Obama's "Faith Based" Speech & His Bowling Scores

==Bush proved that his faith was left at the door and his lips made empty air move. His "Faith Based Initiatives" never got out of counsel meetings. Maybe Obama will do better, McClain doesn't even have a Faith Based Plan.==

We have been told that these initiatives are a violation of the alleged "separation of Church and State." Now that NObama wants these initiatives, it's not a violation???

Which is it??

I'm not sure if I should take Mr. Incredible's posts seriously or if I'm too dense to discern the cynicism/sarcism.

Let me throw out a couple ideas and see if Mr. I. wants to climb out of his style of bumper-sticker politics.

One, the separation of church and state does not mean the absence of church in state. If you listen to Obama's talk, he has a very informed approach to faith-based initiatives supported by government. He has some clear delineations such the programs themselves being secular even though the organization is religious. There is also the line that exhorts the organization not to proselytize. I find Obama's talk of his own faith and how faith should inform dialogue and action in the public square much more genuine than anything I've ever heard from W.

Which leads to my next point. W. has been downright scary in his willingness to use Scripture as a weapon. Perhaps the worst was when he quoted from John 1 but substituted "America" for certain references to the Light/Word which are meant to refer to the Messiah.

It's clear to me, Mr. I, in your use of such things as the term "NObama" that you're more committed to your political convictions than you are to God or the willingness to seek the truth. You've done the same thing with Scripture that you did with my comments. For example, it's a stretch to say that applying for and accepting money along with some guidelines stipulates "imposing secular values." You make it sound as if "NObama" without any provocation is going to have the military barge into good Christian churches (not like his church, of course) and force pastors to start marrying gay couples and give abortions on demand. Give me a break, dude. But, hey, scare tactics have worked really well for your arguments in the past, so why not roll out with it?

Your comments are witty comebacks, kind of like a radio call-in type of bumper sticker come back, where blow hards just want to shout loud enough to be heard and then go away and chuckle to themselves at how smart they are, congratulate themselves on how they sure showed all those people. If we were talking about different candidates, I'm sure your response would have been quite different. You know full-well that your logic is terribly flawed - although I'm sure you won't give an inch as long as we're talking politics.

Here's the thing. If you call yourself a Christian, don't do the disingenuous, dishonest thing of playing with words to reshape what I said or what anyone else said. You're playing exactly the same game the serpent did with Eve in Gen. 3.

Perhaps an even more specific example is how you take one use of the word "weapon" and pull out a Scripture reference to suit your purposes. That is exactly my point. I'm quite familiar with Eph. 6:11. My point is that we Christians historically tend to use Scripture as the wrong kind of weapon against the wrong enemy. Scripture was a weapon the Inquisitors of Spain used to justify their methods. Scripture was a weapon used by slave-owners in the South to justify the institution of slavery - in fact, v. 5 in that same chapter in Eph. was a good piece of ammunition for slave owners. (Check out the work of theologian J. Kameron Carter for fairly in-depth commentary on this.) Scripture in Bush's case...?

The quote from Bush is easily accessible on YouTube. You're right about not giving you the whole story. The whole story is that he was trying to make his case for invading Iraq. But there are plenty of examples of the same sort of thing, it'll be easy to find. Take a look at the speech he made on 9/11/02. He uses John 1 there as well and does the same thing (substitutes the light of the USA for the light of Christ).

One more irony. If I wanted to, I could use Eph. 6 to beat you over the head with it. I could strip away little nuggets from the context such as v. 12 talking about the struggle being "against the rulers, against the powers..." etc. Last I checked, W. had all three branches of gov't., both houses of congress, etc. right up until the tide started turning in '06. That would be a pretty good definition of "ruler" and "power". Vv. 14-15 talks about standing firm "...having shod your feet with the gospel of PEACE." Oh. What do you know! PEACE. How about that. Doesn't quite suit your boy's agenda, though. Does it? (But this paragraph is not my preferred approach as it doesn't really get us anywhere. Mudslingers end up digging themselves deeper and just end up with muddy hands.)

So, here's an exhortation, if not a plea. Read in context. Reply in context. Don't just strip away isolated pieces of a speech, or even worse of Scripture, and try to make it say something it's not in order for you to shape a witty comeback for the sake of an a priori argument. I really am interested in engaging with people with different points of view. But I'm not interested in trying to see who can win the argument with the best one-liners.

"...imposing secular values..."
- Another deceitful trick. You know full-well that if Bush or Rush were saying exactly the same things, you'd be defending them with even more vigor than you defend Scripture. Don't make it out as if an Obama-lead government is going use military force to barge into good Christian churches and force our pastors to oversee gay marriages and give abortion on demand.

"...Such organizations exist to proselytize."
- They have the right not to ask for or take the government's money if they can't figure out how to feed the poor without beating them over the head with their Bible. This leads to a separate conversation to which I'm open: styles of evangelism. You seem to be of the mind that you can argue and out-wit people into heaven. In fact, you intimate that's the only way.

(To be continued...)

"W. has been downright scary in his willingness to use Scripture as a weapon."

THAT's what you wrote. I took NOTHING outta context where I wrote:

"Scripture says that It is a weapon and that those who are born again are soliders. So, what's you point?"

So, you said, in exxence, that Scripture is not a weapon. I show you that It says that It is.

==I could take the same chapter and make an arguement that it's speaking directly against Bush's administration if I invoke v. 12. I could make an arguement that you/Bush's government is in direct violation of the exhortation of v. 15 ("gospel of peace").==

You could, but, then, you'd violate

(Rom 1:18) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness...

That's cuz the "Gospel of Peace" refers to God's offer of Peace and Reconciliation to Man, not between men.

In other words, YOU take the Word of God outta context and try to make It mean what YOU want it to mean.

==...this same chapter has been used in the past to justify the institution of slavery ...==

Men do that. Dubya doesn't.

==...when you strip away little tid bits and try to use them as bald pieces of ammunition to try and support whatever your own cause is, it's not a good thing unless your cause is completely aligned with God's cause.==

We don't use little tidbits, rather Scripture upon Scripture which is the proper way to interpret the Word.

== I would be highly sceptical if you tried to tell me you're completely aligned with God's cause.==

All that matters is that HE knows that I am. I'm not interested in pleasing the world.

== I'd be even more sceptical if you intimated you personally have a monopoly on God's cause...==

I don't want a monoply on His Cause. I want everybody to take Him up on His offer of Reconciliation through Jesus Christ.

==... and that if anyone disagrees with you in the slightest way, they're simply going to burn in hell.==

No. If they disagree with Him, yes...

==They have the right not to ask for or take the government's money if they can't figure out how to feed the poor without beating them over the head with their Bible.==

Who's beating anybody over the head with the Bible??? I know of no one, nor any report of it.

God tells us to give people what they need -- that is, what will save them for eternity -- and that the things of this world are not what they need, ultimately.

== This leads to a separate conversation to which I'm open: styles of evangelism.==

God gives each his own talent on how to spread the Word. Some are teachers. Some are preachers. Some instruct. The Message, however, is the same.

== You seem to be of the mind that you can argue and out-wit people into heaven.==

I'm not responsible for your thinking and conclusions.

== In fact, you intimate that's the only way.==

That's what you infer, and I'm not responsible for that.

Okay, what is it that you're trying to say? You're clearly not willing to think through any point I try to make and will simply read it the way that's convenient for whatever arguement you're trying to make. So, please tell me what you'd like me to believe and I'll see if I can think it through. Am I allowed to give you my email address because I feel there's a great deal more to talk about.

But let me just say, try not to question my integrity or whether I'm a Christian just because I don't seem to agree with your politics. I'd like to engage and am open to considering different points of view (as proven by the fact that I grew up very observantly Jewish and then became a Born Again Christian at age 29). But your style thus far isn't very effective in getting me to think about your points. In truth, your approach thus far reminds me of what Ghandi once said: "I like your Christ. I just don't like your Christians." Help me, dude. Help me to understand you and respect you. Looking forward to your thoughts.

==...what is it that you're trying to say?==

I didn't "try" to say it. I said it.

== You're clearly not willing to think through any point I try to make...==

Translation: "You don't agree with me, and, so, that means that you aren't seriously considering anything I say cuz, if you did, you'd agree with me."

I see.

==...and will simply read it the way that's convenient for whatever arguement you're trying to make.==

I read what you write. I answer what I read.

== So, please tell me what you'd like me to believe and I'll see if I can think it through.==

The side that Obama is on whines and bellows that Dubya's "faith-based" intitiatives are "Church-State" violations. [Of course, there would have to be something, somewhere written for it to be violated]

== Am I allowed to give you my email address because I feel there's a great deal more to talk about.==

I don't feel comfy with that. Nothing we can discuss in that arena that can't be discussed here, for all to see.

==But let me just say, try not to question my integrity or whether I'm a Christian just because I don't seem to agree with your politics.--

I haven't. However, I take 1Jonn 4:1 seriously:

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

== ...your style thus far isn't very effective in getting me to think about your points.==

I'm not responsible for what you choose to consider, or choose not to consider.

==...your approach thus far reminds me of what Ghandi once said: "I like your Christ. I just don't like your Christians."==

Does that mean that the trip to the Dairy Queen is off?

==Help me to understand you and respect you.==

Walk me through what you want me to say.

==...Bush's speech on 9/11/02...closes with "This ideal of America is the hope of all mankind. That hope drew millions to this harbor. That hope still lights our way. And the light shines in the darkness. And the darkness will not overcome it. May God bless America." Wouldn't you concede this one point?==

No, I wouldn't. Cuz it's not an accurate point.

Dubya, in saying that the ideal of America is the Hope of all Mankind, refers to Jesus as Hope, and that He is the Hope of America; that Christ drew millions to America; that Hope still lights our way; that Hope shines in the darkness; and that the darkness will not overcome this Hope. America, he is saying, is not that Hope, rather that Jesus Christ is the Hope that drew people here. The settlers, for 'xample, came here in Christ, drawn here by the Hope of God's calling in Christ.

== This is a scary mixing of symbols.==

For somebody who doesn't understand it, yes. The Devil is the father of confusion, and a lotta people are confused.

==I know you like the guy. Maybe his intentions are good. Eve thought her intentions were good also.==

Which means that Eve, relying on her own strength, made a mistake, listening to the Devil's mesage that she can do it by herself, rely on her own might. However, it's not personal intentions that make a person strong.

Dubya is not relying on his own strength, rather Jesus Christ's to make him stronger.

Let me see if I can practice what I preach and I'll do my best to be sincere without patronizing you.

"The side that Obama is on whines and bellows that Dubya's "faith-based" intitiatives are "Church-State" violations"
- I've been frustrated when I've heard the likes of the ACLU or the ADL take an a priori stance and then act like hypocrites if it happens to be a policican they like. So you make a fair point in theory. However, I think you're painting me and probably way too many people as being "the side that Obama is on."

"I take 1Jonn 4:1 seriously"
- I can see that you take Scripture very seriously. I respect that. My hope is that we can engender the criteria that Jesus modeled and then spelled out for his followers in John 13.

"Which means that Eve, relying on her own strength...Dubya is not..."
- I agree with your reading and have no problems with your interpretation of that part of Gen. 3 (I don't think). And if you believe the genuineness of Bush's faith, I can see why you'd be such a staunch defender. To be honest, I'm simply having trouble with that possibility based on what I've heard him say and what I've seen him do as well as the consequences of his administration's policies.

"You said that Dubya has used Scripture as a weapon"
- Let me clarify my point for you so you can be assured that I believe in the aforementioned principles Paul talks about in his letter to the Ephesians. I'll use a different example. When Hillary Clinton uses Scripture in some campaign speech, I always got the feeling that she wasn't using it because she believed in the Word as the Truth (the exclusive Truth). I always felt that she was using it as a way to pander to a particular audience she may have been addressing. In other words, she was using it as her weapon, not God's. You see the difference I was trying to illuminate? This has been a repeated problem throughout the last 2,000 years (or maybe 1,950 years or so). People use Scripture as a weapon for their own agenda not for God's. That's what makes me cringe.

Lookit the quote of Dubya you provided:

"This ideal of America is the hope of all mankind. That hope drew millions to this harbor. That hope still lights our way. And the light shines in the darkness. And the darkness will not overcome it. May God bless America."

Nowhere does he sub America for Christ.

In the first sentence, he creates a proportion, actually -- that is, ideal:America::Hope:Mankind. No substitute there.

The second sentence says that that Hope -- the Holy Spirit -- drew people to America, a harbor, a haven, in the same way Jesus drew people to Him, for safety and Salvation.

America IS a light, and darkness cannot overcome it/her. On the other hand, the Son is the Light. No substitute there.

To be honest, I haven't heard Obama's reference to the Sermon on the Mount to support same-sex marriage. But I do run into people all the time who try to use what little they do know about the Bible to support whatever cause happens to suit their fancy. And I find that most troublesome. That's one of the things I was trying to point out with my Hillary illustration. That's what I was also trying to point out with my initial "Scripture as a weapon" point. Do you see what I was trying to say now?

On the Bush quote, I understand your interpretation. It makes sense when you read it that way. However, in a speech, you can understand that in the phrase, "The ideal of America is the hope of all mankind..." if you take "of America" as a descriptive of "the ideal," the whole sentence takes a different shape. I hope you can understand that I take God's word very seriously. I also hope you can understand that when I hear someone in such a position of influence and power quoting directly from John 1 and sounding as if he's saying that America is "the ideal" and "the hope of mankind," that my ears are gonna perk up and I'm gonna feel very guarded in what this message is really about.

==I haven't heard Obama's reference to the Sermon on the Mount to support same-sex marriage.==

Stories were all over up'n'here. Earlier this year, I think.

What's disturbing is that a lotta people believed him, rather than go to the Word and believe Him.

==I understand your interpretation.==

Not everything is interpretation. Some things are facts and await perception, observance and description. Not all are able, for one reason or 'nother, to perceive, observe and describe, and, so, they are left to interpret, being a slave to an inner momentum of self-interest. That is not the case with me, as far as I can help it -- and I work hard to perceive, observe and describe, not interpret -- and I can see that Dubya is like me, or I am like him. I do not, as far as I can help it, report inner tendencies as fact.

What's Mr. Incredible's first name? Bob? I'll just call you Bob from now on. Quick question that requires perhaps not such a quick answer: When you quote chapter and verse (i.e. Rom. 1:18), do you take into account the context of the whole letter as well as the historical context? In other words, in your study of Scripture, which I can see you do a great deal of, is part of your equation taking into account who wrote down the letter (knowing of course who the Author is), who the human author (i.e. Paul, Peter, James, etc.) was writing to, the state of the people/church they were writing to, what the overall letter was meant to communicate, etc.?

BTW, just as a confession, I'm still having a hard time with your style and your approach. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not seeing the Fruit of the Spirit.

==When you quote chapter and verse (i.e. Rom. 1:18), do you take into account the context of the whole letter as well as the historical context? In other words, in your study of Scripture, which I can see you do a great deal of, is part of your equation taking into account who wrote down the letter (knowing of course who the Author is), who the human author (i.e. Paul, Peter, James, etc.) was writing to, the state of the people/church they were writing to, what the overall letter was meant to communicate, etc.?==

And, why not go further than that? You might as well ask, am I taking the entire Word of God into account, the context of the whole thing as well as the historical context of all 66 Books; am I taking into account who wrote down the Scriptures, knowing who the authors are, who the human authors are writing to, the state of the people/church they wrote to, what the overall Word was meant to communicate, etc? We can really get down with this and get so far from what God is telling us that we hinder ourselves from hearing Him and listening to the Message:

(Ecc 12:12) And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

Anyways, how does the context of the Letter change what is said in Romans 1:18?

Does the context of Exodus change the meaning of, "Thou shalt not murder"?

Is it ok now to steal, if we understand the context of Exodus that doesn't exist today?

God meant to condemn homosexuality then, but doesn't now??? How do we know this, in the context of God's saying that He doesn't change, that He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow?

The fact is tht the thing means what it says, for God's sake..

==...I'm not seeing the Fruit of the Spirit.==

And, tell us, what would the Fruit of the Spirit look like on these pages? What would you recognize that would apply to ALL who post here and elsewhere and who speak and write? The absolute standard that would stand out in what form of language?

What happens if YOU are hindering yourself, or are being hindered by the Holy Spirit for some reason?

all though >>>>>> although

A few things. You're projecting much more about me and implying much more than what was in my question (eg. You don't know the first thing about my view of homosexuality - politically or theologically). Two, I'm guessing you're not a big fan of scholars such as N.T. Wright. Three, your methodology, from what I've gleaned thus far, is nothing short of proof texting. You do the same thing in how you respond to my comments. You don't take the context of what someone is trying to communicate or a point that they're driving through to. You're purely a legalist. Ironically, you're a modern-day Pharisee (or at least what you probably think a Pharisee is, based on Matt. 23).

You are intellectually dishonest.
"...imposing secular values..."
- This is a dishonest fear tactic that has nothing to do with reality.

"...how do they change Jesus' instructions to suit NObama's needs?"
- They're not being asked to. Another example of your dishonesty. In fact, you conceded elsewhere that you would simply refuse the money from such programs - at least, you agreed with someone else who came up with the idea.

"...I took NOTHING outta context where I wrote:..."
- You're too stubborn to acknowledge the point I was making. You proved you're dishonest when you agreed with the same point, with the difference being that I was using Hillary as the illustration.

"Is the historical, "who authored" questions, "who's reading it" questions, "state" questions and "overall" questions part of the Word, or is the Word complete, as written? Did God forget to include what you say we should include? Or is everything we need for this spiritual journey there already?"
- By your own logic, the above statement is meaningless. To answer your question: nah, wouldn't wanna learn anything about Paul or the church at Corinth. Wouldn't wanna learn anything about the 1st Century Jewish culture into which our Lord was born. Nah, that's all meaningless... unless, of course, it can inform some justificaction I can make for good ole' Georgey-boy. After all, he must be the 2nd coming according to your logic.

I can go quite a bit further with regard to your hypocrisy but it's a waste of time. You won't address important points. You'll only address points where you can make some witty, self-righteous comeback. I'm interested in engaging in meaningful conversations. This is not one of them.

==you conceded elsewhere that you would simply refuse the money from such programs==

No, I didn't. I said that I would reject the money IF I had to be attached at the government hip. If I didn't have to be so attached, I'd take the money.

At least try not to misrepresent what I write.

=="...I took NOTHING outta context where I wrote:..."
- You're too stubborn or both to acknowledge the point I was making.==

I acknolwedged the point. I pointed out that I don't agree with it. You don't like that. Tough.

== You proved you're dishonest when you agreed with the same point, with the difference being that I was using Hillary as the illustration.==

You SAW it as dishonest when it was not. That's cuz-a your political bent. Very unfortunate.