Obama is a Christian with these views?

http://www.youngcons.com/president-obama-says-religious-convictions-need-to-go-the-way-of-the-confederate-flag/

Gonna be a hot spot waiting on him at the Judgment.

Here's the problem, Karl. Your thread title and the title of the article you linked is "President Obama Says Religious Convictions Need to go the Way of the Confederate Flag"

But the Obama quote found in the article itself is not quite the same thing as the title of the article. So rather than reading somebody's caricature of what he said, it might be helpful to read what he actually said.


“I know that Americans of goodwill continue to hold a wide range of views on this issue,” he said in a speech following the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling to Constitutionally recognize same-sex marriage. He initially espoused respect for those who disagree with the ruling.

“Opposition in some cases has been based on sincere and deeply held beliefs,” he said. “All of us who welcome today’s news should be mindful of that fact. Recognize different viewpoints. Revere our deep commitment to religious freedom.”

“But today should also give us hope that on the many issues with which we grapple often painfully real change is possible,” he continued, abruptly switching gears, clearly implying that those who disagree must come around to the more righteous, more American, and more equal view of marriage.

“Shifts in hearts and minds is possible,” he said. “And those who have come so far on their journey to equality have a responsibility to reach back and help others join them. Because for all our differences, we are one people — stronger together than we could ever be alone.”

“That’s always been our story. We are big and vast, and diverse. A nation of people with different backgrounds and beliefs, with different experiences and stories, but bound by our shared ideal that no matter who you are, or what you look like, how you started off, or how and who you love — America’s a place where you can write your own destiny.”

Bob wrote:Here's the problem,  Karl.  Your thread title and the title of the article you linked is "President Obama Says Religious Convictions Need to go the Way of the Confederate Flag"

But the Obama quote found in the article itself is not quite the same thing as the title of the article.  So rather than reading somebody's caricature of what he said,  it might be helpful to read what he actually said.


   “I know that Americans of goodwill continue to hold a wide range of views on this issue,” he said in a speech following the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling to Constitutionally recognize same-sex marriage. He initially espoused respect for those who disagree with the ruling.

   “Opposition in some cases has been based on sincere and deeply held beliefs,” he said. “All of us who welcome today’s news should be mindful of that fact. Recognize different viewpoints. Revere our deep commitment to religious freedom.”

   “But today should also give us hope that on the many issues with which we grapple often painfully real change is possible,” he continued, abruptly switching gears, clearly implying that those who disagree must come around to the more righteous, more American, and more equal view of marriage.

   “Shifts in hearts and minds is possible,” he said. “And those who have come so far on their journey to equality have a responsibility to reach back and help others join them. Because for all our differences, we are one people — stronger together than we could ever be alone.”

   “That’s always been our story. We are big and vast, and diverse. A nation of people with different backgrounds and beliefs, with different experiences and stories, but bound by our shared ideal that no matter who you are, or what you look like, how you started off, or how and who you love — America’s a place where you can write your own destiny.”

I read it Bob. He, like BILLARY, want Christians to sacrifice their values and beliefs for these new special rights for folks. Let me tell you, it ain't gonna happen and for an alleged Christian, he should know better for expecting Christian groups to do so.

Here's one oppositional declaration that came out even before the SCOTUS Sodom and Gomorrah decision:

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/southern-baptists-statement-opposing-gay-marriage/nmfLH/

If what you get from the Bible is hatred for other people, you have an extremely warped view of Christianity.

Wordslinger wrote:

KarlRove wrote:http://www.youngcons.com/president-obama-says-religious-convictions-need-to-go-the-way-of-the-confederate-flag/

Gonna be a hot spot waiting on him at the Judgment.

Obama's right.  The hatred preached throughout your corrupt, misogynist, oppressive, arrogant, hurtful, and violent Holy Book should be shit-canned along with all other Holy Books.  The sooner the better!  It's clear that self-declared hateful, bigoted assholes like you love to latch on to every hateful thing in the Bible as an excuse for your own depravity.  Reality.  

I'm not sure I see too many hearts floating from that post, Wordslinger. You've got some awfully bigoted and hateful things to say about your fellow man there. And whether you believe them or not - no one is asking you to - you are calling out literature to be "shit-canned."

But then you have freedom of speech...

Bigotry...much?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn3.htm

Which definition is correct?

This question assumes that there is one and only one correct definition of the term "Christian." However, depending upon your understanding of the nature of truth, many definitions may be "true" to various groups:

To conservative Protestants, a Christian is often defined according to their salvation status. Their definition is "true" to them, because it agrees with some of their foundational beliefs: that the Bible is inerrant, that salvation is by grace, and that one must be "born-again" to be saved and avoid eternal punishment in Hell.

To Roman Catholics, a Christian is often defined according to their baptism status and the presence of any unresolved mortal sin in their lives. Their definition is "true" to them, because it agrees with their fundamental beliefs about the nature of sacraments, their understanding of the Bible, the declarations of many Church Councils, the statements of many popes, and their church's tradition.

To many in the very early Christian movement, a Christian was defined as a person who was baptized and proclaimed "Jesus is Lord." Their definition was "true" to them because it agreed with their understanding of their religious belief at a time when the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) had not yet been written and assembled.

And so on, with other faith groups.
Each group has their own definition of "Christian" that agrees with their own beliefs about the nature of Jesus, God, church tradition, written text, evolved theology, the cultures in which they are implanted, etc. There appears to be no way to compromise on a single definition that is acceptable to all.

One apparently cannot call on a higher power to resolve the problem, because there seems to be no way to assess the will of God on such matters. If there were such a method, then different definitions would have been harmonized centuries ago. People would simply have prayed to God and asked Him to define what a Christian is. Then, a consensus would exist today on the true meaning of the word "Christian."

There is no consensus on what the "correct" definition of "Christian" is. There is only a near consensus within individual faith groups. Therefore questions like "Are you a Christian?" or "How many Christians are there in the U.S." are only meaningful:

Within a single denomination, or among a group of similarly-minded denominations.

In a public opinion poll where the definition of "Christian" is either clearly stated or left up to the subject to define.
The definition used on this web site:

There is a common belief held by every Christian that we have met: they all believe that they are attempting to live in accordance with Christ's teachings. Perhaps this is a good starting point from which to create a definition.

One problem is that different Christians and different Christian faith groups interpret biblical passages and Jesus' teachings very differently.

The two religious/spiritual/ethical/moral topics of greatest current concern in North America appear to be:

Equal rights for persons of all sexual orientations and gender identities, including access to marriage by loving, committed same-sex couples. Some Christians feel that excluding sexual minorities from having the same rights and protections as loving, committed opposite-sex couples is one of their major responsibilities. Other Christians feel that homophobia and transphobia -- acts to restrict civil liberties of sexual minorities -- are the main evils.

Access to abortion: Some Christians feel that reducing or prohibiting access to abortion is a prime responsibility. Others feel that their main task is to try to reduce the number of abortions to levels found in other developed countries by creating programs that would the reduce the cause of abortions: the number of unexpected, unwanted pregnancies. Still others feel that an abortion is often a woman's moral decision and that it is important for them to try to maintain abortion access.
WWJD ("What Would Jesus Do") and WDJT ("What Does/Did Jesus Teach) are questions that Christians ask, meditate over, and pray about. But they come to opposite conclusions. One might wonder if a Christian can actually assess the will of God through prayer; the answer may be no.

Our original definition in the year 2000 was:

"We accept as Christian any individual or group who devoutly, thoughtfully, seriously, and prayerfully regards themselves to be Christian. That is, they honestly believe themselves to be a follower of Yeshua of Nazareth (a.k.a. Jesus Christ)."

In 2011, changed to this definition:

"We accept as Christian any individual or group who devoutly, thoughtfully, seriously, and prayerfully regards themselves to be Christian. That is, they honestly believe themselves to be attempting to follow the teachings of Yeshua of Nazareth (a.k.a. Jesus Christ) as they interpret those teachings to be."

We would appreciate your comments about this change. Please click on the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of this essay.

In North America there are over a thousand faith groups including the Roman Catholic church; the Eastern Orthodox churches, other conservative, mainline, liberal and progressive Christian faith groups; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons); Jehovah's Witnesses, the Unification Church, Christian Science, progressive Christians, and other religious organizations. They all feel that they are trying to follow Jesus' teachings; they all identify themselves as Christian. In fact, many regard their group as the only "true" Christian church. Yet these groups, and their followers, have very different beliefs about the life, events, teachings, actions, sinlessness and expectations of Yeshua.

Also included within our definition as Christians are those who regard themselves as being followers of Jesus even though they do not affiliate themselves with any particular religious group. They appear to be growing in numbers as increasing numbers of North Americans are abandoning religion in favor of a personal spirituality.

We realize that we are defining Christians in terms of being Christian. As one person Emailed us, that is like defining a parrot as "something that has the characteristics of a parrot." But since there is no consensus on what the teachings of Jesus are," we see no other choice. In contrast, there is a general agreement about what a parrot -- or mountain, or car, or computer -- are.

The above definition's lies the problem's of today. Everyone thinks they are right on their own interpretation and what they are taught in churches today.

Bible was created by man for feeble minds. Quote of someone.

Created by man and changed many times over thousand's of year's and man adding their own version and perversion.

I do believe in a higher power and it is around and with us at all times, but I do not believe in a book written by man with his own interpretation.

I believe you should treat one, the way you would like to be treated.

I also believe in equal rights for all.

by Floridatexan Today at 8:13 am

If what you get from the Bible is hatred for other people, you have an extremely warped view of Christianity.
------
There's no hatred in calling out sin.

There's no hatred in bit agreeing with the socialist agenda being pushed by the Democrats.

Gonna be a hot spot waiting on him at the Judgment.




There's no hatred in calling out sin.



So the person who is an adulterer under the bible, and the bible says we should stone you to death, is going to tell us about the sin of two people loving each other.......that is ironic.

2seaoat wrote:Gonna be a hot spot waiting on him at the Judgment.




There's no hatred in calling out sin.



So the person who is an adulterer under the bible, and the bible says we should stone you to death, is going to tell us about the sin of two people loving each other.......that is ironic.

So I take it from that you have disregarded the Bible as having any validity ? So you are a Christian in about the same way you are a republican...Figures.

Hey for you folks that reject Christianity here's a few substitutes....that fit right in with the LBGT agenda.

http://www.cracked.com/article_16103_5-inspiring-religions-that-worship-penises.html

So I take it from that you have disregarded the Bible as having any validity ? So you are a Christian in about the same way you are a republican...Figures.


On one hand, we are commanded by the Lord Jesus, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged” (Matthew 7:1). On the other hand, the Bible also exhorts us to beware of evildoers and false prophets and to avoid those who practice all kinds of evil.  I think that takes care of you and Pace judging others under the guise of you speaking for the bible, and kinda takes care of the Republicans all in one concise paragraph.

2seaoat wrote:So I take it from that you have disregarded the Bible as having any validity ? So you are a Christian in about the same way you are a republican...Figures.


On one hand, we are commanded by the Lord Jesus, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged” (Matthew 7:1). On the other hand, the Bible also exhorts us to beware of evildoers and false prophets and to avoid those who practice all kinds of evil.  I think that takes care of you and Pace judging others under the guise of you speaking for the bible, and kinda takes care of the Republicans all in one concise paragraph.

Thank you for your fine demonstration of cafeteria Christianity....

2seaoat wrote:So I take it from that you have disregarded the Bible as having any validity ? So you are a Christian in about the same way you are a republican...Figures.


On one hand, we are commanded by the Lord Jesus, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged” (Matthew 7:1). On the other hand, the Bible also exhorts us to beware of evildoers and false prophets and to avoid those who practice all kinds of evil.  I think that takes care of you and Pace judging others under the guise of you speaking for the bible, and kinda takes care of the Republicans all in one concise paragraph.

It applies pretty well to the all the progressive liberals and Democrats, such as yourself.

*****FART*****
IN SAL's & BOARD's GENERAL DIRECTION

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMQNqBB7Am4