Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Billy Graham meets Sarah...and OBAMA?

Obama would like to meet Billy Graham. Read THIS from Hot Air Pundit, please!

Those of you Christians out there, START PRAYING, this could be the beginning answer to our prayers......Let's hope that the president finally awakens to what we've been told are his Christian roots. (mhm....it's ridiculous, but I'm trying to be fair here, play along with me)

Sarah Palin was at the Graham residence for dinner and, according to the above link, Mr Graham seems to think a lot of her.

Obama wants to meet the 91 yr old Graham (Hurry, Obama!). Or is it just lip service....we'll see.
And then there is THIS information, which is pretty startlingly interesting and hopeful. (real HOPE)

Lest my Liberal buddies here get offended (some of whom I know are Christians), this isn't about prohibiting other faiths in America....this is about stopping the continued attempt of ridding our country of our Christian roots, which I think my Jewish buddies, too, are against...at least my personal Jewish friends totally appreciate Christianity in this country for the freedom's they've had here.

Pray, pray, pray.......Those of you non pray-ers, it's like Chicken Soup..."It cain't Hoyt!"



Chuck said...

It will be just for show. All for the media. Graham is not Obama's type of minister, he's neither racist or a black separatist.

Ducky's here said...

Remember,z, YOUR so called Christian roots are not mine and I have no interest in changing my faith to conform to apostate Calvinism.

You will meet SERIOUS resistance.

Brooke said...

Did you even read the post, Ducky?


As Chuck said, any such meeting will be for show.

Tom said...

I agree - Obama meeting with Graham will only be another in a long line of photo ops designed to give him some sort of legitimacy.

Anonymous said...

All for show, indeed! That's what this administration is about - VAIN PRETENSE and ABYSMAL HYPOCRISY -- with the COVERT intent to do as much HARM as possible.

As far as freedom of religion is concerned, I'm all for it, EXCEPT when an aggressive, subversive, violently destructive POLITICAL movement MASQUERADES as a "religion" and takes unfair advantage of the very freedoms this society (under the CHRISTIAN God) provides.

The US Constitution is not a suicide pact.


~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

Lest my Liberal buddies here get offended (some of whom I know are Christians), this isn't about prohibiting other faiths in America....this is about stopping the continued attempt of ridding our country of our Christian roots


Did I read it Brooke. Yes, I clearly did and some thumper from southern Ohio doesn't define "Christian roots" for me or any other sentient being.

I do not care what Graham has to say to anyone.

Look, cheer up you got an additional 36,000 troops in Afghanistan today. This guy is a miserable president but let me clue you in.

The left in the Democratic party hate him with a hatred you can't imagine. Left election turnouts will be low.
Now, if you shut up about Obama and tell Suzy Mooseburger to tone down the number of appearances, stop the constant tweets and talk try to calm the public then you might have something.

Just talk supply side and what a wonderful job our troops are doing at keeping al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan. You've got a win, the American people are dumb enough to fall for it and complete the death spiral.

Now, keep ignoring people who are trying to talk solutions to the housing issues (25% of mortgages under water, not good).


Anonymous said...

Chuck, Brooke and Tom -- all right on the money.

Using the ancient Graham as a tool for shameless self-promotion would be ignoble.

But, what ELSE would expect from THIS repulsive administration?

Meanwhile, God bless The Reverend Billy Graham. He has always meant well, and certainly has done far more good than harm.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

I take it our friend Mr. Ducky is saying, "It's not a good idea to interfere when your enemy is in the process of destroying himself."

Is that right?

If so, I heartily concur, BUT can we afford to take the word of ANY leftist?

Awfully glad to hear someone on the left say Ovomit is a lousy president out loud. But is that possibly a westernized form of TAQQIYA? ;-)

As for Sarah, she has, I freely admit, personal characteristics and family baggage that too easily lend themselves to caricature.

However, she has been aggressively DEFINED by a wickedly hostile press corps determined to make mincemeat of her from the moment she appeared on the scene.

The Fourth Estate is SO powerful they can make or break just about ANYONE at will -- or more likely at the behest of The Oligarchs who REALLY run things behind the scenes.

~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

Well FreeThinker I also say that John McCain is reduced to a life of listening to that dumb harpy wife of his complain that she'd be first lady if he hadn't nominated the bimbo.

So in a sense I do agree that Palin has been an instrument of justice.

Z said...

Chuck, I agree with you.

Ducky, I'm not a Calvinist and many Catholics bishops and a cardinal have signed the declaration, too...your type of Christian, whatever the heck that is.
For Americans to try to thwart the Christianity this country was founded on is dangerous and just plain silly. I'm quite sure you have no clue what 'serious resistance' is but you will...and maybe, soon.
And, oh, DAMN, Ducky...don't ya just hate not having a Socialist/MULTICULTURAL country!? buck up. So sorry Sharia Law won't be coming in any time soon, aren't you? :-)

Brooke, It's always been my opinion that Ducky reads the title and comments.

FREE THINKER: "It's not a good idea to interfere when your enemy is in the process of destroying himself." Excellent, just perfect surmisal! That seems to be exactly what Ducky's suggesting.
And, I agree about Palin, FT...she kind of lends herself to caricature and I hope she's working on that...I don't want her to change too much in the important ways but the elitist left hates freshness and convictions and will use anything they can to bring her down.
I'll never forget that sneer Katie Couric gave her camera people when she asked Palin what she reads...that "do you believe this nothing?" kind of look. Even I thought Couric was more professional than that, or at least could hide her agenda. One got from Palin's interviews this week that that's exactly how Couric treated her and that's exactly why she didn't feel like answering the questions that suggested she DIDN'T READ> But, that's okay with the left..it's OLBERMANN TYPE "REPORTING"..it's just laughable and so undignified and agenda-driven.

Ducky, you have inside information on Mrs. McCain, or is this kind of ridiculous assumption TYPICAL of the left? McCain's a loser, anyway...in more ways than one.

Ducky's here said...

Can someone give me an example of our founding values which are uniquely Christian?

I suspect the response will be the 10 Commandments but I would like to be surprised.

FairWitness said...

I wonder what motivated Obama to call the Rev. Billy Graham after all this time in office. Hmmmmm.... Could it be that he got wind that Sarah Palin was going there for dinner?

And Ducky... you, yourself already answered your own query, the Ten Commandments. Why do you need to be surprised?

Reality and truth too hard for you to grasp?

Anonymous said...

This may be difficult to prove -- particularly to those who feel they must be opposed to ascendant Christianity -- but certain encouraging phenomena unique to Western Christian Civilization -- i.e. The Preservation of Ancient Manuscripts in the Monasteries, Magna Carta, End of the Feudal System, Initiation of Parliament, Strengthening of Representative Government and Weakening of Absolute Monarchy, The Renaissance,The Flowering of Art, Architecture, Music, Literature, Luther and The Reformation, Protestantism, Rise of the Middle Class, The Enlightenment, Individualism, The Declaration of Independence, The U.S. Constitution, The Fight to End Slavery in the West -- probably would not have occurred were it not for the pervasive underlying influence of Christian Doctrine.

The history of institutionalized Christianity is filled with flaws, political intrigue, corruption and many horror stories, because people are people -- our nature is Fallen.

We have not yet even BEGUN to grasp the true significance of Jesus Christ in large numbers, but even so, the direction in which we move -- however slowly and jaggedly -- is ever towards more positive and humane goals.

We are not very patient with one another. We want everything to be made perfect RIGHT NOW. That's childish, petulant and presumptuous.

It doesn't work that way.

We'd do well to consider our historical development from the perspective of Eternity. "A thousand ages in Thy sight are but an evening gone."

Christ did not come to conquer mankind en mass, He came to show us the way find salvation (fulfillment) as INDIVIDUALS. We function as Christians, despite the dreadful aspects of mortal existence.

We can never overcome the World; our duty as Christians is not to let ourselves be overcome by it.

I think that means "Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

It's an assignment that will take millennia to complete.

~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

Fairwitness, I said UNIQUELY Christian.

Now prohibition of murder, lying and such is present in legal codes outside the 10 commandments.

Certainly Confucianism would find our concept of "honor thy father and mother" quite lacking.

Let's see, "honor the sabbath". Head down to the mall this Sunday for a good look at that one, not that it has anything to do with our founding values unless you realize capitalism one out over the commandments.

... but anyway, to say we were founded on the commandments and not the enlightenment and English case law is insane.

I realize this is something you need to fall back on to keep the homos in their place and make sure evolution isn't taught and the like but it has everything to do with your personal values and nothing to do with the founding of the country.

Z said...

Fair Witness...good point about Obama SUDDENLY wanting to meet Graham.
At 91, I'm thinking Obama's pretty secure in knowing that might not happen, sadly.

I guess I just wish we all felt SOME love of country and this faith which 80% of Americans profess to in some level of intensity from our Comm. in Chief. To this point? Nada.

He had a dinner honoring Siekhs at the WH this last week....
I should let Pris tell you about the only Siekh even she's been to and how the speaker talked of this country. I think he went to the Jeremiah Wright School of Sermons.
NOT that all Siekhs are like that, but.......

FreeThinker....such a great list I couldn't add to it. Thanks for that.

Z said...

Ducky, you need to read the writings of our founding fathers. You can talk about DEISTS all you like, but really it's so silly; it's like your stupid global climate change that PEOPLE are the main cause.. ...

We all tend to believe what we want to believe but I hold strong to the fact that there are at least as many writings by our founding fathers mentioning Christ as there are which 'only' mention God.

Anyway, I'd go a step further and say they don't have to be UNIQUELY CHRISTIAN...I'd say JUDEO CHRISTIAN and I'm disappointed with myself that I didn't make that clear here previously.

Good CHristian men have done amazing things in this world...I'd stand by that any day of the week.

Anonymous said...

Thank YOU, Z, for giving us the opportunity to express ourselves and to try to find answers to very challenging questions.

My hope is that by sharing differing views we might gain greater insight into what is good and true -- and what is not. And maybe even come to a new and greater respect for one another.

Wouldn't that be loverly? ;-)

~ FreeThinke

FrogBurger said...

Nice debate today.

I'm not an expert in other religions, but it seems to be fairly logical most the Western worls is based on judeo-christian values.

One could argue that most religions share some core beliefs. But political and economic institutions of the Western world and the experience of democracy are judeo-christian.

They're actually more protestant than catholic since catholicism is not very democratic in nature. (That's my beef against it in addition to share a lot of common values with socialism, at least in Europe.)

I advise to read Montesquieu or Weber.

Anonymous said...

FW, this is what Z is referring to;

I have a tiny bit of experience and exposure to Seikhs. We went to a function once when our son was married to his former wife who was Indian and a Hindu.

She invited us to this event because she was dancing at this time. Indian dance.

She was not a Seikh, but the dance was included in the
festivities and she was performing.

Their leader stated in his talk, remarks against white people, and Americans. If not for our son and his wife, we would have
walked out. In fact, if not for his wife, our son would have too.

Needless to say, we were not positively impressed.


Anonymous said...

"Remember,z, YOUR so called Christian roots are not mine and I have no interest in changing my faith to conform to apostate Calvinism."

Ducky, I think YOU should remember, this is Z's blog. Furthermore she didn't ask you to change anything. Once again, everything isn't about you.

"You will meet SERIOUS resistance."

I think you have a bigger problem than worrying about Christian religions other than Catholicism.

You may be in the position of choosing between your faith and your leftist ideology. If what you say above is true, which side would you take?

Ah, the left is so full of contradictions and intolerance, sooner or later, the rubber meets the road.


Anonymous said...

If you're not careful, people are going to start thinking you're being contrarian just to be contrarian. You seem to fear that Christians would let their faith effect their politics, but then you assert that Christianity is no different from other religions. If there's no difference, who would be offended by the Christian influence, that influence being the same as the influence of other religions?

I think this discussion has a lot to do with world views, Weltanschauung, if you prefer the Eurpoean. World views are inherently shaped by religion. I don't think it's possible that they not be. Someone who believes man is valuable because he is created in God's image will come to different conclusions from someone who believes that man is valuable based on what he can produce. Someone who believes man is tainted by original sin will have different ideas from the man who believes man will be perfected, given the right environment.

Also, I don't think we can limit the founding of the country to the beliefs of Washington and Jefferson. Much of the immigration to America was fundamentalists pursuing an opportunity to practice Christianity without the corruptionn of politics they saw in Europe. I think the William Bradfords and (insert names here as I know less about this period than I'd like to admit) also should be considered Founding Fathers.

That's enough for now. I believe I've reached my word count.


FrogBurger said...

Excellent pris. From the medieval times to now, there seems to be little difference between the diktat of the Church and today's left. It's paradoxical. The left fought the Church to get to that point. They ridicule the Church for some old and current beliefs (flat Earth), yet they falsify scientific studies to justify their fascistic and marxist organization of society through the fear of global warming aka climate change aka "lets find new words if you can't believe in the change we want you to believe in"

Ducky's here said...

You seem to fear that Christians would let their faith effect their politics, but then you assert that Christianity is no different from other religions.


At no time did I say that.

I said that the laws in the ten commandments are present in other legal codes. Some civil, some religious.

I also stated that the country was founded on the values of the Enlightenment.

Ducky's here said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ducky's here said...

You may be in the position of choosing between your faith and your leftist ideology.


And just why would that be?

My ideology is concerned primarily with:

1. A sustainable economy.

2. A reasonable distribution of the planets wealth.

3. Self expression

I'm not sure why this is not Christian but I have absolutely no fear about throwing down the gauntlet and asking the question of the right wingers.

Anonymous said...

I think this must have been an honor for Palin, to meet Billy Graham. There a few religious leaders who have earned the respect he has.

I guess Obama will take a few months to mull over when to meet Billy Graham. He's already Johnny come lately, and to follow Sarah Palin can't be what he would have chosen. This monumental decision probably requires a visit summit. Nah, a commission will do.


Anonymous said...

I thought the Enlightenment was much more preoccupied with the perfectability of man--that man was naturally good but was corrupted by society. Wasn't that Roussou's schtick?

I think the Consitution was written with the understanding of man's tendency toward corruption, thus the limits on power and division of power.

I can't believe I used "effect" when I meant "affect".


Z said...

tiob...give me a hard and fast rule about effect and affect...I can never remember!

Pris...Graham's ninety-one and ailing; Obama only had to SAY he'd like to meet him if you get my drift.

Ducky, you said "I said that the laws in the ten commandments are present in other legal codes. Some civil, some religious."

Thanks for making our point.

Faith said...

Ducky, Jesus Christ did not address nations, only individuals who had faith in Him, but the principles he taught His disciples did affect the laws of nations. A sustainable economy (and I'm aware that there's a minefield in that phrase depending on how you define it) should follow from individuals practicing their Christian principles. Unfortunately it seems that fewer people bother with those principles in recent years. Our Founding Fathers, for all their Deism as opposed to strictly Christian religion, did say that a nation can't survive unless it is founded on true religion and morality. Redistributing the world's wealth from a government base is NOT Christian because it's stealing, pure and simple. But again, Christians practicing their Christian principles WILL help the poor. Once the state takes over that concern for the poor, corruption rules. As for self expression, I have no idea what you mean by that, but the more government takes over everything the less room there is for any truly self-initiated projects and the more we all become slaves of the state. FREEDOM is what's needed for Christian principles to work, and freedom is exactly what leftist ideology is taking away from us. There ARE "Christians" who don't get this. Apparently you are one of them.

FT did a good job of outlining the influence of Christianity in all of Western Civilization. It was a real revolution. Even the Enlightenment for all its anti-Christian dogma that has come to be its most prominent characteristic, originally expressed Christian principles as if they were independent of the God who originally inspired them. You refer to English law -- but much of their law was inspired by the strongly Christian writings of (senior moment here, sorry, the name begins with Black---). John Locke was mentored by the Puritan John Owen at Oxford, whose writings on freedom of conscience came through Locke into our Bill of Rights. Etc. etc.

Z said...

Faith, BRAVO. Very well said.

Anonymous said...

Let's see if I can say this neatly.

Circumstances AFFECT the outcome of events. Such an outcome is the EFFECT of said circumstances.

Also: AFFECT used as a noun (pronounced AH-fect) means the emotional response produced by an event or a work of art, a piece of music, poetry, etc. This is a pretty rare usage, and probably sounds AFFECTED except to scholars in the Arts who talk a language all their own among themselves.

So in general AFFECT is a verb and EFFECT is a noun, except for the special usage just noted.

If I'm wrong (I didn't look this up!) or anyone can shed light on what I've said, please don't be shy about pointing it out.

I hope this proves to be an EFFECTIVE communication. ;-)

~ FreeThinke

Faith said...

I'd only add, FT, that "effect" can also be a verb, as when you say that certain consequences were effected by certain actions, meaning brought about by.

Anonymous said...

Very beautiful post, Faith. Eloquently stated.

Thank you.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Faith. I knew there was more to it than I outlined.

Someday we should discuss the difference between less and fewer. That distinction is all-but lost.


Elmers Brother said...

.....my faith to conform to apostate Calvinism.

at least they sell popcorn and soda at your church duhkkky

Anonymous said...

Re: less v. fewer

Many express lanes at stores will say 20 Items of Less. It really should say "fewer" since items can be counted. So why don't I complain about it? Because I've been going through that lane with over 50 items and then claiming that my name is Less.


ps: the discussion that my previous comment effected looks accurate.

MK said...

obama can meet with all the Christians he wants to and say all the nice things he wants to, actions chump, speak much louder than words.

Anonymous said...

Ducky, you said this;

"You will meet SERIOUS resistance."

Since you are a leftist, and the resistance whereof you speak is leftist, isn't it obvious what I meant?

You're not going to draw me into a debate about your three examples of your ideology. You've said too much here over time to limit it to what you choose for the sake of this argument. Bait and switch Ducky, uh uh!

FrogB - Thanks. Yes, they're scrambling as we speak to redefine the environmental "crisis", again. I'm hoping this becomes recognized as the full blown scandal and hoax that it is. I want to see heads roll (figuratively of course).

The environment is and has been used to micro manage our lives for years until today, when it is now poised to be the vehicle for global tyranny IMO.

I have to laugh at those who insist on the world coming to an end as we know it, even knowing about this scandal and evidence to the contrary.

I would only ask them one question; "aren't you glad to know this has been a hoax all along and the planet is safe after all?"


Anonymous said...

Herr Ducky,
So your contention is that America is founded on the Enlightenment era. So we're on the same page:

1. Are you saying the Enlightenment was effected by Christianity?

2. Do you refer to the Enlightenment as your Christian roots?

3. Are we running on the same ticket in 2012 or not?


Elmers Brother said...

You will meet SERIOUS resistance."

but then duhkkky is a conspiracy nut

he thinks the Christian right is going to overthrow the government by turning the military on the civilians

Anonymous said...

Appreciate the input, Tiob.

It always drove me crazy when Old George Bush -- and too many others -- talked about "less taxes."

Less TAXATION would result in FEWER taxes, I think. Fewer taxes would be a highly desirable goal, and doubtless have a salubrious effect on commerce.

Do you think fewer people are apt to purchase luxury items in stores when they have less money to spend?

It's encouraging to see how civilized discussion effects a pleasant change in the atmosphere. That affects my disposition favorably. I think this particular thread has worked to very good effect. I hope you and others agree?

If anyone thinks a show of good manners is affected, the affect of such a cynical response very possibly indicates a defect in the character of the cynic -- or perhaps just a touch of dyspepsia?

In any case I think we may all agree that good will can effect desirable change.


~ FreeThinke

FairWitness said...

Pris & Z, Thanks for the info about the Siekh's disrespectful attitude toward Americans and Caucasians.

As Lewis Grizzard wrote about life and being the leader (i.e., being in a dog sled team) "If You're Not The Lead Dog, The Scenery Never Changes."

It's become sport to trash us. What a pity the far left has turned the greatness of America into something to be criticized and hated, rather than emulated and admired, ...something to aspire to.

I feel a resurgence coming and Sarah Palin leading us to the promised land. As the Rev. Billy Graham has just prophesized, God has chosen Sarah Palin to lead it.

President Sarah Palin, our first female Commander-In-Chief. It's coming, ladies and gentlemen. She's it.

Anonymous said...

With this new "awakening" People of faith will have to consider the beginning of the "New Crusades"!

Unless of course you don't believe that the Mudslimes are a threat to our foundation of Christian values and faith? Go ahead...trust the Mudslimes to adopt a tolerant attitude towards Christian and Jews.

We'll wait while the gator eats us alive.

beamish said...

Ducky loses me when he starts calling everything outside his Mary-worshipping 4th Century offshoot from Christianity "apostate."

I ofter wonder why the Apostles in the Book of Acts had no idea Peter was a Pope.

Z said...

Anon, we should be fighting, but we won't. The libs won't let us save America.

Beamish..you're sublime.

I do know that a lot of Protestants don't like that 'Mary worship' thing, but I know a LOT of great Catholics who only RESPECT her for being the Mother of Christ, and only worship HIM :-)

beamish said...

Yes, Z. Despite Catholicism being a distinct and different religion over 300 years younger than Christianity, there are some Catholics that do get it right.

(The same can be be said of members of churches that actually are denominations of Christianity.)

Ducky's vaunted "Age of Enlightenment" was an intellectual revolution against Catholicism, not Christianity. He often mistakes the two for each other.

beamish said...

By the way, I was raised Baptist. My denomination existed long before Catholics came along to toss them to lions, and certainly before Catholics became literate of the Bible and started the "Protestant Reformation."

Protestant denominations were "once Catholic."

Baptists "never were Catholic."

beamish said...

And my childhood pastor was Billy Graham's roommate in seminary school. :)

Z said...

Beamish: "By the way, I was raised Baptist. My denomination existed long before Catholics came along to toss them to lions, and certainly before Catholics became literate of the Bible and started the "Protestant Reformation."

Where was your denomination started? This is news to me.
I've always thought Christians were Orthodox, then Catholic (those who branched into Catholicism, that is, FROM Orthodox)...and that Luther and Johannes Huss and Calvin and that type all brought the Protestant thing into existance.

Teach me, Beamish. xx

David Wyatt said...

Not only did the apostles not know Peter was a pope, neither did Peter himself! "The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed..." (1 Peter 5:1)

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

Well, it would take a book to lay out my point, Z. (I emailed you a link).

Basically, Christianity began as a congregational movement with no heirarchical structure or temporal governing power. There is no "leader" save for Christ Himself, no need for government establishment or authorization to be recognized as a disciple of Christ.

The idea that there should be no government established religion is a Christian idea, not a Catholic idea. Thus when Constantine decided to make "Christianity" the official religion of the Roman Empire essentially he forgot to ask actual Christians for their opinion on the matter. And so for around 12 centuries, Christians who did not recognize Papal authority that was completely given by government (and not God) met the fate of persecutions and death (so much for the "Catholic" Gospel, eh?)

Independent, autonomous Christian congregations went from largely unstructured fellowships of believers to all "organized" under Roman authority with ranks from priest all the way up to cardinals and the Pope, none of which you will find ANY basis for in the Bible.

Churches that did not fall into line with the new religion, Catholicism, were persecuted, given names other that "Christian" by their government backed detractors. Baptists trace back in history to the Anabaptists and through them back to pre-Catholic congregations that declined to join Constantine's folly.

Baptists do not believe in Apostolic sucession, infant baptism, Mary worship, indulgences, and all of the other ways Catholicism perverts Christianity for its temporal purposes.

I mince no words in differentiating Catholicism from Christianity. They ain't the same.

Didn't really want to get into a theology / church history discussion, but whenever Ducky starts his crap about calling non-Catholics "apostates" I WILL CALL HIS MARY-WORSHIPPING PAPALIST ASS ON THE CARPET FOR IT.

Anonymous said...

The ANGER and the INSULTS are anti-Christian in themselves.

God is TRUTH. Truth can and should speak well for itself. There is no need to go to war of any kind to determine what is and is not true.

God is all-powerful, all-wise, and His nature is Love.

The rest is self-serving, power-grabbing, fear-based hokum.

Give thanks and praise unto the Lord for He is good, and His mercy endureth forever.

"... be Ye kind one to another, tender-hearted and forgiving those even as God, who for Christ's sake hath forgiven you."

~ FreeThinke

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

The ANGER and the INSULTS are anti-Christian in themselves.

No, they're not. Snakes, vipers, hypocrites, sepulchres with whitewashed walls... these are words used by Christ himself to describe the excesses of the leaders of the temple in Jerusalem.

Chasing moneychangers from the temple with a horsewhip, disciples carrying swords, escaping crowds gathered to stone Him without disappearing into thin air - hippie Jesus and Bible Jesus are two different entities.

Anonymous said...

Every time I see that a comment has been "removed by the author" I feel a tremendous curiosity to know what it might have been and who might have written it.

I would have no idea how to remove one of my own comments, if I wanted to.

There doesn't seem to be any obvious mechanism for that. What am I missing?

BTW, Jesus Christ, who is God, who is in Truth, who is Love, who is Omnipotent would naturally be the enemy of institutionalized hypocrisy, corruption, and mendacity of all kinds. His Presence must have stricken terror into the hearts of those who held temporal power and had misused the tenets of Divine Law for authoritarian purposes.

Why else do you think tyrants would hate and seek to destroy Him to this very day?

~ FreeThinke

beamish said...


You can delete your own comments if you sign into Blogger with a Google account. The recently deleted comments were me, correcting typos, LOL.

BTW, Jesus Christ, who is God, who is in Truth, who is Love, who is Omnipotent would naturally be the enemy of institutionalized hypocrisy, corruption, and mendacity of all kinds. His Presence must have stricken terror into the hearts of those who held temporal power and had misused the tenets of Divine Law for authoritarian purposes.

I believe Mr. Ratzinger will one day stand before God and be told "So you're the 'Vicar of Christ,' huh? So, you're the 'substitute' of God Incarnate?
Just another God the Father, huh? We get lots of those trying to get in here. What you humans lack in originality you make up for in gumption and gall. By the way, you're in the wrong line. Hell's down there, no waiting."

Anonymous said...

Thank you for that information, Beamish. I guess someone who posts with the simple method I do will just have to be very very careful how he says what he says.

Technology may
Be as great as they say
But it might not be missed
If it didn't exist.


Best regards,

~ FreeThinke