Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Did Obama lie when he claimed Jim Crow was done "in the name of Christ?" (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Did Obama lie when he claimed Jim Crow was done "in the name of Christ?"
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Did Obama lie when he claimed Jim Crow was done "in the name of Christ?"

Please stay on topic, unless and until someone provides some plausible historical link for Jim Crow being enacted or enforced in the "name of Christ."

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There were numerous scriptural justifications put forth for segregation. But as I was Googling for a link (because I've mellowed in my old age), I stumbled across this article and felt like it said most of what needed to be said:
http://time.com/3698777/obama-prayer-breakfast-jim-crow/

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks Tom. I was getting ready to look at the wording used and what you provided is perfect. Pete-No Obama didn't lie because he never claimed Jim Crow was done in the name of Christ.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
There were numerous scriptural justifications put forth for segregation. But as I was Googling for a link (because I've mellowed in my old age), I stumbled across this article and felt like it said most of what needed to be said:
http://time.com/3698777/obama-prayer-breakfast-jim-crow/

That article offers one measly example, Theodore Bilbo, 1946. Jim Crow laws were enacted in the late 18th century.

Furthermore, according to your own article, Bilbo did NOT use Christianity per se but a bastardized version of the Torah to justify his views. The chapter cited by your article is titled: “False Concepts of the Christian Religion.” To derive from that that Bilbo was using Christianity (which Bilbo like Hitler denounces as "false concepts") to justify Jim Crow is plainly stupid.

Bilbo may have called himself a Christian, but if he has to denounce Christianity's "false concepts" in order to promote Jim Crow, it's plainly crap to say that he used Christianity to justify Jim Crow. The truth is that Bilbo denounced Christianity to justify Jim Crow.

If you look more closely you'll see that Bilbo's denunciation of Christianity relied on the same bullcrap 1st Millennium rabinnical commentary on the Torah that misled Brigham Young and other Christian leaders into all that crap about descendants of Ham and Cain.

Bilbo starts out with the proclamation of the book of Acts that all human peoples are "of one blood" and denounces it as false.

Oh, in the previous chapter, https://archive.org/stream/TakeYourChoice#page/n77/mode/2up, Bilbo uses the Constitution to justify his bastard views. By Obama's arguments, that should mean that the US constitution is no better and no worse than any other set of laws that's been used for the wrong purpose.

If Obama had followed his exegis on the crusades by saying that Islam is now in a dark age as we were during the crusades, then that would make sense; we cure ignorance with knowledge. if Obama had drawn analogies between ISIS and the KKK (who also terrorized and burned people alive), then I would have applauded, but Obama can't do that, because that would piss off his lefty supporters who want us to hold steady to the message that "resistance" movements justify or at least excuse the terrorism involved ... and the KKK and ISIS clearly have that in common: terrorism as part of a resistance movement.

[ February 06, 2015, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Any other supposed examples of someone using actual Christianity to justify Jim Crow?

I'm willing to accept the possibility that Obama didn't mean to lie, and was merely talking out of his ass, or that lefties are so used to saying Jim Crow right after Slavery in the litany of racist oppression that it's unfair to require them to think about what they are actually saying.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Furthermore, according to your own article, Bilbo did NOT use Christianity per se but a bastardized version of the Torah to justify his views.
Are you really going to pull a "No True Scotsman" on this, Pete?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Furthermore, according to your own article, Bilbo did NOT use Christianity per se but a bastardized version of the Torah to justify his views.
Are you really going to pull a "No True Scotsman" on this, Pete?
Saying that Rabbinical exegis on Genesis isn't Christianity per se, is a "no true scottsman" argument?

Christianity does look up to much of the hebrew tradition, but we don't accept anything without reservation. Genesis is part of the "JudeoChristian tradition," but it ain't part of "Christianity." It's a Jewish book. That's what "Old Testament" means. Old Covenant. The Jewish covenant.

I thought you said you used to be a Christian. Didn't you ever study this stuff? It's pretty basic.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Calling Bilbo part of the Christian tradition is like calling ISIS part of the Muslim tradition. It's pretty poisonous crap, Tom. If a Christian said ISIS was part of the Muslim tradition, would you not call him out?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Funny how Obama failed to mention that the fundamental force behind abolition was Christianity. I don't see a huge Islamic movement to stop Islamism...
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, the very word you just used, Islamism, wasn't coined by Fox News; it was coined by a Muslim movement to stop Islamism.

The Saudi flogged blogger was part of that movement.

There wasn't a HUGE Muslim anti-Islamic movement last week, but read a few of the links I've been posting on other threads ...

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Furthermore, according to your own article, Bilbo did NOT use Christianity per se but a bastardized version of the Torah to justify his views.
Are you really going to pull a "No True Scotsman" on this, Pete?
Not at all. Are you going to claim that quoting Genesis means doing something "IN THE NAME OF CHRIST"? Remember, that's what Obama said. That Jim Crow was justified in the name of Christ.

As best I can see, no one has even cited any of Jesus' teachings to justify Jim Crow.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The actual Christian justifications use Paul's reference to slavery and Jesus calling to be obedient to the government. Many Christians would consider any Biblical justifications as Christian justifications.

There are plenty of legitimate gripes against Obama. It seems to me a petty waste of time to take offense at a Prayer Breakfast speech.

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
The actual Christian justifications use Paul's reference to slavery and Jesus calling to be obedient to the government. Many Christians would consider any Biblical justifications as Christian justifications.

As "Christian justifications," maybe. The term "Christian" is often used sloppily and broadly. Hell, Richard Dawkins self-identifies as a 'Christian' and he thinks that believing in God at all is dangerous foolishness. And the sloppiness is used exclusively as well as inclusively, as when these double-dealers claim an "objective standard" which defines Christianity as their personal traditions, rather than the actual teachings of Jesus Christ, and his apostles. [Roll Eyes]

But Obama used more precise language. He said "in the name of Christ." And as best I can tell, what he said was either a flat out lie, or very sloppy as well as offensive talking out of his ass.

If Obama didn't claim to be a Christian, I would not be offended at what he falsely attributes to being done "in the name of Christ." I'm offended that he's telling a hateful lie in the name of tolerance.

I doubt very much that anyone who heard the speech came out more tolerant.I doubt very much that anyone who heard the speech came out more tolerant.

quote:
There are plenty of legitimate gripes against Obama. It seems to me a petty waste of time to take offense at a Prayer Breakfast speech.
It's not just taking offense. I'm horrified at the botched opportunity here. Obama comes off far worse here, than George W. Bush did in the aftermath of 9/11, when he set out to accomplish the same objective. Bush didn't go about building tolerance for Islam by slamming Christianity. He stood with a group of Muslim, Sikh, Christian and other Clerics and said these good Muslims are our friends and neighbors, and I'm going to pray with them for peace.

Obama is the most savvy and articulate president we've had since Lincoln, and I cannot believe that he botched this so badly. This sequence of events -- hebdo, followed by Muath, and an unprecedented series of Muslim conferences that go beyond to confronting ISIS to actually considering changes in Islamic-Mosque-state relations -- is the single most important international moment in his presidency, and he pissed it away.

Of all people, I thought that the rationalists and secularist agnostics and atheists would agree with me that this is THE moment to preach the virtues of separation of church and state. To say that we've progressed from barbarity because Christians followed Jesus' teaching to separate church and state, and that Muslims are now going through the same process to emerge from their own dark ages, and that a productive dialogue has begun that we hope will result in a pure Muslim religion thriving in free Arab states.

Instead, our fine genius went and tried to reboot the crusades. Why? Does he really hate Christians and Republicans more than he loves the prospect of peace?

[ February 06, 2015, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dawkins self-identified as 'Christian' in the same way non-religious Jews self-identify as Jewish. Reading any kind of misinterpretation of Christianity into that isn't a fruitful argument.

That said, I think he does frequently misrepresent Christian ideas, but absolutely not for this reason.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Dawkins self-identified as 'Christian' in the same way non-religious Jews self-identify as Jewish. Reading any kind of misinterpretation of Christianity into that isn't a fruitful argument.

I'm not reading misinterpretation into that. I'm simply pointing out that "Christianity" is a broader term than "in the name of Jesus Christ." I can get over the idiocy of folks saying that "Christianity" gave us Jim Crow and 7-11 and monster trucks, but anyone who proclaims that these came about "in the name of Christ" is going to get spanked.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's like you're splitting hairs until you can glue them together into a windmill so you can tilt at it. [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah, so now you've gone from no true Scotsman to splitting hairs. and you still won't answer my question.Does 1 obscure chapter in one obscure book during the 1940's, Citing Genesis in its defense of Jim Crow, mean that Jim Crow was done in the name of Christ?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
it would be easier to argue that the Holocaust was done in the name of atheism.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete- To take offense at what Obama said about Christianity you either need to have a very thin skin or you need to be looking for reasons to attack him.

The Crusades happened. Christians have been far from Christ like historically and today. All the speech did was to remind people that there are flaws in all religions.

To be honest with you Obama may be articulate but the worst thing we can do is get involved in these matters at the moment. We have no credibility in the Muslim world anything we say or do is likely to have the opposite effect of what we desire.

In the end the behavior of ISIS may be exactly what needs to happen to wake up the Muslim world.

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mynnion - I think that Pete's issue is that he thinks that justifying something 'in the name of Christ' and using Christianity as a justification for something are significantly different, and that Obama agrees with that interpretation (thus the 'lie' charge, as opposed to simply disagreeing with his position.)

I won't even get into the serial conflation between "justifying" something in the name of Christ and something 'being done' in the name of Christ. But I will point out that Pete clearly misreprented what Obama said in the OP. Which is funny, because he misrepresented Obama's statement in the very same sentence as he questioned whether Obama himself lied.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I erred in assuming that something "justified" in the name of Christ was necessarily justified a priori. Thanks for catching that, Donald.

I've already qualified my OP statement that Obama "lied" by saying that Obama may have simply been talking out of his ass. Did you miss that, Donald? Would you feel better if I suggested that me may have caught the error now and have spanked his speechwriter as well as asking his contacts at Time to write up that silly Bilbo apologetic piece?

quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
Pete- To take offense at what Obama said about Christianity you either need to have a very thin skin or you need to be looking for reasons to attack him.

To get that from what I said you must have a very thin skin for criticism of Obama, or you must be looking for reasons to put anyone who criticizes Obama in a very narrow pre-made box. [Frown]
the fact is, when I heard the rabid right responding to what Obama said, I believed and hoped he'd said something useful about how Christianity used to do stuff like that before we separated church and state, and I ran to the original speech with the intent of praising him.

quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
The Crusades happened. Christians have been far from Christ like historically and today.

Quite true.


quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
All the speech did was to remind people that there are flaws in all religions.

Which is an incredibly stupid way to describe the issue when we're trying persuade devout Muslims to secularize their governments. "that's OK, our religion is just as dumb as yours." [Eek!] Way to go, Barry. Way to win friends and influence people.


quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
To be honest with you Obama may be articulate but the worst thing we can do is get involved in these matters at the moment. We have no credibility in the Muslim world

I ABSOLUTELY AGREE.

quote:
anything we say or do is likely to have the opposite effect of what we desire.
Well I'm quite sure that what Obama said will have the opposite effect of what we desire. He's just baited the right to go on a screaming litany of how ISIS is the manifestation of pure islam. And ISIS is media-canny.


quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
In the end the behavior of ISIS may be exactly what needs to happen to wake up the Muslim world.

I thought that you realized that was exactly what I've been saying on a number of threads. Expressing my hope that the agony and death of one good man may be enough to wake the Muslim conscience to say enough, and to save Islam from the Islamists.

Heaven knows that it took more than one burnt martyr to save Christianity from Christendom.

[ February 06, 2015, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Mynnion - I think that Pete's issue is that he thinks that justifying something 'in the name of Christ' and using Genesis as a justification for something are significantly different, and that Obama agrees with that interpretation (thus the 'lie' charge, as opposed to simply disagreeing with his position.)

Fixed that for you.

Yes, I think that Obama would agree that justifying something with an interpretation of Genesis is significantly different from justifying something "in the name of Christ."

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
Pete- To take offense at what Obama said about Christianity you either need to have a very thin skin or you need to be looking for reasons to attack him.

The Crusades happened.

Why are you going on about the crusades? I agree Christians did horrid things back in the day that the church and state were one, and before Christians could actually read the words of Christ.

My complaint is with Obama's gross mischaracterization of Christianity with respect ot Jim Crow. From Tom's link above:

quote:
Even though Obama’s argument about Jim Crow holds true, it’s also true that Christianity (and other religions, though less so due to demographics) was used as an argument against Jim Crow too. And, as time progressed, that side began to prevail.

In fact, a mere two years after the publication of Bilbo’s book, the Federal Council of Churches officially denounced segregation, stating that Jim Crow was “a violation of the gospel of love and human brotherhood.” Though many Southern churches did not desegregate after that declaration, Christian conferences and councils over the next decades made equality their focus. In 1957, for example, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church told its ministers that “it is unthinkable that a Christian should join himself to Klan or Council whose purpose is to gain its point by intimidation, reprisal and violence, or that he should lift no voice of protest against those who appeal to prejudice and spread fear.”

As the Civil Rights movement continued, Christianity — especially via dedicated organizations like the Southern Christian Leadership Conference — was one of the driving factors in protest against discrimination. It’s no coincide that Martin Luther King, Jr., was a minister.

Given the role of Christian ministers in ending Jim Crow (some of them sacrificing their own lives in that struggle) it seems smug, perverse, and unfair to claim that Jim Crow was "justified" in the name of Christ.

I guess Obama didn't watch Selma.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:


quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
All the speech did was to remind people that there are flaws in all religions.

Which is an incredibly stupid way to describe the issue when we're trying persuade devout Muslims to secularize their governments. "that's OK, our religion is just as dumb as yours." [Eek!] Way to go, Barry. Way to win friends and influence people.


This is the only of your points that I would suggest might be the opposite of the truth. "You guys need to update and clean up how your practice your religion" isn't a message anyone will receive well. However, "Guys, we're not that unlike each other, and we've been in the same boat as you and here's how we improved the situation" would be a far more a) charitable and b) diplomatic statement, whether or not you believe it.

Granted, if you feel our voice should remain silent in Muslim affairs and that we'd only get in the way, then the point is moot and no message is correct. But otherwise it seems to me that getting off the high horse might not be such a bad way to begin to speak to people outside of the U.S. Compare and contrast with "God wants me to kill your people," by good ol' W.

I dislike Christian-bashing a great deal, but in terms of reaching out to another people I don't see how humbling one's own position can be a bad move.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I dislike Christian-bashing a great deal, but in terms of reaching out to another people I don't see how humbling one's own position can be a bad move."

Oh, I agree. That's why I've repeatedly said (unlike the right's rantings) that introducing the Crusades and the Inquisition was actually a *good* idea ... if only he'd followed through with discussion of church and state causality.

quote:
"You guys need to update and clean up how your practice your religion" isn't a message anyone will receive well.
Nor is it the message that I'm advocating.

I think if he'd said what I suggested, talking between Americans (with the world listening), that whether Islam or Christianity, it's not the religion that's at fault but the church-state hybrid that causes the problems, that would not come off as telling Muslims how to change their religion.

"Compare and contrast with "God wants me to kill your people," by good ol' W."

I don't recall that. What I remember from W was him standing with Muslim clerics saying these are our friends and neighbors, and they mourn with us. It was his finest hour (which isn't saying much I'm afraid) and the most daring plea for tolerance that I've heard of any US president ever making (which is saying considerably more).

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
W actually said that God told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq; I was just satirizing his comments by saying what they actually mean. Declaring war is a more meaningful message than uttering rhetoric before a prayer meeting, so I'll consider Bush's war to trump some utterance about friends and neighbors in terms of what he wanted to communicate.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-god-told-me-to-invade-iraq-6262644.html

And here's an article addressing your question of whether anyone defended slavery or segregation in the name of Christianity or the Bible:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/02/06/obama-slavery-jim-crow-and-christianity/

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, you do realize that people may do things 'in the name of Christ' that Christ himself not only wouldn't have countenanced, but that his teachings could not reasonably be interpreted to support, right?

And that was part of the point that Obama was making..?

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Pete, you do realize that people may do things 'in the name of Christ' that Christ himself not only wouldn't have countenanced, but that his teachings could not reasonably be interpreted to support, right?

Yes.

Do you concede that most of the atrocities committed "in the name of Christ" were done so during eras in which most of the population had not actually read the words of Christ?

quote:

And that was part of the point that Obama was making..?

Absolutely not. Obama's speech didn't make that point.

----------
"W actually said that God told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq; I was just satirizing his comments by saying what they actually mean."

What they really mean? You think W's only intent for invading Afghanistan was to kill Afghans?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Christianity does look up to much of the hebrew tradition, but we don't accept anything without reservation. Genesis is part of the "JudeoChristian tradition," but it ain't part of "Christianity." It's a Jewish book. That's what "Old Testament" means. Old Covenant. The Jewish covenant.

Why do you say that? An important part of study is the belief that Christ was there from the beginning and his presence is in fact revealed in the old testament. Believers in the trinity do not believe that part of it suddenly came into existence and was only revealed by the new testament.

It's not direct, but to my knowledge Christian theologians do believe in the revelation of Christ in the old testament.

To the point of your thread though, he lies through omission and manipulation in everything he says, and often lies directly and just relies on repetition and friendly supports to push the lies as propaganda until they stick. His attempt to equate Christianity of a thousand years past with Islam is exactly of that character. The fact is, we live in a modern world, with an expectation of rationalism on the world, and there is no excuse, whatsoever, for re-acting out behaviours that were wrong a thousand years ago in the modern era. There is no truth to an assertion that modern Christians have responsibility for the actions of ancient Christians that they would not engage in today.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There is no truth to an assertion that modern Christians have responsibility for the actions of ancient Christians that they would not engage in today.
It's probably a good thing that Obama made no such assertion, eh? [Wink]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Serati- Saying he was lying by omission makes no sense. He was no condemning Christianity in his speech he was pointing out that those who practice it have not always been faithful to the Biblical message.

It could also be argued that the Crusades is actually an appropriate comparison since it was the reverse case of today. Christians attacking Muslims.

Anyway. I am done arguing this. The whole uproar is kind of silly when we hear news that the Koch Brothers will be contributing more money to the next election then either national party. I find that truly offensive.

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah because contributing money to a political race is equivalent to the slaughter, rape, torture and enslavement of tens of thousands of people right?

Unbelievable.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" It's not direct, but to my knowledge Christian theologians do believe in the revelation of Christ in the old testament"

As History, Yes, but Old testament Imperatives are No longer valid/applicable. Restrictions Re foods and interMarriage are no more applicable than the Command To buld an.ark.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" he was pointing out that those who practice it have not always been faithful to the Biblical message"

Please quote Where he Said.that.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca-Get with the picture. We are discussing the comments from the prayer breakfast. If you believe those words are more offensive than two individuals undermining our political system then I see little hope for the future of our nation.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
you know I just figured out why Obama never said anything about the separation of church and State with regard to Isis and the Crusades.

maybe it was because he was using a Prayer Breakfast to attack his political adversaries.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Did Obama lie when he claimed Jim Crow was done "in the name of Christ?"

Please stay on topic, unless and until someone provides some plausible historical link for Jim Crow being enacted or enforced in the "name of Christ."

Stages of Obamafan grief:

DENIAL

quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
Thanks Tom. I was getting ready to look at the wording used and what you provided is perfect. Pete-No Obama didn't lie because he never claimed Jim Crow was done in the name of Christ.

ANGER/ACCUSE THE MESSENGER:
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
Pete- To take offense at what Obama said about Christianity you either need to have a very thin skin or you need to be looking for reasons to attack him.

NEGOTIATION:
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
The actual Christian justifications use Paul's reference to slavery and Jesus calling to be obedient to the government. Many Christians would consider any Biblical justifications as Christian justifications.

There are plenty of legitimate gripes against Obama. It seems to me a petty waste of time to take offense at a Prayer Breakfast speech.

CHANGING THE SUBJECT:

quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
Anyway. I am done arguing this. The whole uproar is kind of silly when we hear news that the Koch Brothers will be contributing more money to the next election then either national party. I find that truly offensive.

RIGHTEOUS OBFUSCATION:

quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
Seneca-Get with the picture. We are discussing the comments from the prayer breakfast. If you believe those words are more offensive than two individuals undermining our political system then I see little hope for the future of our nation.

[Razz]

The question of whether Koch brothers contributions are "more offensive" than Obama blaming Christianity for Jim Crow at a Prayer breakfast is not relevant to the thread.

The issue here isn't whether Obama's remarks were "offensive." [Roll Eyes] The issue is whether they were ACCURATE.

AFAIK the "new topic" button on this forum works. There's no reason to hijack a thread about a legitimate historical inquiry, to gripe about the Koch brothers.

[ February 07, 2015, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" The whole uproar is kind of silly"

I could care less about the uproar and that's not the topic here. What Obama said about Christian churches fanning and justifying murders in Africa is as TRUE and ON POINT as it was OFFENSIVE. Truth often is offensive. Just ask this dude .

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
There is no truth to an assertion that modern Christians have responsibility for the actions of ancient Christians that they would not engage in today.
It's probably a good thing that Obama made no such assertion, eh? [Wink]
quote:
Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,”
Play your games Tom, but in that quote that is exactly what he is doing. If you're not imputing responsibility there is no high horse to get down from. Is he talking to the Christians dead a thousand years hence that participated in the Crusades?

He's directly arguing that there is no moral ground for modern Christians to criticize since ancient Christians did bad acts.
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
Serati- Saying he was lying by omission makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. He deletes context when he makes these "talking points" and great speeches specifically to confuse the truth and to allow nonsensical assertions he's making to seem valid and truthful. He lies specifically by omitting the inconvenient truths that contradict his claim.

If he sold you a house that flooded, he'd just say it was on the water front.
quote:
He was no condemning Christianity in his speech he was pointing out that those who practice it have not always been faithful to the Biblical message.
But he was doing that, not because it has any actual relevance, but because it undermines the criticism. It's an invalid point though.

It's like saying that Democrats can't make any arguments in favor of equal rights because they were giant racists in the past. History it may be, but it's modern relevance is exactly zero.
quote:
It could also be argued that the Crusades is actually an appropriate comparison since it was the reverse case of today. Christians attacking Muslims.
If you want to tell modern Muslims they are acting as evilly as the crusaders feel free. If you are reversing it to tell modern Christians they can't criticize you're making a false argument. All of modern civilization is in a position to legitimately criticize barbarism, and no one is responsible today for thousand year old barbarism. There is NO excuse for modern barbarism.
quote:
Anyway. I am done arguing this. The whole uproar is kind of silly when we hear news that the Koch Brothers will be contributing more money to the next election then either national party. I find that truly offensive.
And that's exactly the tactic the President is using, through in another completely irrelevant side issue.

Honestly though, you find the Koch brothers contributing money to a political campaign more offensive than what ISIS is doing?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:

"W actually said that God told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq; I was just satirizing his comments by saying what they actually mean."

What they really mean? You think W's only intent for invading Afghanistan was to kill Afghans?

The point of attacking Afghanistan may have been to find Bin Laden. And the point of attacking Iraq was...? Care to answer it. Whatever your answer is, it can't be to have gone after Bin Laden or Al Qaeda. But yeah, W wanted to kill him some people, that's for absolute sure. You can question his motives for wanting to do that, but brotherly love wasn't anywhere close to his mind before 9-11 or after it.


quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
you know I just figured out why Obama never said anything about the separation of church and State with regard to Isis and the Crusades.

maybe it was because he was using a Prayer Breakfast to attack his political adversaries.

I think this much was certain. The entire speech more or less reads to me as a polemic against Republicans and religious people, i.e. the right. His use of terms like "believers like us" sounded disingenuous and I kind of winced when I heard him say it. I think his main (unstated) thesis was that liberals can be trusted to think and act with a sort of tolerance towards others, while conservatives and religious nuts tend to do crazy stuff in the name of their religion. The speech sounded less like "we all need to remember our religious past" and more like "you conservatives and Southerners need to remember YOUR past."
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1