Anon, Anon, Anon, Come Out Wherever You Are,

"Crossanization" 101

Books and Sites to Peruse Before Classes Begin:

1. Historical Jesus Theories, earlychristianwritings.com/theories.htm -- the names of many of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the titles of their over 100 books on the subject.

2. Early Christian Writings, earlychristianwritings.com/
-- a list of early Christian documents to include the year of publication
30-60 CE Passion Narrative
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-95 Book of Hebrews
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
70-160 Secret Mark
70-200 Fayyum Fragment
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
80-140 1 Clement
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
80-250 Christian Sibyllines
90-95 Apocalypse of John
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
90-120 2 John
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
93 Flavius Josephus
100-150 1 Timothy
100-150 2 Timothy
100-150 Titus
100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
100-150 Secret Book of James
100-150 Preaching of Peter
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
100-160 Shepherd of Hermas
100-160 2 Peter

3. Historical Jesus Studies, faithfutures.org/HJstudies.html,
-- "an extensive and constantly expanding literature on historical research into the person and cultural context of Jesus of Nazareth"

4. Jesus Database, faithfutures.org/JDB/intro.html--"The JESUS DATABASE is an online annotated inventory of the traditions concerning the life and teachings of Jesus that have survived from the first three centuries of the Common Era. It includes both canonical and extra-canonical materials, and is not limited to the traditions found within the Christian New Testament."

5. Josephus on Jesus mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

6. The Jesus Seminar, mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

7. Writing the New Testament- mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/testament.html

8. Health and Healing in the Land of Israel By Joe Zias
joezias.com/HealthHealingLandIsrael.htm

9. Economics in First Century Palestine, K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.

10. 7. The Gnostic Jesus
(Part One in a Two-Part Series on Ancient and Modern Gnosticism)
by Douglas Groothuis: equip.org/free/DG040-1.htm

11. The interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission
Presented on March 18, 1994
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM#2

12. The Jesus Database- newer site:
wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?title=Jesus_Database

13. Jesus Database with the example of Supper and Eucharist:
faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb016.html

14. Josephus on Jesus by Paul Maier:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

15. The Journal of Higher Criticism with links to articles on the Historical Jesus:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

16. The Greek New Testament: laparola.net/greco/

17. Diseases in the Bible:
etd.unisa.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-08022006-125807/unrestricted/02dissertation.pdf
18. Religion on Line (6000 articles on the history of religion, churches, theologies,
theologians, ethics, etc.
religion-online.org/

19. The Jesus Seminarians and their search for NT authenticity:
mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

20. The New Testament Gateway - Internet NT ntgateway.com/

21. Writing the New Testament- existing copies, oral tradition etc.
ntgateway.com/

22. The Search for the Historic Jesus by the Jesus Seminarians:
members.aol.com/DrSwiney/seminar.html

23. Jesus Decoded by Msgr. Francis J. Maniscalco (Da Vinci Code review)jesusdecoded.com/introduction.php

24. JD Crossan's scriptural references for his book the Historical Jesus separted into time periods: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf

25. JD Crossan's conclusions about the authencity of most of the NT based on the above plus the conclusions of other NT exegetes in the last 200 years:
faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

26. Common Sayings from Thomas's Gospel and the Q Gospel: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan3.rtf

27. Early Jewish Writings- Josephus and his books by title with the complete translated work in English :earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html

28. Luke and Josephus- was there a connection?
infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

29. NT and beyond time line:
pbs.org/empires/peterandpaul/history/timeline/

30. St. Paul's Time line with discussion of important events:
harvardhouse.com/prophetictech/new/pauls_life.htm

31. See www.amazon.com for a list of JD Crossan's books and those of the other Jesus Seminarians: Reviews of said books are included and selected pages can now be viewed on Amazon. Some books can be found on-line at Google Books.

32. Father Edward Schillebeeckx's words of wisdom as found in his books.

33. The books of the following other On Faith panelists: Professors Marcus Borg, Paula Fredriksen, Karen Armstrong and Bishop NT Wright.

34. Father Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday, NY, 1977, 878 pages, with Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.

35. Luke Timothy Johnson's book The Real Jesus,

The age of Catholic heresy indeed.

It is even worse when blatant political campaigning is presented as Catholicism.

CCNL -

Exactly what I said - and tells us nothing of what they actually do believe now that the mystery has been removed. What drives Crossanized Catholics to get out of bed in the morning and go to Mass? What's to celebrate?

Why bother with a distilled version of Catholicism, or any religion for that matter? With the metaphysical elements gone, that leaves exactly nothing - ritual and form without substance.

You'd make a better Quaker than a Catholic with a philosophy like that - and not altogether a bad thing. They at least have the Holy Spirit going for them - and are real authentic pacifists to boot. Best of all, no preachers.

So many questions, and no answers in sight. A person's beliefs cannot realistically be based on what they don't believe. That really is mixing apples and oranges.

Anon, Anon, Anon wherever and whomever you are,

A synopsis of Judaism and Christianity- the "Crossanized" Catholic View

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 mythical Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

Many of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and many of their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

Current crisis:

Realization that the Jews are not god's not chosen people.
simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who 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. 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 peasants" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Current crises:

Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

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

Current crises:

Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology. .

So Crossan is a materialist/humanist defrocked priest? The age of heresy is upon us!

What exactly does a Crossanized Catholic believe in then??

O'Victoria, O'Victoria, O'Victoria,

Again we know you believe in the paranormal. Now how about your other Islamic beliefs?

Again: Do you believe,

2. That the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran?

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life?

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7 800 year-old feud between Sunnis and Shiites give significant credence that suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran?

5. That having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of lust and polygamy?

6. That the condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of anger and greed?

7. And that Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s book, Infidel, is her autobiography and that in the paperback issue, p. 47 the statement:

"Some of the Saudi women in our neighborhood were regularly beaten by their husbands. You could hear them at night. Their screams resounded across the courtyards. "No! Please! By Allah!"

Even the devil may quote Bible verses for his own purposes - example: temptation of Jesus. So counting the number of Bible verses anyone quotes should not be the standard by which a Christian is assessed for authenticity.

Compare world views, achievements, merit of policies.

How many Catholic priests would go about quoting Bible verses at every turn to prove they are Christians? No Catholic priest is trained to do that and yet they are able to come across as dedicated Christians.

Episcopalians are not very different. They generally do not go about quoting Bible verses.

There are some Christian denominations, Evangelicals among them, who quote Bible verses as a rule. Proving their Christian beliefs quoting verses in any conversation is part of their faith tradition.

Senator McCain was raised Episcopalian.

Senator Obama attended an Evangelical church for twenty years in which the religious service consists primarily of a sermon laced with plenty of Bible verses.

Both Senators expressed what their faith traditions respectively practice.

Only God can judge their hearts and real motives; quoting a Bible verse to make a point proves nothing. Whatever they expressed that reflect the Christian values they practice/d in their lives and the Christian values reflected in their work thus far and in their policies is relevant in a political situation.

oops :)

ZZIM- Actually it was Obama who said that evil must be confronted, not McCain.

Ibrahim- I didn't insult you personally- I laughed at a soap operas stroyline being given as an example of real life-

I really really hate soap operas Ibrahim.
I mean REALLY hate them-

They represent everything that I find mindless and selfish in the world.

SO, it wasn't you, personally, that I responded to- it was your usage of a soap opera as a valid example of the behavior of people anyhwere.

I don't even have any use whatsoever for anecdotal incdiences as 'proof' of anything but the individual choices people make-
let alone a contrived scripted melodrama-

I guess Mr. Brumberg stopped the blog for his own reasons- probably because it got so offtrack.

BeowulfthePolitician:

Hmmm, souls as "pretty, wingie, talking thingies"?
Good question. Since no one to my knowledge has ever pictured or described the physical nature of a soul, there is that possibility that some spirit state exists within us that separates us from the "animalkind". The ancients, Bible exegetes and theologians have addressed the issue at length.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

Note: Professor JD Crossan, an On Faith panelist and author of over 20 books on the historical Jesus and the historical Paul, does not believe in the afterlife i.e. souls are not a big ticket item with him (see his book, Who is Jesus?).

And B16 did not delete limbo. Had he done so, he would have deleted original sin, that archaic, Augustine guilt trip put upon us by two mythical parents living in some mythical, magical garden.

Had B16 done so, he would have also vitiated the immaculate conception and the need for baptism and started the needed ball moving for removing 2000 years of mumbo jumbo. This B16 was not willing to do since the his "divine" authority would also come into question.

The actual wording leaving limbo still in limbo and B16 still in power:

"Our conclusion (the Vatican commission) is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision.

We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us.[22] We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy.[23]

What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament.

Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.

Pope Benedict XVI authorized publication of this document, which is not an official expression of the Church's teaching,[24] but only one of the opinions that the Catholic Church does not condemn, allowing them to be held by its members. Media reports that by the document "the Pope closed Limbo"[25] are thus without foundation. In fact, the document explicitly states that "the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin.

This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council.

IT REMAINs therefore a possible theological hypothesis" (second preliminary paragraph); and in paragraph 41 it repeats that the theory of Limbo "remains a possible theological opinion".

Fair enough, Ibrahim.

Beowolfpolitician;

I do not understand what you mean by “our Catholic” blog. I am an Orthodox Christian which is the eastern wing of the Catholic church , and besides I did not think that only Catholics can comment on Arroyo’s blog. I addressed a comment to Arroyo before addressing another one for Victoria.
Victoria’s had directed a personal insult to me and I have been trying to defend my position all day yesterday and today, but that blog on “Separation of Mosque and State” stopped accepting any posts after post no 26 for Victoria.

Ibrahim Mahfouz. I really enjoyed your back-and-forth with Victoria on the "Separation of Mosque & State" blog yesterday, but please don't cut-and-paste that into our Catholic blog.

Shukran.

Arroyo said:
"McCain was dead certain: the evil he named was Muslim - Osama Bin Laden and radical Islam."
I agree hundred percent.
Victoria commenting on an earlier post by me:
“But then again, I take my cues from REAL LIFE-
it's a good thing I don't take my reality check from a soap opera.”

And later added
“you know what? I can't stop laughing-”

The soap opera that you found so hilarious only dramatized what all Muslims know. Men can have four wives and men can divorce their wives by simply uttering one sentence. Women could not appeal a divorce yet could in some Muslim countries apply for divorce, which are rarely granted. In the case of this soap opera the woman could not get a divorce on the grounds that her husband took another wife, because this, as the husband alleged , is not illegal.
Below is link that shows how much rights women have in “real life “ Islam. Read and laugh some more.

“Family matters in countries as diverse as Iran, Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia are governed by religion-based personal status codes. Many of these laws treat women essentially as legal minors under the eternal guardianship of their male family members. They deny women equal rights with men with respect to marriage, divorce, child custody; and inheritance. Family decision making is thought to be the exclusive domain of men, who enjoy by default the legal status of "head of household." These notions are supported by family courts in the region that often reinforce the primacy of male decision-making power. These courts have rarely appointed women as judges, further denying women authority in family matters.”

http://www.hrw.org/women/overview-mena.html

I agree with Arminius - the moderator needs to be much more diligent about policing these threads for spam - all of which comes from the same infamous and anti-social juvenile delinquent.

Please clean up these threads so they are usable by grown-ups - even the other delinquents are more considerate (or lack JJ's manic stamina).

Pro-Life & Pro-Abortion:

Did you read Obama's Prayer at the West Wall in Jerusalem in July?

"Lord — Protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will," reads the note published in Maariv.

August 20, 2008 10:32 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Prayers at the West Wall are addressed to God and not to be revealed to the public. Might there have been a political intent in "leaking" that prayer to the public?

John McOil's single "moment of faith" was a barely worth noting, just a few seconds forty years ago, when someone else showed him compassion. If that event was so important to him, might he have returned from Vietnam and acted more like a true Christian? No, because he forgot (made the story up) later when he needed to pander his way into office. He hasn't shared or returned that compassion to anyone else since, other than to trot the story out for as much mileage as he can get.

A couple of days ago I posted that McCain was addicted to war, shoots from the hip and a danger to our kids. In that post I indicated that he "gets high" off of going to war and that his addiction will cause him to rush into war any chance he can get causing him to be a danger to our children and put our country in harms way. Here is someone else with a similar view. Apparently he is known as quickdraw McCain and is quite reckless. http://www.politicususa.com/en/Clarke-McCain-Reckless

TO THE MODERATOR:

I AM SURE THAT YOU ARE SOUND ASLEEP AND HAVE NO INTENTION OF BEING A MODERATOR. BUT IF YOU DID, YOU MIGHT - JUST MIGHT - NOTICE THAT JJ HAS SPAMMED 80% OR MORE OF THIS BLOG WITH A SINGLE BRAINLESS POST. THIS IS NOT ONLY GROUNDS FOR HIS ABSOLUTE DISMISSAL, IT IS GROUNDS FOR PUBLIC HORSEWHIPPING.

I don't know why I bother. You won't do Jack S***. I am seriously considering withdrawing entirely from On Faith because you won't police it. I'm pretty sure others, good minds all, have already done that. I can already hear JJ laughing with infantile glee.

So much for adult supervision.

to the pro life folks out there: What do you say about McCain saying that if his daughter were pregnant the choice would be hers alone to make? that's pro choice. period

next question. when you make abortion illegal (nothing short of that is acceptable, is it?), what's the sentence? Capital murder (what could be more heinous than the premeditated murder of an innocent child)? Manslaughter (OK we have to fudge definitions - manslaughter is unintentional homicide)? Misdemeanor child abuse? (can't have all our daughters be convicted felons unable to get jobs for life can we?)? what exactly do you propose would be a penalty that would actually deter a woman from having an abortion? Until we change the way a pregnant woman feels about the situation to the point where abortion just isn't the best choice (that can be done if we get off our butts and do something other than yell about the beginning of life and the Supreme Court), we aren't serious. Abortion is not an attractive proposition standing alone, not to the vast majority of women. If we can make the alternative feasible, it will be the choice made.

Marc Edwards

You don't know much about this, I can tell!

Re: LatAm fertility rates. 2.01 is replacement. Brazil at 1.88 is now *below* the US, without abortion. Mexico at 2.37, not far from the US at 2.1, Mexico no abortion, the US--the skies the limit!

Re: historic birth control

1)There's an old Swedish saying: "When the harvest is good, the farmer sleeps warm inside. When the harvest is bad, he freezes on the porch."

2) Fertility declines in time of food scarcity.

3) Fertility declines in urban environments. China did not have to resort to the horrific one child policy with forced abortions to limit births. Merely migrating from country to city has kept its birth rate plummeting.

4) Late marriage.

The abortion lobby has sold you a crock of, well, bad demography.

Best,
MC

Howdy Ryan
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. My kids are taking a lot of my time today (school starts Monday in these parts) so I have not the time to give your observations the serious consideration they deserve.
You did write
"The Alan Guttmacher institute (he was a president of Planned Parenthood in the 1940s or 1950s) is the research wing of Planned Parenthood. The site is www.guttmacher.org. You'll find all the stats you could ever want there."

I look forward to looking at the site. I will note that a couple of years ago their were duelling studies on if abortion rates had increased or decreased under Bush43, and I was disappointed to note that in the methodology of the Guttmacher study they relied on estimates while the study that claimed abortion was on the rise under Bush43 used actual numbers (based on those states that kept track of abortions).
Have a good afternoon!

Howdy Mary Cunningham
You write "Abortion brutalises a society. It's a horrible thing."

How is that? In Central and South America isn't abortion illegal, along with birth control (lets not forget the total absence of sex education). Are the people of South and Central America les brutal and more civilized then Europeans and citizens of the United States? I hardly think so. The cultures in Latin America are very negative towards women. By and large their laws against forcible rape consist of "if the man offers to marry his victim, he's let off". That's what you call civilized?

" women usually will have the number of children they want. If there's one given of demographic history, it's that!"

Without birth control and/or abortion, how would women control their fertility? In ANY society that prohibits abortion and birth control, women are at best 2nd class citizens, with no legal right to say "no to sex" to their men.

I look forward to your reply!

CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED wrote:

"The soul (if it exists) separates personkind from the animalkind. If personkind starts at conception then said soul is present at said conception. Aborting/murdering i.e. denying nourishment to or poisoning this body and soul kills the body but not the soul. The RCC says the aborted soul goes to limbo. What rubbish!! The souls from aborted bodies definitely would go to Heaven (if it exists) as these spirits would be perfectly pure.
Do said souls require the future ability to think? To be able to know right from wrong? Do the souls of mentally disabled fetuses, have this ability? Do they then have souls or not? Are they to be considered personkind or only animalkind?
Are our mentally disabled brothers and sisters to be considered animals? Have our senior citizens with dementia or Alzheimers lost their souls and now to be considered animals?
Or maybe we should protect all of our brothers and sisters at every stage of their lives without considering the state of their souls??"

================================================

I’m surprised you believe in souls at all? Wouldn’t you normally characterize such things as “pretty-winged thingies” as you do in your past comment threads? Now, I’m no Catholic, but I’m under the assumption that Furher Ratzinger recently did away with the notion of Limbo. (A doctrine unsupported by Scripture anyway.)

Also, assuming you’re playing ‘Devil’s Advocate’, the Bible doesn’t really address the mechanics of “soul development”, but I Cor.15:52 does talk about the “corruptible putting on the incorruptible”. The idea is that we don’t have the same body (and by extension, same soul) when we enter Heaven. We get a free upgrade. I know you like to ask questions simply to discredit Faith in the Judeo-Christian God, but I still feel they merit a decent response.

IAH wrote:

1) "We were all born clean with the ability to go to Heaven.

2) How exactly do Catholics square that with their discrimination against women…

3).. To believe Jesus died for original (man's sin) is to reject the hierarchy set up in the Old Testament"

==================================

1) Actually, Romans 3:23 states, "For all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God." I'm not sure where you're getting your theology from but you don't speak for Christianity.

2) Actually, Galatians 3:26 teaches that there is neither "male nor female" in Christ. Women are equal to men in the eyes of God, however, there are only 2 roles that the Bible teaches, require the man to take the lead. (Being the head of the family & being the head of the church.) This might sound like "blasphemy" here in the US as a woman is free to be President, or a Supreme Court Justice, or an Astronaut, or whatever. That's perfectly fine. Keep in mind, though, that Women's Suffrage has only existed for about 150 years compared to how long mankind has inhabited this Earth.

3) Actually, the rejection of the OT hierarchy is exactly what Christ's death accomplishes. To better understand this, you would need to understand OT Messianic Prophecy. (Of which there is over 360+).

RYAN HABER

You wrote, " If they did, they would have to make a more decisive move - either to submit to the Church entirely, or to abandon Her completely."

Did Jesus ask us to "Come follow Me" or did He ask us to "Come follow My Church"?

I go to Mass for the reasons that I go, it is not because I have an "obligation".

We are suppose to be the "Church", the living stones, are we not?

My Brother, your Brother, our Brother, humanity's Brother said, "Simon, thou art Peter and upon this rock, I will build MY CHURCH and THE GATES OF THE NETHERWORLD SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT".

MY CHURCH as in Jesus's Church, Jesus did not say, it is your church Peter, did He?

No, He said, "MY CHURCH".

THE GATES OF THE NETHERWORLD SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT, this is the whole mission of the CHURCH, Total Victory!!!

As I have said, "God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable, the captives shall be released and the dead shall rise".

As I have said to others, if I am going to be Catholic might as well be catholic.

God has a Plan and has had His Plan since before creation and His Plan will come to Fruition.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED

You wrote, "The RCC says the aborted soul goes to limbo."

No, it doesn't.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED WROTE:
BO and JM both failed as neither mentioned the flaws and errors of Christianity i.e. a minus sign in the fortitude column for both.

======================

Considering that the audience was Christian, your suggestion would have been incredibly foolish to follow.

Re: Abortion in Europe

When you compare the term limits on abortion in continental Europe with the term limits in the UK, and finally with the trend in fertility rates, you find that all the hoo-hah about "women's right to choose"/ "who will care for the non-aborted infants line" is a complete crock.

Abortion in most of the continent is capped at 13 weeks, has been for decades, and this has not made the *slightest* differences to fertility rates, which are uniformly below replacement.

Woman's age at first marriage *does* make a huge difference, the later the age of the woman, the lower the subsequent fertility. What abortion-righters have forgotten to tell women-who-want-it-all is that leaving that child to "later" (as in have an abortion now because it's not "convenient") generally means leaving that child to "never."

Abortion brutalises a society. It's a horrible thing. And unnecessary, women usually will have the number of children they want. If there's one given of demographic history, it's that!

Best,
Mary C.

Well, the numbers (for Catholics at least) English vs. US are not hugely different. 20% of English Catholics attend Mass every week vs. 33% American Catholics. Unfortunately I can't get my hands on the "attend Mass more than once a week" but, I would hazard a guess that it would be a proportionately lower number. And if you compare US figures with other Christian countries-- LatAm, Africa--Europe and Austra-Canada are the outliers not the US.

The big difference comes in the Protestant figures: Europe has not had an evangelical revival at all comparable to that in America.

IMHO the successive collapse of the secular political ideologies of the 20th c.--National Socialism and Communism--accounts for the revival of Christianity. Both secular "religions" were tremendously hostile to traditional religious beliefs: Nazism to Judaism but also to Catholic Christianity; Communism to *all* religious beliefs: Orthodoxy in Russia, Catholicism in Eastern Europe and Cuba, Buddhism in Tibet, Confucism in China. The demise of both these ideologies, both supposedly "waves of the future" set the stage for the return of the traditional religions. Even Orthodoxy in Russia after being banned for 70 years, made a return.

It's a good a guess as any, I would say. And, let's face it, atheism doesn't really have much to it, does it?

Best,
MC

Mary Cunningham and Former Christian,

Your stats ring true with me. Something I also noted in a study put out about 4 years ago (although by who and where, I cannot recall) that said about 50% of US Catholics are pro-choice. What struck me about it was that shortly before that, our Bishops had announced a survey that concluded about 50% of self-described US Catholics attend Mass "almost every week" or more frequently, with about as many attending Mass "1-2x monthly" or less frequently.

It struck me as a rather unlikely coincidence. Now, certainly, there will not be an exactly correlation between Mass attendance and being pro-Life, but my experience at least shows a high-ish correlation. I do know some pro-choice Massgoers, but at least a couple of them have expressed their view that Sunday Mass attendance is good, but optional - clearly not the Church's teaching.

We shouldn't be surprised to find people denying the Church's authority on one issue also denying it on another. They'll say it's because the Church hasn't authority to teach on "political" matters like law and women's rights to abortion; in reality it's because they do not understand the authority that the Church claims. If they did, they would have to make a more decisive move - either to submit to the Church entirely, or to abandon Her completely. She is not a club for people who have a few similar aspirations, but rather more like a ship with a mission and a Captain.

Some of them, I think especially among baby boomers (again, just my experience), have already made this decision, and no longer putz around church on Christmas and Easter. My mother, a babyboomer, is one of nine. Neither she nor a single of her brothers (not 1 of the 9) goes to Mass, nor even to the Protestant denominations into which some of them fell away, anymore. Not one of them bothers with church. Two of their wives do - one is Greek Orthodox and brings her boys religiously. Another is a convert from Episcopalianism to Catholicism, and goes to Mass almost daily.

Interestingly enough, several of my cousins, raised without religion, have gravitated toward nondemonimational churches. A few others, their religious formation interrupted by their parents' defection or apathy, have sought Confirmation and resumed use of the sacraments.

I mention these things, Mary Cunningham and Former Christian, becuase they strike me as connected to a general trend. I think what we are seeing is a weakening of numbers (if one excludes immigrants from the developing world) in the Church in the West, but a strengthening in faith of those who remain. Similar trends prevail, more forcefully I think, in Europe - I don't know England enough at all (Mary?). While in France once, I met a Spanish man whose wife and six kids were all members of Opus Dei, or the Neocatechumenal Way - I forget which. Both are essentially movements of laity to grow in holiness. I asked the man, just 5 or 10 years older than me if he was part of such a movement, and he responded, "In Europe, if you go to Mass, you are part of a movement."

I think pro-Life-ness and Mass attendance are closely correlated among US Catholics. I also think serious commitment and change of lifestyle among practicing Christians is very attractive to non-Christians who are unhappy with their lives - a large number of people are unhappy with life, and looking for change, as witnessed by the tremendous amount of addiction at least. I think a small number of committed Christians will effect a vastly larger amount of change than a horde of sloppy walking mediocrities could even care to.

Former Christian, you wrote:

"This seems to me to touch on an issue that I've thought about a lot. Now that the Pepsi generation has transformed into the Via g r a / L i p i t or generation (spacing inserted to allow this post to go through), are we still focussed so much on us, that we don't remember a time when the availability of abortion services was important? Have we just aged to the point where, for practical purposes, we don't have a need for and therefore can take the moral high road on abortion?"

I think that is a real possibility. An interesting article, about a year ago, in the London Tablet, was titled "Generation F*

As the Babyboomers age and the social security programs get more strained, we are going to see the battle over euthanasia intensify as well. Babyboomers who don't want to die might indeed find a renewed commitment or change of heart to the pro-life cause.

What I think is more likely is that abortion actually does harm (even born) people, and that more and more people have reason to regret it, or see the harm. They cannot bring themselves to close off the possibility altogether, because they feel it necessary as a recourse to provide for their sexual license, but increasingly see it as a distasteful thing. It is interesting to note that even abortion rights advocates usually couch their arguments in terms of tolerance and privacy, a necessary evil to fix bad situations, rather than in terms of advancing a positive good for women - as they did in the 1960s.

That shows a slow, broad, and huge cultural shift. Platectonic, seismic type shifts that are unnoticed at first, but built into nature, almost impossible to reverse, and suddenly have dramatic but foreseeable results.

That's why I think abortion will be delegalized again before I close my eyes on my last day on this earth - may it please God.

Long post. My apologies.

Thank you Mary C. for the follow-up comments. I'm still trying to understand what's at the heart of these numbers.

America has seemed to become more religious over the years and I'm wondering, is that a natural progression as we baby boomers age?

My personal journey away from religious belief was the culmination of too many conflicts between reason and belief. Having been trained as a scientist and software engineer, I reached a point where I could no longer conceive of a living, personal God. But many of my friends (also in their 50's) seemed to have gotten more religious or at least give lip service to religious dogma as they have aged.

My question is, does the aging process tend to make one more conservative/religious or is it something unique to America? When I speak with and visit friends from England, even those of my age, religion seems unimportant to them.

I'm also struck by the fact that we baby boomers continue to think that the world revolves around us and our needs. As our need for convenient, inexpensive birth control or family planning services declined, did our support for those products and services decline commensurately?

Former Christian,

I am sure Ryan will have some interesting thoughts on your question. What I will do is supply some numbers and a tentative conclusion. America is a religious nation. I've posted these elsewhere, because IMHO they are so important in explaining political trends. From the Pew religious survey:

A: Religious Breakdown (%)of US population
Catholic 24
Evangelical 26
Historic Black 6
MainlineProt. 18

Total 74

B: % Saying "religion is very important to them"

Catholic 56
Evangelical 79
Historic Black 85
MainlineProt 52

Assuming that above are all voters we can multiply A by B and sum to see how many voters are "very" religious.

US Population for whom religion is very important:

Catholic 13.44
Evangelical 20.54
Historic Black 5.1
MainlineProt. 9.36

Total: 48.44

Thus the 75% who say they want abortion more restricted tally almost precisely with the number of American Christians. Furthermore, the *depth* of the belief is important. Americans are not just Christian, their Christianity is important to them. One out of two! That's an overwhelming number.

When I look at the above, I wonder at the disconnect between "convenient", unrestricted abortion and the sincerely held beliefs of half of the population, for the 'right' to abortion is not a Christian freedom, and Christians do not recognize it as such. Abortion rights are an example of old-fashioned bourgeous or liberal freedom--ie freedom of one group at the expence of another, as in the working class versus the bourgeousie, labour versus capital,women versus men, unborn children versus their biological mothers.

Thoughts:

The soul (if it exists) separates personkind from the animalkind. If personkind starts at conception then said soul is present at said conception. Aborting/murdering i.e. denying nourishment to or poisoning this body and soul kills the body but not the soul. The RCC says the aborted soul goes to limbo. What rubbish!! The souls from aborted bodies definitely would go to Heaven (if it exists) as these spirits would be perfectly pure.

Do said souls require the future ability to think? To be able to know right from wrong? Do the souls of mentally disabled fetuses, have this ability? Do they then have souls or not? Are they to be considered personkind or only animalkind?

Are our mentally disabled brothers and sisters to be considered animals? Have our senior citizens with dementia or Alzheimers lost their souls and now to be considered animals?

Or maybe we should protect all of our brothers and sisters at every stage of their lives without considering the state of their souls??

To Ryan,

Some very thoughtful comments. I have one follow-up question for you. You write: Almost 75% of Americans want abortion to be more regulated or less available than it is now.

I believe this statistic to be correct. My question is why is this so? Is it because the idea of getting a girl pregnant is out of the realm of possibility now -- at least for us aging baby boomers -- and since there is no more need from this huge segment of the population, we can now take the "moral" or "religious" position?

This seems to me to touch on an issue that I've thought about a lot. Now that the Pepsi generation has transformed into the Via g r a / L i p i t or generation (spacing inserted to allow this post to go through), are we still focussed so much on us, that we don't remember a time when the availability of abortion services was important? Have we just aged to the point where, for practical purposes, we don't have a need for and therefore can take the moral high road on abortion?

Your thoughts are appreciated.

History Lesson
1870. Berlin. Study of abortion. Women asked if they had ever induced an abortion, & how they did it.

Answers:
70% said Yes

Methods: Varied.
Potion ordered from magazine.
Sharp stick.
Physical exercise, jumping off furniture primarily.

It's depressing at this point that we're down to the candidates discussing theology. Why not have them discuss astrology next?

If they have to discuss theology, I wish they'd explain why the alleged Jesus died "for our sins." And what sort of monster would saddle people with a dirty slate at birth ala original sin to begin with. And weren't Adam and Eve responsible for original sin? Does that mean the candidates all believe in that, and that Eve was fooled by a talking snake?

Not sure why my latest post has been held up, but held up it has.

Marc Edward:

"I agree that the under Reagan and the two Bushies, the executive branch has used it's power..."

Whose authority should they use, but their own?

"Of course the Republicans could amend the constitution..."

That's very difficult in a country split 50/50 unless the issue is fairly broadly bipartisan.

"abortion is a low priority for them (aside from getting votes)."

I agree with you that there are a lot of cynics just using the issue. I'm not, after all, registered as a Republican - and for a reason (or two!). The failure of Republican nominees to carry the positions that was expected results from two factors: (1) the GOP didn't really have much of a "litmus test," as the Democrats did - and it's about time the GOP did, too; (2) lack of commitment by those making the appointments to find someone clearly supportive on the issue. You're right - it's the great frustration of those who consider themselves pro-Life, and vote Republican only as the lesser of two evils.

"Once it goes to the states your side would than try to get every state to outlaw abortion (and birth control, and sex education)."

Of course! We make no secret about it. But the democracy of the US is on our side. Almost 75% of Americans want abortion to be more regulated or less available than it is now. Many somewhat pro-choice Americans don't realize just how available it is. I know pro-choicers in my own state, Maryland, are usually incredulous when they hear that state law permits guidance counselors to take minor students to get an abortion without even notifying the parent. The school nurse cannot give out tylenol without permission, but an abortion she can arrange! It's true. Most people, of course, do not think such a situation tolerable.

"The result would be many more abortions and a rise in dead women. A lofty goal indeed."

That's not true at all. The numbers of 10,000s of women killed by botched abortion before Roe were fabricated by NARAL, as one of its founders (Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who ran a NY clinic at which 40,000 children were aborted by 1980,) has admitted in his autobiography. He said they picked the number because it was large enough to be scary, but small enough that nobody would expect to know someone who had actually died of an abortion. A higher number, like in the range of cancer fatalities, and people wouldn't believe it because they'd expect to have known someone. A lower number, and they wouldn't care because it wouldn't seem so terrible - like nobody is really that worked up about Brittle Bone disease, etc. That was their strategy for fabricating the number. He speculates that with widespread access to abortion, there are more complications and fatalities per year since Roe than before.

"Clinton's approach (aside from blanket hatred of the Clintons) which did lower the number of abortions every year he was in office."

It wasn't Clinton's approach to abortion, which was to lie on nationwide TV to rationalize vetoing the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, that reduced the number of abortions, but the renewed intensity of debate sparked by having an officially pro-choice administration for the first time in 12 years. If you doubt that, I ask you only to specify what exactly, in concrete terms, his "approach was" and how, exactly, he carried it out.

"I'd be happy to learn where these statistics are and the methodology used in getting them."

The Alan Guttmacher institute (he was a president of Planned Parenthood in the 1940s or 1950s) is the research wing of Planned Parenthood. The site is www.guttmacher.org. You'll find all the stats you could ever want there.

Happy hunting, Marc Edward!

To John Walsh,

Every book written by Corsi has had only the most casual relationship with facts. His latest book about Obama is just more of the same.

Just to give you a few examples of where Corsi either ignored what was written in Obama's books -- the books Corsi claims to have virtually memorized -- or he left them out intentionally so as to make a point.

Corsi's embarrassing factual errors begin at the very start of his book. Corsi writes: "Interestingly, Obama did not dedicate Dreams from My Father to his mother, or to his father, Barack Senior, or to his Indonesian stepfather. Missing from the dedication are the grandparents who raised him in Hawaii...." That is very interesting, since Obama wrote in the introduction to his memoir, "It is to my family, though -- my mother, my grandparents, my siblings, stretched across oceans and continents -- that I owe the deepest gratitude and to whom I dedicated this book.

Now, isn't this someone trying to paint an inaccurate portrait of Obama?

Other criticisms that Corsi levels against Obama seem to broadcast a desparation to find something, anything wrong with Obama and then to ratchet it up. Here's another example:

Corsi attacks Obama's memoir because he "never states precisely how many wives his father had, or how many half-brothers and sisters he has from different mothers...." Yet Corsi himself interviews Obama's uncle: "Sayid Obama was not even sure how many wives his brother had....The number of children Obama Senior had is equally uncertain." If Obama's uncle doesn't know how many wives and children Obama's father had, why is Corsi denouncing Obama for being unable to state the numbers "precisely"?

If this is how you judge someone, by accepting what anyone writes as purely factual, then you are destined to have the likes of George Bush and John McCain as your leaders.

By the way, wasn't Corsi the one who tried to smear Kerry? There's honesty for you....

ZQLL wrote "Confronting Saddam's evil intentions when we did has prevented greater evil from happening."

Well, there's a big assumption. First, he couldn't launch a paper airplane without being shot at. Second, the cost for this war has been astronomical. There are the direct costs of blood and money, there are some long-term costs in terms of health care for vets that we haven't begun to deal with, and then there are the indirect costs. For example, borrowing to pay for this war (it's still being funded solely on emergency appropriations -- now how honest is that?) has required that we print so much money, the dollar has dropped to record lows against the currencies of our trading partners. That's one of the reasons why oil prices have spiked.

America as well as all other world powers, frequently has to "deal with evil". We don't have the might nor is it in our best interests to try and wipe out evil around the world. And speaking of evil, I'm pretty sure that many people that frequent this post have a completely different understanding of what evil is.

For example, most conservative Christians view homosexuality as evil or, as it says in the King James bible, something abhorrent to God.

I don't find anything evil or abhorrent at all about homosexuality -- just a difference in orientation caused primarily by a different genetic makeup.

I much prefer Obama's nuanced understanding of evil and the challenges involved in defining evil. To me, a pharmacist who refuses to fill a legal prescription for the morning after pill is evil, but I'm sure to my fundamental friends, that person is faithful.

Obama's hesitation about when life begins certainly shows thoughfulness as opposed to McCain's recitation of the right wing line. McCain's response actually demonstrates an arrogance I find disconcerting. Much like many people believe that they, and only they, understand the meaning of the bible, I find it arrogant for someone to say they know exactly when human life begins.

To anonymous regarding abortion statistics. Let's for a minute think about moral alternatives. What's less moral -- to force someone against their will to bring an unwanted baby into this world or to allow them to have an abortion? For those of you who believe the bible gives you all the answers you need to moral questions -- I'm still trying to fathom why God punished the first born of Egypt after he hardened Pharaoh's heart (couldn't he just have punished Pharaoh and not the entire first born of Egypt? What moral lesson does that teach you -- god is arbitrary so always wear clean underwear?). So what does the bible say about abortion? Or when life begins?

And another question for those of you that believe you KNOW evil. How do you classify a country who, in trying to do something good (spread democracy) wound up killing hundreds of thousands of people, was responsible for hundreds, maybe thousands more being held for no reason and hundreds more tortured?

It sure does look like evil to me and I certainly don't need the bible to determine that. We are all born with our own moral compass. Laws were created to codify the majority moral standards, which change as the standards change. There are no absolutes.

To TheSkeptic. Your simplistic post cuts through the crap very well.

To Marc Edward: Excellent thoughtful posts -- and there's even a sprinkle of humor. Well done.

DCP, believe it or not I do have common sense. I know how big the world is. And I also know what I am talking about when I refer to abortion statistics. I travel around the country working in child protection/welfare. You can sit back and read all the statistics you want to. And not once did I say that the candidates had to be religious, but I surely will not be voting for the blue eyed devil McCain, because God and religion is very prevalent in my life and what you as another human being believe and say is personal to you only.

Howdy Ryan
1) I agree that the under Reagan and the two Bushies, the executive branch has used it's power to deprive military personal the same rights enjoyed by citizens. It's a cowards way out, but Reagan and Bush43 were cowards.
2) Stating that the courts prohibited action is certainly a valid point. Of course the Republicans could amend the constitution, but abortion is a low priority for them (aside from getting votes). As you know when an issue is important to the Republicans they are willing to go to the wall for it, fighting tooth and nail, like tax cuts. Clearly "the holocaust of the unborn" isn't nearly as important as tax cuts.
3) Given that the vast majority of justices and judges across the USA have been appointed by Republicans (point in fact is Republican blocked many appointments by Clinton for years holding the same seats open for a Republican President) how come the strategy hasn't worked? The SCOTUS has what - 2 Democratic appointments? It's a failed strategy made by leadership that doesn't care. They have played the Pro-life folks for votes, and will continue to do so.
4) I disagree with you that your side wants it to be a state right issue. Once it goes to the states your side would than try to get every state to outlaw abortion (and birth control, and sex education). The result would be many more abortions and a rise in dead women. A lofty goal indeed.

I have to ask why the pro-life side doesn't embrace Clinton's approach (aside from blanket hatred of the Clintons) which did lower the number of abortions every year he was in office.

Oh, re: abortion statistics - went by Planned Parenthood site and found no statistics on abortions, so not sure where the Anon person got her numbers. I'd be happy to learn where these statistics are and the methodology used in getting them. The idea that any measure of said statistics actually "kept track of the motive" seems pretty unlikely.
Have a good afternoon!

Hello again, Marc Edward,

"Wow - so lets see. Your side calls abortion "murder" and legal abortion "a holocaust", but all your side is willing to do is
(1) Complain about justices who legislate from the bench while
(2) appointing justices whom you hope will legislate from the bench"

Actually, that's not the goal. In 1973, the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) ignored, to the point of implicitly abrogating, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which states in toto:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In place of the 10th Amendment, a legal document clearly in place and with a 180 year history (at that point), they created from scratch (from a 1968 precedent at best) a right to abortion that they then caused to supercede it.

What we are looking for is a reversal of Roe v. Wade, which would not criminalize abortion, but rather return it to the province of the various states, where our Constitution says it is to be discussed, so that local citizens will have a fairer shot at entering the political process regarding the issue, and the issue can be settled politically, democratically, rather than judicially by fiat of 5 (out of 9) judges.

"This great strategy you advocate has so far failed for 40 years straight... your side has been willing to sit on your hands while 40,000,000 "murders" have occured."

While the Justices prohibit any real political process on the matter by their dictatorial 1973 rule (re-ratified by Themselves in 1994), what other options have we?

Actually, if you listen to the NARALists, you know that we are getting very close. The recent partial birth abortion decision makes this very clear.

While I am not a Republican, I do want to point out that George W Bush earned the particular wrath of the DNC-controlled Judiciary Committee by ONLY nominating visibly pro-Life judges to the various federal benches. Ronald Reagan used his executive authority to institute the Mexico City Policy (kept in place by both subsequent Republican presidents) preventing the use of US funding for overseas programs involved in abortion. He also used his authority as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces to prohibit military doctors from performing abortions, and to prohibit abortions from being performed on military bases by anybody at all.

I am not so naive as to think it is priority one for either party. I do think more Republicans make it a higher priority, or are pro-Life at all, than among Democrats. I may be incorrect.

I am very happy to see that state Democratic parties are starting to allow pro-Life caucuses. Michigan was first, and I think Pennsylvania and Florida have followed suit. Ohio probably will, before long. Those are all BIG, SWING states with fairly unionized populations that would be natural easy wins for the Democrats, except for abortion. Which is why I think the Democrats are starting to show a new and refreshing tolerance for diverging views on the issue.

Also, I think they see which way the sentiment in our nation is generally headed.

Поисковое продвижение сайтов с нуля http://seo-miheeff.ru/seo_news/poiskovoe_prodvizhenie_saitov/ В комплекс продвижения сайта может входить как раскрутка по оговоренному ядру запросов, так и проведение контекстных рекламных компаний в Интернете

Now you can order popular anti-allergy medication called zyrtec. The Fastest FeDex overnight delivery. No prior prescription required.

You know, Professor...

"There will be flap about Warren's unfulfilled promise to keep both candidates in a "cone of silence," so that no advantage was given to the second person (McCain) by knowing what the questions would be. When asked how he fared in this cone of silence, McCain remarked that he "was trying to hear through the wall." Apparently, he wasn't kidding: he was driving to the church during Obama's interview. You'd have to forget that Karl Rove is a Republican to think that the Senator wasn't unfairly coached. Since McCain said that he wasn't listening, I'll take the Senator of the Straight-Talk Express at his word."

Well, if we're going to take him at his *word,* he said he was *trying* to 'hear through the wall,' ...he didn't say he *failed to,* if you take it metaphorically.

Even if the statement clearly meant to make people believe he was physically present behind a wall and joking about it.

Раскрутка сайтов продвижение seo http://seo-miheeff.ru/seo_news/raskrutka_saita_prodvizhenie_seo/ Мы проводим предварительный аудит, необходимый для принятия решения о дальнейшей оптимизации.

spiderman2 writes
'Marc Edward wrote " Mind you, no political party, especially the republicans, will ever try to end abortion."

Yes it does by appointing judges who oppose abortion'

Wow - so lets see. Your side calls abortion "murder" and legal abortion "a holocaust", but all your side is willing to do is
(1) Complain about justices who legislate from the bench while
(2) appointing justices whom you hope will legislate from the bench

This great strategy you advocate has so far failed for 40 years straight. If there were only 1,000,000 abortions/year (it's more) that means your side has been willing to sit on your hands while 40,000,000 "murders" have occured. If the Democrats and Republicans who supported Civil Rights had used your strategy we'd still have seperate black and white water fountains.

Clearly your strategy is ineffective, so I stand by my correct assertion that neither party will try to end abortion. It's just the Democratic party tells you the truth while the Republicans lie to your face!
Have a nice day!

Hey Marc Edward,

I hope nobody feels I've lashed out against them for anything, let alone poor spelling. If I can read it, it's good enough for me; if I can't, I'll ask for clarification as politely as the internet allows.

"Not sure what the pregnancy crisis centers do these days, but when they first appeared they advertises under "Abortion Services"..."

Really? I've never heard that before. I'm not denying it, I just don't know, except that the three I've worked at, as far as I know, didn't lie - but that's not a representative sampling, and there are usually exceptions either way. It's awful clever, you have to admit; but still, lying is wrong - I agree with you there.

"A lie is a lie, eh?"

That's true, but you will see that some lies are more serious than others. I wasn't saying that any lie is acceptable, or unsinful, but only that some are weightier than others. A simple test of this is to ask yourself if there are kinds of lies that you'd rather be told than others. If someone is going to lie to me, hypothetically, I'd rather they tell me I look nice today, than, say that I've been fired and shouldn't bother calling into work, or that my mother has died and been buried while I was travelling. Same goes for stealing, interestingly. You can still a little thing from someone to whom it does little harm, or a more significant thing from someone who cannot afford the loss - neither is good or acceptable, but then, ask whether you'd rather have $10 stolen from you, or your car. You see the difference - it's only a matter of degree, but it's a difference all the same. In ethics or moral theology, this principle is called "Parvity (Littleness) of Matter."

Other sorts of misdeeds cannot have parvity of matter. For instance, you cannot kill your nextdoor neighbor "just a little." He's dead or he's not.

Responsibility for an action is a separate question altogether.

Enough of the ethics lesson, lol.

"My point is that in the Old Testament Homosexuality is listed as a sin pretty far down the list, somewhere around wearing different materials at the same time. Lying by contrast is in the original "Top 10 list""

That's true. Actually, the reason why homosexuality is thrown in with those regulations is because the ancient Jews understood it as being the same sort of sin - a mismatching of unnatural combinations. They didn't necessarily conceive every mismatching to be equally serious, or even remotely equally serious. Nowadays, we do something similar: fraud and perjury are similar, although fraud might entail selling things by mail that one doesn't own and seem to a person outside of our Common Law tradition to be more a matter of theft than of lying. Yet, we group them closely together, and perjury we consider more serious, generally.

"Sonograms... It is about making Abortion harder to get by adding time and expense to an already unfortunate process."

No, not really. Actually, abortion clinics pretty standardly have sonogram machines onhand for use during the surgical abortion to ensure that it is guided by sight, rather than done blindly - an innovation that has, in fact, made abortions considerably safer (for the pregnant woman, of course, and not for her unborn child). All the doctor or nurse has got to do is swivel the viewing device around, like at a grocery store, so that the woman can see what's up.

They don't want to show the sonograms, because even at 10 weeks, it very clearly looks just like a little baby. I know, I've got 10-week sonograms of my neices. They look kinda like those Roswell aliens, or those green-haired troll baby dolls... but still, decidedly like humans. In fact, it is seeing a sonogram that most often convincing a woman considering an abortion not to have one.

"but by and large the pro-life communitty have little regard for women (or babies for that matter)."

I'm not sure how you deduce that.

"Hey anon - you're lying. The government stopped tracking abortion rates 7 years ago."

Ya, maybe. But Planned Parenthood still keeps and publishes great records. Anon's basic stats are more or less on target.

The message was clear - "Non Christians need not apply for public office"

Now that the black and gender barriers have been broken, America will not truly be a democracy until an atheist has an opportunity to be President, or hold any office for that matter.

Atheists are much more moral and ethical than all these religious followers anyway.

ElCentroCaBoy wrote (which amazes me)
"To see this debate as a win for Obama is surely an oversight on your part"

It wasn't a debate. Nobody "won", but to any person of Faith it's clear Obama has faith and McCain regards faith as a way to get votes.

"As a Catholic you cannot vote for the Democrat Party and call yourself a Christian. It just isn't possible"

Of course it is. Catholics aren't required by anybody to abondon the American Constitution. Supporting legal abortion isn't supporting abortion, it's supporting constitutional law. Sadly you cannot enjoy your life knowing that somebody, somewhere disagrees with you and actually enjoys life.

Pgr88, you wrote:

"I am a devout Christian who just happens to believe in Abortion and Euthenasia. We should probably get rid of all the retarded people to make society better also. I think capital punishment is fine too, and as long as everyone is consenting, pedophilia is fine too. I am married and have multiple gay partners and won't judge those who do drugs, as long as they share them with me.

Jesus doesn't judge me..."

You've gotta be kidding, right? In case you login again, I hope you will share with us what, in your mind, it means to be a "devout" Christian.

Earl C,

I want to start by stating that I tithe (usually - God grant me more faith to tithe even when it is scary). I say because I find it a funny issue to let be a division between who is, and who isn't, a Christian.

Abortion (the murder of a child in utero) is hyped up, but tithing, now, that's the hallmark of a Christian.

"For prolifers, this is a bit too much for me to swallow. However, this is not the first time that profilers show so little respect for life."

Your friends who wanted to kill all Muslims in Iraq are hardly pro-life, I would think, and it is more than a little silly for you to take them as an example of the pro-life movement.

It strikes me as a residue of puritanism, rather than a coherent moral vision, that leads to lumping abortion and capital punishment in with drinking and smoking. Who said having a beer or a cigar is a sin, anyway?

Howdy Ryan
Not sure what the pregnancy crisis centers do these days, but when they first appeared they advertises under "Abortion Services", which they were not. They also pretended to callers that they could provide abortions to trick women into wasting their time going to their clinics.

You write "Lying is of course a sin, and a lie about a serious matter, or for some weighty gain, or to harm somebody else, is a very serious sin indeed."

Actually it's one of the 10 commandments. I don't understand the nature of God, but I do try to keep the commandments, and not just the easy ones (lying and theft). A lie is a lie, eh?

"Interestingly enough, in a previous post on this thread you threw in homosexuality, contrasting it to lying. It is true that homosexuality isn't a sin, but rather simply a condition; however St. Paul does include homosexual actions in lists of grave sin, alongside lying, sorcery, etc."

My point is that in the Old Testament Homosexuality is listed as a sin pretty far down the list, somewhere around wearing different materials at the same time. Lying by contrast is in the original "Top 10 list"

Regarding opposition to "requiring women to look at sonnagrams", that's never been about informed consent. It is about making Abortion harder to get by adding time and expense to an already unfortunate process. For example some states passed laws requiring a 24 hour waiting period. Seems sexist at best to insist that women are too stupid to make decisions about their lives, but by and large the pro-life communitty have little regard for women (or babies for that matter).

Thanks for not flaming me for my poor spelling!

Also ANON posts:
UNITED STATES
Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700

- Hey anon - you're lying. The government stopped tracking abortion rates 7 years ago. Making up statistics is lying, which God takes seriously as murder. To quote Jesus "Go and sin no more!"
Sorry you have no argument to back up your point of view.

John Walsh writes "Read Obama Nation by Jerome Corsi."

Hey John - Everybody in the world who can use the Intertubes knows that Corsi's book is full of lies. Are you promoting lying? Didn't you know that God puts lying right up there with murder? Why do you post at OnFaith when you have none yourself? You have less integrity than the average prostitute, and most athiests I know could teach you a lot about ethics!

Hint - as you are a promoter of lies, you qualify as a liar, and hence you have refuted anything you ever post!

Nothing anyone ever says about his or her beliefs matters to the rest of us. I believe that green is the most beautiful of all the colors. So freakin' what already about the beliefs. I don't care if these guys believe in Jesus or not. How in the world does that affect their capacity and capability to be our President? I wish all people of "belief" would shut up about it and worry more about the state of our planet and less about who's going to heaven or hell. WWJD about Halliburton, Iraq, Afghanistan, gas prices, climate change, human rights? Think he'd start pointing fingers at pompous Americans who just can't out-Christian each other enough? I love Jesus more than you do..nanannybooboo.. Like anyone alive and breathing can do anything more than believe, hope, and guess at whether there's a Heaven or not. We do however know that there is pollution, human rights violations, terrible inequity even within our own borders. It's time for religion to shut it's ugly mouth and start walking the talk. People need help and Christians are supposed to offer it up - without question or thanks. Get busy people.

Read Obama Nation by Jerome Corsi. Obama heavily involved in Islamization of Kenya by support of Odinga Odinga. Obama knows the Islam prayer at sunset in Arabic and said it is the most beautiful thing at sunset. His heart rhymes with Islam.

Продвижение сайта в поисковых системах http://seo-miheeff.ru/seo_news/asd/ поисковая оптимизация, продвижение сайтов в поисковых системах / Прежде чем выбрать услугу, нужно взвесить все плюсы и минусы

Marc Edward,

I am not sure what you mean, specifically, in your accusation that crisis pregnancy centers lie to their clients. Now I know that NARAL and Planned Parenthood scream up a storm whenever a state legislator tries to get a law passed to require women inquiring about abortion to be shown a sonogram as part of the informed consent process. That seems odd if they want to help women make the best choice with the most information.

Lying is of course a sin, and a lie about a serious matter, or for some weighty gain, or to harm somebody else, is a very serious sin indeed. Interestingly enough, in a previous post on this thread you threw in homosexuality, contrasting it to lying. It is true that homosexuality isn't a sin, but rather simply a condition; however St. Paul does include homosexual actions in lists of grave sin, alongside lying, sorcery, etc.

And the ends and means must each justify themselves and cannot justify the other.

According to Pastor Warren, the purpose of the "conversation" was to give us a glimpse into the minds of the candidates. Admittedly, I didn't learn much more than I already felt that I knew. For example, I believed that Senator Obama was a thoughtful, intelligent person who sees many sides to every issue. I was hoping to get a glimpse of that same sort of thoughtfulness from Senator McCain. I wanted that because he has an extremely good chance of becoming President of the United States. I've lived through two elections that left me stunned. I believe the American voter to be very poorly informed and entirely too consumed with issues that in and of themselves cannot move this country forward, so I wanted to feel more comfortable with his possible presidency. Sadly, all I got was remnants of his stump speeches. Maybe that's all their is to him. I hope not.

My apologies, Lewevelyn did not post that. It was me. I was addressing Lewevelyn.

I got my statistics from literature that reported the amount of pregnancies out of 1000 that ended in abortion for every racial segment of our society. It didn't report total numbers, only the amount for every 1000. African-Americans had almost 500 out of 1000 pregnancies terminated, which was the highest rate of all ethnicities. This information may in fact be very inaccurate, but it is not because the office you worked in just happened to service more white women seeking abortions. The world is a little bigger than you might think. Furthermore, I couldn't care less that McCain is not religious. I am not electing Pontiff of the US or Pastor of the US. I am electing a president, and hopefully one who represents my interests.

For heaven's sake man, will you ever show some fairness and intelligence in your articles???

You totally believe the lies that McCain cheated and you state it as a given fact. Obama's campaign launches a "he cheated" argument like babies in the schoolyard, and you jump on board. No investigation, no phone calls- just accept it as fact. After all, The Obama campaign would NEVER say anything misleading about McCain.

You talk about Obama having "nuance" on the abortion question. NUANCE??? Are you not a Catholic? Where is the room for nuance in the question "when does life begin?"? NUANCE??? Let me write it again: NUANCE?

What a stupid, stupid things to say. How you deduce baby killing and a alck of core values as NUANCE is the marvel of the left.

You say Obama won because he memorized a quote or two and because you want that Obama should be declared the winner. The fact that Obama got detroyed- highlighted by the Obama campaign's "he cheated" tactics- is telling with all Christians and Americans.

Obama is down 5 point in today's poll- in certain areas he is down 7 and 9 points. Warren's debate let Obama expose his true colors: an empty suit, a puppet of the left, a panderer. And don't forget my favorite- a baby killer who votes to kill babies who survive abortions.

You are so amazingly misguided on faith, on religion, or politics- I often wonder why you have a column and how much you feed the chickens that peck at the keyboard of you rcomputer to write this incoherent babble.

I am a devout Christian who just happens to believe in Abortion and Euthenasia. We should probably get rid of all the retarded people to make society better also. I think capital punishment is fine too, and as long as everyone is consenting, pedophilia is fine too. I am married and have multiple gay partners and won't judge those who do drugs, as long as they share them with me.

Jesus doesn't judge me, and I will vote for Obama because he is a God-fearing man.

Система продвижение раскрутка сайта http://seo-miheeff.ru/seo_news/sistema_prodvizhenie_raskrutka/ Поисковая оптимизация и контекстная реклама - два наиболее популярных метода, используемых в кампаниях по раскрутке и продвижению сайтов в Интернете

With all of this hype over abortion, I am reminded about what a few of my very conservative Christian friends said a few years ago about our War in Iraq. They said, the only sure fire way to win and not have problems is that we "must destroy Iraq, kill all of the people, get rid of the Muslims." For prolifers, this is a bit too much for me to swallow. However, this is not the first time that profilers show so little respect for life. They see no problem with over 4000 American military people dead in a war of choice. They show deep and abiding respect for barely conceived offspring in a mother's womb and will be the first to pull the plug on the life of an adult human being. They indicate no respect for a mom of four who may have to have an abortion to spare her life. Issues surrounding abortion are not critical as to whether a person is a Christian or not. If this were so then many prolifers better look up their family trees to see how many God-fearing people are there who had abortions in the back alleys by secret means. How many women had abortions that ended in the death of the mmother prior to legalized abortion? How many of these women were born-again Christian women. These are facts that represent inconvenient truths. As they say, there is nothing worse than a converted smoker and so forth.

Abortion has become a wedge issue in the church just like alcohol was used to divide some churches in my area in the 60s or racial integration was used to divide churches in the 50s. We have forgotten the teachings of Jesus so that we can advance our own political agendas, as evil as they may be in the eyes of a Holy God.

We have all been there in our various churches. Critical issues have been creationism-evolution, prolife-prochoice, alcohol-nonalcohol, smoking-nonsmoking, capital punishment - noncapital punishment, and on and on. John 3:16 says it all. There are no critical issues but one. From the day of personal salvation, God works on each one of us by His Spirit to bring us into His perfect will. I could say unequivocably that those who do not tithe are not Christian, but this is not correct, no more than using any other means other than that laid out by Jesus.

Since about 80 percent of professing Chrsitians do not tithe and are robbing God, then I respectfully request that only tithers should be engaged in Christian discussions. Afterall, the rest of the so-called Christians are already disobeying God's Word. Read Malachi.

DCP, where on earth do you get your statistics concerning African American's abortion data. You are totally wrong about your abortions concerning African Americans. Mostly due to the cost of abortions, African Americans are least likely to have an abortion. I work in child protection/welfare and I can guarentee you that the case load is largely white Americans and that sect of people also are likely to obtain more abortions, in addition, they are more likely to have health insurance and can afford birth control. McCain is not a religious man and he proved that by his inability to truthful answer questions or attempt to quote a scripture. But it doesn't really matter to those who fear Obama becoming a leader. As time goes on, you will see that more and more of those fears will become more prevalent and obvious and the polls will start showing that McCain has some how pulled ahead. Too bad this country can't get past racism that is a result of fear. McCain could be the devil, but he's the right color of the devil so that makes it okay. You reap what you sow, and slowly and surely this country is seeing the fruits of its labor. It's sad that everyone recognizes that we are no longer the people the other countries look up to. We have allowed greed, by any means necessary, to destroy this country and have only begon to start to feel the wrath. Apparently another 4 years of the same leadership is better than having a black man with a vision that may make significant change for the better in our current situation. Unfortunately, some can't loose the taste of racism in their mouths regardless of the mouthwash.

I suspect that both of these guys are saying what they must to get the job. Bush, Gore, and everyone else did (and does) the same thing.

The trouble is that the presidency invariably differs from the campaigning that wins it. Both the traumatic and the mundane await the candidate who wins, and very little of what they're shoveling now will help them when real problems need to be solved and partners, constituents, or the people are in jeopardy.

We're watching a series of interviews (for a temp job at that) that are supposed to make us KNOW that this is the candidate we need. No one can ever be that sure. Instead, we simply have to get carried away by one of them, cast our votes, and see.

I seen the statements by the media and Republican pundits indicating McCain as winning this war of words and that the Consertative's breathed a sigh of relief on McCains emphatic no on abortion. In hearing all this I wondered why all the work in setting this discussion up, why Pastor Warren did not just ask the abortion question and go home.

I apparently was watching something different since I seen an Obama using thought, feeling and knowledge to give revelance to the questions asked. I seen an McCain change the purpose of the format to that of campaign retoric and without protest from either an obliging or over whelmed Warren. It seemed the only thing this crowd and Consertatives were and are intrested in is the abortion issue and even Warren reaction was apparent on the word "no".

The discussions I seen was highlighted by Obama reacting to the questions asked in the spirit of the forum's issues. I seen a McCain that did not. He circumvented questions with statements that went totally off subject. He abused the time allowances (of which Obama was asked to observe)by breaking into stump speech retoric and failed to provide any look into his moral and religious feelings. His pandering to the crowd was obvious.

It makes one think that with Pastor Warren and the Consertative right, the overall moral and religious convictions of an individual are secondary to that of being anti abortion. John McCain paid lip service in this discussion and hijacked it with stump speech retoric. If all it took to win the hearts of Consertatives and the crowd was an abortion no, what a hyprocritical waste of time for a hyprocritical reglious forum intended for a hyprocritical reglious group.

Did you read Obama's Prayer at the West Wall in Jerusalem in July?

"Lord — Protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will," reads the note published in Maariv.

RICK WARREN:
NOW YOU'VE MADE NO DOUBT ABOUT YOUR FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO YOU? WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO YOU TO TRUST IN CHRIST AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN ON A DAILY BASIS? I MEAN, WHAT DOES THAT REALLY LOOK LIKE?

BARACK OBAMA:
AS A STARTING POINT, IT MEANS I BELIEVE IN THAT JESUS CHRIST DIED FOR MY SINS AND THAT I AM REDEEMED THROUGH HIM. THAT IS A SOURCE OF STRENGTH AND SUSTENANCE ON A DAILY BASIS. I KNOW THAT I DON'T WALK ALONE, AND I KNOW THAT IF I CAN GET MYSELF OUT OF THE WAY, THAT I CAN MAYBE CARRY OUT IN SOME SMALL WAY WHAT HE INTENDS. AND IT MEANS THAT THOSE SINS THAT I HAVE ON A FAIRLY REGULAR BASIS HOPEFULLY WILL BE WASHED AWAY. BUT WHAT IT ALSO MEANS, I THINK, IS A SENSE OF OBLIGATION TO EMBRACE NOT JUST WORDS BUT THROUGH DEEDS THE EXPECTATIONS THAT GOD HAS FOR US. AND THAT MEANS THINKING ABOUT THE LEAST OF THESE. IT MEANS ACTING -- WELL, ACTING JUSTLY AND LOVING MERCY AND WALKING HUMBLY WITH OUR GOD. AND THAT, I THINK TRYING TO APPLY THOSE LESSONS ON A DAILY BASIS KNOWING THAT YOU ARE GOING TO FALL A LITTLE BIT SHORT EACH DAY AND KIND OF TRYING TO BE ABLE TO TAKE NOTE AND SAY, WELL, THAT DIDN'T QUITE WORK OUT THE WAY I THINK IT SHOULD HAVE BUT MAYBE I CAN GET A LITTLE BIT BETTER. IT GIVES ME THE CONFIDENCE TO TRY THINGS INCLUDING THINGS LIKE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO SCREW UP ONCE IN A WHILE.

_________________________________________________
RICK WARREN:
YOU'VE MADE NO DOUBT ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN. YOU PUBLICLY SAY YOU ARE A FOLLOWER OF CHRIST. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO YOU AND HOW DOES FAITH WORK OUT IN YOUR LIFE ON A DAILY BASIS? WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO YOU?

JOHN MCCAIN:
MEANS I'M SAVED AND FOREGIVEN AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WORLD. OUR FAITH ENCOMPASSES NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BUT THE WORLD. CAN I TELL YOU ANOTHER STORY REAL QUICK?

RICK WARREN:
SURE.

JOHN MCCAIN:
VIETNAMESE KEPT US IN PRISON IN CONDITIONS OF SOLITAIRY CONFINEMENT FOR TWO OR THREE TO A CELL. THEY DID THAT BECAUSE THEY KNEW THEY COULD BREAK DOWN OUR RESISTANCE. ONE OF THE TECHNIQUES THAT THEY USED TO GET INFORMATION WAS TO TAKE ROPES AND TIE THEM AROUND YOUR BICEPS, PULL YOUR BICEPS BEHIND YOU, LOOP THE ROPE AROUND YOUR HEAD, PULL YOUR HEAD DOWN BETWEEN YOUR KNEES AND LEAVE YOU IN THAT POSITION. YOU CAN MANAGE, IT'S VERY UNCOMFORTABLE. ONE NIGHT I WAS BEING PUNISHED IN THAT FASHION. ALL OF A SUDDEN THE DOOR OF THE CELL OPENED, THE GUARD CAME IN, A GUY WHO WAS JUST WHAT WE CALL A GUN GUARD. HE JUST WALKED AROUND THE CAMP WITH A GUN ON HIS
SHOULDER. HE WENT LIKE THIS AND THEN HE LOOSENED THE ROPES. HE CAME BACK ABOUT FOUR HOURS LATER, HE TIGHTENED THEM UP AGAIN AND LEFT. THE FOLLOWING CHRISTMAS, BECAUSE IT WAS CHRISTMAS DAY, WE WERE ALLOWED TO STAND OUTSIDE OF OUR CELL FOR A FEW MINUTES, AND THOSE DAYS WE WERE NOT ALLOWED TO SEE OR COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER ALTHOUGH WE CERTAINLY DID. AND I WAS STANDING OUTSIDE FOR MY FEW MINUTES, OUTSIDE MY CELL. HE CAME WALKING UP. HE STOOD THERE FOR A MINUTE AND WITH HIS HANDLE ON THE DIRT IN THE COURTYARD HE DREW A CROSS AND HE STOOD THERE AND A MINUTE LATER, HE RUBBED IT OUT AND WALKED AWAY. FOR A MINUTE THERE, THERE WAS JUST TWO CHRISTIANS WORSHIPPING TOGETHER. I'LL NEVER FORGET THAT MOMENT SO EVERY DAY –

RICK WARREN:
ALRIGHT. LET’S GO INTO THE TOUGH ONES…

________________________________________________
My Notes:
McCain avoided referencing Jesus Christ by quickly inserting a sympathetic POW story that took up so much time, that Rick Warren was not able to follow up the question. McCain DOES NOT appear to proclaim Jesus Christ. He is fooling many Christian voters.

I mentioned in my Bible study class last Sunday that Obama mentioned Jesus by name, while McCain didn't. (The hard right-wingers in the group gave embarrassed looks.) I agree with Stevens-Arroyo's article. It becomes very clear which candidate is making religion a political ploy. When given a question by Warren that gently begged for a personal testimony, Obama was the only one who responded appropriately. His references to Jesus, God, and the Bible seemed very natural and unforced, which is the way it should be when speaking to a (Christian) church audience. McCain obviously has some issues with his own testimoney. Even though he is known to attend North Phoenix Baptist Church, it is my understanding that McCain has never joined that church, nor has he been baptised by total immersion. He glibly implied something in his responses that may not be true.

The "evil" dialogue was addressed well by Stevens-Arroyo also. Obama said that we must confront evil where it exists and remember that we are God's soldiers in this effort. McCain talked about destroying evil, a task that God has not chosen to do since creation. Yes, and Bush has chosen to destroy evil by using torture, sadistic acts on prisioners, illegal surveillance, and so forth. Bush's lack of compassion for fellow human beings betrays his Christian witness.

I received an e-mail today that quoted Obama on page 261 of his book The Audacity of Hope as saying, "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
The actual quote from page 261 is, "Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

Those who bear false witness (in this case, purposefully misquoting someone) should have to answer for it in a court. There should be no tolerance for such outright fabrication of either the written or the spoken word. Those who are guilty of these deeds betray their Christian talk and walk. Jesus has some strong words for these evildoers also. Those who purposefully lie about a child of God will answer to God. I pray for that day. It is obvious that the judgment for such evil doings may not come on Earth.

It is Wednesday and I have finally read something that means something to me about what I heard last Saturday night. Larry King didn't know enough to ask Rick Warren about Obama's Jesus and Bible references Monday night and the lack of such by the darling of the religious right, John McCain.

For me, Obama came across as thoughtful, humble, and insightful. McCain came across as terse and comedic. I expect more from a President of the United States than a 2nd rate comedian with one-liners designed to end discussion and debate with no involvement of Jesus in the process.

raskrutka_sayta_optimizatsiya:

раскрутка сайта оптимизация http://seo-miheeff.ru/seo_news/raskrutka_sayta_optimizatsiya/ Продвижение сайта, раскрутка сайта, оптимизация сайта: именно эти ключевые слова привели вас сюда!

August 20, 2008 9:16 AM
-------------------------------------------
You need to post in English. This is an English website, and you are not contributing to this forum.

I put this thru a translator, it says:

Promotion of a site optimization http: // seo-miheeff.ru/seo_news/raskrutka_sayta_optimizatsiya/Promotion of a site, promotion of a site, optimization of a site: these keywords have resulted you here!

It is unfortunate how little any of this discussion matters. The electorate votes on bumper sticker philosophy, not nuance and not reality.
The voters of this great country were stupid enough to give a second term because Bush, who got into the national guard because of political influence and then skipped his drills, attacked Kerry saying he didn't deserve his 3rd metal of honor.
I heard that a new pole today shows McCain ahead of Obama.
While the country declines in economic and moral leadership around the worlds, we are getting what we voted for.

Obama Won the "Faith" Debate
----------------
Whether he won or not is in the eye of the beholder.

I think the Mac was not as willing to pander to evangelicals as The One and Only is.

I think McCain proved to have more guts than His Highness. That's why I'm seriously consider voting for the Mac. For sure, I'm not voting for The One. He is too much of a liar, flip flopper and manipulative. Anyone who calls himself the saviour is bound to be a dictator.

Observer, if you are saying that a person can be pro-life and still be evil, I have no disagreement. A person can go their entire lives without raping or murdering anyone and still have sins and moral failures. But can a person who does murder and rape have the liberty to call themselves "good." And that is my concern. Can a person who attempts to legally sanction the neglect and eventual death of independently viable children be considered "good." In my opinion, it is impossible. This has nothing to do with people who never get abortions or steal or lie getting an automatic ticket to heaven. Yes, I know wickedness comes in all forms. Not the point.

And to Marc Edward, I am registered as an independent. I evaluate candidates not by their party affiliations but by their past record, their integrity, and their stand on the issues. Barack Obama, the individual (not the Democrat), made a morally reprehensible decision to seek to legally sanction the neglect and death of independently viable children. And concerning your highlights of the Democrats' achievements, I don't see how the Civil Rights movements and the Equal Rights amendment have anything to do with lessening the "need" for abortion in this country. The Democrats support welfare, yet the communities which rely heavily on welfare for daily survival have some of the highest rates of abortion in the country. Almost half of all African-American pregnancies end in abortion. So your point is...? Both liberals and conservatives are trying to make adoption easier in this country. The evangelicals and Hollywood surprisingly are on the same side of this issue- trying to make adoption a la mode. This is not a partisan issue or solution. It is simply a matter of being human.

ElCentroCaBoy - Okay. Let's turn it the other way, then. As a Christian you cannot vote for McCain becasue he and his policies show no concern for the poor, for widows and orphans. Moreover, if you are a patriot you cannot support him either. He and Bush's policy with regards to the invasion fo Iraq has bled this country dry. Our military is so overextended that we have been rendered impotent in the face of Russian aggression. What are going to do if the Russian decide to call Bush on his positioning missiles in Poland? We don't have the concentional troops or equipment to do anything, so our option is nuclear war...Armageddon. McCain'sstance is to do just that; tell the Russian's to get out of Georgia or we attack. It's war, war, war! That isn;'t Christian. That isn't even sane.

To see this debate as a win for Obama is surely an oversight on your part...Or perhaps you are so biased that no other outcome was possible.

As a Catholic you cannot vote for the Democrat Party and call yourself a Christian. It just isn't possible (unless you are just as immoral as the rest of the Democrats). As a Catholic you are not allowed to openly lie either...it surely didn't stop you from doing it. :)

Dems... shame on you;

- Open acceptance of homosexuality as a life choice

- Abortion regardless of form

- Community support for the Crips, Bloods, Gangsta deciples, and M-13. (This is their standing militia that they are building up over 3 generations in the WHITEY jail system)

- Theft of the national fabric of this nation

President and Harvard Law Scholar Barack Obama Contrast With Last Place McCain

Growing Up

Last Place McCain was privileged, given everything by both parents, and worked for nothing.

Irish-American and Harvard Law Scholar Barack Obama grew up poor, raised by his Irish-American single white mother and Irish-American white working class maternal grand parents. Irish-American and Harvard Law Scholar Barack Obama was given nothing and worked for everything.

Education

Last Place McCain was a D student and graduated last in his class. Last Place McCain and McBush share failed academic records. He partied constantly and dependent on favor handouts from his high ranking father and grandfather. Last Place McCain earned nothing on his own similar to McBush. Last Place McCain is also Internet illiterate which slows down his information processing capacity. Is this good for the country?

Irish-American and Harvard Law Scholar Barack Obama worked hard and became PRESIDENT OF THE HARVARD LAW REVIEW. Everything that Irish-American and Harvard Law Scholar Barack Obama accomplished he did on his own. Irish-American Barack Obama’s HARVARD Scholarship ranks among the best. Irish-American and Harvard Law Scholar Barack Obama’s hard work represents the American Dream.

Community Service

Last Place McCain poor studies translated into poor performances in the military where he crashed several planes and recklessly endangered the lives of others. Last Place McCain was never trusted by his colleagues nor loved by his peers. The highlight of Last Place McCain’s career was getting shot down and becoming a prisoner. Last Place McCain served his country by getting handouts from his guards. Getting handouts seems to be Last Place McCain’s modem of operations.

Irish-American Barack Obama turned down large profits after graduating from HARVARD LAW to serve the community in Chicago where help was needed most. The community learned to trust and love Irish-American and Harvard Law Scholar Barack Obama for his dedication to public service.

Marriage

Last Place McCain walked out on his family to chase a younger woman who was on drugs, embezzling money from her company, stealing, and facing criminal charges, until her privileged family saved her from trial. Last Place McCain’s dysfunctional family represents chaos and lack of respect when he curses her in public.

Irish-American and Harvard Law Scholar Barack Obama married an intelligent IVY LEAGUE attorney and adores his beautiful young daughters. Irish-American and Harvard Law Scholar Barack Obama’s First Family represents what America is striving for. Irish-American and Harvard Law Scholar Barack Obama has always been surrounded by and still maintains a great respect for women (Irish mother, Irish grandmother, sister, wife, and two daughters). If anyone is in tune with and favors the betterment of working American women, then it’s Irish-American and Harvard Law Scholar Barack Obama.

International Diplomacy

The World wants no more chaotic McBush-Last Place McCain.

The World loves Irish-American and Harvard Law Scholar Barack Obama and will follow America’s leadership behind Irish-American and Harvard Law Scholar Barack Obama.

If Last Place McCain had to make another emergency landing on a deserted island with Irish-American and Harvard Law Scholar Barack Obama onboard as one of the passengers, then it is safe to say that Last Place McCain would assume the role of Gilligan, while Irish-American and Harvard Law Scholar Barack Obama would assume the role of the professor.

Navy pilot John Sidney Last Place McCain III should have never been allowed to graduate from the U.S. Navy flight school. He was a below average student and a lousy pilot. Had his father and grandfather not been famous four star U.S. Navy admirals, Last Place McCain III would have never been allowed in the cockpit of a military aircraft.

His father John S. "Junior" McCain was commander of U.S. forces in Europe later becoming commander of American forces in Vietnam while Last Place McCain III was being held prisoner of war. Last Place McCain III's grandfather John S. McCain, Sr. commanded naval aviation at the Battle of Okinawa in 1945.

During his relative short stunt on flight status, Last Place McCain III lost five U.S. Navy aircraft, four in accidents and one in combat.

Last Place McCain III lost jet number one in 1958 when he plunged into Corpus Christi Bay while practicing landings. He was knocked unconscious by the impact coming to as the plane settled to the bottom.

Last Place McCain's second crash occurred while he was deployed in the Mediterranean. Flying too low over the Iberian Peninsula, he took out some power lines which led to a spate of newspaper stories in which he was predictably identified as the son of an admiral."

Last Place McCain's third crash three occurred when he was returning from flying a Navy trainer solo to Philadelphia for an Army-Navy football game.

Last Place McCain's fourth aircraft loss occurred July 29, 1967, soon after he was assigned to the USS Forrestal as an A-4 Skyhawk pilot. While seated in the cockpit of his aircraft waiting his turn for takeoff, an accidently fired rocket slammed into Last Place McCain's plane. He escaped from the burning aircraft, but the explosions that followed killed 134 sailors, destroyed at least 20 aircraft, and threatened to sink the ship.

Last Place McCain's fifth loss happened during his 23rd mission over North Vietnam on Oct. 26, 1967, when Last Place McCain's A-4 Skyhawk was shot down by a surface-to-air missile. Last Place McCain ejected from the plane breaking both arms and a leg in the process and subsequently parachuted into Truc Bach Lake near Hanoi.

After being drug from the lake, a mob gathered around Last Place McCain, spit on him, kicked him and stripped him of his clothing. He was bayoneted in his left foot and his shoulder crushed by a rifle butt. He was then transported to the Hoa Lo Prison, also known as the Hanoi Hilton.

After being periodically slapped around for "three or four days" by his captors who wanted military information, Last Place McCain called for an officer on his fourth day of captivity. He told the officer, "O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital."

"Demands for military information were accompanied by threats to terminate my medical treatment if I [Last Place McCain] did not cooperate. Eventually, I gave them my ship's name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant."

When the communist learned that Last Place McCain's father was Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., the soon-to-be commander of all U.S. Forces in the Pacific, he was rushed to Gai Lam military hospital.

The communist Vietnamese figured, because POW Last Place McCain's father was of such high military rank, that he was of royalty or the governing circle. Thereafter the communist bragged that they had captured "the crown prince."

For 23 combat missions (an estimated 20 hours over enemy territory), the U.S. Navy awarded Last Place McCain a Silver Star, a Legion of Merit for Valor, a Distinguished Flying Cross, three Bronze Stars, two Commendation medals plus two Purple Hearts and a dozen service medals.
+
Last Place McCain had roughly 20 hours in combat. Since Last Place McCain got 28 medals, that equals out to a medal-and-a-half for each hour he spent in combat. There were infantry guys -- grunts on the ground -- who had more than 7,000 hours in combat where I'm sure a prison cell would have looked pretty good to them by comparison. The question really is how many guys got that number of medals for not being shot down.

Last Place McCain has been an unchecked master at manipulating an overly friendly and biased news media. The former POW turned Congressman, turned U.S. Senator, has managed to gloss over his failures as a pilot and collaborations with the enemy by exaggerating his military service and lying about his feats of heroism.

Last Place McCain has sprouted a halo and wings to become America's POW-hero presidential candidate.

Former naval officer and the owner of an oil-trading company that inked defense contracts worth $1 billion is the modern presidential money man. The law forbids high-level supporters from writing huge checks, but with help from friends in the Middle East Last Place McCain is receiving large donations.

Simply amazing how many of the spiritually enlightened know, chapter & verse, what the blond, Swedish looking redeemer had to say 2000 years ago. Certainty is the province of the ignorant.

With El Wapo being generally just clogged solid with Zionist propaganda it was nice to see this well written, reality based assessment of the event.
I wonder if McCains condemnation of the Jewish Supremes will affect the huge support McCain enjoys in the Jewish "neo-con" zionist community...

I find Anthony's analysis of the "faith" debate insightful and intelligent, a rarity in the distasteful public displays of religion, especially on the part of christians in this country.

All this noise about religion reminds me of what Oscar Wilde said about sex: Keep it out of the streets, as it will clog traffic.

Believer I, I find it odd:
Who is this god in whom we trust?
One nation under which one’s god?
It seems a sin of power-lust,
a stumbling block and faithful fall,
when I thought Liberty and Justice
strong enough God’s love for all;
“Good News” comes rarely after “Must.”

Gary wrote,
John McCain should be running for Secretary of Defense -- not for President. It's clear he only has one thing on his mind.
----
That's what I've been saying.

It's nice to see that the clear differences of faith between the candidates were not totally missed by everyone. Obama, as you wrote, came far closer to the words of Jesus than McCain did. McCain came up with bumper sticker slogans that put military above everything else in every case.

John McCain should be running for Secretary of Defense -- not for President. It's clear he only has one thing on his mind.

раскрутка сайта оптимизация http://seo-miheeff.ru/seo_news/raskrutka_sayta_optimizatsiya/ Продвижение сайта, раскрутка сайта, оптимизация сайта: именно эти ключевые слова привели вас сюда!

It appears your religious beliefs make you all intolerant of each other. A total failure of all religions represented by your blather.
Proof positive that your GOD(s) have either failed or never existed.
Pathetic.

This column should be entitled "Send in the Clown"

"CLINT :
I believe in the resurrected Christ but hesitate to call myself a Christian or a Catholic anymore.
Jesus, after all, was He Christian or Catholic? . . . . . . . . . "

Excellent posting.

No anger. No hate. No sarcasm. No finger-pointing. No lying. No distortion.

Peace is good.

nb. I do believe in the historic Jesus ( Yeshua as his real name was ) and I have this feeling that he would have agreed with your comment !

"I follow Lao Tze"

сашок мужчины http://love.miheeff.ru/list.php?link=1858&g=1 знакомства секс любовь знакомство общение девушки парни сайт знакомства на love

With over 20,000 protestant denominations and doctrinal splits in Islam, Judaism, Catholicism, and countless wars with religion as a root cause, explain to me again why we are having a religious test for office?

It’s much better for the candidates to explain what their policies will be than to see whose best at quoting the bible. Both candidates seem pretty weak especially if this is the best they can come up with to explain their policies.

UNITED STATES

Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700

Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient)

Spiderman2: I would like to talk to ypu in person. Will you oblige?

Marc Edward wrote " Mind you, no political party, especially the republicans, will ever try to end abortion."

Yes it does by appointing judges who oppose abortion.

Howdy zqll!
You write
"Many Western leaders knew of Hitler's evil intentions before 1939 and because they refused to confront hitler early on, he was able to impose his evil will on millions of people."

That was a failure of foreign policy - specificially they did not understand Hitler's intent and their capabilities. They also didn't confront Stalin's evil intentions and it didn't effect them at all.

"It is well known that had we confronted hitler during his re-militarization of the Rhineland he would have backed off."

Hindsite is 20/20, no? You presume the populations of France and England would have supported this kind of confrontation with fresh memories of "the great war" still intact. I don't agree with your assumption.

"Sudan and Rawanda are two good examples where greater evil would have been prevented had someone taken preemptive action early on."

While I agree with your statement I don't think there is the national will to "fix" the problems of Sudan and Rwanda. Nobody is going to support sending American boys to die in Rwanda to prevent the locals from killing eachother.

"Confronting Saddam's evil intentions when we did has prevented greater evil from happening."

Maybe, maybe not. Given that Saddam was contained I believe the cost of leaving him alone to be far less than the cost the Iraqi people and American people have paid. Moreover the bungled occupation has made the American military look like a paper tiger, which can lead to further instability in other hotspots. But your point seems to be "the ends justify the means" - like you're saying killings hundreds of thousands of civilians is OK because something bad MIGHT have happened (of course my intpretation might be way off and feel free to correct me). I disagree.

"We cannot erase evil from the world but we can prevent much of it from happening. But first we must not close our eyes to it but confront it."

I agree that evil should be confronted. First confront evil in ourselves, than our community, than our nation. When it comes to foreign policy we have to do what is in our national interest, which sometimes means we tolorate evil people.

spiderman2:
"To stop (THE NEED FOR) abortion, make it illegal just like it is illegal to park in the middle of the freeway. But idiots won't understand it, would they? For them parking there is NORMAL just like abortion."

1) Abortion is legal because of the right to privacy in the constitution. Are you against the Right to Privacy (which prohibits the states from preventing people from getting birth control)?

2) Making abortion illegal does not lower the numbers of abortions. Read "In the Land of God and Man". Where abortion is illegal the well to do travel to get their abortions, the poor self induce.

Mind you, no political party, especially the republicans, will ever try to end abortion.

ceflynline@msn.com:

To believe Jesus died for original (man's sin) is to reject the hierarchy set up in the Old Testament. Jesus was the sixth covenant--your church has warped your mind to keep its own classes intact. "There are male and female models in the Church." What in the heck does that mean? I think Paul would in fact have a problem with that statement, he referred to the owning of slaves and the veiling of women as a function of man's society, not God's plan.
P.S. Do your women know under your definitions, they're not allowed in Heaven, only men were release from original sin, which seems to be what you're implying.

Apparently we both watched the same debate Anthony. Thank the Lord, I thought I was going bonkers for a while there; all the political pundits missed the faith gap entirely.

Yes McCain won political points in the open media but that is beside the point. He lost the substantive spiritual bout. He failed to demonstrate the faintest iota of introspection or spiritual understanding.

I'm sure that most spiritually minded people were just as horrified at McCains certainty as I was. Only a saint or a fool is entirely sure about conception, or fighting evil, or identifying the 'Lords will'.

Obama seems to grapple with substantive doubt. An admirable trait.

To stop (THE NEED FOR) abortion, make it illegal just like it is illegal to park in the middle of the freeway. But idiots won't understand it, would they? For them parking there is NORMAL just like abortion.

A weird set of people.

a. They believe that they came from monkeys
b. They believe that the chocolate cake can bake all by itself and continuously improving everytime it repeatingly bakes itself.
c. They find it hard to prevent pregnancy and if they become pregnant, they rip the fetus out.
d. They marry with the same sex.

The terrible thing is they want these weird beliefs to be written in our Constitution. Their objective is to make the Constitution the COMIC book of the land.

Truly, a weird set of people. But God is almighty. He created this world in a way that the weird will annihilate the weird. They will self destruct.

With Obama's choice of judges, it seems that he is the weird guy. If Arroyo thinks Obama won, it just shows that he too is a weird guy.

"I think the pro life crowd should shut up about the moment of conception and the Supreme Court, and get off their butts and do something to stop (THE NEED FOR) abortion."
-------------------------------------------------
I agree.

I get it...dumb me...finally.

On one thread of this 'exchange' Jesus or christian belief is a function of electoral politics. What really matters is who gets elected. That's what will change things, not Jesus Christ, you stupid fundamentalist.

On another thread, we get that what's important about Jesus is that one can can trace a particular church back to him. It doesn't really matter what said church's pharisees and flock actually do or omit to do in real life. Everything is secondary to the fact that they can be traced back to him, like Jesus to Israel.

That's sort of like the third thread of those (McCain et al) who are already saved...so we can only suppose, that with that taken care of anything goes. All one needs to do is wait, make money or even run for president.

Christian nation? How so?

To Marc Edwards:

Many Western leaders knew of Hitler's evil intentions before 1939 and because they refused to confront hitler early on, he was able to impose his evil will on millions of people.
It is well known that had we confronted hitler during his re-militarization of the Rhineland he would have backed off. Had we confronted hitler's evil intentions in regard to Austria he would have backed off. Acting against evil early on will prevent greater evil from happening. It has always been true. Sudan and Rawanda are two good examples where greater evil would have been prevented had someone taken preemptive action early on.

Confronting Saddam's evil intentions when we did has prevented greater evil from happening.

We cannot erase evil from the world but we can prevent much of it from happening. But first we must not close our eyes to it but confront it.

"IAH wrote: The tenets of the Christian faith: There is neither Hebrew nor gentile, nor freed man nor salve, nor male nor female."

Note that that is Paul, writing thirty years after Jesus' Death. It is in fact part of the growth of understanding of Jesus teaching I referred to in my response. It does not reject hierarchy, and it does not decree that there are not male and female models in the Church, and most certainly PAUL NEVER would have claimed that. That you can't accept the Church's muddling with problems older than Enoch is your limitation, not the Church's. The Church must be, and teach, and remember from the deposit of faith, and sometimes understands its memories in ways we don't particularly like. Still, it is particularly the office of the Church to so remember. That is because it is the identifiable connection between us and a time and a Teacher gone these two thousand years, but with us still in His Church.

"IAH wrote: The tenets of the Christian faith: There is neither Hebrew nor gentile, nor freed man nor salve, nor male nor female."

Note that that is Paul, writing thirty years after Jesus' Death. It is in fact part of the growth of understanding of Jesus teaching I referred to in my response. It does not reject hierarchy, and it does not decree that there are not male and female models in the Church, and most certainly PAUL NEVER would have claimed that. That you can't accept the Church's muddling with problems older than Enoch is your limitation, not the Church's. The Church must be, and teach, and remember from the deposit of faith, and sometimes understands its memories in ways we don't particularly like. Still, it is particularly the office of the Church to so remember. That is because it is the identifiable connection between us and a time and a Teacher gone these two thousand years, but with us still in His Church.

ZZim:
"Marc, your examples regarding Michelle are posted on the related thread and have been for about 9 hours. Please read and be enlightened."

Howdy Zzim - I have been by that thread, and you gave no quote by Michelle Obama, and beyond that you said she went to a church. That is not evidence of anything. Again, how about some quotes from Ms. Obama? Could it be you don't have any evidence at all?

"The official stated theology of Reverend White is Black Liberation Theology."

I'll happily accept your assertion. I asked you what BLT was (no answer I see) and I gave you my understandinf of BLT, which in no way was racially devisive. Again, feel free to explain it.

"Barak and Michelle Obama attended his church and listened to his sermons for 20 years."

They attended the church, agreed.
No evidence as to how many times he was speaking when they were present. Large churches have multiple masses as you might know, so we have no idea at all how many times (if at all) Rev. Wright was speaking while the Obama family was in attendence. Of course no evidence at all that Obama ever heard Rev. Wright say anything racially devicive. If you have evidence I'd be happy to see it :-)

"I think any reasonable person would assume that they are believers in said Black Liberation Theology. If you don't know what it is (you do - so stop playing stupid), Google it."

Already said I have my own understanding of it and I asked you what you thought it was and how it was racially devicive. Maybe you ought to google it?

"I recommend that everyone else Google it too. That way you will learn how the Obamas view the world. A place in which races battle and struggle daily for supremacy."

BLT has nothing to do with races battling or Blacks being supreme. I think you have no idea what it's about.....or are you lying? You wouldn't lie in the OnFaith forum would you? God puts that right next to murder you know!

I sure hope you start including some content in your posts. Making assertions and not backing them up leaves the impression that you either don't know what you're talking about or that you're just a bad propagadist.

Later :-)

zqll writes " People who could not recognize evil or call it by its name are responsible for allowing and tolerating the existence of nazi germany in the 30s and allowing and tolerating the forcible repression of innocent people in Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union."

Well that's a load! Lots of people could look at Hitler (OK, Republicans didn't think Hitler was evil), Stalin (and yes, many Democrats overlooked Stalins excesses as well), Nazism and Stalinist Communism and call it evil. Of course calling names and $5 will get you a coffee at Starbucks! You don't go to war over people being percieved as "evil". We didn't go to war with the USSR because it would have destroyed much of Europe and the USA. We didn't start a war with Hitler because he was evil, we went to war because he attacked us.

"Both instances of refusing to call "evil" evil eventually caused the lives of millions of men, women and children."

Absolutely wrong. Calling Hitler and Stalin evil would have accomplished nothing. Lots of people called Hitler evil. You ought to go to a library and do some reading so you don't come across as being so ignorant.

'As someone who is not as wishy-washy as Obama, libs, etc. said: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."'

So one presumes you oppose the evil of the invasion of Iraq, the deaths of 1,000,000 Iraqis, the illegal detention and torture of people by the US government? Or maybe it depends on what the meaning of "evil" is?

"Obama his liberals, Democrats and supporters would have fit right in with the European appeasers of 1930s and 1940s."

Among the first people that went to and died in concentration camps were liberals and intellectuals. Somehow I bet you didn't know that.
When it comes right down to it, words like evil and good are what we use with children. As a country we have been allied with evil people (Stalin for example) and it was the best option we had. There are evil folks (Mugabe for example) we tolorate, because it's not in our interest to do anything about it. We don't start wars because somebody is evil, but because it is in our national interest.
Hope that clears things up for you!

"Robert B.wrote: Tazmodius -- We do live in a world with some moral absolutes, though. Some things are definitely morally right and others are definitely morally wrong. The trouble is that our world isn't *completely* composed of black and white; there's a lot of gray too. That's where folks like Zzim and Marko get tripped up."

Actually, where we get tripped up is in how we determine what is morally right and what is morally wrong. We find that, as we agree among ourselves that some act is morally wrong, it must be universally agreed upon as morally wrong. Any conservative Muslim will tell you saying the name Muhammad, or even referring to him as the Prophet is close to blasphemy, so must be accompanied by some blessing to keep one from passing into immorality. Any CRITICISM, questioning, or mocking of him is certainly immoral, even by an unbeliever. To PREACH against Muhammad is of course particularly immoral.

As it is considered by some part of a sixth of humanity to be immoral, should it be illegal?

My Catholic Faith, and my Catholic upbringing defines for me moral and immoral. Am I justified in demanding that my Catholic Faith be enacted as the law of the land?

As I am reluctant to relive the Thirty Years War, or any of its relatives, I accept the First Ammendments absolute wall between Chris and State. But the logical result of that acceptance is that I may NOT use my moral training, my Churches Moral authority, as the basis of civil or criminal law. I may seek laws that embody those moral teachings, but only if I can frame, justify, and defend them without reference to that moral authority.

Specifically because the logical compliment of Pro Choice is Pro Criminalization, making a thing illegal being how we remove choice in a matter, and I cannot begin to frame a criminal statute that would properly prevent abortions, regardless of its criminal sanctions, and I can certainly see the evils such a law can cause, (see final comment) I am reluctantly Pro Choice, by MY definition of Pro Choice. I am ALSO Pro Life, for I believe we must do everything positive we can to prevent the unjust taking of life at any time, conception to death. Negative things we can do must be weighed against the negative things we must do to support the first negative. Making it a capital crime for a woman to have an abortion, enforceable by stoning, isn't an acceptable preventive to abortion. (But it IS, of course, the Biblical punishment.)

After note. One particular evil that comes from allowing Republicans to criminalize abortion, is that it allows those same Republicans to wash their hands of any other effort to reduce abortions. They can say, (and they DO say), we tried to make abortion illegal, what more do you expect us to do, pay welfare queens to have more babies?

"We are Christian because we follow his teachings, ALL of them, and we are Catholic because we seek to inspire the universe of mankind to be one with us."

The tenets of the Christian faith: There is neither Hebrew nor gentile, nor freed man nor salve, nor male nor female.

Jesus ended the hierarchy and the curse of our ancestors. We were all born clean with the ability to go to Heaven. How exactly do Catholics square that with their discrimination against women?

People who could not recognize evil or call it by its name are responsible for allowing and tolerating the existence of nazi germany in the 30s and allowing and tolerating the forcible repression of innocent people in Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union.
Both instances of refusing to call "evil" evil eventually caused the lives of millions of men, women and children.

Like Stevens-Arroyo and others here, they would be willing to live with those consequences than be accused of being unforgiving and accused of not loving ones enemies.
Why don't they preach that on the graves of those millions who are dead because of such evilness.

As someone who is not as wishy-washy as Obama, libs, etc. said: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Obama his liberals, Democrats and supporters would have fit right in with the European appeasers of 1930s and 1940s. Evil is sooo difficult for them to understand. It's so nuanced don't you know.

Wow, just how much money has Obama promised the Catholic Church if he becomes president? Looks like someone's hoping to get a little protestant/catholic fight going. Nothing like working to bring the country together Stevens.
P.S. As a Christian, you might want to reexamine the story MCCain told to illustrate what believing in Christ means to him. Although he didn't seek to dazzle the audience by quoting scripture verbatim, he certainly revealed the core of Christianity. Looks like you might need a refresher course sir.

Marc, your examples regarding Michelle are posted on the related thread and have been for about 9 hours. Please read and be enlightened.

The official stated theology of Reverend White is Black Liberation Theology.

Barak and Michelle Obama attended his church and listened to his sermons for 20 years. I think any reasonable person would assume that they are believers in said Black Liberation Theology. If you don't know what it is (you do - so stop playing stupid), Google it.

I recommend that everyone else Google it too. That way you will learn how the Obamas view the world. A place in which races battle and struggle daily for supremacy.

Yuck.

There is one Race, the Human Race, all else is smoke and mirrors. Any other conception of "Race" is a superstition.

Howdy Ryan
Minor point about "crisis pregnancy centers" - they lie to their clients. Not sure how you feel about lying, but God put right up there with murder, theft and working on Sunday. Not sure if your understanding of Christianity likes the "ends justify the means".

DCP - "if he thinks it's ok to leave living, independantly viable babies to cry to death, then his memory doesn't mean diddly squat to me. Switch religions for all I care. I look at actions, not beliefs."

I totally agree that you can tell what somebody believes by what they do. For example the Democrats believed in equal rights for black folks and passed Civil Rights legislation. The Democratic party believed in equal rights for women and passed the Equal Rights Amendment (which failed in the states sadly). The Republicans have been calling abortion murder and legal abortion "a holocaust" since Reagan was running for President. To back up words like Murder and Holocaust they have done......NOTHING.
So are you saying that you won't support the Republican party because they support abortion by their actions? Or are you saying you will support the people who tell you what you want to hear but in actuality do nothing?

My guess is the 2nd, because many, many professed pro-life folks (like 100% of their leadership) aren't concerned about abortion what so ever.

I look forward to your reasonable answer!
:-)

"Annonymous2 wrote: believe in the resurrected Christ but hesitate to call myself a Christian or a Catholic anymore.
Jesus, after all, was He Christian or Catholic?"

He was neither, of course. He was, birth to death, an observant Jew.

There were no Christians until perhaps thirty years after his death, when his followers began to realize that whatever they WERE, they WEREN'T Jews. That was a major turning point in Church History.

He wasn't a Catholic, either, because it was much longer before it became apparent to his followers that He and his teaching were Catholic, that is Universal. It was even longer before they began to call themselves that, in opposition to sects that believed that some nations, tribes, or peoples were Christian and others were not. Martin Luther, for instance, who could dismiss a Pope as irrelevant because he wasn't "German"

Of course, the Germanic invasions having drenched Italia in German bloodlines for the nobles, (and it being a usual requirement for high level clergy to have some noble blood) the popoe was likely at least as German as Luther.

We are Christian because we follow his teachings, ALL of them, and we are Catholic because we seek to inspire the universe of mankind to be one with us.

Howdy Zzim!
I'm still waiting for your examples of Michelle Obama ever saying anything that a reasonable person would call "angry racial politics", but it's no hurry.

As for "black liberation theology", you leave no indication of what it is. My understanding of BLT (not the sandwich, but the theology) is that they use God's liberation of the Israelites as an example of what they (African Americans) should follow. They equate the stuggle of African Americans with the struggle of the Israelites. Seems kind of sensible, as African Americans were oppressed in this country for 150+ years. I fail to see how that is in any way racially devicive, but feel free to explain it to me.

As for the exact theology of Michele Obama, I have no idea what her theology is. As for Rev. Wright, he was one pastor at a church the Obama's attended, and the few out of context comments played on television "news" (quotes used in this case to denote sarcasm) Senator Obama condemned them so they have nothing to do with his campaign or his wife.

Again, if you have information about what Michelle believes (for example examples of her writing or attributal quotes) feel free to share them. You certainly are more than clever enough to copy and paste such examples :-)

Thanks for not flaming me for my poor spelling!

Ryan Haber: I follow and accept both of your points. The point about sanctions is simply the hypocrisy. McCain once said if his daughter was pregnant the decision would be hers in the privacy of his family. How can he say that and scream that life begins at conception as if he was giving the pro life answer? Either there are sanctions or there aren't.

For me, CPCs are great, and only one of many fronts in the battle that we haven't even opened.

Come on Marc Edward, don't be ridiculous. Most people find Black Liberation Theology racially divisive. Heck, most African Americans find it racially divisive.

Give me 2 reasons why the Black Liberation Theology of Reverand White and Barak & Michelle Obama is not racially divisive:
1.
2.

"Of course I'm betting you have nothing. It's remarkable that so many" people think that demanding lists of details from people who post their opinions on bulletin boards and then call them liars when they don't respond call that an argument. Odds are the other guy doesn't have time to argue against someone taking a startlingly obtuse position or maybe it's dinner time or something.

"Please prove me wrong and back up your points!"

PS - Look, I stole your format!

Ryan Haber:

It's not that Christians and Catholics merely fall short of their ideal but that they outright contradict it.

Accordingly, I see them as enemies, not as Catholic or Christian brethren. They drive seekers away, both left and right. Their conveniences, pet ideologies and pocketbooks too often seem to matter above all else. Just look at the 2 running for president. What a joke. One is suffering from a severe case of post-traumatic-stress and is a war monger even after a million dead in Iraq. The other has gone as far as contending that an aborted fetus accidentally born alive may be killed because, get this, it would not be legally consistent to not do so. Tragic.

....
As for the person who said Jesus was a jew. Technically, yes, but he turned almost everything they believed then (and now) upsode down.

....
As for the one who claims he's a myth. Yeah, it would sure seem that way if you observe most Christians. Yet I know he is not.

Marc Edward, News flash! "Marko" is one of those paid GOP boiler room bloggers. "It" is all over the web - USAToday, NYT, various Post forums, anywhere they will allow a cockroach. This slimey little worm has been busy spreading falsehoods, posting slander and vicious racist remarks, and likely making minimum wage for doing so. I honestly don't think "it" believes in 10% of what "it" posts and is only engaged in some sort of mind warefare as one of the new Swift Boat terrorists.

Marko:
"Obama's faith is riddled with anti-white theology that his reverend of 30 years preached and taught"

Interesting assertion, but I've never heard an example of it. Please list 5 things Senator Obama has said that demonstrate his faith is "riddled with anti-white theology". I'd have only asked for 3, but you're the one who said "riddled with anti-white theology".
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Of course I'm betting you haven nothing. It's remarkable that so many "Christians" come to OnFaith to spread lies. So many Christians get upset about homosexuality, which isn't even mentioned by Jesus, while they have no problem with lying, which God considers right up there with murder and theft.
Please prove me wrong and back up your points!

Evangelicals (and Christians generally) aren't gullible idiots, although Democrats love to treat them as if they were. The Democrats' M.O. with Christian voters is to quote a little Jesus at them, maybe throw in a chapter-and-verse scripture reference, and expect them to forget that the Democratic party has hated them for the last forty years.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, Christians aren't dazzled by someone who knows his Bible. Having a president who can quote from Romans or Habakkuk doesn't make the bitter pill of 1,500,000 annual abortions any easier to swallow. And Christians certainly won't fall for it when the Democrats spend 98% of the time telling us that religion needs to get out of the public square, then turn around and tell us that Jesus wants us to recycle and have a single-payer health care system.

The Democrats are tone-deaf when it comes to religion, and Obama is more of the same.

Joet, I'd like to step aside for a moment, and consider a couple points you made.

"...The question is whether we believe that a woman who has one should be sentenced for murder. If not, then it's legal..."

That's a false dichotomy, really. Most people are surprised to realize that in the US, abortion was only criminalized in the 1850s-1870s. They are even more surprised to find out that the suffragists (early feminists) and medical associations are the ones who advocated for the criminalization of abortion. The laws they lobbied for targetted, almost exclusively and entirely, the doctor - seeing the woman as likely to have been coerced into the crime.

"I think the pro life crowd should shut up about the moment of conception and the Supreme Court, and get off their butts and do something to stop abortion."

I wonder if you have you ever heard of crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs). They are reviled by NARAL and NOW, because they are very effective at helping women to avoid abortion by means of emotional and material support at a time when most women feel very, very alone and trapped. There are hundreds and hundreds of them around the country. Actually, Clinton is sometimes creditted with reducing the number of abortions during his administration, which is almost laughable. In reality, the renewed tension over abortion during his administration raised awareness on the issue in a new way, and with that increase awareness, the number of CPCs blossomed.

Anonymous 2,

You've put your finger on two different sorts of contradictions. One sort is a contradiction in theory or belief - these are incoherencies and inconsistencies. Logically speaking, when a system has these, it falls apart. The other sort of contradiction is in practice or living - these are facts of life, living in a world where nobody really lives up to anybody's ideals.

I would not for my life subscribe to an inconsistency in belief - something has to give so that they can iron out into a consistent, seamless view of reality, or as close to that as I can manage.

I cannot for my life avoid falling short of my own ideals. That isn't the special province of Christians or of Catholics, coincidentally. Anybody experiences this sad personal condition who bothers to have ideals at all. I expect most Buddhists don't do exceptionally well at being Buddhist. It doesn't make the person a hypocrite, however - the person becomes a hypocrite by holding others to a standard higher than those to which he holds himself. That is, a hypocrite is one who expects more of others than of himself.

I certainly hope that you aren't expecting more of Christians or Catholics than you expect of yourself. A good examination of conscience usually reveals to me a number of inconsistencies in my own conduct. I presume that you are a former Catholic, because otherwise you probably wouldn't have made the further specification. In any event, I will grant you that we Catholics are a very sad lot. Our Catholic beliefs are sound, I am convinced, and healthful, and correct; it's we poor Catholic who are tinny, sick, and flail about in sin. I am so glad to have a place where I fit in and it amazes me how far a good confession goes toward curing a case of self-righteous judgmentalism against my brethren.

Best regards.

dcp - Then, one thing you can count on, when the Anti-Christ appears, he will be "pro-life", just to garner the support of nubskulls like you.

If McCain was only saying what the evangelicals wanted to hear, then why did he say that he supported stem cell research. McCain never pretended to be an overtly religious man. He even made Dobson mad by bad-mouthing the evangelicals. I can respect that. I can't respect a Bible-quoting pandering Trinity United Church of Christ baby killer. Obama is a pleather spam nutrasweet Maybelline Christian.

MR. STEVENS-ARROYO; I WILL PRAY FOR YOU. YOU SURELY HAVE NEVER READ THE BIBLE. EVEN DEMONS CAN QUOTE SCRIPTURE. THIS IS 21ST CENTRY CHRISTIANITY. MAY GOD OPEN YOUR EYES AND MAY RELIGION DIE AND CHRIST LIVE. YOU HAVE A FORM OR RELIGION AND TRADITION BUT BY YOUR POSTS, YOU COULDN'T POSSIBLY KNOW CHIRST.

Clint,

You said "Jesus, after all, was He Christian or Catholic" and I believe I can answer that for you: he was a Jew. Everyone who follows him is a Christian or a Catholic.

Mr. Stevens-Arroyo,

Thank you for seeing through the usual scripted answers Republicans like to give when confronted with matters of faith and religion.

What many people, especially conservative Christians, seem to forget is that this country was founded on many freedoms and Religious Freedom is one of them. Attempting to put a Presidential candidate in a neat little Christian box, a box with very specific beliefs and practices, is completely the wrong thing to do. Our President doesn't need to be a Christian, Catholic, Jew, or a Muslim for that matter. What our President does need to be is an advocate for upholding the laws and freedoms granted to us as American citizens. THAT is what's most important. Knowing where a candidate stands on the issues is important, yes, but pressing a candidate for an answer to the "when does human life begin" question is petty. McCain gave his black and white, hard-liner answers to these Evangelist questions but that's what the people in the forum wanted to hear. Obama quoted from the Bible but mostly offered more diplomatic answers but he knows there are several Christian denominations and various non-Chrisitian faiths that do NOT share ALL the same exact beliefs, practices and interpretations of the "truth" as Evangelicals.

In conclusion, Obama won because he gave *truthful* answers, not the "right" answers (i.e. answers Evangelicals wanted to hear).

Christians are the light of the world they try to cease wars and create peace...We love Jesus and because we love Jesus we abide by the law..it is not because of the law we love him..History has shown us that the more we try to impose laws the more people would go against them..what is the use of enacting law against abortion without trying to educate people about the danger and consequences of aborting their babies?

Obama doesn't support abortion but he supports not enacting law against abortion. A true Christian will always dwell on the bible and based what he says on the bible..the Bible and the world are not just about law..

Yonkers, New York
19 August 2008

Republican presumptive presidential nominee John McCain came unmasked in the two-hour "forum" at the Sadddleback Church moderated by Rev. Rick Warren.

He failed to quote the Christian bible because, obviously, he is not conversant with it. He only pretends to be a Christian. In reality, probably a nominal Christian. In many respects, Mr. McCain is non-religious and non-theological. He is a secularist.

In contrast, Barack Obama proved quite convincingly that he is a Christian, the better Christian than Mr. McCain if you will. He was able to quote specific parts of the Christian bible to support the specific positions he has taken on social issues because, obviously, he has taken the time and the effort to study the Christian bible. Barack Obama was that convincing.

Mariano Patalinjug

MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Mentioning Jesus is the beginning of stupidity.

Your entry represented my own sentiments well.

It doesn't matter how much Bible Obama can quote. If he thinks it's ok to leave living, independantly viable babies to cry to death, then his memory doesn't mean diddly squat to me. Switch religions for all I care. I look at actions, not beliefs. I don't need a fork-tongued politician quoting the Sermon on the Mount. Save it.

Obama gave the sound answers from a biblical point of view, McCain gave us sound bites that are in fact on the wrong side of the Bible.

"We are the best at helping our brothers" sounds a lot like the Pharisee who prayed "Thank you Lord that I am not like them." "We have failed to help the least of them" sounds more like "Lord have mercy on me, a sinner."

We defeat evil? Only God has the power to defeat evil if it is His will to do so for those who confront it in His name (as Obama correctly recognized our role).

Life begins at conception? (that's not only above Obama's pay grade, it's above Warren's - the saints were unable to resolve the question). McCain thinks he's God. At least Obama only thinks he's president.

And it wasn't as responsive to the question as Obama's response was. Defining the beginning of life won't do a thing to end abortion. The question is whether we believe that a woman who has one should be sentenced for murder. If not, then it's legal. (There is no such thing as a law that has no penalty). Does anything less make sense? 90 days for a misdemeanor? if it's a felony at all, our daughters will be deprived of their civil rights and unable to get jobs for the rest of their lives.

I would like a politician to say that it hardly matters when life begins, because it is morally reprehensible to terminate a pregnancy at any stage (whether the soul has arrived, or is about to arrive hardly matters), and that there is only one goal, to make it absolutely unnecessary for any woman to ever consider abortion to be the better choice. That requires pastors who do not judge, parishioners who do not shun, parents who do not disown, friends who do not ridicule, and a society that makes adoption or keeping the child feasible.

If we succeed in that, then in fact punishing a woman who has an abortion anyway is more defensible than it is now. But not until.

An abortion is the failure of all of the above, not the absence of strict constructionists on the Supreme Court.

I think the pro life crowd should shut up about the moment of conception and the Supreme Court, and get off their butts and do something to stop abortion.

'McCain never quoted the Bible' -- And your point is....? The Fundimentalists, especially as represented by Warren's cult, are NOT Christian's. These vapid shallow cretin's are a pseudo-chrsitian cult. Genuine Evangelical's recognize this, why is it so difficult for the press to understand it and write about it? We call them "Fundimentalists" when we are being charitable. They distort Christ's teachings, placing their emphasis on abortion and other right wing issues, and completely ignore the core message to preach the Good Word, reach out to and help the poor and widows and orphans. That would require them to support various welfare and social programs that are at odds with the selfish and self centered view of the whole world. I am equally certain, have seen these false teachers up close, that McCain received inside information that Obama did not - that was pretty obvious from the comments made by McCain. By the view of the Warren cultists, politcial expediancy trumps absolute right and wrong. Unfortunately, this is equally true of liberals. Jack Cafferty, over on the CNN site, has the best commentary on this I have ever seen. I suggest that YOU and all of your readers travel over there and read it.

It's not surprising that McCain sailed through the interview with Warren with flying colors without having once quoted or even mentioned the name of Jesus (let a liberal try that in front of an Evangelical crowd).

After all, it's been apparent for the last two decades that the GOP just uses its religious base to win elections, casting them aside when the prize has been won. McCain's shallow, simplistic answers reveal his party's cynical (and smug) belief that they own the Evangelical vote.

I'm surprised the religious community hasn't figured out this little shell game by now. Hope springs eternal, I guess.

If Sen. McCain is not a good Christian because he thru his first wife aside, then his wife could not be a good Christian either because she thru her half sister - that's right - her father's illegitimate child aside.

javascript:NPR.Player.openPlayer(93708729,%2093710936,%20null,%20NPR.Player.Action.PLAY_NOW,%20NPR.Player.Type.STORY,%20'0')

I believe in the resurrected Christ but hesitate to call myself a Christian or a Catholic anymore.
Jesus, after all, was He Christian or Catholic?

Jesus was only a man, a minor revolutionary, trying to save the Jews from Rome. Christ was not his name. Whoever the author(s) of the Evangelists were added Christ to his name, so that this man would fulfill Old Testament "prophecies" (even though the prophecies had nothing to do with Jesus).

So he was neither. He was just a man, and having failed to save the Jews from Rome, was caught and crucified, and stayed in the ground.

Whoever his historians were, put some nice teachings in the Master's mouth. Why don't people learn those teachings and just practice them? They are not hard. If you clear away the rubbish and trash that the Gospels are filled with (virgin birth, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and some of the teachings of Matthew 24, and other teachings about his coming back "on clouds of glory" or whatever), you find some good stuff.

People get all in a tizzy if you deny that Christ was god, or even existed. It is quite likely this man never even existed anyway. But that pisses off the Catholics, who think they are right, and the Protestants, who think they are right, and etc..

If Jesus could come back he would throw up.

I remain troubled that McCain proclaims a deep abiding faith (God? Country?) but to my knowledge has never publicly proclaimed Jesus Christ as his personal savior. If he is a Christian, what is wrong with that (and please don't tell me it is because he believes his faith is something to personal to discuss!!!) ? I also wonder why his wife Cindy's fortune made in connection with the brewing industry is never mentioned in conservative Christian circles when so many lives and marriages have been destroyed by alcoholism? It just seems McCain is being given a free pass in some areas as "the lesser of two evils." As an evangelical Christian, I sometimes wonder.

BO and JM both failed as neither mentioned the flaws and errors of Christianity i.e. a minus sign in the fortitude column for both.

I completely agree with this article.

I will take an introspective and pragmatic president (Obama) over one that speaks in soundbites (McCain) to appease the audience he is trying to reach at a moment in time.

Unfortunately, people like those who have already posted here, will continue to use religion, race and propoganda to divide.

Tazmodius --

We do live in a world with some moral absolutes, though. Some things are definitely morally right and others are definitely morally wrong. The trouble is that our world isn't *completely* composed of black and white; there's a lot of gray too. That's where folks like Zzim and Marko get tripped up.

As my political tour guides taught me, some things are better left up to the women. So have faith in woman and if you find the right one then you are truely blessed. She's not easy to find, so avoid easy girls. They make life a pain. If it's an honor it should be a pleasure, although that's not always the case. With faith, all is well that ends well and then some new thing starts all over again. It's an American Revolution and we all get the chance to win. I don't like the idea of debating things like faith, because people have their own ideas about it and win, lose or draw we don't have to agree with each other. Just so you have your peace of mind, you can get along and enjoy your security which beats a bloody civil war.

Both ZZIM and MARKO represent exactly what Anthony Stevens Arroyo was talking about. They live in a world where they believe in Moral Absolutes. ZZIM and MARKO are vein in that they believe they can judge in place of God. McCain is the epitomy of the often hidden nature of human vanity.

It's comforting to see that most people seem to see this. The media says McCain won, but not many people see it that way. Matbe there is still hope for the people of the US after all.

McCain is a secularist and pragmatist. After all, he once was, before it became irrelevant to be one--when it cesed to be an advantage to be a Brahman, an Episcopalian. However, for the Christian Right, this is not a problem; McCain espouses support for their sacrosanct positions, which is easy for him as he has no deep, at least he has never exhibited any, spiritual convictions, i.e., in respect to matters of faith and conscious, he can change his position and say whatever is needed to get votes without soul searching. He isn't dumb, which was demonstrated by confessing that he contributed to the failure of his first marriage. He went from being an Episcopalian to being a "born again Christian?" Was that a spiritual or strategic journey; was he on the way to Damascus or Rome?

Look at...questions forwarded...time given for answering the queation...where was the other candidate while the other was answering the questions...moderates approach on each candidates... do audiences in the room represented fairly?....did you see truth and fairness in this religous-political process, etc...then I will give ZERO marks for the whole process.

As a Quaker, I'm quite impressed with Obama's knowledge of the Bible -- he obviously reads and studies it. McCain is much much less familiar. And I find Obama's sense of the downsides of carnal power, human hubris to be exactly what we need in the white house these days. He clearly is the more religiously, Christian oriented of the two and I think he has the integrity and ability to bring that perspective into the oval office while respecting and upholding the separation of church and state.

Thank you for your thoughts about the forum. I think what struck me most was how lacking in humility Senatory McCain appears to be. I felt like I was watching yet another stump speech performance instead of getting to know more about Senator McCain and what makes him tick. On the contrary, I think what we saw was yet another candidate who's had to buy into a platform that requires that he not have a unique thought of his own. Senator Obama, while he may not have in all cases had the answers his audience wanted to hear, was at least honest and evidenced a degree of humility. I was also struck by his knowledge of the scripture and felt like I got a glimpse of his true beliefs. If you're a a single-issue values voter, and pro-life is the determinant, then Obama isn't going to get your vote. If the issue is defeating ALL EVIL around the world, then Obama isn't going to get your vote. If you're a realist and have any sense of priorities, then hopefully Obama will get your vote.

This is the most accurate portrayal of the interviews I have seen yet. I have been very bothered and very concerned about how the press has ignored pumped up McCain as "winning". People are celebrating McCains certainty and confident, quick answers. This really frightens me about McCain. First he kept tying everything back to his time as a Prisoner of War...it is as if he longs for those moments to come again where he can be a "hero". Almost like he is addicted to his POW status and will do anything to revisit it. Second, McCains "self-righteousness" and seeming eagerness to "confront evil" track down people and go to war with Russia is utterly terrifying. Who is he going to do all of this with? My children, your children. He is insane, shoots from the hip and addicted to war where he feels glory. He is getting high off the Iraq war and will keep killing our children if he gets in office. We have got to stop him.

Interesting conversation opener.

Jesus? What does he have to do with Christianity anyhow, catholic or otherwise? Let us count the ways in which he matters or not:

1. It's OK to kill a child inside the womb but not one outside.

2. It's OK to kill a person outside the womb provided it serves what is believed to be in the national interest. In any amount too.

3. It's OK to earn and keep $250K (per Obama) or $5m (per McCain) per year while there are other human beings anywhere not even eating, and charity hasn`t quite solved the problem.

4. It's OK to marry, divorce, reamarry, notwithstanding what 3 of the gospels say Jesus said.

5. It's OK to steal provided it's legal.

6. It's OK to divide Christians and Catholics into pharisees and lay people.

7. It's OK to be for civil rights and slavery simultaneously, or vice versa.

8. It's OK to forget human rights if they get in the way of making money from other nations.

9. What's OK for a man is not OK for a woman.

10. It's OK to idolize the money-system if it makes one money and to venerate human beings if it's part of a tradition.

11. It's OK to receive communion or speak in the name of Christ while falling into any or all of the foregoing categories.

12. It's OK to ignore the gospels wherever they contradict my beliefs or lifestyle.

I believe in the resurrected Christ but hesitate to call myself a Christian or a Catholic anymore.
Jesus, after all, was He Christian or Catholic?

Obama's faith is riddled with anti-white theology that his reverend of 30 years preached and taught. His "new" faith that he exerts is a false representation of the individual who made comments that people "cling to guns and religion" because of their economic situation.

His campaign employs propaganda and scripts his speeches to tailor to the audience he is in front of. When will voters actually look at his past speeches and compare them?

Interesting line: "McCain was dead certain: the evil he named was Muslim - Osama Bin Laden and radical Islam. Both must be destroyed. McCain's approach runs against the teachings of Jesus Christ who repeatedly counseled forgiveness and love for one's enemies."

Yup. It's evil al right. And it must be destroyed. That's the President's job. Turning the other cheek is the task for private citizens. Willingness to confront (with violence if necessary) those who wish to kill random people to further their religious-political agendas is a baseline job requirement for President. It's like requiring a firefighter be willing to to use water on fires. It's not up for debate.