10.29.2008

have we forgotten...?

Barack Hussein Obama is nearing the presidency and society has seemed to turn a blind eye to the controversy that follows this man. Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, Louis Farrakhan etc..... Are we so blinded by the media that we cannot see this man for what he truly is? What about ACORN? What about Jeremiah Wright? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M-kD0QdRJk click on this link and see for yourself the hate that this man spread for years. Then he goes onto the View and denounces his pastor of 20 years, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPTl4s_xIDY&feature=related, what?!? My wife has been in our church now for 26 years, all her life. If she came to me tomorrow and said that he (our Pastor) was "more of a crazy uncle" and that the things he has said to her, for 26 years, didn't really have that great of an impact on her life I would have her committed, that's crazy!

This truly blows me away on one hand that this man might be president, but at the same time it doesn't. I guess we'll find out in 6 days......

12 comments:

Lee said...

Hi Ryan,

Well, of course I have no vote on this - but from what I here, ANYTHING is better than Palin as VP - McCain does not look that healthy and I fear for the US what Palin would do to it (and the rest of the world) if she got into the top job.

Keep religion out of politics and we will not go far wrong

Lee

ryan said...

"Keep religion out of politics and we will not go far wrong."

This is something the democrats are horrible at. Check out those videos of Jeremiah Wright. There is no seperation there, he is screaming politics from the pulpit.

I tend to think that Palin would be a better choice then Obama, here is why. I belive that she has more experience and her past is not nearly as strewn together as his. On that fact alone I trust her much more then Obama. His economic plan, his idea on the many wars were engaged in (which I'm on the fence about, the war that is) and his new found motto of "spreading the wealth around" all makes me ill to my stomach. Wait....spreading the wealth around, didn't Russia try that???? Lets ask them how that went.

USA: Yo Russia. Were thinking about trying that whole socialist thing. Were going to start with national gov. run health care and were also going to "spread the wealth around." How did that go for you?

Russia: One word commrade - Communism.

USA: Oh yeah. Crap.

Lee said...

Hi Ryan,

Erm... what do they say about talking about religion and politics? Oh yeah, perfect for all occasions :-)

I know very little about what is happening in this campaign – why should I, I live in Australia and cannot vote.

However, my concern for American is the reported view Palin has on teaching science – it is probably as simple as that. I worry about someone who wants to be a leader of the western world who does not understand the principles of the scientific method.

I really don’t care about religion if it is kept private, personal and at home – bring it into politics and things get messed up and hence the ‘separation of church and state’ is a good thing.

Lee

Rune said...

Hi Ryan,

I would have thought that Jesus was a socialist.

I'm not taking the piss here.

He stormed about kicking over money lenders' tables and what have you. Don't get me wrong, I don't endorse living off the state, but I can't imagine living in a society where your credit card is the first thing the medics look for when you go to the emergency room.

The problem with Social Darwinism is that we don't start off on a level playing field. In case you haven't realised the Republicans celebrate Social Darwinism, ironic eh?

Some people cannot catch up and it's right and proper that the state protects these people.

Ryan, if you've had a look at the "Chav" posts or Mr Tea's blog you'll see that we all know what life is like.

To me, Conservative America is all about living in fear and suspicion in fenced-off communities. I'm very individualistic and extremely suspicious of organisations but even I can recognise that we have to depend on each other.

I work in higher education with the bright young things who are supposed to be our future. They are interested in money, celebrity and themselves.

It's ironic that, as a Christian, you probably believe that a more Christian lifestyle would alter this, but that socialism is evil.

What direction do you want America to take?

Joyful said...

Ryan...love you friend, and that is why I am going to say this. I have not been to HOP recently and I pray that politics (and specifically candidate endorsements) is not being preached from the pulpit, but keep in mind that talking about gay marriage and abortion, ect. is preaching politics in a way. However, I am seeing politics being preached by pastors on their facebooks and that to me is a gross misuse of their position. I simply do not think it is right.
-joy

ryan said...

Hey Joy, Glad to see you made your way on here.

Politics has in no way been preached from the House of Prayer pulpit.

Quick note; read Romans 1 and tell me that the topic of gay marriage doesn't belong in the church or behind the pulpit. Abortion, well thats a gimme.

ryan said...

Hey Rune,

"What direction do you want America to take?"

Wow, that’s quite the question. And I am glad that you stumbled back this way. Even though we disagree sometimes I really enjoy your perspective.

Onto the question, "What direction do you want America to take."

Where do I begin?

Allow me to state my view prior to opening this up. I do believe that people should have the right to bear arms. I believe in freedom of speech, and I support the Constitution. I don't believe that the Government should be involved in the inner workings of my life. Abortion, I would get rid of it all together. 50,000,000 documented lives have been aborted since 1973 when Roe v Wade was passed. I'm willing to bet that this country might be a little better off if it had 35 to 45 million people in the workforce.

Now all of that makes me sound rather "conservative", which I willing admit that I am. However I do feel that some social programs are good and beneficial. Let us take Welfare for example. When the program was started it was a great idea. You or I are tax paying citizens, we get hurt and we're now laid up for 3 months unable to work. We, then, collect welfare which is a certain percentage of our income that the Gov. compensates us for. Then when the 3 months is up and we are now healthy, we go back to work. Simple right? Right! The problem is now that people have used and abused the program and are now living off of this long term if not indefinite. This is something that only propagates the issue.

Now I also believe that we all share a certain level of social responsibility to make our community, city, state, providence, and country as good as possible. However, that should remain on the person and not dictated by the government.

I feel like I was rambling there for a minute so let me tighten this up a bit. The direction that I would like to see my country go is this. Keep the Constitution in play and active to every degree. Get rid of abortion and (forgot to mention this one) protect, and once again, define the institution of marriage as one man and one woman.

"To me, Conservative America is all about living in fear and suspicion in fenced-off communities."

What do you mean by this?

Lee said...

Hi Ryan,

I don't believe that the Government should be involved in the inner workings of my life. Abortion, I would get rid of it all together.

Isn’t that a contradiction – on one hand you do not want government involvement, then you wish to dictate what happens during pregnancy?

I'm willing to bet that this country might be a little better off if it had 35 to 45 million people in the workforce.

This argument doesn’t follow for me… it could just as easy be another 35 million unemployed – what about those abortions taken by single women, if they had the child they would have to quit their job’s and probably not be able to pay for themselves or their child.

Basically – your argument is too simple so I question it.

We have had a discussion on abortion before, so I do not need to repeat myself again – it isn’t an easy topic.

define the institution of marriage as one man and one woman.

Why? What is your reasoning for this? What is wrong with two men marrying one another (or two women) – if they love one another, why should it be a government concern?

Another contradiction from your earlier statement?

Lee

CF said...

Hey Ryan! ...and others! Great posts, good discussion topics. Thanks for keeping it respectful and friendly. In light of all that, I'd like to throw another monkey-wrench into the mix here if I may!!

I think one important thing we should consider, is the "root" of the issue. We have been granted the ability to create and choose government systems, financial systems, checks & balances, etc. But the ultimate end is a Kingdom. A kingdom looks nothing like a democracy or dictatorship or socialist republic, but like a kingdom.

The basis of all "politics" as the world knows it comes from a kingdom mentality. I.e., do not kill, do not steal, etc. Stipulations can be made to "enhance" the law already written, but not diminish the foundation. For example: The foundational law of abortion is "do not murder". The kingdom consequence of murder is "an eye for an eye" (that is capital punishment). In a kindgom, the law is enhanced by saying "do not murder, but in love, turn the other cheek." The implication is defense. There is no defense in abortion. There is no ability afforded to turn the other cheek. The democratic (PC) approach to it is "do not murder...except that it meets your needs". That is not enhancing the foundation, it is making exception and manipulating deteriorating the foundation.

The foundations of law were scribed from a kingdom-minded people ruled by God, therefore the basic foundations for politics today is based on the Christian God. Even non-Christian nations follow laws that follow God's patterns. With that being said, I see no issue with pastors re-iterating the foundational principles from the pulpit, and reminding people what the laws are, and what the God who founded the laws says about such laws, i.e. abortion and gay-marriage.

I think that if we take gay-marriage to it's logical conclusion, it does not fit with the laws of nature. God did not create two separate society's. He did not put the "burden" of childbirth and childrearing on one group of people and allow another group of people to reap those benefits. Even in a Darwinistic society, everyone shares the same responsibilities. From that aspect homosexuality is just plain selifish. But I digress...

A homosexual society, based on Darwins laws, would result in one of two things: 1) a society that self-implodes or 2) based on the theory of "survival of the fittest", the society would ultimately evolve into asexual beings in order to reproduce, in which case homosexuality would STILL lose out and ultimately be a lost cause. Even Darwin understood the necessity of reproduction. Darwin "noted that successful species produce more offspring in each generation than are needed to replace the adults who die . . . The species would thus have changed or evolved to favor traits that favor survival and reproduction." Even from a non-Christian standpoint, homosexuality just doesn't work. Even Darwin thought of the future.

So I don't think it's possible to "keep religion out of politics". Whether a Christian viewpoint or not, religion founded politics. L'Osservatore Romano said "When instead God is ignored, the ability to respect rights and recongise the common good begins to disappear."

There's my two cents! Cheers

Lee said...

Hi CF

Thanks for keeping it respectful and friendly.

I always try to be both of those – and can be difficult when discussing sensitive issues... but the thought is always there :-)

In light of all that, I'd like to throw another monkey-wrench into the mix here if I may!!

Another one?

But the ultimate end is a Kingdom.

How do you know this...

It is what you believe, but why?

A kingdom looks nothing like a democracy or dictatorship or socialist republic, but like a kingdom.

A King-dom is a dictatorship – with one ruler (the King) who must be obeyed.

Is this Kingdom normally known as heaven?

Could you describe what you think it would mean to be in heaven, and what happens to those who do not get into this exclusive club?

There is no defense in abortion. There is no ability afforded to turn the other cheek.

Question – suppose you have a teenage daughter – 14 years of age say. She is the ‘apple in your eye’ and all that.

Unfortunately, she is raped by an ‘evil’ man and as a result made pregnant.

The ‘evil’ man is later arrested, convicted and placed in prison for life never to be seen again by civil sociality.

However what about the pregnancy – your daughter wants closure from this rape, to forget it happened and to get on with her life.

A simple procedure will allow this to happen – an abortion.

What do you think she should do... your daughter tells you again that she wants to forget this ever happened as soon as possible and not to go through 9 months of pregnancy and she certainly does not want a child from her rapist.

Is there now a defence for abortion?

Whose decision should this be – Yours or the daughter?

The democratic (PC) approach to it is "do not murder...except that it meets your needs". That is not enhancing the foundation, it is making exception and manipulating deteriorating the foundation.

Is it wrong to kill?

When is it right to kill and for what reasons?


The foundations of law were scribed from a kingdom-minded people ruled by God, therefore the basic foundations for politics today is based on the Christian God. Even non-Christian nations follow laws that follow God's patterns.

Please show how the ‘basic foundations for politics today’ come from a Christian God... I do not see it.

With that being said, I see no issue with pastors re-iterating the foundational principles from the pulpit, and reminding people what the laws are, and what the God who founded the laws says about such laws, i.e. abortion and gay-marriage.

My earlier question still stands – what is fundamental wrong with gay-marriage?

If both partners love one another, what is the harm if they are both happy together.

I think that if we take gay-marriage to it's logical conclusion, it does not fit with the laws of nature.

So is flying in aeroplanes going against the ‘laws of nature’?
What about antibiotics and medicine, are these also against the ‘laws of nature’?

If the only argument you can make is that within a gay-marriage no children can naturally come from such a union... then why does that concern you?

Again, if they are happy with this fact – what is the problem, why should it be illegal?

God did not create two separate society's.

Two issues here... firstly you have to prove that God created any society to use this argument.

Secondly, even IF I grant you that God created any society for sake of argument. Doesn’t this also mean God also created gays as well? Maybe God wants us to learn something about life, and they can help us? So basically, you are making a lot of assertions I need you to back up.

He did not put the "burden" of childbirth and childrearing on one group of people and allow another group of people to reap those benefits.

Their mothers had the ‘burden of childbirth” (such a loving God if you believe this BTW)

So again, I don’t see your argument.

Even in a Darwinistic society, everyone shares the same responsibilities. From that aspect homosexuality is just plain selifish.

“Darwinistic society”? There should be no such thing... the theory of evolution is one thing, but we should not start going around making a society on it.

Anyway - What about those people who cannot have children? They cannot share these ‘responsibilities’ you claim exist.

Also, the people who chose not to have children – same problem. My Aunt for one has chose not to have children, it was a free choice she is happily married but wanted to focus on here career (And erm, priest chose this lifestyle as well... interesting)

A homosexual society, based on Darwins laws, would result in one of two things: 1) a society that self-implodes or 2) based on the theory of "survival of the fittest"

The ‘slippery slope’ argument at best.

IF everyone decided to be homosexual – then naturally, no children will be produced and our race dies out.

One – big deal
Two – it isn’t going to happen, since I trust you will never be one to conform to homosexuality?

So I don't think it's possible to "keep religion out of politics".

OK – why your religion and not someone else’s religion?

When you disagree with a Muslim, how do you resolve it?

History has shown that whenever one religion takes hold of power – it is trouble for the rest of them. This is why religion should be kept out of politics.

Whether a Christian viewpoint or not, religion founded politics.

Religion founded democracy? Again, can you please explain this, and show it rather than just assert it.

There's my two cents! Cheers

I’ve just thrown you a dollar :-)

Thanks

Lee

Rune said...

Ryan,

Apologies for my late response.

My comment on fenced off communities could have been stated more eloquently. I meant it to be like Obama's Guns and Religion statement. Or Midnight Oil - "The rich getting richer, the poor get the picture."

I'm interested in pushing Jesus as a socialist though. Surely he wouldn't endorse the "every man for himself" ethos. Don't you feel a tension between your religious ideals and your political ideals?

ryan said...

Rune,

I do regret that I do not have time to respond. So this is my timely response to inform you I will be responding later! =) Hope all is well.

ryan.