Readers’ Responses to Our Question (44)

rXMIA8 U cool ))

rXMIA8 U cool ))

rXMIA8 U cool ))

Garyd :

You wrote:

"Ahmed no one including Bush wishes you or any other decent Muslim anything other than peace"

Speak for yourself. Bush says one thing and does one thing. He record during his short tenure in White House speaks volumes. You do not 'Shock and Awe' a whole country trying to punish one bully and his henchmen. Iraq today is chaos. People q for a drop of oil in a country overflown with oil, nly to be pumped out at America's will. The rest of the Iraqi assets are divided between US/UK corporates at a pittance.

This ignoring the million casualties and 3 million refugees living in Syria, Iran and Jordan. What was the cause of their misery? Your wonderful invasion and Rumsfeld/Cheney lies. The irony is that you still think Bush and Neocons want freedom for us. Where have you been? Don't you read news of The Middle East other than CNN/Fox?

Bush supported Israel bombarding Lebanon for over a month, killing thousands and leaving millions of clustered bombs that kill innocent children today. All paid for by your taxes. Israel does not want to give the location of these clustered bombs to vlunteers who risk their lives to clea acres of contaminated lands and you tell me Bush loves us! Msn, he only loves his autocracy and oil corps.

Let us start by withdrawing all your troops from all Middle East countries and becoming a non-biased supporter of Israel. Then you can be Bush's spokesperson.

As for that old dog of Mccain he wants to be in Iran for 100 years and sings to Beach Boys tune: Bom, bomb, bomb; bomb Iran, Bomb Iran. Funny how Americans can vote for such an old warmonger. Does being a war hero earns you the title of presidency? What about all the peace-loving folks? Where are they? Why don't you hear from them in your newsmedia? Ron Paul for example. Does CNN/Fox give him coverage??? Ask yourself why? Follow the money trail. Besides your whole economy is based on production of WMD and for those corps it means creating more demand for their goods. Hence more wars based on lies and slick PR machinery.

That is why AIPAC loves McCain coz he loves war and he is 70+, so chances are that he will kick the bucket in office, then they have a free ride as who to put into his place. Think about it and read a little more about your foreign policy and the power that your country has and it inflicting freely around the world. Your image is zilch outside of US. Wake up and stop blaming the troubles of Iraq and Afghanistan on muslims. Sure we are dumb but America ears heavy responsibility historically in those places and 911 is the result of those foreign policy acts.

If you want your freedom you have to give it to another.

(5:100) (O Messenger!) Say to them: "The bad things and the good things are not equal, even though the abundance of the bad things might make you pleased with them. Men of understanding, beware of disobeying Allah; then maybe you will attain true success.'

This verse enunciates a standard of evaluation and judgement quite distinct from the standards employed by superficial people. For the latter, for instance, a hundred dollars are worth more than five dollars, since a hundred is more than five. But, according to this verse, if those hundred dollars have been earned in a manner entailing the disobedience of God the entire amount becomes unclean. If, on the contrary, a man earns five dollars while obeying God then this amount is clean; and anything which is unclean, whatever its quantity, cannot be worth that which is clean. A drop of perfume is more valuable than a heap of filth; a palmful of clean water is much more valuable than a huge cauldron brimming with urine. A truly wise person should therefore necessarily be content with whatever he acquires by clean, permissible means, however small and humble its quantity may be. He should not reach out for what is prohibited, however large in quantity and glittering in appearance.

Mu’tah Expedition

In the eighth year of the Hijrah, hearing that the Byzantine emperor was gathering a force in Syria for the destruction of Islam, the Prophet sent three thousand men to Syria under the command of his freedman Zayd. The campaign was unsuccessful except that it impressed the Syrians with a notion of the reckless valor of the Muslims. The three thousand did not hesitate to join battle with a hundred thousand. When all the three leaders appointed by the Prophet had been killed, the survivors obeyed Khalid ibn al-Walid, who, by his strategy and courage, managed to preserve a remnant and return with them to Al-Madinah.

Mia said,
"As a Christian I must ask you. Can't you separate a behavior from a person? A person is so much more than an isolated behavior."

My dear though you like to sketch your own Muslim image and in the process deliberately ignore the "facts" like that I am also cursing the behavior of the certain humans.

So according to you as a Christian,

A person is
1-more than HOMO (with just sick "by choice" habit of diseased filthy s.h.i.t hole bashing).

SAME WAY

2- more than a KILLER..."by choice"
3- more than a child molester (generally your priests)"by choice"
4- more than a rapist (every 2nd women get raped in her life time in your society not ours).
5- more than an INCEST PARENT (more than 13% in your society not ours, because of your sick twisted believes).
6- more than a racist (you must have lot to say about it, like white Jesus(a.s.) & black Jesus(a.s)..etc..etc..etc.....
7- more than an ADULTURER or FORNICATOR. (Now in your books you don't even consider it SO WIDE SPREAD IN YOUR OVER ALL SOCIETY...NOT IN OURS!!!!!)
8- more than a MAD BUSH SINDEROME...NO LIMITS...

And there are so many more behaviors which YOU can live with and separate those from a person IN YOU WIRED WILD IMAGINATION...we Muslims can't.

TO US "NORMAL HUMANS" PERSONAL BEHAVIOR IS THE ORIGINAL REFLECTION OF THE PERSON'S NATURE, ATTITUDE, and TENDENCIES...etc, for example, criminal or civil?

In the Washington Post’s report on this week’s blog, it compares Mike Huckabee’s use of “faith” to gain political advantage with that of the other presidential candidates of both parties. Juxtaposed to this report is a story that inquires whether human tragedy is a matter of divine intervention or merely bad luck. The story has quotes from those who see God in the dtermination of death or survival, and those who see God in the human response to tragedy.

Both of these stories point to the problem of how we talk about religion. For some, profound belief in a supernatural being who is active in the world must manifest itself in a code, like the OT, NT or Koran, and by extension it must be manifested in the doctrines and creeds of a formal religion. In many cases for these believers, if you are a non-believer, you are either wrong, an infidel, evil, to be converted, to be demonized, or some combination of these and others.

What these points of view miss is the original essence of religion and human spirituality. If you consider the Latin root of the word religion, ligio, it means to bind, as in ligature or ligament. The essence of human spirituality is compassion and what religion should seek to accomplish is the re-binding of the human community after either natural or manmade tragedy tears it apart. I strongly believe that every religion – but also art, poetry, science and all other regenerative forms of human expression – starts with this basic human spirituality and compassion. Where it goes wrong is when people create rules (i.e., doctrines and creeds) to follow, and when the self righteous condemn those who only too humanly fail to abide by these rules, or worse, when the rules are manipulated by the powerful to inflict harm, then religion becomes antithetical to its own original purpose. Unfortunately, so much of the suffering we see in the world today can be attributed to irreligious human acts, very frequently in the name of someone’s religion.

The stories in today’s Washington Post raise some things to consider in our presidential election. Mike Huckabee is on record as denying evolution (presumably because he believes in a supernatural God that created Earth as it presently is and who had the ability to codify that in writing in Genesis) and calling himself a “Christian Leader.” He has said that he wants to amend the U.S. Constitution to be in line with unspecified parts of the Bible. He has a frame a reference, which is likely derived from his theological training, that he believes should be codified for all.

Now take Barack Obama. The reason he is gaining so much support is because people sense that he is the opposite of divisive. (Personally, I think he is extraordinarily authentic. I first heard him on the radio in Chicago in a Democratic primary debate to become the parties nominee for the U.S. Senate, and I was impressed then by his welcoming and inclusive personality.) I believe that people in all over the world, but certainly here in the U.S., want a sense of higher, common purpose, and this is, at its root, spiritual and religious. Most people want to care about something larger than themselves, and Obama gives the sense to the widest group of people that he is genuine in his desire to transcend partisan politics. Many so-called religious conservatives find him appealing, even though he would likely govern as a liberal. Again, I would say that the quality so many people see in Obama is his ability to re-bind our national community and world community, and this sense comes from a fundamentally human spiritual impulse; religious and other conservatives have a sense that they’d have a seat at the table with Obama.

What I find disappointing in the Post’s and the main stream media’s coverage of “faith” is that they define it as believers (often believers in a supernatural) and non-believers (often atheists). Indeed, the political right describes Democrats as “secular liberals,” which I understand is an attempt to set them apart from “believers.” In other words, Democrats are not the party of “believers,” and indeed, are the party of no faith, and perhaps even the party of atheists. All I’ll say about that is that it is a silly caricature that no one should ever take seriously.

I write this as a person of deep faith in the ability of true religious values, as manifested in the kind and compassionate acts of humans toward other humans, to transcend ego and self-interestedness; I believe that all religions, at their original core, are beautiful and good. But I also believe many of them have lost sight of what is truly meaningful. I am a religious humanist who believes deeply that the universe is perfect in and of itself, and only humans make it imperfect by unskillfull responses to natural events and unskillfull actions toward each other. We can choose to do better, and meditation, prayer, and visual thinking and analysis all can help us do better. I am a non-believer in any supernatural force that has a plan for our lives or consciously acts in the world, but I do believe that the belief in a supernatural inevitably leads codifying its will in divisive ways. To some, this would make me an atheist. I don’t deny the existence of your God for you; I merely ask to consider whether your God would have developed religion for the purpose of creating division and bloodshed, or whether he would have given you an essentially spiritual and compassionate nature in order to build bonds with one another.

How we handle differences in our values is critical. Rather than defend and fight, the compassionate means is to discuss and understand and to seek ways to build bridges and resolve differences as best we can. No one has a lock on truth, but when we act as though we do, this is when we have problems. Religion should serve as a means to bridge these differences, not deepen them. Our faith should be in each other; we should use our religious values to truly love through constructive engagement and listening, not to hate by insisting that our position represents the one truth.

Moody, you give me the impression Muslims are strident homosexual haters..Muslims seem to hate gays and want rhem all dead.

As a Christian I must ask you. Can't you separate a behavior from a person? A person is so much more tham an isolated behavior.

All possible kind of questions asked by non Muslims about Islam answered on below web sites:

ALL MISCONCEPTIONS AND FALSE MEANINGS ARE ANSWERED:

1-www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm (on this site you will get all answers about Islam, CHRISTIANITY, JESUS, JUDAISM , ETHEISIM, HINDUISM and all other religions).
2-www.islamalways.com/
3-www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
4-www.jamaat.net/deedat.htm
5-www.islamtomorrow.com/yusuf.asp
6-www.justaskislam.com/index.php (on this site you will get answer of every question you have and asked, with in a day or by next day - IT’S A CHALLENGE !!!)

Antitoxin from GAYS eka CCNL eka severe madness etc.

- Obamamania! Faint and Shout -

Are these phoney, orchestrated, manufactured campaign theatrics or is it merely a physiological coincidence? You decide!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH7YTCjSghE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDUFMia40Fk

Halozcel,

With respect to John 18:36:

From Crossan and Watts book, Who is Jesus.

“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.

I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset.

And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed.

All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered.

Halozcel,

John 18:36 is simply more embellishment by John.

To wit:

From Crossan and Watts book, Who is Jesus.

“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.

I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset.

And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed.

All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

Barak Obama's candidacy is becoming increasingly messianic in tone. He seems to be promoting himself as America's savior.

Tim,

Thanks for that OT "thump"!!! Any other words of wisdom from the Hittites and Greeks?

"The scepter shall not depart from Judah, and a lawgiver [u’mchokek] from between his feet, like as when Shiloh comes, and unto Him shall the obedience of the peoples be.”

Genesis 49:10

Behind leaf I know about names. And grapes, parents by year.

Anon, Anon, Anon whoever you are,

The authors of the OT and NT were not historians but fictionalizing and embellishing scribes as shown by adding "pretty/ugly thingies", global floods, talking bushes/snakes, food replicators, bodies raised from the dead, etc., etc..

See the many historical Jesus experts and their books listed at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Christie,

*My kingdom is not from this world* John 18.36

CCNL,

Yes, it is recorded by historians, who do you think wrote the bible, "historian?"

Please lets not argue over this issue.

Christie,

But did the historic Jesus really say and do the things the gospels reported??

Unfortunately most of the NT is embellished in order to turn a simple preacher man into a division of god.

e.g.

John 6:1-15 http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/003_Bread_and_Fish

an excerpt:

"Lüdemann (Jesus, 45) offers the following historical judgment of the account in Mark 6:

The formation of this story derives from the needs of the community. Its historical value is nil. Anyone is free to accept the table fellowship of Jesus and his followers as a starting point for the rise of this story. But that is rather different from the feeding of the 5000."

Christie,
Your post was both inspiring and full of profound truth.

Your view on biblically truths and the foundation of Christian understanding have great depth.

Thank you for sharing your insightful thoughts.

Concerned,

Can it already!!!

Ahmed from Bahrain wrote a nice note and there is not reason to constantly bombard him with the same old crap.

Obama, Clinton, McCain and Huckabee all identify themselves as Christian.

According to the Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, a Christian is defined as one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

In regards to politics and holding public office, what are Jesus Christ’s teachings?
When Jesus was on earth, thousands of honest hearted people recognized, not just his greatness, but his concern for others. It’s no surprise that they wanted to make him king.
(John 6:10, 14, 15) 10 “Jesus said: “Have the men recline as at meal.” Now there was a lot of grass in the place. Therefore the men reclined, about five thousand in number…. 14 Hence when the men saw the signs he performed, they began to say: “This is for a certainty the prophet that was to come into the world.” 15 Therefore Jesus, knowing they were about to come and seize him to make him king, withdrew again into the mountain all alone.”
Jesus declined to get involved in politics.
Jesus' response was based on at least three factors: his Father's view of expressions of human self-determination, which include human rule; Jesus' awareness that there are powerful, hidden forces working against even the best human efforts at rulership; and God's purpose to establish a heavenly government to rule over the entire earth.
His Father’s view: The lamentable record of human self-rule confirms the truthfulness of Jeremiah 10:23: "I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step." History has proved that humans do not have the capacity to rule successfully without their Creator.
Jesus fully agreed. Independence from God was loathsome to him. "I do nothing of my own initiative," he said. "I always do the things pleasing to [God]." (John 4:34; 8:28, 29) With no divine authorization to receive kingship from humans, Jesus did not even consider accepting it. This does not mean, however, that he was reluctant to help his fellowman. On the contrary, he did all in his power to assist people to find the greatest happiness then and in the future. He even gave his life for mankind. (Matthew 5:3-11; 7:24-27; John 3:16) But Jesus knew that "for everything there is an appointed time," including God's time to assert his sovereignty over mankind. (Ecclesiastes 3:1; Matthew 24:14, 21, 22, 36-39)

Jesus kept out of politics because he was aware of powerful, hidden forces.
Satan, the world's secret ruler, the Bible tells us, offered Jesus "all the kingdoms of the world and their glory" in exchange for one act of worship. (Matthew 4:8-10) Jesus was offered world rulership—but on the Devil's terms. Satan could actually make such an offer because, as Jesus himself called the Devil, he is "the ruler of the world". (John 14:30). The apostle Paul described him as "the god of this system of things." (2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 6:12).
Jesus did not fall prey to this temptation. Jesus knew that the Devil does not have mankind's best interests at heart. He described Satan as "a murderer" and as "the father of lies and of all that is false." (John 8:44). A world "lying in the power" of a wicked spirit can never be truly happy. (1 John 5:19) But the Devil will not have this authority indefinitely. Jesus will shortly depose Satan and completely eliminate his influence.(Hebrews 2:14; Revelation 20:1-3).
A third reason why Jesus stayed out of politics is that he knew that at a future set time, God would establish a heavenly government to rule over the earth. The Bible calls this government God's Kingdom, and it was the main theme of Jesus' teaching. (Luke 4:43; Revelation 11:15) Jesus taught his disciples to pray for that Kingdom to come, for only under its rule will 'God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven.' (Matthew 6:9, 10)
Daniel 2:44 says, "In the days of those kings [ruling at the end of the present system] the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these [man-made] kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite." God's Kingdom will have to "crush" earthly rulerships because these insist on perpetuating the God-defying spirit of self-determination promoted by Satan back in the garden of Eden. In addition to working against mankind's best interests, those who strive to perpetuate that spirit put themselves on a collision course with the Creator. (Psalm 2:6-12; Revelation 16:14, 16)

Jesus always did things God's way. Instead of choosing an independent course and trying to prop up or improve the existing system of things by political means, he worked hard to advance the interests of God's Kingdom, the only solution to the world's ills.

God's Kingdom is the real key to a truly happy world, and the message announcing it is rightly described as good news.

In order to help people make an informed decision about rulership, Jesus commissioned his disciples to preach the "good news of the kingdom . . . in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations" before the end of the present system comes. (Matthew 24:14)

This is the message all true Christians should preach: God’s Kingdom is the only solution to the world’s problems. All true Christians, including Obama, Clinton, McCain and Huckabee.

Obama, Clinton, McCain and Huckabee all identify themselves as Christian.

According to the Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, a Christian is defined as one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

In regards to politics and holding public office, what are Jesus Christ’s teachings?
When Jesus was on earth, thousands of honest hearted people recognized, not just his greatness, but his concern for others. It’s no surprise that they wanted to make him king.
(John 6:10, 14, 15) 10 “Jesus said: “Have the men recline as at meal.” Now there was a lot of grass in the place. Therefore the men reclined, about five thousand in number…. 14 Hence when the men saw the signs he performed, they began to say: “This is for a certainty the prophet that was to come into the world.” 15 Therefore Jesus, knowing they were about to come and seize him to make him king, withdrew again into the mountain all alone.”
Jesus declined to get involved in politics.
Jesus' response was based on at least three factors: his Father's view of expressions of human self-determination, which include human rule; Jesus' awareness that there are powerful, hidden forces working against even the best human efforts at rulership; and God's purpose to establish a heavenly government to rule over the entire earth.
His Father’s view: The lamentable record of human self-rule confirms the truthfulness of Jeremiah 10:23: "I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step." History has proved that humans do not have the capacity to rule successfully without their Creator.
Jesus fully agreed. Independence from God was loathsome to him. "I do nothing of my own initiative," he said. "I always do the things pleasing to [God]." (John 4:34; 8:28, 29) With no divine authorization to receive kingship from humans, Jesus did not even consider accepting it. This does not mean, however, that he was reluctant to help his fellowman. On the contrary, he did all in his power to assist people to find the greatest happiness then and in the future. He even gave his life for mankind. (Matthew 5:3-11; 7:24-27; John 3:16) But Jesus knew that "for everything there is an appointed time," including God's time to assert his sovereignty over mankind. (Ecclesiastes 3:1; Matthew 24:14, 21, 22, 36-39)

Jesus kept out of politics because he was aware of powerful, hidden forces.
Satan, the world's secret ruler, the Bible tells us, offered Jesus "all the kingdoms of the world and their glory" in exchange for one act of worship. (Matthew 4:8-10) Jesus was offered world rulership—but on the Devil's terms. Satan could actually make such an offer because, as Jesus himself called the Devil, he is "the ruler of the world". (John 14:30). The apostle Paul described him as "the god of this system of things." (2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 6:12).
Jesus did not fall prey to this temptation. Jesus knew that the Devil does not have mankind's best interests at heart. He described Satan as "a murderer" and as "the father of lies and of all that is false." (John 8:44). A world "lying in the power" of a wicked spirit can never be truly happy. (1 John 5:19) But the Devil will not have this authority indefinitely. Jesus will shortly depose Satan and completely eliminate his influence.(Hebrews 2:14; Revelation 20:1-3).
A third reason why Jesus stayed out of politics is that he knew that at a future set time, God would establish a heavenly government to rule over the earth. The Bible calls this government God's Kingdom, and it was the main theme of Jesus' teaching. (Luke 4:43; Revelation 11:15) Jesus taught his disciples to pray for that Kingdom to come, for only under its rule will 'God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven.' (Matthew 6:9, 10)
Daniel 2:44 says, "In the days of those kings [ruling at the end of the present system] the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these [man-made] kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite." God's Kingdom will have to "crush" earthly rulerships because these insist on perpetuating the God-defying spirit of self-determination promoted by Satan back in the garden of Eden. In addition to working against mankind's best interests, those who strive to perpetuate that spirit put themselves on a collision course with the Creator. (Psalm 2:6-12; Revelation 16:14, 16)

Jesus always did things God's way. Instead of choosing an independent course and trying to prop up or improve the existing system of things by political means, he worked hard to advance the interests of God's Kingdom, the only solution to the world's ills.

God's Kingdom is the real key to a truly happy world, and the message announcing it is rightly described as good news.

In order to help people make an informed decision about rulership, Jesus commissioned his disciples to preach the "good news of the kingdom . . . in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations" before the end of the present system comes. (Matthew 24:14)

This is the message all true Christians should preach: God’s Kingdom is the only solution to the world’s problems. All true Christians, including Obama, Clinton, McCain and Huckabee.

Obama, Clinton, McCain and Huckabee all identify themselves as Christian.

According to the Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, a Christian is defined as one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

In regards to politics and holding public office, what are Jesus Christ’s teachings?
When Jesus was on earth, thousands of honest hearted people recognized, not just his greatness, but his concern for others. It’s no surprise that they wanted to make him king.
(John 6:10, 14, 15) 10 “Jesus said: “Have the men recline as at meal.” Now there was a lot of grass in the place. Therefore the men reclined, about five thousand in number…. 14 Hence when the men saw the signs he performed, they began to say: “This is for a certainty the prophet that was to come into the world.” 15 Therefore Jesus, knowing they were about to come and seize him to make him king, withdrew again into the mountain all alone.”
Jesus declined to get involved in politics.
Jesus' response was based on at least three factors: his Father's view of expressions of human self-determination, which include human rule; Jesus' awareness that there are powerful, hidden forces working against even the best human efforts at rulership; and God's purpose to establish a heavenly government to rule over the entire earth.
His Father’s view: The lamentable record of human self-rule confirms the truthfulness of Jeremiah 10:23: "I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step." History has proved that humans do not have the capacity to rule successfully without their Creator.
Jesus fully agreed. Independence from God was loathsome to him. "I do nothing of my own initiative," he said. "I always do the things pleasing to [God]." (John 4:34; 8:28, 29) With no divine authorization to receive kingship from humans, Jesus did not even consider accepting it. This does not mean, however, that he was reluctant to help his fellowman. On the contrary, he did all in his power to assist people to find the greatest happiness then and in the future. He even gave his life for mankind. (Matthew 5:3-11; 7:24-27; John 3:16) But Jesus knew that "for everything there is an appointed time," including God's time to assert his sovereignty over mankind. (Ecclesiastes 3:1; Matthew 24:14, 21, 22, 36-39)

Jesus kept out of politics because he was aware of powerful, hidden forces.
Satan, the world's secret ruler, the Bible tells us, offered Jesus "all the kingdoms of the world and their glory" in exchange for one act of worship. (Matthew 4:8-10) Jesus was offered world rulership—but on the Devil's terms. Satan could actually make such an offer because, as Jesus himself called the Devil, he is "the ruler of the world". (John 14:30). The apostle Paul described him as "the god of this system of things." (2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 6:12).
Jesus did not fall prey to this temptation. Jesus knew that the Devil does not have mankind's best interests at heart. He described Satan as "a murderer" and as "the father of lies and of all that is false." (John 8:44). A world "lying in the power" of a wicked spirit can never be truly happy. (1 John 5:19) But the Devil will not have this authority indefinitely. Jesus will shortly depose Satan and completely eliminate his influence.(Hebrews 2:14; Revelation 20:1-3).
A third reason why Jesus stayed out of politics is that he knew that at a future set time, God would establish a heavenly government to rule over the earth. The Bible calls this government God's Kingdom, and it was the main theme of Jesus' teaching. (Luke 4:43; Revelation 11:15) Jesus taught his disciples to pray for that Kingdom to come, for only under its rule will 'God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven.' (Matthew 6:9, 10)
Daniel 2:44 says, "In the days of those kings [ruling at the end of the present system] the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these [man-made] kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite." God's Kingdom will have to "crush" earthly rulerships because these insist on perpetuating the God-defying spirit of self-determination promoted by Satan back in the garden of Eden. In addition to working against mankind's best interests, those who strive to perpetuate that spirit put themselves on a collision course with the Creator. (Psalm 2:6-12; Revelation 16:14, 16)

Jesus always did things God's way. Instead of choosing an independent course and trying to prop up or improve the existing system of things by political means, he worked hard to advance the interests of God's Kingdom, the only solution to the world's ills.

God's Kingdom is the real key to a truly happy world, and the message announcing it is rightly described as good news.

In order to help people make an informed decision about rulership, Jesus commissioned his disciples to preach the "good news of the kingdom . . . in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations" before the end of the present system comes. (Matthew 24:14)

This is the message all true Christians should preach: God’s Kingdom is the only solution to the world’s problems. All true Christians, including Obama, Clinton, McCain and Huckabee.

ZBRA- HERE"S A PASTE AND LINK TO OBAMA'S CHURCH. HE HAS A NEW PASTOR (MOSS) BECAUSE HIS OLD PASTOR (WRIGHT) WAS TOO CONTROVERSIAL:

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

The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:

A congregation committed to ADORATION.

A congregation preaching SALVATION.

A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.

A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.

A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.

A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.

A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.

A congregation committed to LIBERATION.

A congregation committed to RESTORATION.

A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.

http://www.tucc.org/about.htm

Ahmed,

Ready for a Reality Check??? The basic flaws in Islam are:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies"

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant
laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

These are tough issues. Address them, correct them then ask again to be allowed into the civil world!!!!!

And accusing someone of spreading hate and lies does not work when these "someones" are simply listing the facts. If you have counter points about your beliefs then list them. Hiding behind imams and clerics blinded by 1400 years of brainwashing serves no purpose other than to secure a dishonest living for said imams and clerics.

Ahmed no one including Bush wishes you or any other decent Muslim anything other than peace. We do wish that some of your fellow religionist would quit killing others of your fellow religionists simply to compel them to follow their own narrow interpretation of your religion.

My wish for all the people of whatever religion currently living in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon , Saudi Arabia, and all other countries of whatever religious belief or no religious belief at all is that they experience the freedom to follow whatever religion or no religion that they choose without fear of repercussion from the governing authorities whomever they may be and regardless of their own religion.

I must say, I liked Obama's speech, especially admitting his error to the doctor and saying:

"Re-reading the doctor's letter, though, I felt a pang of shame."

I don;t think Bush or his clan would admit to any error even after all the revealed lies and killing of innocent people. Can you really see him admit that he was wrong and felt 'ashamed'?? Only when pigs fly.

All religions have goodness in them. It is when men take religion to serve their personal interest. Those who do so knowingly are charlatans/hypocrites and will be discovered sooner or later. Those who do so ignorantly are to be feared. They do the most damage.

All religions teach us to be good to others. To be honest, kind, respect for all, help the needy, and all moral values and if we apply those whilst respecting every person and their views/faiths, then there is no difference between liberals, those of faith and those who have no faith at all.

Obama seems to have the grasp of this important issue at a time when the world needs such a powerful leader who respects others for who they are. Let us hope if he takes office, he can stand up to his own belief.

In the end even the atheists have their belief.

We can not have freedom if we deny freedom to another. That is what my heart tells me, otherwise belief in God is a personal matter. It is our action and conduct towards others that is important in this life.

Peace America. Please choose well for you have the power of life and death over many countries and people in the Middle East.

I offer you peace from my heart, always.

How can you truly know if you're leading if you won't tell anyone where your going.

The speech in Houston sounded troublingly like the Nuremburg rallies of 1933.

I've been a lifelong Republican and would have never thought it possible to vote Democrat....until now!

The Republican party's scandals in the last eight years, the war in Iraq, our inability to get a hold of the terrorists, the present economy, and the way America is viewed by the rest of the world have finally pushed me over the edge.

As much as I respect McCain for his service to our country, I can not vote for him with someone like Obama in the wings.

People keep telling me that Obama is unelectable, partly because of his heritage, his quite liberal viewpoints, and the fact that he is such a newcomer.

I beg to differ. I think he has the charisma and the talent to become an excellent President. He is well spoken, educated, civil, civic-minded, and a constitutional lawyer which are all qualities becoming to a President. America's image has become so tarnished that we need someone who can represent us before the rest of the world without becoming a caricature like President Bush has.

Quite unlike Hillary Clinton, I think he would listen to his advisors weigh the pros and cons and do what's best for the nation. Hillary, like Bush, is far too hard-headed for that.

Unless there is a dramatic change between now and November I know where my vote will go.

The candidates are all consummate politicians. You won't know what you're getting until you've got it....

I'm a bit leery of political 'bandwagons' and we all recall how lots of folks were lining up for Ron Paul as the savior of the nation not so many weeks ago. He too was compared favorably to former presidential greats - to Abe Lincoln by more than one poster, and maybe even a few notches above, since Ron would never have found it necessary to fight the Civil War?!

After Bush it's pretty easy to get wound up over the promise of major change, but can the candidate deliver? Only time will tell.........

Many of us would like to see a landslide victory for the democrats come November - and a clear national mandate for a new direction.

We can only hope that what we see and hear is what we get.....personally, I'd like a lot less religion and much more in the way of sensible proposals to achieve that much touted and ever hopeful 'change of direction'.

So far the contest is being won by way of flashy speeches - the candidates need to get down to business, and sooner than later.

I think you can see Obama's beliefs played out in three ways:

1) He exhibits traditional main-line Christian values;

2) He has lived his beliefs to the best of his ability; and

3) Unlike many Democrats, he doesn't think being religious equates with being stupid or uneducated.

If the rhetoric coming from Obama is an indication of his faith, his faith resides largely in his ego, for the vows he has taken to change the world presumes that he runs it. "Yes we can" translates to "Yes I can." His faith in himself is not an expression of humility, it is the apotheothis of arrogance. He is the proverbial Escholl Sellers in Mark Twain's Gilded Age. He is Elmer Gantry. What will it take to get the hordes who follow him to discover the obvious?

ZBRA: In reference to your statement, it's not that they are about everything black. It's a church that emphasizes on black people using their african heritage to build themselves up. The man teaches the Word of God but he lets the black people know that you have to understand and respect your heritage. The black church is treated differently so he has to teach to that difference. It's just like a Church in Africa who wear their Kente outfits to church and they do African dance. Isn't Obama's father from Kenya. Is there anything wrong with him wanting to keep his father's traditions in his family. Until you found out what type of church he was in you would have never had any complaints. It's not a cult church it's a church that celebrates African traditions and heritage. You can't say that whites should have something like that because you don't have any heritage. Blacks lost the heritage of our fathers when were dragged over here on ships. That's the difference. What do you have to think back on???????? It's a christian church that believes Jesus Christ is the son of God yet they want their black parishioners to remember Africa and the struggles of the people in Africa. I understand that and you should to. Obama talks and loves everyone. He is very inclusive, he never says that it's just about blacks, not once have you heard him talk like that. So what are you afraid of...?

Obama's multi-cultural articulate persona makes him appealing. Motivating people to work together is not religion. He is not promoting faith in ritual or the occult, he is convincing people their voice is heard and they are voting for him in mass. That's leadership.

I looked up Obama's church - it is scary!!! They are committed to Black Values only - whatever that is??? And it also states their loyalty is only to Black Africa - no mention is made of America. Take a look - "Trinity United Church of Christ"

Depends on what your faith is in. Obama's, as was clearly demonstrated by his recent speech when he let the cat out of the bag as regards his economic plans is in ever increasing amounts of government.

I haven't heard too much about Obama's religious views, but if he wins the nomination and is elected, I hope AND PRAY that he will defend us rational Americans against the Flat-Earth American Taliban crackpots in the Republican party!!! I'll be happy if he can do that...

How many different ways can we ask the same question?

Instead of embracing some form of religion, the candidates should ID the flaws in all religions.

A synopsis of the flaws in the founders and foundations of the major religions for those that have not seen them before or did not take the time to look:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a mythical character as was Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven,warmongering, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds these acts of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

4. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."

The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."
"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.

For many candidates (McCain, H. Clinton, J. Edwards, R. Giuliani), the god talk, the references to "faith," and the "embracing of religious values" was and is just lip service -- at least I hope that it is, and fortunately this talk has not been reflected, and probably won't be reflected, in specific public policy proposals.

For other candidates that are either (mercifully) gone from the 2008 campaign or soon will be -- such as Huckabee and Romney -- the god talk and references to faith were pretty obviously sincere, and therefore scary to anyone who has a secular humanist viewpoint or is a non-believer and cares about church-state separation.

Obama seems to be in a nebulous middle territory. On the one hand, he's fairly sophisticated intellectually and was a professor of constitutional law, so I don't think he'd do much to erode church-state separation or weaken the Establishment Clause. On the other hand, he has an African-American cultural background that makes his god-talk seem sincere. It's no wonder, since the local neighborhood church was, for 100 years or more, the only social institution in the lives of African-Americans that did not consistently let them down.

So far I've seen or read nothing that would tell us voters, in any detail at all, how or if Obama's religious beliefs would influence or translate into public policy proposals. So I guess I'd say that Obama is doing sincere pandering (as opposed to insincere pandering), but that nothing will come of it in terms of actual policies if he wins election.

It isn't.