Pat Buchanan's thoughts on the Obama and Dobson debate on meaning of Christianity.
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
alt.philosophy only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

alt.philosophy Profile…
 Up
Pat Buchanan's thoughts on the Obama and Dobson debate on meaning of Christianity.         


Author: LMC Society
Date: Jul 3, 2008 19:49

http://buchanan.org/blog/2008/07/pjb-the-wars-of-religion-return/

July 1, 2008
PJB: The Wars of Religion Return
posted by Linda
by Patrick J. Buchanan

Last week’s clash between Dr. James Dobson and Barack Obama is but the
latest skirmish in a war that dates back to the time of Christ. At
issue: What is Christian truth? Does the true Christian put social
peace ahead of his duty to make God’s Law man’s law?

In a speech in June 2006, Obama, citing the Book of Leviticus, which
declares homosexuality an abomination, noted that Leviticus also says
the eating of shellfish is an abomination and condones slavery.

Moreover, Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount is “a passage so radical that
it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its
application.”

“Folks haven’t been reading their Bibles,” said Obama.

“Even … if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States …
whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with
James Dobson’s or with Al Sharpton’s?”
Show full article (5.06Kb)
2 Comments
Re: Pat Buchanan's thoughts on the Obama and Dobson debate on meaning of Christianity.         


Author: Immortalist
Date: Jul 3, 2008 23:10

On Jul 3, 7:49 pm, LMC Society hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://buchanan.org/blog/2008/07/pjb-the-wars-of-religion-return/
>
> July 1, 2008
> PJB: The Wars of Religion Return
> posted by Linda
> by Patrick J. Buchanan
>
> Last week’s clash between Dr. James Dobson
no comments
Re: Pat Buchanan's thoughts on the Obama and Dobson debate on meaning of Christianity.         


Author: tooly
Date: Jul 4, 2008 12:58

This all points out a real problem in Christianity, where there are so many
sects, we must conclude they ALL cannot be right.

Or can they?

Perhaps there is some defining fundamental core in the belief system that
ties it all by IDENTITY into a common thread. Personally, I have defined
two essential 'kinds' of Christians. First are the scripturalists who
define their belief on the written word, often in literal translations.
These people rely heavily on the authority of the bible itself, much as the
common citizen might quote the constitution as the defining authority over
the land. Both are written documents of course, and as we see in the
constitution, in need of some avenue of change that it flex with an ongoing
rising consciousness.

Most 'thinking' Christians use the bible as a loose symbolism where the
'flex' occurs in our brains in an ongoing 'translation' to fit our
environment [as it changes]. It is perhaps a testament to the bible that it
remains pertinent with a wide capacity for symbolization even after many
centuries. This in itself might sober some people to the efficacy of the
word of the bible in it's capacity to hold structural sense to human value
and a construct for living in this world.

The second kind of Christian [and these types do overlap], is what some call
the spiritualist. Much as the men who wrote our constitution and
declaration of Independence relied upon their own ability...
Show full article (4.52Kb)
no comments

RELATED THREADS
SubjectArticles qty Group
Re: Obama this, Obama that, Obama the other...alt.atheism ·
Boy, FOX news sure is scared of Obama! And even more scared of an Obama/Clinton ticket!10 alt.politics.usa ·