Obama and Christianity, part 2
I'm flattered... ahem... that Joseph Farah of World Net Daily reads my blog, since he's written an editorial that echoes the conclusion inescapably reached in my previous article with regard to Barack Obama's counterfeit Christianity. It quotes an interview with Obama from a few years back in the Chicago Sun-Times; in case you don't have time to follow the link, here is the crucial section, thusly and like so:
"So, I have a deep faith," Obama continues. "I'm rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.
"That there are values that transcend race or culture, that move us forward, and there's an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived."
It's perhaps an unlikely theological position for someone who places his faith squarely at the feet of Jesus to take, saying essentially that all people of faith -- Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone -- know the same God.
Obama is a flat-out liar. It has never been the "Christian tradition" that there are "many paths to the same place." The exclusivity of Jesus Christ was demonstrated throughout thousands of years of history, and illustrated in the Bible--literally from Genesis through Revelation.
It may be simply that he is so immature and naïve that he has been incapable of questioning the anti-Christian scum that Jeremiah Wright has been pumping into him for the past two decades. (Obama's recent statement that he has severed his relationship with the cultic, deceitfully-named Trinity United Church of Christ changes absolutely nothing about his twenty-year affiliation with them.) Or, it may be that Obama consciously chooses to deceive others. Either way, he may be the single least-qualified individual ever to run for the Presidency of the United States of America. And that's including the other two leading candidates, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, neither of whom have any business setting up camp in the Oval Office.
I'd really like you to read both the WND piece and the source material from the Sun-Times; if you need another reason, here's another tidbit from the confused mouth of Obama, thusly and like so:
"The difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and proselytize. There's the belief, certainly in some quarters, that if people haven't embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior, they're going to hell."
Obama doesn't believe he, or anyone else, will go to hell.
But he's not sure if he'll be going to heaven, either.
"I don't presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die," he says. "When I tuck in my daughters at night, and I feel like I've been a good father to them, and I see in them that I am transferring values that I got from my mother and that they're kind people and that they're honest people, and they're curious people, that's a little piece of heaven."
Barack Obama uses Christianity as a prop. Such behavior cannot be rewarded.
--Mike
35 comments:
Obama isn't the first politician to try to find a middle ground between multiple religions.
Perhaps some people recall George W's speech on the 'National Day of Prayer on 9/13/2001:
God’s signs are not always the ones we look for. We learn in tragedy that his purposes are not always our own. Yet the prayers of private suffering, whether in our homes or in this great cathedral, are known and heard, and understood.
There are prayers that help us last through the day, or endure the night. There are prayers of friends and strangers, that give us strength for the journey. And there are prayers that yield our will to a will greater than our own.
This world He created is of moral design. Grief and tragedy and hatred are only for a time. Goodness, remembrance, and love have no end. And the Lord of life holds all who die, and all who mourn.
It is said that adversity introduces us to ourselves. This is true of a nation as well. In this trial, we have been reminded, and the world has seen, that our fellow Americans are generous and kind, resourceful and brave. We see our national character in rescuers working past exhaustion; in long lines of blood donors; in thousands of citizens who have asked to work and serve in any way possible. And we have seen our national character in eloquent acts of sacrifice. Inside the World Trade Center, one man who could have saved himself stayed until the end at the side of his quadriplegic friend. A beloved priest died giving the last rites to a firefighter. Two office workers, finding a disabled stranger, carried her down sixty-eight floors to safety. A group of men drove through the night from Dallas to Washington to bring skin grafts for burn victims.
In these acts, and in many others, Americans showed a deep commitment to one another, and an abiding love for our country. Today, we feel what Franklin Roosevelt called the warm courage of national unity. This is a unity of every faith, and every background.
It has joined together political parties in both houses of Congress. It is evident in services of prayer and candlelight vigils, and American flags, which are displayed in pride, and wave in defiance.
Our unity is a kinship of grief, and a steadfast resolve to prevail against our enemies. And this unity against terror is now extending across the world.
America is a nation full of good fortune, with so much to be grateful for. But we are not spared from suffering. In every generation, the world has produced enemies of human freedom. They have attacked America, because we are freedom’s home and defender. And the commitment of our fathers is now the calling of our time.
On this national day of prayer and remembrance, we ask almighty God to watch over our nation, and grant us patience and resolve in all that is to come. We pray that He will comfort and console those who now walk in sorrow. We thank Him for each life we now must mourn, and the promise of a life to come.
As we have been assured, neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, can separate us from God’s love.
May He bless the souls of the departed. May He comfort our own. And may He always guide our country.
God bless America.
Perhaps someone could compare his speech with Romans 8:38-39 and see if he inadvertantly left something out.
Paul said... (Romans 8:38-39)
For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Paul also said "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes."
May the same be said of me and my house. However, Obama is the logical next step from Bush's presidency. First compromise, then rejection.
As it is written.
Your right. Obama is not a true christian. Theres too many things that we do know about him that raises the red flag, namely the Hate Whitey church he belonged to.
Not to mention, religion aside, do we really want a president that will continue the spending gluttony we have seen for the last 7 years? Unfortunately, we will have a 3rd Bush term if any of the 3 major candidates remaining get into office. Lets face it folks, this nation is bankrupt. Both morally and fiscally.
I don't think Pontius Pilate ever considered himself a God fearer. He never thought that he was serving the Lord in any way, and yet his every act was under God's control and fulfilled His purposes.
No matter who we are or what our situation is, we still serve the master. We can't but serve the Lord whose image we bear.
The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.
Excellent post, Mike, and very well said.
Mike,
It is indeed a very good post. Quite informational and very revealing.
I agree that Obama uses his so called "Christianity" as a tool for his personal gain. He's no more a Christian than Adolf Hitler was. He tried to use Jesus too.
And as you said so well, Obama needs to explain his last twenty years under the tutilege of Jeremiah Wright; why he doesn't believe that Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life; why he doesn't believe there is a heaven or a hell, why he now decides that hating whitey isn't expedient anymore. He's going to be hard pressed to explain all that, as far as I'm concerned.
Anyway, good post Mike.
I can see a few things at play during this election season...
1. People seem to be more interested than ever- they are really doing their research.
2. In the short term at least, I don't think any of that matters.
Don't get me wrong, I think as Christians, we are called to vote and be involved in the processes of our country. At this point I feel that the US (and other large countries) is just a machine now- you can throw a few things in the spokes of the wheel but not much is going to change because of who is in the Oval office.
Obama freaks me out personally, but I try to remember that there is a lot of good in this country and a lot of people are praying- I don't think God is going to hang us all out to dry. Perhaps Obama has a bigger role to play in God's long term plan than we would want. I don't know.
I do try to remind myself that according to the media, polls, whatever you would never have guessed that W was going to be elected either time. I know there was controversy over the second election, but the fact is that even with that he still pulled out more of the vote than anyone would have suspected if you only listened to what the media said. I try to keep that in mind as well.
Side Note:
John Mark, if you are still out there- just wanted to say hello :)
MJM- haven't heard from you in a while. Has your little cutie graduated high school yet ;)?
Email me and let me know how things are!
Sol- I never told you how much I really love that little picture by your name- I think it looks like the Burger King.
Memphis- M needs some motivation. He has been such a slacker. He keeps eating tiny boxes of Nerds and not running.
I find Obama refreshing--because exclusivity is destoying our republic. What I find so amusing about exclusive belief-systems--religious or political--is this notion that it is not enough to have attained certitude about God or philosophy, but that everyone must be in lockstep. Penalties will be levied.
So, I'm also shocked at anyone surprised by Wright's black nationalism. For the longest time, the church was--and remains--a shelter of cultural pride and unified initiative in a society that has only reluctantly accepted racial equality. Do you really blame folks of Wright's generation for being perhaps angry, or digesting the struggle to this day.
But Wright is not running for President, and neither is Obama running for national Sunday School teacher. (Heck, after 8 years of Bush/ Cheney, I'd welcome Bill Clinton back--even if Monika is his vice.)
There is, in fact, Mike, a long tradition of Christians who have been resolute in their faith, yet felt no compulsion to hammer others with it. Unitarians are the coolest. I've known plenty and like that welcoming quality in Obama.
In matters of faith, truth is not derived from reason--that's why it's called faith. It's given that faith is a subjective phenomenon, thus a factor irrelevant to the general benefit--life, liberty and the pursuit of property--of everyone concerned. It makes me uncomfortable when anyone mixes religion with politics, no matter the party--the dangers of speculation, exclusion and posturing are obvious.
Keep the debate on the ground and let the heavens take care of themselves. Obama dumped Wright for political expediency. Which politician or pundit is going to throw the first stone?
I made no apologies for the fact that I do not like Barack. I haven't liked him from the beginning, and he hasn't said anything to change my mind.
cakes said "Obama dumped Wright for political expediency."
I would actually have had an increased respect for him if he had been a man and just tried to explain himself. Acting like all of the sudden you just realized that this man is of no benefit to you so you dump him doesn't do much to inspire me.
And quite frankly, I think his smooth and powerful speaking has prevented many people from actually looking at the plans the candidates have for America. I think his healthcare plan is the weakest, I think his plan for the war is the weakest. It would have probably taken something drastic for me to cast a vote for Hilary, but honestly I think she had the most realistic plan for healthcare.
And one of the things I like about both Hilary and McCain is the fact that they are who they are- I may not like everything about them but at least I kinda know what to expect.
I may not like the choices that George W. Bush makes but I do truly believe that he (usually) thinks he is making the right choices. And I admire the fact that he will stand behind them even when it is unpopular. I want a President that is willing to do something hard or unpopular (if it will truly make our country better) instead of worrying about what makes them look the best.
Hey Jessica,
Glad you're still amongst us--hope you and yours are well.
I think Bush has used the rhetoric of Christian-conservatives to his advantage politically; and it paid off. I predict the RNC will enact a strategy to pair MC with someone like Huckabee (but younger and more handsome), to woo back white Southern Protestants disenchanted with MC.
The DNC will likely pair a southern conservative (you know, relatively) with OB, to lure the same demographic.
Cakes,
You are right about Bush. He did use conservative rhetoric to his advantage. Thats why if I could do it over again, I would not have voted for Bush. He's an imbecile really.
My problem is that both McCain and Obama want to continue spending like drunken sailors. McCain wants to continue spending on the wars, Obama wants to spend on programs that will cost trillions of dollars a year to pay for. Money we don't have. The Federal government does something that if it was either you or me were doing, we would be in jail. The US Federal Government has 3 sets of books. One set says the US has a debt of 9 Trillion dollars. Thats the one the media mentions. What is not mentioned that it leaves out certain details. If you factor these hidden details, the debt is closer to 54 Trillion. We do not need to continue spending on programs that the country cannot afford as it is. Before the government even talks about raising taxes, they should instead focus on cutting their spending.
In fact, the founding fathers would be rolling in their graves if they saw how big the government of this country has become. The federal government was never meant to be this big. They believed the country should be as close to anarchy without having anarchy, meaning that the federal government should be small as possible without going into chaos.
A few things...
First off, much obliged for the kind words.
So, I'm also shocked at anyone surprised by Wright's black nationalism. For the longest time, the church was--and remains--a shelter of cultural pride and unified initiative in a society that has only reluctantly accepted racial equality. Do you really blame folks of Wright's generation for being perhaps angry, or digesting the struggle to this day.
Yes.
Absolutely.
When anger is a raison d'etre, as it is with Wright's "church" in particular and liberation theology in general, it helps no one and harms many. Those of us who are Christians are not called to "cultural pride" or nationalism of any stripe, but to fellowship with and obedience to Jesus Christ.
And I'm not "surprised," I'm disgusted. There's a difference. :)
There is, in fact, Mike, a long tradition of Christians who have been resolute in their faith, yet felt no compulsion to hammer others with it. Unitarians are the coolest. I've known plenty and like that welcoming quality in Obama.
By their own definition, David, Unitarians are not Christians.
And is evangelism, as a rule, "hammering"?
That "welcoming quality" you mention in Obama is a desire to chat with practitioners and advocates of evil. As a head of state, doing so would be legitimizing their means while discussing their ends over a cup of tea. I will note that President Bush didn't have to chat with Khadafy for Libya to change its national course.
In matters of faith, truth is not derived from reason--that's why it's called faith. It's given that faith is a subjective phenomenon, thus a factor irrelevant to the general benefit--life, liberty and the pursuit of property--of everyone concerned.
While faith in faith is a purely subjective thing (and something in which most people in the world engage), faith in God as expressed in Christianity is, by definition, an appeal to an objective, discrete Deity. If it were not, it would be impossible to define who is or isn't a Christian, since the definitions themselves would be fluid, thus meaningless.
And a Christian's faith, David, is central to his or her life. It is the linchpin of a Christian's very existence; presuming it to be irrelevant is, frankly, ridiculous.
It makes me uncomfortable when anyone mixes religion with politics, no matter the party--the dangers of speculation, exclusion and posturing are obvious.
There, I must agree. Mixing the Christian faith with anything has the effect of watering down one's faith, which is why those of us who are Christians must allow God to have full, unfettered, undiluted influence in those areas of our lives from largest to smallest.
You are right about Bush. He did use conservative rhetoric to his advantage. Thats why if I could do it over again, I would not have voted for Bush. He's an imbecile really.
I don't know if I would go that far, but I will tell you all something--hindsight being 20/20, I also regret voting for George W. Bush in the first place. Unfortunately, the only serious choice we had in 2000 was... John McCain.
Which reminds me...
--Mike
I don't know if I would go that far, but I will tell you all something--hindsight being 20/20, I also regret voting for George W. Bush in the first place. Unfortunately, the only serious choice we had in 2000 was... John McCain.
Thats why I would have done a write in for Bozo the Clown.
Right now, I'm leaning towards Bob Barr. He's more conservative than McCain. He left the Republican party for the same reason Reagan left the Democratic party...it left him. Today's Republican party is no longer a conservative party.
Well, thanks for the kind reply; people of a fundementalist faith often must define what is and what isn't worthy of the paricular moniker, and I find this sense of absolute superiority one of the more humorous--when not deadly or harmful--of strident belief systems.
I know many "christians" who wouldn't qualify in the eyes of another piety, because they don't hold to some of the core principles--not of Christ--but the Protestant cosmology. I've been told that I am not a real Buddhist, because he or she has the authentic truth in the bag.
If someone designates themselves a Christian, then I owe it to that person to signify them so, and cannot be consumed with this or that theological difference--it's not my business or perview to judge. I'll let the multiplicity of doctrines and interpretations out there fend for themselves.
I remember, as a kid, my Baptist church showed films that stoked fears of communism, and actively participated in promoting Republican canidates--in hindsight, they were shilling, not for Christ, but a white Southern political perspective. As egregious as that is, I wouldn't go so far as to call that church a cult.
As far as I'm concerned, a cult is whatever belief system is different than the one ostensibly superior in the eyes of the pontificator. Your own might be viewed as a cult in the eyes of another.
I don't believe all evangelism is hammering, but unfortunately much of it definitely is.
Oh, nice new picture, Mike--very theatrical.
Thanks for the discussion...
Right now, I'm leaning towards Bob Barr. He's more conservative than McCain. He left the Republican party for the same reason Reagan left the Democratic party...it left him. Today's Republican party is no longer a conservative party.
I have a lot of time to get to know Bob Barr, but it may be necessary to invest a vote properly, even if doing so injures McCain's chances. Indeed, the Republican Party bears only a passing resemblance to the parts of just a few short years ago. Must've been all that "compassionate conservatism"...
Well, thanks for the kind reply; people of a fundementalist faith often must define what is and what isn't worthy of the paricular moniker, and I find this sense of absolute superiority one of the more humorous--when not deadly or harmful--of strident belief systems.
Your perception of others' believing themselves to have "absolute superiority," being a subjective perception, has precious little value, David. I believe we've gone through the difference between objectivism and subjectivism, haven't we?
Those of us who are Christians, David, understand God is absolutely superior, and an objective Arbiter in all matters. God has defined who is, and who is not, a member of the Body of Christ, and it is our choice whether to respect His standards or reject them.
As for your revisiting of all things "fundamental"--fundamentalist what? Fundamentalist Christianity is neither humorous nor harmful, because practicing the fundamentals of Christianity has no negative outcome, only a positive one. On the other hand, we have graphic evidence of the dangers of practicing Fundamentalist Islam, as one example.
Depends on the belief system. Islam, socialism, humanism... all deadly when practiced in their fundamentals.
If someone designates themselves a Christian, then I owe it to that person to signify them so, and cannot be consumed with this or that theological difference--it's not my business or perview to judge. I'll let the multiplicity of doctrines and interpretations out there fend for themselves.
If your next-door neighbor designates himself to be a salt-marsh harvest mouse (as another example), do you "owe it to them to signify them so"? Obviously, no, since there are objective standards to qualify what is and isn't a mouse. By the same token, there are objective standards with regard to what qualifies someone to be considered a Christian.
Obama has made more than enough statements that are at odds with Christianity to safely understand that he is not a Christian. This really isn't difficult stuff, and it isn't "judging," but rather taking someone at his word.
I remember, as a kid, my Baptist church showed films that stoked fears of communism, and actively participated in promoting Republican canidates--in hindsight, they were shilling, not for Christ, but a white Southern political perspective. As egregious as that is, I wouldn't go so far as to call that church a cult.
On the other hand, they just might have been one--if they focused upon racial or political issues rather than the Gospel. Your subjective perception doesn't make or unmake the case.
As far as I'm concerned, a cult is whatever belief system is different than the one ostensibly superior in the eyes of the pontificator. Your own might be viewed as a cult in the eyes of another.
Thank you for summing up the dangers of religious subjectivity.
I don't believe all evangelism is hammering, but unfortunately much of it definitely is.
The two are mutually exclusive. No one has ever been bludgeoned or bullied into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ.
Oh, nice new picture, Mike--very theatrical.
Thanks! I have a new agent down here in Birmingham, and she thought I needed some new headshots.
--Mike
P.S.: Hope everyone had a splendid Father's Day. I got a new pair of golf cleats and some very creatively-decorated Father's Day cards... :D
Mike, I don't know if we've discussed objectivism and subjectivism to a degree in which we find parity--for instance, declaring belief in a objective god is best distinquished from the subjective perspective of one who declares its truth moot. You cannot prove the existence of God, anyones, but that doesn't stop someone like yourself from believing He exists objectively. That's all, you know, cool and the gang--let's just not play wack-a-signifyer. We can have a straight-up conversation, if you don't make me chase you.
fun·da·men·tal·ism
Function: noun
1 a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b: the beliefs of this movement c: adherence to such beliefs
2: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
from Meriam-Webster
The above definition, or common parlance, is what I mean by fundementalism. And by "superior," I mean that a fundementalist stance is by its nature exclusionary, rigid and legalistic--it is often nationalistic. Like it or not, objective minds pondering systems of thought and movement will digest a general understanding of fundementalistic patterns and traits.
"Christian" was first coined as a label of derision. If someone says that they are a follower of Christ, then even if it doesn't jibe with your theology, to say they are not is, in fact, a judgement of his soul status--but what the hay.
(If "salt-marsh harvest mouse" ever becomes a religious designation, then I would show them the same deference I do for "christians"--whether they're Christ-like or not. Again, could we keep the conversation on the road, as opposed to your semantic off-roading?)
Mike, best wishes to you and your family down in Bama.
Hi Jess!!
Don't worry, I'm still here. Just like a bad case of athlete's foot, or a pesky case of dandruff - just when you think I'm gone for good, BAM! Back again!
Still reading your blog, too. Keep it up!
Oh, and ixnay on saying Sol's emblem resembles BK. I think he's a little proud of his name, and he might get unhappy if he thought his logo looked just a tad like BK (although I've thought the same thing a few times myself). JK, Sol!
If Sol changes his picture I will start a blog protesting until he is forced to put it back.
Blogger oc said...
Gmommy,
"Honorary" degrees are not "earned" degrees. If I'm not mistaken, Al Sharpton has a degree such as this, and therefore calls himself "Dr.". And while it may be accepted practice in the "world" to acknowlege the degree as at least semi-legitimate, I believe it to be less than ethical that the person to whom such degree has been so conferred would allow anyone to believe it was anything except one which was earned. It's deception. So therefore lying. So therefore sin. In my opinion.
I suppose all cases are different, but I don't think it's fair (or wise) to say that everyone who precedes their names with "Dr." on the basis of an honorary degree is deliberately disobeying God. Some (who have probably come under personal conviction) probably are, but not all.
I'd never presume to call "Dr." Adrian Rogers or "Dr." Jim Whitmire sinners, and I think that there are many thousands (if not tens of thousands) who agree with me on this.
Anyone can hang around school long enough to "earn" a Ph.D. (even me!!!). Not everyone has the character qualities and track record necessary to motivate a university to bestow a degree on a person who they wish was one of their own.
In my opinion, of course...
Dr Rogers had six doctorates all but one were honorary
http://adrianrogers.org/biography.htm
Dr. Rogers' bio lists 6 doctorates, all honorary.
Jessica,
Burger King? REALLY!?!
Boy, if that doesn't make me mad nothing will. I'm going to have to go out and have a Whopper just to get over it!
Dr. John,
I learn something new about you every time! Was your PhD in pig latin?
So how's this for a new image? Does the McDonald's crowd approve?
I call it "I Will Fear No Evil..."
Hey Sol,
Are you the goose or the wolf?
You know what PhD stands for, don't you?
Piled Higher and Deeper.
BTW, hurry up and get to Part 2. You're keeping me in suspense as much as that Saba dude. Hope you won't cop out like he did, though...
Doc,
I suppose it's a matter of perspective, but I fancy myself to be the goose (Heb 13:6).
As far as doctorates go, there's no question that some people try to elevate themselves by misusing the honorary title. When I was growing up there was a Nation of Islam leader who went to court to change his first name to "D" "R" "." if you can imagine.
And just "be patient" about Part 2. "Maybe just maybe" you'll see it soon, but maybe not. Although some people find it easy to categorize others, I prefer to use caution and seek God's will before opening a can of worms.
See you later, doc.
Apologies for the delay...
The above definition [of fundamentalism], or common parlance, is what I mean by fundementalism. And by "superior," I mean that a fundementalist stance is by its nature exclusionary, rigid and legalistic--it is often nationalistic.
You've strayed from the dictionary definition a bit, actually. It is not the "stance" of Christianity to be "by its nature exclusionary,' it is the set of parameters established by God in the Bible as to who are (and are not) His children that is the standard.
Let's say, for example, that I stroll up to the AELTC, tennis racket in hand, and say "Here I am, ready to compete at Wimbledon!" When I'm politely told that won't be happening because I don't have the prerequisite qualifications to participate, have I been "excluded"? (Hey, I was on the tennis team in high school!)
Like it or not, objective minds pondering systems of thought and movement will digest a general understanding of fundementalistic patterns and traits.
I didn't think you thought there was any such thing as an "objective mind"? Aren't you a subjectivist?
"Christian" was first coined as a label of derision.
Actually, there is considerable discussion about the motivation for the term "Christian." We do know it was first coined in Antioch, and an extra-Biblical document suggest that it was an early church leader who might have come up with the term. There is no Biblical support for the claim of "derision."
If someone says that they are a follower of Christ, then even if it doesn't jibe with your theology, to say they are not is, in fact, a judgement of his soul status--but what the hay.,
You would be, here, remarkably incorrect. For what I hope is the last time, personal theology isn't at issue; taking someone at his word, on the other hand, is the issue on the table. When someone claims to be a Christian, yet insists there are many paths to Heaven, that is dissonance. The two beliefs cannot coexist within the same individual.
Observing that Barack Obama is pandering to non-Christians to the point of denying the salvific exclusivity (there's that word!) Jesus directed to Himself isn't "judgement," it's hearing what he says and coming to the only available conclusion.
Jesus says He is the only way to God, but Obama vigorously disagrees.
Whom should we believe?
--Mike
Hey Sol!
Ya know, I remember that dude!!
It was something like Dr. Talib Kareem Mohammed, if memory serves. He was one of Louis Farrakhan's head honchos in the south, wasn't he?
I remember on the news that they used to call him "dur" instead of "doctor".
And come on already! Who's Judas?? I've got 10 bucks on McQuiston!!!
sol,
And why don't you allow comments???
Dr John Mark Talib Kareem Mohammed McQuiston? And for ten bucks?
What's going on here? Clue me in, I'm not understanding it.
I think JM is returning to his old ways. If he ever left them in the first place.
He's trying to get Keith to write something inflammatory on his blog so that he can enjoy the aftermath.
I think Keith is too smart for that, though.
WatchingHISstory said...
faith-n-hope is "the man" way to go. You are making my day!
4:45 PM, July 07, 2008
WHS, there's nothing in that discussion that involves you in any way, shape, or form. Perhaps you should consider abstaining from your theology lessons, sharing visions, and your graphic sexual references so that you'd be allowed to post again over there. Or here. You seem to enjoy it.
WatchingHISstory said...
faithnhope
After yesterday's comments 'over there' there is nothing that even I would want to be involved with!
Are you kidding?!? There's a wealth of knowledge on how to win friends and influence people over there!!!
Woe to you, you most untrue false speaker of untrue truths!
scary verse
scary verse
scary verse
The Lord shall judge thou most harshly indeed!!!
scary verse
scary verse
scary verse
As it is written!!!
Link to a hellfire and damnation video
It's time for thouest to repent from your falsenesses before the time for thouest to repent from your falseness ends!!!
scary verse
scary verse
scary verse
As it is written!!!
(Sorry, my KJV Bible software crashed so I couldn't look up the verses. You should still repent, though. They're really scary!)
Good stuff, doc. Anyone I know?
Do you do birthday parties?
solomon said...
Do you do birthday parties?
WatchingHISstory said...
i quote NASS "LOL"
Dr Mark, you are soooo funnie!
A woe upon those who make light of the coming judgement!!! Hast thou so soon forgotten something that was written???
scary verse
Just recallest thou that the thief of the lord will come like a day in the night, and, uh, the day of the lord will be, uh, REALLY BRIGHT!!!!! (caps and extra exclamation points for scary effect - don't miss it!)
scary verse
scary verse
But there's still hope if you'll turneth away from your wickedness and remember SOMETHING! (man, I gotta get that Bible software fixed.)
Take heed while there's still time!
link to the care bears movie
(Wait, that's not right. How'd that get there? Dang! Now the delete key's broken.)
Repent! The end is near!
And here it is!
THE END
Post a Comment