Barack Obama talks to Bill O'Reilly

[mr3856a]

I want to make note of something that Barack Obama did tonight that neither John McCain nor Sarah Palin will do before this campaign is over. For those of you who didn't see it, Sen. Obama gave a full interview to Bill O'Reilly tonight in a special edition of the O'Reilly Factor. And Bill was a little more confrontational than Charlie Gibson.

Neither Sarah Palin nor John McCain will ever, ever give an equivalent interview to someone as far left as O'Reilly is right during this campaign. It will not happen.

I hope everyone saw it.

Bill O’Reilly | The O’Reilly Factor - FOXNews.com

[PA PLAYA]

Gotta love Fixed News.

Now that I've got that out of the way..... I'll just say that O'Reilly is a light-weight. That would be like having Alan Colmes going toe-to-toe with Dick Cheney. Now I would enjoy seeing Keith Olberman interview Bill O'Reilly, I'd actually pay to see that on ppv.


I watched roughly 3 minutes of the first segment aired last week, of which I won't call an interview because an interview has the interviewEE doing at least half (or more) of the talking than the interviewER. After refusing to allow Obama to answer question after question, and then trying to answer the questions himself, I simply turned off the tv and went to the bathroom to vomit.

It was evident that the only purpose Obama served in being there was to slip-up in saying something so it could be re-aired for the next three weeks on Fixed News, courtesy of the no-spin architect himself.

The only real credit I give Obama, outside of actually showing up with anyone from Fixed News, is that he somehow avoided punching O'Reilly in the mouth. Of which, again, I would pay good money to see on ppv.

[Wazmankg]

Were there a series of these interviews ? It said 1 of 6. I'd like to see the rest of them. Obama was cool as the other side of the pillow in the face of O'Reilly's constant interruptions. You'd think he take a break from that sort of thing when interviewing a presidential nominee. It's alway about O'Reilly though.

FWIW, McCain has done the Daily Show a number of times and it wouldn't surprise me to see him do Olberman. I don't think McCain, for whatever his flaws, is afraid to sit down for an interview with anyone. Palin ... not so much.

[essurfer]

I do not believe McCain would run from any interview. I do not think the handlers will allow Palin to do any confrontational interviews. Obama is a smart guy who thinks quickly on his feet. Enough so to pull off an interview with O'Reilly. O'Reilly on the other hand is not so smart, just annoying

[DonnaKay]

Anyone see the clips from McCain on the View? It's not a program I watch but after seeing Cindy McCain's comments about their treatment, I watched the clips available on CNN. WOW! Barbara Walters and Joy Behar were tougher than "real" media - a little pushy and rude, I suppose, but not any more so than O'Reilly was at times with Obama.

[xnavyct]

Originally Posted by DonnaKay

Anyone see the clips from McCain on the View? It's not a program I watch but after seeing Cindy McCain's comments about their treatment, I watched the clips available on CNN. WOW! Barbara Walters and Joy Behar were tougher than "real" media - a little pushy and rude, I suppose, but not any more so than O'Reilly was at times with Obama.

I'd say Whoopi Goldberg asking if she was going to be returned to slavery would qualify as 'pushy and rude'. Emphasis on the latter.

[DonnaKay]

Didn't see that part!!! The clip I saw was Barbara Walters asking about "reform what exactly?" and Joy Behar asking about commercials she said were "lies". Also, a short bit with Mrs. McCain about # of houses owned.

What was Whoopi on about????

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by DonnaKay

What was Whoopi on about ????

One word too many there Donna. Didn't she used to be funny way back when ?

Now a half hour 1-on-1 between just Barbara Walters and John McCain would be worth seeing.

[Leaguegolf]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

One word too many there Donna. Didn't she used to be funny way back when ?

No....not much.

[Diane]

Originally Posted by xnavyct

I'd say Whoopi Goldberg asking if she was going to be returned to slavery would qualify as 'pushy and rude'. Emphasis on the latter.

I didn't see that as being rude. She was just asking for clarification and using an example. She was the calmest of them all IMO.

[GolfSavage]

Originally Posted by xnavyct

I'd say Whoopi Goldberg asking if she was going to be returned to slavery would qualify as 'pushy and rude'. Emphasis on the latter.

So, how long was Whoopi a slave before she was freed this last time?

[DonnaKay]

Anyone got a link or remember exactly what was said by Whoopi?

[GolfSavage]

Originally Posted by DonnaKay

Anyone got a link or remember exactly what was said by Whoopi?

Try this link:
Stupid Celebrities Gossip » McCain On The View (Videos)

Whoopi's insightful comments are in the second video on the page, beginning at about the 5:35 mark.

[mr3856a]

Are we really comparing Whoopie Goldberg to a "serious journalist" like Pulitzer Prize-winning Bill O'Reilly? I find it so funny watching the right froth all over themselves about Charlie Gibson asking Gov. Palin basic questions, yet they don't have a peep to say about this attempted hatchet job (the difference in the two being that Barack can more than hold his own).

[HackBlack]

Check out the beginning when they're giving "welcome hugs". Most of the hugs seemed genuine, except for Barbara Walter's. They barely touched.

[DonnaKay]

Thanks, Diane and others for the various links. I just went and watched the entire View on their website and, frankly, I found no problem with Whoopi's comment. She asked, during the conversation about his strict Constitutionalist requirement for Judges, if he meant that nothing should be changed from the Founder's original document, which included slavery. She wasn't disrespectful, in my opinion, merely pointing out that the Constitution has been amended and interpreted in other situations than Roe v Wade.

I was more concerned about McCain dancing around the Pro-Life position, with all his platitudes about "including" and "respecting" other points of view which still confirming that he would like to see Roe v Wade overturned.

Frankly, most Pro-Lifers are not Pro-Life at all. They are Pro-Birth. Few of them ever march or support legislation to help care for those babies born to poor, overburdened, or unprepared families.

[Diane]

Originally Posted by DonnaKay

Frankly, most Pro-Lifers are not Pro-Life at all. They are Pro-Birth. Few of them ever march or support legislation to help care for those babies born to poor, overburdened, or unprepared families.

They also forget that those of us on the other side are "Pro Choice", not "Pro Abortion".

[GolfSavage]

Originally Posted by DonnaKay

Frankly, most Pro-Lifers are not Pro-Life at all. They are Pro-Birth. Few of them ever march or support legislation to help care for those babies born to poor, overburdened, or unprepared families.

There are thousands of churches and pro-life organizations supporting women who decide their baby should not be punished for their indiscretions or because someone else committed a violent act.

Organizations like Heartbeat International, Priests For Life, Crisis Pregnancy Centers (Option Line) and Care Net (to name a few) work diligently and unselfishly to show pregnant women that an unplanned pregnancy doesn't have to end in abortion.

Can you guess why you don't see these folks "march or support legislation to help care for those babies born to poor, overburdened, or unprepared families"? Because they aren't looking for government support. Since most of these are faith-based, accepting federal funds would limit their ability to share their message if that is part of their mission.

The multitudes of loving and caring Christian, conservative, and otherwise pro-life people providing donations, private funding, love, care and compassion for the women with unplanned pregnancies and the babies they carry would astound you if you really cared to look. Just don't expect to find us spending time marching and expecting the government to do what God has directed and called upon us to do.

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by DonnaKay

Frankly, most Pro-Lifers are not Pro-Life at all. They are Pro-Birth. Few of them ever march or support legislation to help care for those babies born to poor, overburdened, or unprepared families.

I often think of that, and I find it interesting few people see that.

[LockStock666]

Did God leave his number to call back for some clarification?

All human morals are based on the opinions of men.

I don't like how people will justify anything in the name of God as if it proves they are right and as a way of removing any personal and individual thought on the subject.

I dont have a problem with these faith groups supporting people who need support in deciding against abortion but what about the people who decide that abortion is the only option for them?

What support do anti-abortion groups offer these women?

Originally Posted by GolfSavage

There are thousands of churches and pro-life organizations supporting women who decide their baby should not be punished for their indiscretions or because someone else committed a violent act.

Organizations like Heartbeat International, Priests For Life, Crisis Pregnancy Centers (Option Line) and Care Net (to name a few) work diligently and unselfishly to show pregnant women that an unplanned pregnancy doesn't have to end in abortion.

Can you guess why you don't see these folks "march or support legislation to help care for those babies born to poor, overburdened, or unprepared families"? Because they aren't looking for government support. Since most of these are faith-based, accepting federal funds would limit their ability to share their message if that is part of their mission.

The multitudes of loving and caring Christian, conservative, and otherwise pro-life people providing donations, private funding, love, care and compassion for the women with unplanned pregnancies and the babies they carry would astound you if you really cared to look. Just don't expect to find us spending time marching and expecting the government to do what God has directed and called upon us to do.

[GolfSavage]

Originally Posted by LockStock666

Did God leave his number to call back for some clarification?

All human morals are based on the opinions of men.

I don't like how people will justify anything in the name of God as if it proves they are right and as a way of removing any personal and individual thought on the subject.

I dont have a problem with these faith groups supporting people who need support in deciding against abortion but what about the people who decide that abortion is the only option for them?

What support do anti-abortion groups offer these women?

Those who are called by God don't need clarification.
Nothing in my post was being justified in the name of God. I was responding to the post that claimed few pro-life supporters do anything to help the women in these situations or the babies that may come from them. If you'd bother to look at some of the groups I mentioned you'd know they give full counseling and true choice to the mother with a crisis pregnancy, telling her about the various methods of abortion and the possible physical, emotional and psychological complications that are possible, as well as letting her know there are options. If the woman still decides on abortion, she is directed elsewhere, but welcomed back later for counseling if needed.

I know of cases where young girls who are confused and frightened and go into Planned Parenthood clinic where the truth about abortion is glossed over, and she is led to believe abortion is her only answer. Then they have suffered traumas and injury due to complications the clinic knew were possible, but failed to mention. That's not really "choice".

[LockStock666]

GolfSavage, I honestly don't have a problem with your stance on abortion. It isn't a simple subject and everyone is entitled to their own individual opinion (and I believe decision) but your statement 'What God has directed and called upon us to do' just makes alarm bells ring in my head.

I don't mean this as a personal attack and I hope you understand my questioning because I am genuinely interested in what you believe, how can you claim to have been directed and called upon by God on the subject of abortion? What has God ever told you about abortion?

Why is the mentioning of God even important in the talking about abortion? Can't you be a caring compassionate human being without claiming that you are acting on God's behalf?

[DonnaKay]

Originally Posted by GolfSavage

I know of cases where young girls who are confused and frightened and go into Planned Parenthood clinic where the truth about abortion is glossed over, and she is led to believe abortion is her only answer. Then they have suffered traumas and injury due to complications the clinic knew were possible, but failed to mention. That's not really "choice".

GS, I don't doubt that some girls who opt for abortion suffer trauma and injury. It is also without doubt that some girls who carry a child to term suffer trauma and injury and that the adoption choice is also a traumatic experience for many.

It is undeniable that many of the same people whose moral beliefs would take the choice out of the hands of the pregnant girl and put it in the hands of government are the same ones who don't support medical and health insurance for lower income people, rail against "entitlement" programs, and oppose almost every kind of taxpayer assistance for those same people. That's why I say it is pro-birth rather than pro-life.

It is also a fact that the decision makers in this matter are overwhelmingly men (in Congress, the Supreme Court, State Legislatures, even the opinion leaders in the pulpit), while the person carrying and either raising or giving up the unwanted child is invariably female. There is just something inherently wrong with those facts, in my humble opinion.

I respect your religious beliefs and, as a Catholic, understand your rational. However, in this, as in other matters, I disagree with the stance my Church has taken and reserve the right to follow my own God-given conscience. My dear, departed Mother, who was a Christian in word and action, used to quip that "If men had babies, abortion would be a sacrament." Overstated, of course.....but I hope you get the point.

[atm_73]

Originally Posted by LockStock666

I don't mean this as a personal attack and I hope you understand my questioning because I am genuinely interested in what you believe, how can you claim to have been directed and called upon by God on the subject of abortion? What has God ever told you about abortion?

I can't speak for GS, but I will try and answer your question. I'm not sure if GS has ever claimed that God has "spoked to him" as some do, but I can say that the Bible says that it is God's final and complete word to mankind (2 Pet 1:3, Heb 1:1-2, 2 Tim 3:16-17, etc). For those of us who believe the Bible's claim of inspiration, that means that God has commanded us on a moral and spiritual plane how we ought to conduct ourselves in this life. Morality is not "based on men's opinions" as you said earlier, we believe it to be based on God's set standard that he spoke to the human family, and implanted inside our hearts (also known as our conscience). Granted, some do skew the message, like an article I have that was published in a Seattle newspaper where a religious "leader" declared that Lev 18:22 was not an Old Testament prohibition on homosexuality. I had no idea how he would pull this one off, and he went on to say that it meant that homosexual intercourse would be in violation of God's law if it were done in the same position... So yes, some DO twist morality to fit their liking, but the scriptures' stand on it is pretty strait forward.

As far as abortion goes, I'll try to give you the cliff's notes version:
Those who believe the Bible believe that God Himself breaths into man the breath of life, and causes man to be a living soul (Gen 1-2). Since God is the Author of life, then he also is the Authority over it. We view life as a sacred gift from God, and we believe that life begins at conception. There are several Scriptures that agree with the viewpoint that life begins before birth (Psa 139:13-16, Lk 1:15, 41, & 44, Jer 1:5). Since God has given life, humans have no right to take life (unless that right is given by God - ex: death for crimes [Rom 13:1-ff]). I believe that from the moment two zygotes combine to form a fertilized egg, that life has begun, and that life is sacred. Once life has begun, what right do we have to end it? In my mind, the biggest difference between pro-choice and pro-life is "when does life begin?" If you believe that it is before birth, then you are violating God's constant decrees in Scripture for the preservation of life. Most of the appeals that I hear for abortion (or choice, if you'd like), come on an emotional level - girl is not old enough, no income support, etc... However, the VAST majority of "unwanted" pregnancies are a result of "wanted sex". There are very few cases of pregnancy by rape or incest versus those who are just a result of a poor choice on a night out. If that 5 day, 5 week, or 5 month old child is alive, what right do I have to end that life when my bad decision was the catalyst for it being here? What I don't understand, and what I would like an answer to is this: On what basis to pro-abortion advocates who consider themselves "Christian" justify their conviction? Do you not believe that life begins until birth? If not, what is it, I would honestly like to know.

[LockStock666]

Thank you for sharing your beliefs. It's hard to tell you my opinions on what you have just said without feeling like I am insulting uour whole beleif system. As I know I will not change your mind or beliefs, I will just bow out gracefully.

Originally Posted by atm_73

I can't speak for GS, but I will try and answer your question. I'm not sure if GS has ever claimed that God has "spoked to him" as some do, but I can say that the Bible says that it is God's final and complete word to mankind (2 Pet 1:3, Heb 1:1-2, 2 Tim 3:16-17, etc). For those of us who believe the Bible's claim of inspiration, that means that God has commanded us on a moral and spiritual plane how we ought to conduct ourselves in this life. Morality is not "based on men's opinions" as you said earlier, we believe it to be based on God's set standard that he spoke to the human family, and implanted inside our hearts (also known as our conscience). Granted, some do skew the message, like an article I have that was published in a Seattle newspaper where a religious "leader" declared that Lev 18:22 was not an Old Testament prohibition on homosexuality. I had no idea how he would pull this one off, and he went on to say that it meant that homosexual intercourse would be in violation of God's law if it were done in the same position... So yes, some DO twist morality to fit their liking, but the scriptures' stand on it is pretty strait forward.

As far as abortion goes, I'll try to give you the cliff's notes version:
Those who believe the Bible believe that God Himself breaths into man the breath of life, and causes man to be a living soul (Gen 1-2). Since God is the Author of life, then he also is the Authority over it. We view life as a sacred gift from God, and we believe that life begins at conception. There are several Scriptures that agree with the viewpoint that life begins before birth (Psa 139:13-16, Lk 1:15, 41, & 44, Jer 1:5). Since God has given life, humans have no right to take life (unless that right is given by God - ex: death for crimes [Rom 13:1-ff]). I believe that from the moment two zygotes combine to form a fertilized egg, that life has begun, and that life is sacred. Once life has begun, what right do we have to end it? In my mind, the biggest difference between pro-choice and pro-life is "when does life begin?" If you believe that it is before birth, then you are violating God's constant decrees in Scripture for the preservation of life. Most of the appeals that I hear for abortion (or choice, if you'd like), come on an emotional level - girl is not old enough, no income support, etc... However, the VAST majority of "unwanted" pregnancies are a result of "wanted sex". There are very few cases of pregnancy by rape or incest versus those who are just a result of a poor choice on a night out. If that 5 day, 5 week, or 5 month old child is alive, what right do I have to end that life when my bad decision was the catalyst for it being here? What I don't understand, and what I would like an answer to is this: On what basis to pro-abortion advocates who consider themselves "Christian" justify their conviction? Do you not believe that life begins until birth? If not, what is it, I would honestly like to know.

[DonnaKay]

ATM, in simple terms, I believe that life begins when the fetus can survive on its own, outside the mother's body. Until then, it is a potential life. Do you also object to the type of birth control pill that prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the lining of the uteras? Is that fertilized egg "life"?

There is no question that soldiers, on both side of a conflict, are alive. Do we see all the pro-life adherents refusing to support or fight in wars? Also, prisoners on death row are alive......the same people espousing pro-life also often support the death penalty.

ATM, again, I respect the fact that many religious people feel that there is a directive from God on this issue and would fight any group who tried to force abortion on you, as does the Chinese government. However, I believe it is just as wrong for religious people to inflict their beliefs on others as I would if the majority religion in this country was the Taliban and their horrible treatment of women was being forced on unbelievers.

Until we as a country can see that every living child has adequate food, nurturing, shelter and education, we are not a pro-life nation!

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by atm_73

On what basis to pro-abortion advocates who consider themselves "Christian" justify their conviction? Do you not believe that life begins until birth? If not, what is it, I would honestly like to know.

#1 - I am not pro-abortion. Both my wife and I have done volunteer work in a crisis pregnancy center. Its mission was to counsel young girls with unwanted pregnancies and provide support in the hopes that they'd choose to carry their pregnancies to term. Loving potential parents are waiting in line to adopt infants.

I also believe that life begins at conception.

But I believe that a women should have the right to have that developing life removed from her body until the point of viability of the fetus.... and beyond if her life is in danger.

I don't believe it is the government's place to compel, by force of law, a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.

As a Christian, just because I find a particular action to be a sin, doesn't mean I believe that the government should use its power to make that action illegal.

In fact the worst scenario for Christianity of any religion FTM, would be to have the government enforce its doctrines. Faith should be freely chosen without the coercive hand of government intruding.

[GolfSavage]

Thank you atm_73, as your explanation of the belief that God speaks to us through his Word, the Holy Bible, is right in line with my beliefs.

DonnaKay, we (pro-life community) are not trying to inflict any religious beliefs on others. However, we are also taxpayers and citizens, and have just as much right as any other to want to see our tax dollars used in ways that don't violate our beliefs. No matter which side of the issue you are on, your support is based upon what you believe, whether Christian, agnostic, atheist, wiccan, Buddhist or whatever. Knowing for yourself what is right or wrong has nothing to do with whether or not you're a man or woman. I don't have to be a woman to know in my heart that abortion is the taking of innocent life and the wrong "choice", just as I don't have to be black to know slavery is wrong.

[DonnaKay]

Originally Posted by GolfSavage

DonnaKay, we (pro-life community) are not trying to inflict any religious beliefs on others. However, we are also taxpayers and citizens, and have just as much right as any other to want to see our tax dollars used in ways that don't violate our beliefs. No matter which side of the issue you are on, your support is based upon what you believe, whether Christian, agnostic, atheist, wiccan, Buddhist or whatever. Knowing for yourself what is right or wrong has nothing to do with whether or not you're a man or woman. I don't have to be a woman to know in my heart that abortion is the taking of innocent life and the wrong "choice", just as I don't have to be black to know slavery is wrong.

GS, if you want to fight government funded abortions, fine! As you stated, it is your right as a taxpayer and citizen to support how and when your dollars should be spent. However, that is not the limit of what pro-life movement is doing - you are trying to make it illegal for a woman to obtain an abortion under any circumstances. That is, indeed, inflicting your religious beliefs on another.

I'm interested that you didn't address the other "life" issues I brought up. What about killing in war or by legal execution? Is that okay? Do you believe in abortion to save the life of the mother? Isn't that making a choice that should be left to God, as the Catholic church used to say? What about those birth control pills that prevent the egg from developing after fertilization?

GS, just in case I haven't said this recently, I am personally opposed to abortion when it's used as a method of birth control. However, it is my opinion that the entire issue is too complicated and nuanced (see paragraph 2) for the government to outlaw it entirely.

[GolfSavage]

Originally Posted by DonnaKay

GS, if you want to fight government funded abortions, fine! As you stated, it is your right as a taxpayer and citizen to support how and when your dollars should be spent. However, that is not the limit of what pro-life movement is doing - you are trying to make it illegal for a woman to obtain an abortion under any circumstances. That is, indeed, inflicting your religious beliefs on another.

I'm interested that you didn't address the other "life" issues I brought up. What about killing in war or by legal execution? Is that okay? Do you believe in abortion to save the life of the mother? Isn't that making a choice that should be left to God, as the Catholic church used to say? What about those birth control pills that prevent the egg from developing after fertilization?

GS, just in case I haven't said this recently, I am personally opposed to abortion when it's used as a method of birth control. However, it is my opinion that the entire issue is too complicated and nuanced (see paragraph 2) for the government to outlaw it entirely.

I'm sorry, in reading atm_73's post earlier I thought he offered the explanation that covered the death penalty and war issues. In case you missed it (emphasis added):

Originally Posted by atm_73

Since God has given life, humans have no right to take life (unless that right is given by God - ex: death for crimes [Rom 13:1-ff]).

Though war is not specifically mentioned above, The Bible does say in Ecclesiastes 3:3 and 3:8 that "There is a time to kill and a time to heal" and "There is a time for war and a time for peace." In Matthew 10:34, Jesus said,“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword”. Please understand I do not intend to try to convince you or convict you, I'm simply stating why I believe there is a difference between the taking the lives of innocent babies and givng a criminal a trial and sentencing him to death. At least the criminal gets a trial and a chance to tell why he deserves to live, and is being punished for his own actions. What have the babies done to deserve a death sentence?

As for "life of the mother" is a case of trying to save one life instead of losing two. This is a much different scenario than an elective abortion. I found the following explanation to be the best I'd ever seen or heard:

Morals are not relative to the individual (subjective morality), but they are relative to the situation. In other words, the situation will determine which objective moral rule we apply (this is not relativism because the same moral rule applies to every person in the same situation). For example, there are some situations in which cutting someone with a knife is morally wrong and others in which it is not. It is morally wrong to cut someone with a knife if you are doing so to harm their life. It is morally good, however, if the cutting is at the hands of a doctor performing a life-saving surgery. It's the same knife and the same flesh in both instances, but the circumstances determine whether or not the action is morally wrong or morally right. The difference between the two acts is that one cuts to take life unnecessarily, whereas the other cuts to necessarily preserve life. That makes the moral difference.

That is from Abortion: The One Exception which I suggest you read if you want to further understand how I can be pro-life and still support abortion to save the life of the mother.

As for the "morning after pills", yes, I am against those just as I am any method of killing an unborn child. By believing life begins at conception, how could I support their use? The life in that fertilized egg is no less precious to God than you or I.

[Diane]

Originally Posted by GolfSavage

However, we are also taxpayers and citizens, and have just as much right as any other to want to see our tax dollars used in ways that don't violate our beliefs.

Savage - The flip side of that is that I don't want my tax dollars used for the Bush administration's Faith Based Initiatives as they stand now. Not enough safeguards were built in to prevent the religious organizations receiving government grants from unwanted proselytizing to recipients and religious discrimination in their hiring practices. Obama has said he's in support of keeping the Faith Based Initiatives, but with those safeguards.

[DonnaKay]

GS, thanks for your explanations and courtesy on this subject which can be inflammatory. I've said what I believe and you have expressed your opinion eloquently but we obviously aren't going to change each other's minds.

Although I am strongly opposed to religious beliefs being imposed on people of differing ideas, I respect your right to fight for your position. Thanks for the discussion!

[GolfSavage]

Originally Posted by DonnaKay

GS, thanks for your explanations and courtesy on this subject which can be inflammatory. I've said what I believe and you have expressed your opinion eloquently but we obviously aren't going to change each other's minds.

Although I am strongly opposed to religious beliefs being imposed on people of differing ideas, I respect your right to fight for your position. Thanks for the discussion!

Likewise!

[GolfSavage]

Originally Posted by Diane

Savage - The flip side of that is that I don't want my tax dollars used for the Bush administration's Faith Based Initiatives as they stand now. Not enough safeguards were built in to prevent the religious organizations receiving government grants from unwanted proselytizing to recipients and religious discrimination in their hiring practices. Obama has said he's in support of keeping the Faith Based Initiatives, but with those safeguards.

And that's just great! Again, all citizens have a right and actually an obligation to express their beliefs and thoughts on the issues. I wouldn't try to take that away from any citizen, and I won't be told that my views carry any less weight or are any less important.

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by GolfSavage

In Matthew 10:34, Jesus said,“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword”.

That sword was a metaphor for the division he knew his message would bring. Not that I disagree with your premise that some violence (such as self-defense) is condoned. It's just that's not what that passage is about imo.

[GolfSavage]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

That sword was a metaphor for the division he knew his message would bring. Not that I disagree with your premise that some violence (such as self-defense) is condoned. It's just that's not what that passage is about imo.

I agree, and apologize for leaving that just sitting there, as I thought I'd included some explanation after it. I also intended to make that a separate paragrah but somwhere when copying and pasting I think I cut one more time than I pasted!

I had to edit that segment several times trying to be clear, explaining that just because we are Christians doesn't mean we are be complete pacifists and avoid all conflict. The message of Jesus can be divisive, with some accepting readily and some rejecting it violently, even among families and friends. Somehow I had tied all that together, but have now lost that clarity and flow of thought.

[LockStock666]

Surely the divisiveness of the 'message' is a cause for some concern? I don’t think it should be forgotten or ignored that scripture has been translated and re-interpreted over time and I believe written in the first place to suit a certain political agenda.

Now everyone seems to be acting in the name God, but because they all interpret the message differently, everyone is pulling in opposite directions claiming that their interpretation is the only way and are willing to enforce their beliefs on others.

Spread this ideology across the globe and you can understand how the world is in a pretty sorry state 2000 years after Jesus.

[atm_73]

Originally Posted by LockStock666

Surely the divisiveness of the 'message' is a cause for some concern? I don’t think it should be forgotten or ignored that scripture has been translated and re-interpreted over time and I believe written in the first place to suit a certain political agenda.

You may be surprised LockStock, but Jesus Himself actually agrees with you on this! In His prayer in Jn 17, He actually prays that His followers may be one "that the world may know you sent Me". Division is a problem that we constantly battle.

Thanks for highlighting that point about war and death penalty for me GS (after I posted, I left town for a couple of days). The Pro-death penalty/pro-life argument is one that many non-believers have trouble gripping I believe. The answer lies in that since God reveres human life, He has allotted us the right to end the life (or punish in other ways) of the one who has reckless abandon for life. Rom 13 speaks of the Roman government, and Paul says that it "does not bear the sword in vain" an allusion to the most common form of Roman execution, beheading (which, btw, Paul himself received!).

Waz, I agree with your interpretation (and GS's) of Matt 10:34 FWIW.