Obama upsets US Christians....again

[Senator Cheese]

This is their land, that was stolen from their ancestors. So they are being wronged, since they cant collect their money from all their properties that were stolen from them. Also every thing in America. Don't represent them, it represents the thieves that stole it.

So you're saying that rights to property exist due to ethnicity or heritage?

Meaning if I happen to be born a Native American, I should be granted additional ressources because of something that happened over 200 years ago?
What about the other way around? Should I be punished for "Caucasian" crimes relating to the genocide because I happen to have been born white?
What about the property and rights that were stolen from my "Caucasian" ancestors in the Barbarian slave trade of North Africa? Shouldn't Morocco give me a slice of land for the brutality they forced upon my ancestors?

Really, it's 2015. I doubt that race would be that much of an issue if you'd just leave our generation at peace - the only ones that are enforcing racial stereotyping are the idiots who demand special treatment based on ethnicity (no matter if these are leftist idiots or nationalist idiots).
We're HUMAN. Not Whites, Native Americans or Blacks.

If we were to continue to drag these injustices from over two centuries ago into our contemporary days, we would never ever find social peace or justice. I can't be held responsible for something that the generations before me did.
And, like I said, if we were to keep up this stupid charade of historical revisionism, then we might as well go both ways.

 

[JustOneWay]

Obama upsets US Christians....again



The sun rises
People die
taxes are levied
Christians are upset.

 

[marshlewis]

Which part of "Christ" are people having difficulty understanding?

Christianity is founded by Christ. Not Moses, not David, not Solomon, not Joshua. Christ.

Compare the FOUNDERS - Christ, and Mohammed.

Obama is comparing Christians with Muslims. If he wants to make a point about the other men, lets see the spineless little oik criticise Judaism instead shall we? But he's not going to do that, is he; because like all bullies he is gutless. He won't target Islam or Judaism, because they fight back, but Christianity is open season.

Spineless, hypocritical, anti-Christian. America, you chose a poor president in this one.

Just to interject. Jesus did not found Christianity. That was Paul.

 

[HannahT]

Originally Posted by HannahT View Post
The country has done plenty to turn the sins/errors of the past around, and so he needs to mention that too.

Its not perfect, and we aren't done. We have come a long way.

If that was true the Indians would own this land.

So, we don't get credit to a nation that has done things to make up for the past, because they don't own the entire United States?

As I said - its not perfect, but we have done things to make up for the humans crimes of the past.

Yet, we must be forever punished. Told we are guilty for something even our great grandparents were not around for?

That makes no sense at all. That is pretty much set up that no one will ever be forgiven, and it doesn't matter how much effort is placed in doing so.

Should we also go back in Native American history and see which tribes took over land from other tribes? That way we can find the one TRUE tribe that owns everything, because we know in history they also fought each other too.

I mean that is where you position leads.

Its unreasonable and unrealistic. No one can ever move forward if that is true.

Is that how the human race needs to be run now? Since everyone of us has some guilty party in our ancestry we can't look at the present day, and say something is dangerous to our very existence?!

That's means we are all dead. Everyone last one of us.

 

[HannahT]

Quite frankly, from Obama's statements in the past his position at the prayer breakfast make no sense to me.

The Terrorist group claims they are the Islamic State.

Obama gets to claim they aren't, because of their actions...and refuses to use their own label because of that principal.

Okay, Yeah...whatever.

Then jumps back 2,000 years to the Crusades, and 200 years to Slavery - stating humans did the same thing using the Christian Faith.

If we are to follow his above logic:

That means he doesn't view them as Christians, because of their actions...and shouldn't use the label because of that principal.

Then he uses a small number of people will will broad brush the entire Muslim faith with the sins of the NON Islamic State (his label or ie terrorists) to justify brushing the entire Christian faith with the sins that he mentioned that happened 200 to 2000 years ago.

So, he does the same thing in reverse that he is asking others NOT to do...and then tells people to get off their high horse.

(scrathes head) If they were not Christians the examples he gave doesn't apply.

If they were Christians we have evolved in our principals - because of the overall way of life and actions - since we got past the old cutting off heads, stoning people, burning them up, locking women in the house because they cause lust, etc.

I guess we need to be patient, because it seems 200 to 2000 years isn't enough time for them to come up for air that their actions are evil. They just aren't there yet - its takes more time for them to evolve compared to the majority of the human race.

So, using his logic he didn't address Christians at all - so their is no 'high horse' we need to come down from.

(shrugs)

He speech was pretty useless on that front.

I mean his examples didn't include 'Christians' due to how he views groups - ie not living up to the examples in their holy books. So, why he included them is beyond me ....using his logic.

 

[tulc]

Christianity is not Judaism.

If you want to go on television and say that Jews who criticise Islam are hypocrites, do so. But you won't, because you are scared to do so. The same is true of your President - he's a coward who targets Christians because he could never get away with it against anyone else.

It's kind of cute how you seem to think repeating the same argument that's been shown to be wrong in this thread and then calling people cowards is somehow a valid method of proving your point.
tulc(is going to make some pop corn and count how many times "coward" is going to be used in this thread)

 

[nightflight]

 

[GarfieldJL]

This is their land, that was stolen from their ancestors. So they are being wronged, since they cant collect their money from all their properties that were stolen from them. Also every thing in America. Don't represent them, it represents the thieves that stole it.

Thank you for demonstrating what the real purpose behind Obama's speech was.

Instead of trying to unite us against this barbaric behavior that happened a few days ago, he's trying to further divide this country by pitting us against each other.

 

[rambot]

Mohammed was a violent warlord, having more in common with Barabbas than Christ..

My point still stands: Your knowledge about the intricacies of a religion you do not follow is lacking. This is evidenced by the fact that there are very few (comparatively speaking) violent muslims worldwide. If Islam advocated violence, we'd have more along the order of, say several hundred MILLION suicide bombers/freedom fighters/whathaveyou. ARE you suggesting that 1.59 BILLION people who claim they are Muslims are not ACTUALLY muslim?


Out of curiousity, I am wondering why there is NEVER any distinction between middle eastern culture and Islam. There are muslims all over the world but because they don't fit the charicature you have of strapping bombs to their chest, toting rifles around, or using children as shields, so you choose to deny them their own religion.

The hubris of that depressing.

Why is the internet full of people who could make an olympic sport of point-missing?

CHRIST (the founder of Christianity) never advocated violence.

MOHAMMED (The founder of Islam) advocated and practiced it.

So violence done in Christ's name is out of keeping.

But violence done in Mohammed's name is comepletely in-keeping.

Yes and the people of Israel, divinely inspired by the GOD of the Bible, carried out terrible acts of barbarity and violence that a stupid person (or a person who has seen generations of their family killed by international forces, say) could use to justify current acts of violence.

We GET your point. It's just a poorly supported point, that's all. No offense. We certainly aren't trying to frustrate you.

 

[Inkfingers]

My point still stands: Your knowledge about the intricacies of a religion you do not follow is lacking.

Hardly.

ISIS and Mohammed are cut from the same cloth.

Islam requires that Muslims revere all of Mohammed's actions. He set the standard by which to live and that standard has not changed (nor can it, as to question Mohammed's character is simply not allowed in the religion).

Jews can have arguments over whether Joshua was a warmonger.
Christians can have arguments over whether Paul was a misogynist.
But when Muslims try to criticise the character of Mohammed, the reaction is extremely violent. You cannot even do it in "moderate" mosques as the reaction will be explosive.

This is evidenced by the fact that there are very few (comparatively speaking) violent muslims worldwide. If Islam advocated violence, we'd have more along the order of, say several hundred MILLION suicide bombers/freedom fighters/whathaveyou. ARE you suggesting that 1.59 BILLION people who claim they are Muslims are not ACTUALLY muslim?

Every "muslim" who turns his back on violence turns his back on Mohammed. When Jesus sent out the disciples he sent them to teach. Mohammed instead raided caravans, built up an army, sacked a city, executed prisoners, and then allowed his men to rape the prisoner's wives.

The worst thing Jesus did about Jews was call them some cutting names. Mohammed wrote a book that has rocks saying "hey, there's a Jew here, come and kill him".

The man was twisted, and he is revered as the standard for all muslims to this very day.

Yes and the people of Israel, divinely inspired by the GOD of the Bible, carried out terrible acts of barbarity and violence that a stupid person (or a person who has seen generations of their family killed by international forces, say) could use to justify current acts of violence.

The difference is that the Jews stopped doing that a couple of thousand years ago, and Christ meanwhile NEVER advocated such.

But Mohammed did, and you could say that is history too....except that all modern Muslims are required to unquestioningly revere this man.

The only funny thing about Islam is that if it did win we could briefly say "told you so" to all the crying liberals watching they homosexual friends being executed (shortly before they and the rest of us join them).

 

[GarfieldJL]

My point still stands: Your knowledge about the intricacies of a religion you do not follow is lacking. This is evidenced by the fact that there are very few (comparatively speaking) violent muslims worldwide. If Islam advocated violence, we'd have more along the order of, say several hundred MILLION suicide bombers/freedom fighters/whathaveyou. ARE you suggesting that 1.59 BILLION people who claim they are Muslims are not ACTUALLY muslim?

1. A lot more of the Islamic Community is radicalized than what Obama and others would like people to believe.

2. It is considered okay to lie to infidels if it furthers the cause of Islam, so you can't necessarily believe what a Muslim group says publicly when they could be saying something else entirely in private.

3. Obama has a tendency to associate with radical groups like Muslim Brotherhood, so I don't think he has a clue when it comes to distinguishing between moderate muslims and radical muslims.

Out of curiousity, I am wondering why there is NEVER any distinction between middle eastern culture and Islam. There are muslims all over the world but because they don't fit the charicature you have of strapping bombs to their chest, toting rifles around, or using children as shields, so you choose to deny them their own religion.

What I have yet to see is more of those muslims standing up and protesting those that behave in a violent manner. I have seen them try to make excuses for them or try to blame some other religion or the people that are pointing out the bad behavior.

The hubris of that depressing.

I don't like it when people pretend that something isn't happening when it is blatently obvious that it is.

Yes and the people of Israel, divinely inspired by the GOD of the Bible, carried out terrible acts of barbarity and violence that a stupid person (or a person who has seen generations of their family killed by international forces, say) could use to justify current acts of violence.

How many thousands of years ago was that again? If you read the Bible, much of it is a laid out in a much different format from the Quran. The bulk of the Bible is almost like a history book, particularly when acts of violence are mentioned. It does not say the violent behavior is how a Christian or Jew should normally behave towards those whom are not of the same religion.

We GET your point. It's just a poorly supported point, that's all. No offense. We certainly aren't trying to frustrate you.

It looks more like you missed the point.

Muslims need to clean up their own religion and everyone should stop pretending as though radical Islam doesn't exist. Christians and Jews may have had their blemishes, but both religions have since grown up.

 

[Albion]

Instead of trying to unite us against this barbaric behavior that happened a few days ago, he's trying to further divide this country by pitting us against each other.

One fact that has been overlooked in all of this is that Obama could have chosen a hundred instances from history of crimes being perpetrated in the name of religion...and of the Christian religion in particular. But he chose as his main one the Islamofascists' #1 propaganda claim against the West--that we are all out to kill Muslims as "Crusaders."

Why did he choose to affirm this particular allegation?

Would Churchill or Roosevelt have tried to bring balance by saying, "Yes, we are controlled by Jews, but that's Democracy for you!"

I doubt it.

 

[brewmama]

Just to interject. Jesus did not found Christianity. That was Paul.

That's ridiculous.

 

[brewmama]

My point still stands: Your knowledge about the intricacies of a religion you do not follow is lacking. This is evidenced by the fact that there are very few (comparatively speaking) violent muslims worldwide. If Islam advocated violence, we'd have more along the order of, say several hundred MILLION suicide bombers/freedom fighters/whathaveyou. ARE you suggesting that 1.59 BILLION people who claim they are Muslims are not ACTUALLY muslim?


Out of curiousity, I am wondering why there is NEVER any distinction between middle eastern culture and Islam. There are muslims all over the world but because they don't fit the charicature you have of strapping bombs to their chest, toting rifles around, or using children as shields, so you choose to deny them their own religion.

You seem to overlook all the cheering mobs that occur when atrocities are carried out, such as Palestinians cheering after 9/11. There are lots of Muslims that may not strap bombs to their chest, but they admire those that do.

You also seem to overlook that there are Muslim atrocities in Africa, Chechnya, Pakistan, and even Indonesia. Not just the Middle East. How can you ignore that?

 

[rambot]

1. A lot more of the Islamic Community is radicalized than what Obama and others would like people to believe.

Cool! An unsubstantiated claim!
We are talking about the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS here garfield not the difference betwee 20,000 and 70,000

2. It is considered okay to lie to infidels if it furthers the cause of Islam, so you can't necessarily believe what a Muslim group says publicly when they could be saying something else entirely in private.

Have you spoken to a practicing Muslims (or, Imam ideally) so you would be able to get a better grasp of this claim in the context?

3. Obama has a tendency to associate with radical groups like Muslim Brotherhood, so I don't think he has a clue when it comes to distinguishing between moderate muslims and radical muslims.

But obviously you do because you are better informed on the inner workings of terror groups than your president and the might of the CIA and FBI. I'm not talking about Obama. I'm talking about making specious claims about a religion that rationality would not bear out.

What I have yet to see is more of those muslims standing up and protesting those that behave in a violent manner. I have seen them try to make excuses for them or try to blame some other religion or the people that are pointing out the bad behavior.

To be fair, that is not really the sexist new story is it though? I've heard these stories on cbc up here in Canada but I'd bet dollars to donuts that Fox probably wouldn't touch those stories with a 10ft pole. linking a google search...how lame is this.
It's easy to not see it when you don't look for it. And, I'm noting, this search does NOT include the blogosphere and the numerous moderate (modern) muslims.

I don't like it when people pretend that something isn't happening when it is blatently obvious that it is.

Well, since inkfingers seems to be implying that only violent Muslims are following the teachings of Mohammed (ie...are muslims), I'm not sure what your point is here. Is this something about self loathing?

How many thousands of years ago was that again?

So you are suggesting that the Bible is not CURRENTLY relevant to Christians. Interesting position to take. If the Bible is still relevant to us, why would it matter how LONG ago this stuff happenned?

If you read the Bible, much of it is a laid out in a much different format from the Quran. The bulk of the Bible is almost like a history book, particularly when acts of violence are mentioned. It does not say the violent behavior is how a Christian or Jew should normally behave towards those whom are not of the same religion.

Yeah. I'm sure that you have read enough of the Qu'ran and spent copious time in hermeneutical study to expect an annonymous person on the internet to take your breakdown as informed. I very much doubt you've even met, let alone spoke with an Imam to get a grasp of what Islam actually teaches.
One does not need a dictate to clearly show how Christians should live. (sidebar) That's the problem with legalism. Look at the example that was led (/sidebar). The people of Israel were put forward as an example of how to treat your enemies.
As I've said, it comes down to stupid people who are violent.

It looks more like you missed the point.

Simply because we disagree and I am arguing the point? No. Trust me. I understand what he's saying: Mohammed advocated through modelling, the kind of life Muslims need to lead (one of violence, an distrust towards all nonmuslims). Therefore, the only good muslims are the ones who are violent. Jesus never advocated those things. So people who invoke God to justify their violence do so baselessly but Muslims who do so are upholding teachers..

Muslims need to clean up their own religion and everyone should stop pretending as though radical Islam doesn't exist.

Muslims are having their own discussions. Surprise! You are not privy to them.

Nobody is pretending radical Islam doesn't exist. You need to shake that idea out of your head. No one is even IMPLYING it. People need to stop thinking that only violent muslims are TRUE muslims. That is ACTUALLY happenning. People need to stop thinking that they have a deep understanding of Islam because they read WND and whatever link that came from that page.

Christians and Jews may have had their blemishes, but both religions have since grown up.

And both religions are (MINIMALLY) 500 or more early older that Islam. Consider it a growing pain. Like how Christians had the Reformation; that was NOT a very fun time to be a Christian in Europe, was it?

 

[rambot]

You seem to overlook all the cheering mobs that occur when atrocities are carried out, such as Palestinians cheering after 9/11. There are lots of Muslims that may not strap bombs to their chest, but they admire those that do.

You also seem to overlook that there are Muslim atrocities in Africa, Chechnya, Pakistan, and even Indonesia. Not just the Middle East. How can you ignore that?

And YOU seem to be unwilling to accept that Muslims THE WORLD OVER mourned WITH America after 9/11. There were Muslims that mourned with the French after the Charlie Hebdo attack. They exist, yet you ignore them and don't honour what they do. That is a shame you don't take an opportunity to build a bridge of understanding when given an opportunity.

I'm not ignoring those things brewmama. I'm providing numbers...again 1.6 BILLION. That is a lot of people. That is a LOT of suicide bombers.

I would also note that MOST of the victims of extremist jihadi violence are fellow muslims. So to think that extremists have carte blanche and have overwhelming support and love is misplaced.

 

[Albion]

Cool! An unsubstantiated claim!
We are talking about the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS here garfield not the difference betwee 20,000 and 70,000

There have been many studies and surveys conducted over recent years and, yes, the claim is correct. That doesn't mean that every person would behead a Christian child or blow himself up in a restaurant...but "radicalized?" Certainly.

 

[SuperCloud]

Just to interject. Jesus did not found Christianity. That was Paul.

I would probably agree with you had Jesus not been tried as a heretic by Jewish authorities, the turned over to the Roman state for execution. And had Jesus not stated he was building a Church. And if Paul was the single source of the New Testament. And if the social science of archeology lacked all physical evidence for ancient Christianity in India, Egypt, and elsewhere Apostles other than Paul went and are locally credited with establishing Christianity.

Paul's own words indicate he was a convert to the cult of Christ and not its founder.

 

[SuperCloud]

I think you could do with reading this article. Jesus as the ultra pacifist advocate of non-violence has never been the view of theologians.

I think you must be mistaking Jesus with vegetarian Buddhists who try not to step on ants.

Aside from Jesus acting out with violence in the temple he clearly traveled with armed men and at the last supper advises those who don't own a sword to sell their cloak to buy one.

The impression given of Jesus--who preached more fire and brimstone than any other prophet in the Bible--is that of a philosophy akin to traditional martial arts: avoiding fighting as best one can, but there are times when responding back with violence is just and appropriate.

If some guy is attempting to run over a group of grade school children with his pickup, if you are armed with a rifle you are just in shooting him--potentially to death--with the intent and goal of preserving the lives of those children.


Edited to add:

Sorry, Aureus, I jumped the gun and misunderstood your post.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Cool! An unsubstantiated claim!
We are talking about the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS here garfield not the difference betwee 20,000 and 70,000

What's clear here is that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

rambot, the percentage of radical Muslims is far higher than 0.1% and as you yourself pointed out there are 1.5+ billion Muslims in the world...

http://people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/Muslim-American-Report.pdf

Even if the 0.1% number was accurate, the number of radical muslims would be at least 1.5 million (not 20 to 70 thousand).

If that percentage was 1% we're talking at least 15 million, 2% would be 30 million, 3% would be 45 million.

If 10% of the population of Muslims are radicals, we're looking at over 150 million.

Have you spoken to a practicing Muslims (or, Imam ideally) so you would be able to get a better grasp of this claim in the context?

This is basic math rambot, and one can be a radical without actively participating in violence....

But obviously you do because you are better informed on the inner workings of terror groups than your president and the might of the CIA and FBI. I'm not talking about Obama. I'm talking about making specious claims about a religion that rationality would not bear out.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/JWSRGovtPurgeAndActiveMeasures5Dec2013.pdf

It seems I've been paying better attention to what has been going on, than you have.

To be fair, that is not really the sexist new story is it though? I've heard these stories on cbc up here in Canada but I'd bet dollars to donuts that Fox probably wouldn't touch those stories with a 10ft pole. linking a google search...how lame is this.
It's easy to not see it when you don't look for it. And, I'm noting, this search does NOT include the blogosphere and the numerous moderate (modern) muslims.

That's a start, but I've yet to see much in the way of real action.

Well, since inkfingers seems to be implying that only violent Muslims are following the teachings of Mohammed (ie...are muslims), I'm not sure what your point is here. Is this something about self loathing?

I'm not inkfingers...

So you are suggesting that the Bible is not CURRENTLY relevant to Christians. Interesting position to take. If the Bible is still relevant to us, why would it matter how LONG ago this stuff happenned?

The problem with your argument and the arguments used by many liberals is the fact you are equating the accounts of historical events with the examples of how to live one's life. There are key sections of the Bible that talk about how people should behave, and other sections that refer to specific events that happened.

Yeah. I'm sure that you have read enough of the Qu'ran and spent copious time in hermeneutical study to expect an annonymous person on the internet to take your breakdown as informed. I very much doubt you've even met, let alone spoke with an Imam to get a grasp of what Islam actually teaches.

I had to read it for a history class, btw I have no intention of converting to Islam. Btw, I really don't care if you consider my analysis to be informed or not, and quite frankly part of the problem as to why we saw Christians not behaving like Christians in the Middle Ages was people relying on authority figures in the Church to tell them what to think rather than reading the Bible for themselves.

One does not need a dictate to clearly show how Christians should live. (sidebar) That's the problem with legalism. Look at the example that was led (/sidebar). The people of Israel were put forward as an example of how to treat your enemies.
As I've said, it comes down to stupid people who are violent.

Explains why so many of the radicals have college degrees...

Simply because we disagree and I am arguing the point? No. Trust me. I understand what he's saying: Mohammed advocated through modelling, the kind of life Muslims need to lead (one of violence, an distrust towards all nonmuslims). Therefore, the only good muslims are the ones who are violent. Jesus never advocated those things. So people who invoke God to justify their violence do so baselessly but Muslims who do so are upholding teachers..

I'm guessing you haven't read the Quran...

Look I'm well aware of the fact that there can be more than one interpretation, but if we look at the more literal translation we can see the extremism.

Muslims are having their own discussions. Surprise! You are not privy to them.

The problem is that what they're saying publicly and what they're saying behind closed doors can be two very different things.

Nobody is pretending radical Islam doesn't exist. You need to shake that idea out of your head. No one is even IMPLYING it. People need to stop thinking that only violent muslims are TRUE muslims. That is ACTUALLY happenning. People need to stop thinking that they have a deep understanding of Islam because they read WND and whatever link that came from that page.

So if I can name 1 person that is in denial, you'd admit you're wrong?

President Barack H. Obama.

And both religions are (MINIMALLY) 500 or more early older that Islam. Consider it a growing pain. Like how Christians had the Reformation; that was NOT a very fun time to be a Christian in Europe, was it?

This isn't several hundred years ago rambot, this is 2015. Lecturing people over the behavior of distant ancestors to say they have no reason to condemn horrific behavior that happened only a few days ago, is dishonest, and downright offensive.