…I’d say, “Lord I did the best I could and it wasn’t good enough. I need none of me…only You. Thank you for teaching me Jesus. Thank you for the blood of your Son.”
LaShawn, been a long time since I’ve posted over here. A couple of years maybe. I thought I’d try taking a swing at your question.
During my lifetime? My opinion has changed back and forth. When I was a kid and was first exposed to the issue of abortion, I thought it was wrong. It had to be. It seemed obvious.
When I was a teen and in college, my influences in life were liberal. They talked about women dying in back-alley abortions and isn’t it better that abortions be safe and legal and what right had I to tell a woman what she could do with her own body. And, as a young man who could see himself one day faced with the prospect of a pregnant girlfriend, I thought those arguments made sense.
So, I argued to myself that a fetus is just a bunch of tissue and not a person. But deep in the back of my mind, I could never quite get around the fact that, at birth, a baby is clearly alive. And the day before it’s born, it’s really no less alive than it is one day later. And is it really any less alive the day before that and the day before that?
And how can viability be the line that we draw when the state of our technology moves that line closer and closer to the date of conception? How can the state of our technology determine when life begins?
And then my wife got pregnant. And I would lay my head on her pregnant stomach and feel the movements of the tiny baby inside. And I would attend her appointments with the OB doc and see the movements of my baby in the ultrasound video. And there was no doubt in my mind whatsoever that, even at 4 months gestation, my daughter was alive.
And if she was alive at 12 weeks gestation, was she somehow not alive at 11 weeks and 6 days? And it became self-evident to me. Life begins at conception. And if you’re unsure if life begins at conception then you ought to give the benefit of the doubt to the baby so that you don’t kill something that you have to admit might be alive.
And women do have choice. They can choose not to engage in the activities that lead to pregnancy. And if it was forced upon them, as sorry as I would be for that, it isn’t the baby’s fault.
So, when God asks me on Judgment Day, LaShawn, I won’t have to stutter or stammer in my defense. Life begins when God creates it the moment that ovum becomes fertilized.
I’m not all that concerned about Affirmative Action, sir, because righteous people, (not just conservatives) believe in promoting justice and correctness at all times in all places in the known universe for all people without exception. And there are too few on either side.
As such, the abolishment of Affirmative Action will not change the heart of man, and will go back to, ironically enough, “de facto” lawlessness and scandalous behaviors.
Those who suffer from Cognitive Dissonance will however not agree with my sentiment…which is that people think they are good, when they are not, and their behaviors and positions on matters secular and sacred, give them away every single time.
You say “we conservatives” and I guess that’s okay, but even though I don’t and won’t brag about being a conservative or so-called Christian, I’m one of Yahweh’s servants, and as such THAT is what defines me. Our remnant are righteous conservatives, not friends with the world as most are.
You didn’t ask for that information, but I wanted to provide it so you know where I’m coming from when you see my responses.
Now, regarding this matter of born, I stand by the stricter literal meaning of what might be commonly considered “born”.
So perhaps you believe that it could be done without any such changes or Amendments, that would be fine by me. As long as it gets done within the bounds of the constitution. My expertise is in Biblical Law (Torah) not the American legal system. You seem to have a better understanding of that system than I, and we need people like that who are (hopefully) part of the remnant to work their measure, according to the Biblical narrative.
I just don’t see “born” being anything but exiting from the womb, because the more liberal judges are going to stick to the letter, and the more conservatives will consider it more holistically.
Greg and Yvonne answered the question! Thanks, mates.
God bless you, Yvonne.
Heliotrope says:
“I do not see the SCOTUS defining “born” to cover the unborn from the time of conception. In fact, I believe that the best we may ever see is a great lessening of abortion, but not its elimination. But those are only musings from my perspective.
However, there is strong sympathy for charging a person with two killings who slays a pregnant woman who is near term. So, the issue is not really too far fetched.”
Pedat says:
I agree with all of that. Well said.
See, I’m easy when it comes to promoting godliness. It’s lawlessness and complicity in it that will get your feelings hurt.
La Shawn,
I have so much to answer for in so many areas. I was raised by the public school system to believe that abortion was a woman’s right. It’s only by the grace of God that I was able to come around to His way of seeing abortion as always wrong. Like Yvonne, when I stand before my Maker I will be filled with joy that I don’t stand there on my own merits but clothed with the righteousness of Christ Himself.
THEBIGDODDY:
In all good faith this concept of “Pedat Ebediyah – Servant of Yahweh and NOT a follower sinful and ungodly partisan politics” is hardly cogent in a representative democracy. In fact, I find it to be as confining as jihad among radical Islamists.
Pedat Ebediyah is advocating non government under perfect Godly accord. A fine concept that we have had the full history of mankind failing to achieve.
Our country is governed by “we the people” who bring a diversity of opinion and belief systems to the table. Pedat Ebediyah may eschew politics, but in so doing, he loses his voice entirely.
Ok Lashawn,
I’ll bite. I’d say Lord, at one time I was an American hating, Pro-Death liberal because I didn’t think for myself and was brainwashed from my years of public schools. About 10 years ago I actually started to research my Catholic faith and my beliefs on America. I read up on biblical history and learned that as time goes by more and more history in the bible is actually being found to be true – just as fortold. The more I learn about history of those time the MORE it helps me maintain my faith even it gets challenged. Forgive me – now I KNOW abortion is murder PERIOD. No exceptions. But it did take me some (ok MANY) years to see the light.
And yes I have much to answer for too. It helps that us Catholics have Confession
Highly recommended 
I saw earlier today of a link that had a video of Mike Wallace interviewing Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood) back in 1957 where she refuses to call infidelity or murder sin, but strongly condemed sin as bearing sick children or bringing children into problematic homes. If you want to see true evil watch the video below:
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/07/mike_wallace_in.html
Heliotrope,
Is that what I eschew, in your opinion?
Pedat Ebediyah is my Hebrew name and Yahweh is formal name of the god of the Bible and his son’s name is Y’Shua. There are no other names in heaven and earth that matter, nor do they have any power whatsoever.
But what does that have to do with me wanting a theocracy and not having a voice?
On the contrary, just because I don’t brag about being a “conservative” or “liberal” or “Christian” as if any of those things are all that special, doesn’t mean I don’t have a voice.
My voice, my teaching in the Body of Y’Shua the Messiah is that which, with the help of the set-apart Spirit, has brought countless of people to the Messiah, cleaned up some of the ugliest elements of certain communities, helped countless number of people restore marriages and families, helped people transform their physical bodies by renewing their minds about their consumption and folly, and moreover working through the present disparities in replacement theology and bringing people out of it’s lawlessness into a renewed devotion and obedience to Yahweh’s precepts.
The reason why people abort babies is more complex than extreme contraception, it’s because society is BROKEN as a whole, and there are very few houses of worship that has His name on it, nor does the government of this land, and it’s agents, acknowledge His plan.
I don’t eschew partisan politics, it just doesn’t define me as it does the majority of conservative and to a lesser extent, liberal believers. They give Him a bad name.
LaShawn says:
“When [G-d] asks you on Judgment Day what you believed during your lifetime about abortion, what will you tell him?”
He already knows what I believe. The question is how did my Faith translate into His works. Hopefully He won’t ask me anything, but tell me that He “knew me” even when I rejected Him.
Great post. You’re calling it the way it is. I like what Bill Donohue said about the “law already in place” canard: “Is there a single bill forbidding racial discrimination that Obama would refuse to endorse on the grounds that we already have enough such laws in place? This begs the question: If protecting innocent human life is of paramount importance, then by what reasoning can it logically or morally be said that we already have enough legislation? When in doubt, wouldn’t it make sense to vote in favor of stronger laws?”
Sure, God already knows what we believe. But if God is asking us ANYTHING on Judgment Day, we are lost.
Those who go before the White Throne on Judgment Day are damned. It is only those of us for whom Christ has interceded who will be saved. And I’m quite sure we will be too awed and abashed to try to make excuses for ourselves.
Thebigdoddy–
This is a little off-topic, but it concerns me. You keep writing about “Yahweh”, but you wrote “God” with a hyphen, deleting the vowel. Now, “God” is not the name of God; it’s a descriptive term. The name of the Lord in the Torah is YHWH. The vowels are not supplied. This name was not to be spoken; when it appeared in Scripture, the reader was to substitute, “The Lord.” “Yahweh” and “Jehovah” are names that speculate what the vowels in YHWH might have been.
But if you believe that “Yahweh” is the true name of the Lord, then it is THAT name, not “God”, an English word,that you should delete the vowels from.
.
NObama is bad news for many reasons, not just because of his extreme views on abortion. Most do-called ‘Liberal’ policies hurt poor people and minorities the most. It’s a shame so-called ‘Liberals’ can’t see this. It’s like the part of their brain that can see this is just turned-off, or totally ignored.
It would be great if no woman ever wanted an abortion. But I believe it would be worse if it was totally illegal and women were forced to have dangerous ‘back alley’ abortions like back in the day.
People are hypnotized with Obamamania and his Obammunism. Good fodder for Obama posters here. Posters about him reflect this puppy dogs, doves and rainbows feeling. The Obama Utopia.
If Obama can stay pretty clean, do some good things as Senator, and then become Governor of IL, he could be unstoppable in 2012 or 2016. Scary stuff.
I would dearly love to see a Jewish, African-American woman as POTUS. It’s not race or gender that makes it for me though. It’s political beliefs that matter, and socialism is bad for everybody, (accept those high in government or high-level academia) especially poor people, of all races. Obama is a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist, no thanks.
His ‘Change’, ‘Hope’ and ‘Progress’ mantras are actually somewhat self-mocking. Making your own Obama posters is totally addicting.
I laughed so hard I almost had a breakdown. LOL!
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
pretend to be moderate
move towards the center fast
enrage your Left wing early
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
befriend a bomber
pushing for change at all costs
sacrifices must be made
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
only feel and hope
please force people to change
change can only be good
.
All real freedom starts with freedom of speech. If there is no freedom of speech, then there can be no real freedom.
.
Make Some Obama Posters NOW!
.
Che Makes Money for Capitalists
.
Help Halt Terrorism Now!
.
USpace
.
Trish asked:
Pedat says
Yes it is a little off topic, but..
1. “Christians” use the title as his NAME and that is false. They also use L-ORD [in all caps] which is also false, because they were merely replacements for the Tetragrammaton [YHWH] in scripture. The use of J-hovah is false as well. I hyphenate them when quoting others to keep them in context.
2. You’re referring to the ‘Ineffable Name Doctrine was put in place to keep gentiles and others outside Israel from breaking the 3rd Commandment. I can understand why they may have done it, because gentiles abuse the sanctity and sacredness of Scripture. Nonetheless neither Father Yahweh, Moses, Y’Shua, or any of the Apostles or Elders promoted this doctrine. It’s Rabbinical paternalism and dogma passed off as Torah, and it’s false. Only so-called “jews” use HaShem, which is their right, but it’s not Torah. You break the commandment not only when you replace it with a false name, but evoke it falsely.
For example, look at Isaiah 42:8 from the KJV of the Bible.
“I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.”
How can LORD be someone’s name? It can’t. It’s ridiculous, and this is all throughout the modified texts. The word that was originally used there is YHWH which was replaced by Adonai, which then became LORD. This is why people don’t know His name. I can also give you hundreds of scriptures where it says to CALL upon His name, but you can’t call upon it, if you don’t know it.
As such ALL of mankind is free to use his name, if they know it. There are no restrictions on it, just don’t use it falsely.
If you have any more questions, feel free to email me (pedatebediyah@gmail.com), because this blog is about politics, not theology.
The real concern should be whether or not I am in the business of promoting justice and correctness at all times in all places in the known universe for all people without exception. This is where people categorically (believers and heathens) fall short, and is of more immediate importance than what name one uses.
THEBIGDODDY:
I have no question with your motivation, beliefs or good works. My comments were simply that your obedience to (the creator) is an individual matter among competing individual choices in a representative democracy.
In the long haul, perhaps you can have an active hand in redeeming every person in the country so that “the government of this land, and it’s agents, acknowledge His plan.”
Meanwhile, it is partisan politics as usual that controls the game. If you choose not to play, that is your call. But, by making that decision, you are forfeiting your seat at the political table.
That is only a statement of logic. Not a criticism. I wish you the best in your ministry.
Heliotrope,
Let it go.
I’m full aware of how words are used as tools and have engaged with all manner of people, of high and low intellect, morals, and motivations, because I use them very well myself.
“Redeeming every person” in the world is not what Father Yahweh calls ANYONE to do, because redemption comes from Him, not me.
Also unless you are an agent of haSatan who would deny me the seat at ANY table, as so many historically and presently see fit to do, that is YOUR call, but to say I’m forfeiting anything is presumptuous, at best. Not to mention that in my opinion, dining at the ‘political’ table is not the objective in any sacred or secular society, has very little honor, other that the Republic DOES as it IS. (NOMENCLATURE ASIDE)
Just because you say it’s not a criticism, doesn’t mean that it’s not, and logic is in the mind of the purveyor.
There are three levels of behaviors that occur when people of our differing proclivities engage when it comes to matters of politics, justice, equality, and democracy in this Republic. (And you’ve seen it with my encounters with the respondent known is Trish)
Tacky
Trashy
Terroristic
None of those behaviors are generally instigated by people of my persuasion. Right now it’s becoming Tacky. Can we commit to not letting it get any further, sir?
I hear you loud and clear: Let it go! I apologize for raising your righteous ire. I wish you good fortune on your pathway.
I have never achieved the opprobrium of being “tacky” before. I will reflect upon it. Are there sources outside of yourself to consult?
It crushes my spirit to read things like this:
“First I had to agree with Him that it was okay that He chose to allow a man that I loved and trusted to abuse me as a seven year old girl. It took me quite awhile to wrap my brain around that! God called me to AGREE with Him that it was okay…to understand that God is sovereign over good and bad, and that He works ALL things for good.”
Yvonne, I’m glad that you have overcome the pain in your past. But I cannot bear the thought of God predetermining that an innocent child should be abused, any more than I can believe that God “wills” or “allows” people like George Tiller to kill unborn babies. Even if we view suffering as a redemptive situation, it is still (in my view) very wrong to place the responsibility for all suffering on a predetermined “plan” of God.
La Shawn,
Thank you for continuing your blog. As believers, we must communicate the truth to all people(believers and nonbelievers). Eternity is at stake. However, my concern is for believers right now. The polls show that Obama is going to get 30-40% of the evangelical vote. What are we thinking? We have even taken up the slogans of “hope” and “change”. Christians should know that our ONLY “hope” is Jesus and “change’ can only come from a real relationship with Him. Obama is promoting a message that he cannot fulfill.
So as Christians, what should we do? The answer is in 2 Chronicles 7:14. God says, “If my people, who are called by My name, will humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, THEN will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”
Seems like we have some work to do!
Don’t assume I’m angry, sir.
Just assume we’re different in how we view humanity, and let that be that.
Comments on this entry are closed.