Barack Obama claims to be a Christian in public. But is he really a Christian? Well there are at least two ways to look at this question. One way is to look at what Obama does, and see if it matches up with what Christians are supposed to do, and what they have done. Another way is to look at what Obama says, and see if it matches up with what the Bible says, and what the early Church believed.
What are Christians supposed to do?
There are a lot of places I could look to see whether or not Obama’s actions are the actions of a Christian, but I will just choose one: abortion. If you want to know what Christians believe about abortion, you need to go back to the very earliest followers of Jesus. At that time, the Roman authorities believed not only in abortion but also infanticide. The earliest Christians opposed not only infanticide, but also abortion.
Extrabiblical Jewish Literature
The noncanonical Jewish wisdom literature further clarifies first-century Judaism’s view of abortion. For example, the Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides 184–186 (c. 50 B.C.–A.D. 50) says that “a woman should not destroy the unborn in her belly, nor after its birth throw it before the dogs and vultures as a prey.” Included among those who do evil in the apocalyptic Sibylline Oracles were women who “aborted what they carried in the womb” (2.281–282). Similarly, the apocryphal book 1 Enoch (2nd or 1st century B.C.) declares that an evil angel taught humans how to “smash the embryo in the womb” (69.12). Finally, the first-century Jewish historian Josephus wrote that “the law orders all the offspring to be brought up, and forbids women either to cause abortion or to make away with the fetus” (Against Apion 2.202).
Contrast these injunctions with the barbarism of Roman culture. Cicero (106–43 B.C.) records that according to the Twelve Tables of Roman Law, “deformed infants shall be killed” (De Legibus 3.8). Plutarch (c. a.d. 46–120) spoke of those who he said “offered up their own children, and those who had no children would buy little ones from poor people and cut their throats as if they were so many lambs or young birds; meanwhile the mother stood by without a tear or moan” (Moralia 2.171D).
Early Christian Literature
Against the bleak backdrop of Roman culture, the Hebrew “sanctity of human life” ethic provided the moral framework for early Christian condemnation of abortion and infanticide. For instance, the Didache 2.2 (c. A.D. 85–110) commands, “thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born.” Another noncanonical early Christian text, the Letter of Barnabas 19.5 (c. A.D. 130), said: “You shall not abort a child nor, again, commit infanticide.” There are numerous other examples of Christian condemnation of both infanticide and abortion. In fact, some biblical scholars have argued that the silence of the NT on abortion per se is due to the fact that it was simply assumed to be beyond the pale of early Christian practice. Nevertheless, Luke (a physician) points to fetal personhood when he observes that the unborn John the Baptist “leaped for joy” in his mother’s womb when Elizabeth came into the presence of Mary, who was pregnant with Jesus at the time (Luke 1:44).
More than merely condemning abortion and infanticide, however, early Christians provided alternatives by rescuing and adopting children who were abandoned. For instance, Callistus (d. c. A.D. 223) provided refuge to abandoned children by placing them in Christian homes, and Benignus of Dijon (3rd century) offered nourishment and protection to abandoned children, including some with disabilities caused by unsuccessful abortions.
What does Obama believe? Not only is Barack Obama the most pro-abortion President ever, but he also has voted for infanticide several times and he opposed the ban on partial birth abortions.
Excerpt:
BAIPA [The Born Alive Infant Protection Act] (both the federal and Illinois state versions) on the other hand, was introduced to insure that babies who survive attempted abortions are provided the same medical care and sustenance as any other infant born alive. BAIPA was introduced after evidence was presented that babies born alive after unsuccessful abortions were simply discarded in utility closets without food, care, or medical treatment until they died.
As both Andy and I pointed out last night (and numerous times before), state senator Obama fought against the Illinois version of BAIPA that was identical in all material respects to the federal version. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama claimed that he voted against the Illinois BAIPA because it failed to contain a “neutrality clause” making it clear that the bill did not affect the right to an abortion. This is false. Documents obtained by National Right to Life show that the Illinois BAIPA did, in fact, contain a neutrality clause identical to the federal version.
As noted yesterday, not one U.S. senator voted against BAIPA. Even NARAL didn’t oppose it. At the time of the vote, CNN reported that NARAL’s spokesman said the following:
We, in fact, did not oppose the bill. There is a clear legal difference between a fetus in utero versus a child that’s born. And when a child is born, they deserve every protection that the country can provide. (Emphasis added).
The logical import of Obama’s vote against BAIPA is that he disagrees, i.e., once a baby has been targeted for abortion it thereafter has no inherent right to the food, comfort, and medical care provided to other babies born alive. Indeed, during Illinois state senate deliberations on BAIPA, Obama stated that one of his objections was that the bill was “designed to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.” Apparently, once the decision to abort has been made, a child is doomed even if born alive.
And of course we now know that Barack Obama supports redefining marriage so that marriage will mean two men or two women. He opposes the traditional view of marriage: one man and one woman, having children and then raising them. Barack Obama’s view directly contradicts the Bible’s teaching on marriage not to mention the words of Jesus himself. It seems to me that Obama’s actions on these issues don’t line up with what Christians have always believed on crucial issues like protecting children and defending marriage.
What are Christians supposed to say?
In order to be a Christian, you must accept that all people everywhere are in rebellion against God, and that Jesus is God stepping into history, and that there is no reconciliation with God apart from an explicit belief in Jesus’ deity, and the significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Namely, that his death was a payment for each person’s rebellion against God. Christians also believe that a person must accept that those who do not know Jesus and believe in what he did will not go to Heaven, but will be separated from God for eternity in a place called Hell.
Let’s look at what the Bible says.
8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: “Rulers and elders of the people!
9 If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a man who was lame and are being asked how he was healed,
10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.
11Jesus is
“‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.’
12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”
John 14:1-6:(Jesus speaking)
1 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me.
2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?
3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.
4You know the way to the place where I am going.”
5Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”
6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross!
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
1 Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved.
2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.
3 Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.
4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
And in Romans 10:9, “If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” I could go on, but that should be enough. Christians do not think that these teachings are mere opinions – we think they are facts. We think they are true and binding and knowable.
To be believe in Jesus means to believe that he is who he says he is – God stepping in history, giving his own life up in order to take the punishment that each person deserves who rebels against God. And we all rebel against God, according to the Bible.
Now let’s take a look at what Obama says. Pay attention to whether he thinks that what he is saying are his own opinions or whether they are facts.
Excerpt:
Falsani: What do you believe?
OBAMA: […]I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people. That there are values that transcend race or culture, that move us forward, and there’s an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived.
And:
Falsani: Do you believe in heaven?
OBAMA: Do I believe in the harps and clouds and wings?
Falsani: A place spiritually you go to after you die?
OBAMA: What I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, that I will be rewarded. I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing.
When I tuck in my daughters at night and I feel like I’ve been a good father to them, and I see in them that I am transferring values that I got from my mother and that they’re kind people and that they’re honest people, and they’re curious people, that’s a little piece of heaven.
Falsani: What is sin?
OBAMA: Being out of alignment with my values.
Falsani: What happens if you have sin in your life?
OBAMA: I think it’s the same thing as the question about heaven. In the same way that if I’m true to myself and my faith that that is its own reward, when I’m not true to it, it’s its own punishment.
And:
OBAMA: […]This is something that I’m sure I’d have serious debates with my fellow Christians about. I think that the difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and proselytize. There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they’re going to hell.
Falsani: You don’t believe that?
OBAMA: I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell.
Again, not only did Jesus mention Hell constantly, but the earliest Christians believed in a literal, eternal Hell. Obama doesn’t get to override Jesus, the Bible and the early church and substitute his own religion, and his own standard of sin and salvation. What I find annoying is that he apparently cannot reconcile God’s goodness with the existence of Hell. That’s like Apologetics 101. You would have to know nothing at all about Christianity to say what he said. You would have had to avoided reading anything that answers any questions about Christianity – because that question is easy.
To me what Obama expressed there in his answers was religious pluralism, radical subjectivism, postmodern relativism, and universalism. In no way shape or form are those beliefs consistent with what the Bible teaches. Not even close – this is not even disputable. To be a Christian, you have to believe that there are objective truths about God, independent of different people’s opinions. And that these truths are knowable, through reason, science, history and revelation in the Bible. Only atheists think that religion is non-cognitive subjective wish-fulfillment meant to make people feel good and have community, etc. If you think religion is like picking a flavor of ice cream instead of picking a prescription drug for an illness, then you’re not a Christian. Period.
So in both cases, when you look at what Obama says and what Obama does, it’s very clear that he is not a Christian by any stretch of the imagination. There is a lot more to being a Christian than just calling yourself one. You have to act the way that Christians are supposed to act – the way they always acted since the beginning of Christianity. And you have to believe the basic things that Christians are supposed to believe. Things that are clearly taught in multiple books of the new Testament and things that were believed by the earliest followers of Jesus, right up to the present day. If I had to guess what Obama really believes, I would speculate that he inclines toward atheism, or agnosticism at best.
UPDATE: Barack Obama denies that Jesus is the unique son of God at the 2012 Easter Prayer Breakfast.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
great post, didn’t i read this 6 months ago too?
LikeLike
Yes, it’s a re-post but updated to include details of his new stance on gay marriage.
LikeLike
Obama is the essence of a good Christian as opposed to the ones who believe that their religion is the only one and they alone will go to heaven . There are no “facts” concerning Christ, only writings by mortal men.
LikeLike
If there are no facts about Christ, then how do we know who is a good Christian?
LikeLike
Susan,
Ironically, you simply believe that your “religion”/viewpoint is the only correct one.
LikeLike
Wait.
Obama is a “good Christian” because he disagrees with Christianity? Even if you yourself disagree with Christianity, how can you be “Good” at something by being against it? That is a basic logical contradiction.
You make another. You suggest that there is a “good” to begin with, yet go on later to say that everyone has their own truth that is true for them. How can this be so? “Good” is a moral statement, and thus refers to a scale that weigh things as being “Good” or “Bad”. If everyone has their own scale, how can anyone be good or bad at all?
LikeLike
Not true. I believe that all religions have their beliefs and they are the truth to to their devotees. What I find disturbing is the way Christians insist that their beliefs are the absolute truth and anyone who doesn’t believe will be damned . Wintery, I think Jesus was a prophet and gave great sermons about goodness. I question his being the son of god, rising from the dead, etc. I have found that the so called true believers are strident in their insistence that they alone know the truth .
LikeLike
Do you think that your view is the truth, and the rest of us are all wrong?
LikeLike
I think we are all in the dark about absolute truth. Ditto to you, Tom.
LikeLike
Do you think that that statement itself is true absolutely? I.e. – “that we are all in the dark”. It seems to me that your view is a claim of authority over us, telling us that your view is right, and we are all in the dark.
LikeLike
I believe we , meaning mankind, is not absolutely sure about who or what God is. Religion is an attempt to define what we cannot ever truly know about our creation. I claim no authority. Do you?
LikeLike
You do claim authority. You are telling everyone else that they know nothing about God. They are making claims. You’re telling everyone else “you don’t know what you think you know”. You have a point of view. You think your view is right. And you think that everyone else is wrong.
This is your view, which you think is true absolutely – for everyone else:
“Religion is an attempt to define what we cannot ever truly know about our creation.”
We don’t accept YOUR view. You are standing up as an authority and asking us to accept this view, which you are sure about. Why should we accept your view, when we have reasons to believe that our view is correct, like the cosmological argument or the historical case for the resurrection (which are things that we debate at the highest levels in public debates at research universities and in book debates published by academic presses).
LikeLike
I am not saying they know nothing about god. They know what they believe. I have read many of the debates and they are interesting and compelling but no more absolutely true than Christopher Hitchens arguments.
LikeLike
So you think that everyone who makes claims to know something about God’s existence and character, by appealing to nature and history, is wrong. That’s your view. Everyone else knows nothing – except you. Somehow, you are in a position to tell everyone that they only have beliefs and not knowledge, yet you have knowledge. How can this be?
LikeLike
“Religion is an attempt to define what we cannot ever truly know about our creation.”
Is this absolutely true?
LikeLike
Susan,
Is your belief only the truth to you and other devotees or is it absolutely true?
LikeLike
I am saying that your beliefs are true to you but that does not make them facts. Is your holy book truer than the sikh’s holy book? It is to you and those who share your beliefs. The sikhs do not share your view. Does that make what they believe untrue?
LikeLike
You’re saying that all my beliefs are like preferences for peas rather than carrots, and they have no correspondence to the external world. Yet your beliefs do have reference to the external world: you are telling us all the way it really is for all of us. We are all deluded and all our beliefs are false. If I believe that God created the universe, you think that believe is false, objectively. So how is that your beliefs are true objectively? You are telling me how the world is, namely, that my beliefs about the world are all preference claims and not knowledge claims – yet your beliefs are all true objectively, and not preference claims? How is it that everything I believe is nonsense, and yet you are the only one in the privileged position telling the rest of us how the world really works? What is your evidence that your view is true and mine is false?
Why do you think that everyone else is wrong except you? Why do you think that we all believe lies and you alone have the truth?
LikeLike
My beliefs are my truth and your beliefs are your truth. You didn’t respond to my question about different religion’s holy books? Is your holy book truer than others’ holy books? And yes, I do believe religion is a choice. That might not be true but it is what I believe.
LikeLike
If my beliefs are true to me, then why aren’t all of your beliefs only true for you? Aren’t you trying to get me to agree with you in your above comments? If so, you believe you are right and I am wrong.
Further, no one has claimed that “belief = fact”.
LikeLike
I am not trying to get you to agree to anything, and yes my beliefs are truth for me and others who might share my views just as yours are for and those who share your views.
LikeLike
Philosopher’s pretty much universally reject this idea that you are presenting because it is 1. Self-contradictory (you are making claims of truth and then denying your capacity to do it in the same breath) and 2. Prevent dialogue (after all, if we all have our own truth, what is the value in dialoguing; we already have the truth that dialoguing is intended to discover).
A silly example, but still 100% explanatory, is this: 2 + 2 = 4 is true in all cases at all times for all people in all places. Even if you want it to not be true, it remains true. Even if you don’t believe it is true and you convince the entire world that 2 + 2 = 5, it remains true that 2 + 2 = 4.
The question then becomes, if mathematical truths are absolute, what other truths are? If you disagree that mathematical truths are absolute, we could spend the rest of the debate deciding if we are having a debate. We will have lost the very basis of communication. It will devolve into nothingness and anarchy.
LikeLike
Please! If 2+2=4, then all of your Christian myths are true?
LikeLike
No. I never made such an argument. I never even claimed to have a religious belief in my posts; you read that inference yourself for whatever reason.
I said that 2 + 2 = 4 confirms the existence of objective absolute truth. Do you deny this?
LikeLike
Tom, my belief is purely mine although many may share it.
LikeLike
I think this is why Jesus didn’t choose a woman disciple.Christianity probably would have been snuffed out in the 1st century.
Just kidding ladies !
LikeLike
You’re not kidding but in fact maybe that would have been a good thing given “Christian leaders ” with your mindset. Will you print this? Because you didn’t print 3 of my comments about “intelligent design” ( and I use the term intelligent loosely) and evolution. That comment says so much about your “Christianity”. Take us back to the dark ages sir!
LikeLike
Dark ages? You still reading those inaccurate 19th century history books? No wonder you equate traditional thought with “hate” and progressive thought with “tolerance”…
LikeLike
Susan,
I’ve enjoyed this discussion!
I think what WK and I are trying to get at is that you are going back and forth between making absolute truth statements and then saying that we are all in the dark about absolute truth (which, to even make the latter statement would mean that you believe it is absolutely true that we are in the dark about absolute truth; it’s a contradiction.)
If we are in the dark about absolute truth, (1) How would you know that we are in the dark since this would require knowledge that others clearly don’t have? (2) How can you possibly know that “Religion is an attempt to define what we cannot ever truly know about our creation”? (3) How are you in the position to say, “My beliefs are my truth and your beliefs are your truth”? Is that absolutely true? (4) If what is true for you is not true for me, what if my truth says that your truth is wrong? Is it still true?
In order to have any viewpoint at all, one automatically affirms absolute truth. And the fact that you continue to post and make your case for your position means that you are trying to get me to agree with your position. Meaning that you believe your position is absolutely true and correct and that mine is untrue.
LikeLike
I have no desire to have you agree with me but I do disagree with your statement that in order to have a viewpoint one automatically affirms absolute truth. Have you ever heard of an opinion?
LikeLike
Is your definition of “opinion” absolute?
LikeLike
Wow! What fun! Thing is though, I find Barack quite disappointing on the views that have been brought up here. His “Christianity” can barely be seen, and he can barely (if at all) stand up for it! In the end, for me, the truth of whether or not he’s really a Christian, can’t be deduced from his actions. His actions say “NO!”, however, you never know what happens in his own home or heart.. What I will say is that should he be “Christian”, it that can only be true in fantasy. Based on his views.
As someone who can steer a whole country, I can see the pressure of compromise in some if not all areas, but goodness, “get some balls Barack!”
LikeLike
I find it hard to believe many extreme right wing Christians are Christians as well. A lot of their rhetoric sounds like they’re pushing a hate agenda. In any case it has been fun gentlemen. I’m glad to have learned mr. Knights real views on women and I’m grateful my parents didn’t indoctrinate me into his type of Christianity. I was given a choice and gave my children a choice. They both chose to be Jews!
LikeLike
Oh, by the way, that’s the absolute truth! :)
LikeLike
A hate agenda? As if Barack 0bama and his secularist taliban don’t hate people who don’t toe their line – just look at their hatred towards a certain restaurant that has the “wrong” views on marriage. Interesting how indoctrination = subscribing to any beliefs contrary to Susan’s. Susan’s beliefs are right because they are her beliefs – if they weren’t her beliefs they wouldn’t be right.
“I am not trying to get you to agree to anything”
Which explains the flurry of badly-thought out, contradictory posts. Yep.
LikeLike
Just one response: hahahahahahaha! Get real!
LikeLike
Obama and secularist Taliban ….that is so ignorant but very entertaining. Thanks for the chuckles! And you’re not indoctrinated! Excuse me but hahahahahahaha!
LikeLike
How can he be ignorant? Isn’t his truth true for him?
LikeLike
Susan,
You continue to say that all we have are our own opinions, no one has the absolute truth; we are in the dark on absolute truth. You are saying that it is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth. Do you really not see the inherent contradiction? This is just basic logic.
Further, if we are really in the dark on absolute truth, you wouldn’t know it because you are in the dark too. Again, do you really not see the problem here? Logic 101.
LikeLike
I think you apologists need a little more training in how to respond to non believers. Your index cards seem a little rusty.I do thank your lord Jesus Christ for having had the opportunity to chat. I’ll leave you to each other and your absolute truths.
LikeLike
Susan,
You can evade all you want but your position seems to be this:
“It’s absolutely true that there are no absolute truths. Absolutely!” Is that or is that not your position?
If so, defend it (absolutely!) or embrace that there is absolute truth. Just don’t evade and then act superior to everyone else.
So far, you’ve been unable to make one post that doesn’t contradict your own viewpoints. I’m asking honestly: do you really not see it? Can you defend your own viewpoint without contradicting it?
LikeLike
While our guest’s intellectual meltdown continues, consider this: isn’t it interesting that Lefty Atheists/Agnostics/lukewarm believers almost invariably fall back on the “no absolute truths” position when pressed? Better minds than Susan’s have wrestled with the conundrum of post-religious morality and secularist absolutism. To this day, they have yet to come up with any convincing path out from the insane doublethink we’ve witnessed here – for example, there are no absolute truths, but anyone who disagrees with me is brainwashed and has a “hate agenda”.
LikeLike
Hey Chris, what a wonderful name calling absolutist Christian you are. Don’t for a minute think I’m a lukewarm believer. I don’t elie And how fun how you apologists , who are supposed to be so rational with your index cards, so easily slip into
LikeLike
I don’t believe at all. My parents were scientists with better minds than any of you unscientific creationists will ever have. You are happy with your beliefs, and that is good. If you think I’m melting down you’re sadly mistaken. All of you have simply reinforced my belief that you have no truth but your own hocus pocus about your lord Jesus christ. And that’s ok. You believe in absolutism as it pertains to you. May your lord god blessyou . Does it take more than that? And btw, I only just realized I was up against a cult, not unlike Mormonism I fear?
LikeLike
Here’s a nice debate between William Lane Craig and the atheist physicist Lawrence Krauss:
https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/william-lane-craig-debates-lawrence-krauss-does-god-exist/
And another nice debate between William Lane Craig and the atheist physicist Victor Stenger:
https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/william-lane-craig-debates-victor-stenger-does-god-exist/
And another nice debate between William Lane Craig and the atheist chemist Peter Atkins:
https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/william-lane-craig-debates-peter-atkins-does-god-exist/
Watch them yourself and decide which side likes experimental science, and which side doesn’t.
LikeLike
Two words: ha ha. Nice try. No cigar?
LikeLike
You need to read Hitchens for a better mind than mine and your who viscerates you apologists time and again for your fairy tale “truths”. I do feel sorry for you all. Because your kind of absolutism is on the way out. Even your indoctrinated children will rebel!
LikeLike
Susan, the top atheist web site reviewed the debate that Christopher Hitchens had with William Lane Craig.
Here’s the video of the debate:
https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/08/12/atheist-christopher-hitchens-debates-william-lane-craig-about-gods-existence/
Here’s the review from Common Sense Atheism:
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1230
Quote:
You read Christopher Hitchens. Atheists sound good when you are reading them and no one is there to cross-examine them. But then they make a mistake and show up to debates. And they lose. Badly. That’s reality, Susan. It’s reality for anyone who has actually listened to both sides. To be an atheist is to not know a thing about what the other side actually thinks. It’s just pure insulting rhetoric and bile. That’s how atheism survives. Eyes closed, ears covered. It’s the only way. That’s why Richard Dawkins chickened out of debating William Lane Craig. Because he would lose. And everyone knows it.
Atheism is the complete anti-truth state of mind – and I do mean ESPECIALLY science. I mean the Big Bang, the fine-tuning, the DNA, the fossil record, astrobiology, etc. You name the science, atheism is at war with it. If you watch debates like this, only one side uses scientific arguments from experimental disciplines. It’s not your side Susan. Open your eyes and ears and see what actually happens.
LikeLike
I read the debate and Hitchens crucified him. Craig said absolutely nothing of significance and didn’t stand a chance against hitchen’s intellectualism and argument. Read ken miller of Brown University ‘s debate “goodbye Columbus ” in which he catches intelligent design “theorist” Stephen Ryan in bold faced lies! Come on guys! There ain’t nothing absolute about your brand of Christianity. It’s only a religion YOU believe in.
LikeLike
I will leave you to your fun guys. Your absolutism is a cult unto itself. And you’re a dying breed…thank
Your lord jesus , the creator, born of the virgin Mary….hahahaha . All the best. Glad I entertained you. Feeling is mutual. And as I’ve said thank god my parents were more sophisticated and intelligent than your kids are. And god help America!
LikeLike
My melt down ends here gentlemen. You bore me as I’m sure you bore your poor wives! Farewell and I hope you enjoy same sex marriage in the future. You will not win. Absolutely!!!
LikeLike
Absolutism is a cult? On what basis can one make such a value judgment or any value judgments – when one has discarded moral absolutism, objective judgments, etc?
The Atheistic and Agnostic utilitarians who support thinkers like Singer always argue around these issues – with little success. In the end, their arguments are little better than the “my ideas are good because they are my ideas” sort of argument seen here. Most of their ideological comrades ignore these failings because they can’t bear to admit that fellow atheists/agnostics/religious leftists use logical fallacies. Speaking of logical fallacies & poor technique, let’s see… tu quoque, ad hominems, irrelevant appeals to authority (my mommy and daddy were SCIENTISTS!)… Yep. Further evidence of modern secularists’ poor intellectual “salesmanship” AND tendency to “emote” themselves into positions while claiming to use reason. So much for the Left’s supposed clinical superiority. No wonder the latest Atheist manifestations – “Happy Atheism”, “New Atheism”, etc – are failing & stillborn.
LikeLike