President Glistening Pecs laughs at Jessica Simpson’s weight problem
Classy, Mr. President.
***
Flashback:
President Chesty McCheesecake
Tale of two presidential workout fanatics
Posted in: Barack Obama
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Sister Toldjah
- What’s First for the RNC’s “Man of Steele?” « JoHNBRoDiGaNDoTCoM
- GOPMOM Note: Not so effin’ classy, after all
- Riehl World View
- UrbanGrounds » Blog Archive » Mr. Obama Decrees: It’s Ok to Make Fun of Fat People in My America
- President Obama Calls Jessica Simpson Fat On National TV » Pirate’s Cove — Shiny!
- Jules Crittenden » New Dawn Of American Leadership
- President Glistening Pecs laughs at Jessica Simpson’s weight problem — But As For Me
- Michelle Malkin tackles the tough issues... - The Political Hotwire
- Mr. Manboobs Obama calls Jessica Simpson fat | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
- Of politics and pigskin
- PETA’s Banned Super Bowl Ad - Veggie Love Rejected Advertisement « MarkRadulich.com
- Wingnuts: No Need for Them « Out Of My Mind
- Obama Taxed
- OBAMA REALLY *IS* CREEPY: CALLS JESSICA SIMPSON “FAT” DURING LIVE INTERVIEW – B I R D
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Barack Obama
Mudville Gazette
» The five-year plan
Stop The ACLU
» SEALs Charged With Assault for Arresting Top TerroristLegal Insurrection
» Is "Finish the Job" the New "Peace With Honor"?JustOneMinute
» Getting Ready For The TurkeyRiehl World View
» Uncle Jimbo Re-deploys In War With AllahSister Toldjah
» WaPo and NYT to Obama: We love ya, you stylish deep thinkerPundit & Pundette
» Hiding the decline: Deniers made them do itWeekly Standard
» GOP Opens up 7-Point Lead on Congressional Ballot, Obama Numbers Dive on Health Care, Gitmo, and KSM
Oh, and Happy Birthday, frostrt!!
Hey! I hadn’t read the whole thread yet, but it does seem to be shaping up to be an interesting one. BHO threads always seem to bring out the apologist trolls.
On February 2nd, 2009 at 12:29 pm, MtsEdge said:
On February 2nd, 2009 at 9:44 am, frostrt said:
Serioulsy OT, but: I just discovered I share the same birthday with Sarah Palin and Jeb Bush – HOW COOL IS THAT!
Very cool! I’m jealous!! (not so much about Jeb, but I think you know what I mean)
#193On February 2nd, 2009 at 12:30 pm, MtsEdge said:
Oh, and Happy Birthday, frostrt!!
—————————————
Thanks! I think it’s cool to know which “notables” share your B-Day; you can claim bragging rights without having done anything but be born that day!
I’m a Christian, but I don’t believe the church has the authority from God to give to/start a charity. It’s just not what the church is for. I, therefore, do not donate to religiously funded charities.
Not that I’m trying to start a religious debate, but I make the point to say that my donations have nothing to do with my ‘religious community’. I give because I believe it’s my responsibility as an individual Christian to help where I can. The one charity I currently donate to is the USO, because I believe in supporting our troops.
So, it seems to me your excuse of not donating because you’re an atheist is just that – an excuse.
On the actual topic – I think BHO was just trying to make a funny, not be harmful. I think the bigger issue at hand is the ridiculous question itself – *gasp* How could the Obamessiah be removed from the cover?!?111? Never mind the fact that, according to the storyline, the article’s about Michelle, not Barry.
But let’s not confuse ‘em with facts.
Regarding atheism here is my all-time favorite exchange from the TV series MASH:
Father Mulchahey: Son, can I be of some spiritual assistance to you?
Wounded Soldier: No thank you Father, I’m an athiest.
Father Mulchahey: An atheist? Really? In a place like this?
Wounded Soldier: Yes I am Father; swear to God.
Was Papa Smurf the leader?
Omu, your flimsy “point” has been refuted over and over again.
But, if you’re still having trouble finding charities to donate to, send me your address and/or phone #, and I’ll sign you up for some mail from the many charities that I get mail from every day. (They NEVER ask my religious affiliation.)
Maybe so, but why even go there? This is the type of tripe that ticks people off…no “serious” journalism when it comes to BHO…only ego-salving drivel about the latest superficial “news” from a supermarket rag.
Does this type of questioning mean that BHO doesn’t inspire journalists to probe the depths of his intellect? Or is the deepest part of his intellect really shallower than a thimble?
Oh, and look at that — you even provide scientific evidence! More generous and more fertile. Advantage, conservatives!
Man, this blog gets weirder by the day…
What do you think about Shia Leboefs new haircut?
I can recall that sonofdy wanted be part of the bailout, so he obviously is a non-religious charity with needs. Please include him on your list.
It just crossed my mind that as much as journalists like to blather on about Obama’s intellect they keep the topics light and fluffy because they know anything else will be a waste of time. It’s sort of like how my wife and I convince ourselves how smart our 18 month old son is, yet we still keep the subject matter pretty light to things like “Do you like this toy?” and “Are you sleepy?” Which is what we may expect if Campbell Brown ever interviews BHO.
sonofdy, please forward your contact info to Omu. He’s looking for a charity to donate to. Thank you.
Who I might add is better looking and not nearly as self important as Obama.
Good point!
That’s part of the reason why I can’t help but think “man-boy” when I look @ BHO. BTW, I seem to recall some recent BHO interviews that sounded a lot like your conversations w/your 18 month old…only I’m sure your child has a lot more important things to say than does our “dear leader”!
For peet’s sake you guys…
The headline over Jessica Simpson’s photo says “Weight Battle” and that’s what Obama repeated.
He said “Apparently she’s having a weight battle” because that’s exactly what US Weekly said on the freaking cover story.
It’s obvious to me he’s making fun of being cut off the cover of the magazine and the tabloid stories US Weekly covers.
I can’t believe the crap you guys latch onto. This is not the kind of discussion serious people have.
Only when you show up.
This thread has moved on to bigger topics, such as WHY these types of questions are all BHO seems to get from the liberal msm.
Please do keep up.
Such as the stories about him.
On February 2nd, 2009 at 1:31 pm, MtsEdge said:
Please include him on your list.
sonofdy, please forward your contact info to Omu. He’s looking for a charity to donate to. Thank you.
————————————–
But, according to poor Omu, those mean, facist charities would only question him about his religion and, when he answered “atheist”, refuse to accept anything from him.
See how the excuse works?
And once again, Obama feels real at home with the celebrity culture club.
Unbelievable.
I thought he said “who is losing a weight battle.”
Either way, the man is so full of himself it is disgusting! What is he, in junior high still – “people think I’m cool.” Like, OMG no way Mr. Pres, like really???!!!
Please. I for one think he is an arrogant ass. And that is not cool in my book.
Sorry ArizonaNeanderthal, that’s just how I roll.
But you can be sure I would exercise a little more tact if I were in Dumbo’s position.
He was just channeling Ron Burgundy. “I’m kind of a big thing around here.”
NO, what he said was:
Big difference.
I believe it’s debatable, Joy. When I listened, I heard:
“Yeah, who, who’s in a weight battle apparently.”
It sounded more like a stutter to me and I’m certainly not an apologist for Obama.
I think…it’s just a possibility, but I THINK…that PERHAPS Omu has never been really all that interested in donating to charities.
Hence all that blustering and speculating about “religion requirements”…
On February 2nd, 2009 at 2:28 pm, MtsEdge said:
But, according to poor Omu, those mean, facist charities would only question him about his religion and, when he answered “atheist”, refuse to accept anything from him.
See how the excuse works?
I think…it’s just a possibility, but I THINK…that PERHAPS Omu has never been really all that interested in donating to charities.
Hence all that blustering and speculating about “religion requirements”…
—————————————
Ya think?
Yes, he do bluster much, our Omu, don’t he?
There’s hope for him….maybe eventually after all this exposure to truth, he’ll see the light of conservatism.
On February 2nd, 2009 at 2:42 pm, MtsEdge said:
Yes, he do bluster much, our Omu, don’t he?
There’s hope for him….maybe eventually after all this exposure to truth, he’ll see the light of conservatism.
—————————————-
Didn’t Ann Coulter say that a conservative is a liberal who has moved out of his/her parents’ basement, gotten a job, and had to pay taxes, or something to that effect?
I haven’tlistened and don’t care to. That’s the kind of joking that you do in private, not before a national audience. It shows the kind of naivete his supporters swore wasn’t there just like his stroll into the press office did.
Well, if it wasn’t her, it sounds about right.
Which reminds me, isn’t the definition of character : “what you do when you think nobody’s looking”?
Yes, I think you’re right. Maybe one day Omu will move out of his parent’s basement, get a job and begin to pay taxes….just kidding, Omu!!
On February 2nd, 2009 at 2:58 pm, MtsEdge said:
Didn’t Ann Coulter say that a conservative is a liberal who has moved out of his/her parents’ basement, gotten a job, and had to pay taxes, or something to that effect?
Yes, I think you’re right. Maybe one day Omu will move out of his parent’s basement, get a job and begin to pay taxes….just kidding, Omu!!
—————————————
Our Omu probably does have a job; I’m guessing college professor (think LGM) or lawyer (think Chap).
On February 2nd, 2009 at 2:57 pm, MtsEdge said:
That’s the kind of joking that you do in private, not before a national audience.
Which reminds me, isn’t the definition of character : “what you do when you think nobody’s looking”?
————————————–
Excellent point; if the only reason you do the right thing (or don’t to the wrong thing) is fear of being seen/caught by other people, you may be living right, but for the wrong reasons.
perfect description of BHO
On February 2nd, 2009 at 3:17 pm, MtsEdge said:
if the only reason you do the right thing (or don’t to the wrong thing) is fear of being seen/caught by other people,
perfect description of BHO
————————————
‘Fraid so. Like his order to close Gitmo; I have serious doubts that’ll actually happen within a year. Our new Pres signed that order for appearances’ sake, methinks, to appease the far-left.
Chap’s teetering on the brink of conservatism, let’s not push him back.
Besides, Chappy makes polite arguments based on his beliefs. Omu is nothing but a hate filled bigot who likes to rile conservatives. Chap tries to find common ground, Omu tries to divide further.
Lgm is more like a senile old dottering fool who spews random Dem talking points that may or may not be related to the conversation.
On February 2nd, 2009 at 3:33 pm, John Deaux said:
On February 2nd, 2009 at 3:02 pm, frostrt said:
Our Omu probably does have a job; I’m guessing college professor (think LGM) or lawyer (think Chap).
Chap’s teetering on the brink of conservatism, let’s not push him back.
Besides, Chappy makes polite arguments based on his beliefs. Omu is nothing but a hate filled bigot who likes to rile conservatives. Chap tries to find common ground, Omu tries to divide further.
Lgm is more like a senile old dottering fool who spews random Dem talking points that may or may not be related to the conversation.
————————————–
Agreed on all points; Chap has always been one of the more reasonable lib posters and has never, that I’ve seen, said anything comperable to Omu. That comparison may have been – nay, was – unfair.
Your description of LGM was also spot-on.
Are you all for real? I mean, seriously. I explained this very clearly and everyone seems to have missed the point entirely. Are you all genuinely that inanely stupid that even after 3 or 4 consecutively simpler explanations, you still miss the point?
I never said anything that even remotely resembles the statement that charities do not accept money from atheists. I never, ever said that. What I did say was that Christians in America are organised and this organisation is used as a vehicle for charity donations. Are you telling me every Christian donates individually to charity? Do they not organise community fund raising events and have more opportunities to donate at church and such? Yes, they do! Atheists do not, because community in the US is so heavily based around faith and thus atheists are excluded. Being a Christian does not make you any more charitable, it just makes it easier to donate to charity.
And in Nordic countries, in which a majority of people do not believe in God, people donate (per capita) as much, or more money to charities because community is not centred on faith there.
Christians are not more charitable than atheists, they’re just better organised. This is my point. I really don’t know how many more times I have to say this before you people start to understand it. Although I suspect most of you do and simply can’t refute it.
Attacking Rush, un Presidential
Mocking Jessica Simpson, un Presidential
Goes well with his choice of the racist Lowery during the coronation ceremony.
A theme is developing here.
Omu:
And our point is that you don’t need to belong to any kind of “organization”, church or faith-based or otherwise, to donate to any charity you choose. You are trying to say that atheists are not as free to give as anyone else, or that they are somehow excluded from giving, and that is simply not the case.
And, I guess I need to say it again; atheists DO have their own organization here in the U.S. and in other countries. They can choose to “organize” themselves for whatever kind of charitable work they choose, any time they choose.
What on earth is that supposed to mean? Do you think Christians only collect donations from other Christians???
This is absolutely ludicrous and a very flimsy excuse for your lack of charity. Admit it, you’re just cheap.
May I add that I, for one, never said that atheists don’t give as much to charity in America as Christians and don’t believe that.
Yes, I do. I’m in an interpretor for various embassies here in Dublin, where I live with my wife and daughter. I work for the French, Japanese, Portuguese, Brazilian, Belgian and Mozambican embassies, FWIW.
On February 2nd, 2009 at 4:14 pm, Omu said:
Our Omu probably does have a job
Yes, I do. I’m in an interpretor for various embassies here in Dublin, where I live with my wife and daughter. I work for the French, Japanese, Portuguese, Brazilian, Belgian and Mozambican embassies, FWIW.
—————————————
Impressive, I must say.
It’s funny you say this considering you’re still regurgitating the above point, even after other posters have cited numerous examples proving otherwise.
I’m not saying that. Are you reading the words I have typed out? Are you connecting them together? Are you using even one ounce of brain power to interpret these words and derive the obvious, simplistic meaning from them? Because this act of delibertately misinterpreting what I’m saying is starting to grate.
I’m saying that atheists have less oppurtunities to donate to charities than Christians do, and it is as a result of this situation (and not as a result of Christians being better people) that atheists donate less than Christians in the US. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? How many more times will I have to simplify this before it penetrates the thick skulls in this thread that obviously don’t want to believe that maybe, just maybe, atheists aren’t bad people.
Omu, see post #236. Your argument about having “less opportunities” to participate in “organised [sic] charitable events” doesn’t compute. You are still FREE to CONTRIBUTE to any yard sale, bingo, bake sale, or any church or other fundraiser…you choose not to, and you are trying to blame others for your lack of charity.
Please see also taylork’s post #240…your “stats” on Nordic contributions have also been refuted.
Omu:
No, atheists are not bad people. They are as capable of good works as anyone else of any faith.
Are you saying that the majority of charities in the U.S. are faith-based and, therefore, atheists may be reluctant to give to them whatever the actual cause of the charity may be? You would be more comfortable giving to an organization that was not connected in any way to any church/religion, and there are not enough of those?
Because nothing – nothing – is stopping anyone from forming a non-faith-based charity for whatever cause they choose.
Liberal playbook
Item 1: Ignore facts.
Item 2: Call conservatives stupid.
Fair enough. I suppose my point was that the original bias seemed to suggest that Obama had an opinion on Simpson’s figure (i.e. losing).
However, I agree that the whole conversation was rather lame. Matt Lauer was lapping in the aura of the man and had to point out how “crazy” Us magazine was for replacing his image with Jessica Simpson’s. Obama tried, albeit lamely, to follow the joke by reading the text which said “weightloss battle”.
Your point is absolutely fair. Why is the most powerful man in the world joking around about a cover of a magazine?
Where is lgm to remind Matt Lauer and the President that there are really more important matters to discuss?
I am a Christian, and I’ve probably been inside a church 4 or 5 times in the last 20 years. Does that mean I haven’t donated to charity? No. What about all of those large companies that accept donations through payroll deduction? I wouldn’t call them faith based organizations.
Face it, your view of the U.S. as a bunch of Bible thumping city-states is just plain wrong. The fact is that conservatives donate more.
Look at Obama. He’s a Christian and he’s been going to church every Sunday for 20 years. How much as he donated?
Okay, I give up. I’ve tried over and over again to explain it and it seems no one wants to understand my point at all.
I’m not saying atheists don’t want to donate to religion-run charities, I’m saying that as a result of their exclusion from communities, they have less oppurtunities to donate. Despite how simple a picture many in this thread are painting, atheists do not in fact attend church events. And as a result, they have less opportunities to donate. That really is the last time I’ll attempt to explain that. If you still don’t want to believe that religion doesn’t make you any “better” a person, then go ahead. But you are fooling yourself.
Last I checked, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are liberals and they’ve donated billions to charity. Imagine that?
You’re being absurd. Obama didn’t bring up the Us cover, Lauer did. And if Obama had said that discussing magazine covers was below him, Malkin would be making a big deal out of that, decrying it as ‘elitism’ and you’d be joining her. He really can’t win.
Obama is not sternly serious, and he shouldn’t be expected to be so serious all the time. W. Bush joked around often but I never saw a fuss kicked up about that on MM.com. Curious, don’t you agree?
Omu:
Okay, I’ll say what you want to hear (and what I believe) once and for all:
No, people of faith are not “better people” than atheists. I never said that. We are all imperfect human beings.
I also do not believe that atheists have any less inherent desire to give than people of faith.
Is that what you wanted: For a person of faith to say that their faith does not make them any “better” than you? It doesn’t.
Responsibility for understanding a message is as much on the sender as on the receiver. The fact that so many here have made the same interpretation of your words, yet you still insist that we are all stupid is telling.
Perhaps the point in your head is not the same as the one you expressed.
Take a deep breath. Marginalizing people here as being stupid because they do not share your point of view is neither constructive nor the mark of intelligent discourse.
The principle point in your reasoning seems to be that people in this thread (i.e. conservatives) are anti-atheist. That is simply not true of the whole here. I would not even believe it to be true for the majority or a significant minority.
As James Felix has pointed out, he and other conservative atheists post here often.
If this is the foundation of your argument, you should reconsider your main point.
I do not believe that anyone said that atheists are bad people or that Christians are better people than atheists. In fact, I believe the original comment that set off this entire threadjack was:
It’s insightful that you appear to have translated the word “Republicans” into “Christians”. I suppose that is what the far-left agenda would like atheists to believe, but I know that you know that those two words are hardly synonymous.
However, in defense of your atheism (an unnecessary defense), you have made a claim that Christians are only more generous statistically because they have community and not because of their religious belief. Your reasoning for this is cited in your example of Scandinavia. Another commenter has cited a contradictory report about the Nordic people, but I have not seen you respond to that. Instead, you have continued to bash people here for not understanding your point.
Perhaps you were talking more about some sort of peer pressure that exists for Christians to donate to charity. Instead, you made it sound as though atheists do not have the opportunity and are excluded from communities.
Its got nothing to do with you being flat out wrong does it? naaahhhh
This is exactly my point. I’m not an atheist, I’m agnostic. My wife is an ardent Catholic (though she of course does not believe that gay people are in some way evil, and despite being staunchly opposed to abortion, she recognises that it is not her place to decide what other women can and can not do with her body – if only more social conservatives were like her!) and my daughter is being raised as a Catholic, so I have a great respect and understand of people of faith. I just dislike how the statistic that shows Christians as more charitable is unfairly used against atheists in the US.
On February 2nd, 2009 at 5:02 pm, Omu said:
Okay, I’ll say what you want to hear (and what I believe) once and for all:
No, people of faith are not “better people” than atheists. I never said that. We are all imperfect human beings.
I also do not believe that atheists have any less inherent desire to give than people of faith.
Is that what you wanted: For a person of faith to say that their faith does not make them any “better” than you? It doesn’t.
This is exactly my point. I’m not an atheist, I’m agnostic. My wife is an ardent Catholic (though she of course does not believe that gay people are in some way evil, and despite being staunchly opposed to abortion, she recognises that it is not her place to decide what other women can and can not do with her body – if only more social conservatives were like her!) and my daughter is being raised as a Catholic, so I have a great respect and understand of people of faith. I just dislike how the statistic that shows Christians as more charitable is unfairly used against atheists in the US.
—————————————
Thanks for letting me see a little more of what “makes you tick”.
I am a Catholic myself and do not believe that homosexuals are “evil” people, or that it is my place to say what will become of their souls after this life is over, whatever I may believe about homosexual practice.
Also personally opposed to abortion.
What I meant by that “evil” comment, is that my wife thinks gay couples are just as deserving of marriage as straight couples and we’ve seen how great gay couples can be at raising children (we see it with my cousin back home in Texas, who’s raising an autistic teenager with his partner and doing excellently; and our neighbours here in Dublin are a gay couple raising a baby they adopted last year. I think that if more conservatives actually met gay people and stopped seeing them as childish caricatures, the fear would go away).
As for abortion, a personal opposition to abortion is perfectly reasonable (I do not share my wife’s conviction that abortion is morally reprehensibly however) but making that decision for other women is unfair. As such, both myself and my Catholic wife are very much pro-choice.
“my wife thinks gay couples are just as deserving of marriage as straight couples” says omu
gay couples are not only just as deserving of marriage as straight couples they also have the same rights to marriage…i cannot marry a man, either.
But what about that Jess Simpson? I always thought her legs were too skinny before.
Like I said, just go into suburban L.A. or San Francisco or Houston or any other major city where you’re sure to find some families headed by same sex couples and this irrational dislike for gay people will go away. Honestly, they’re just people like you and I and their love is the exact same. In my opinion, the fact that gay people have to make their case for equality is tragic.
On February 2nd, 2009 at 5:23 pm, Omu said:
I am a Catholic myself and do not believe that homosexuals are “evil” people, or that it is my place to say what will become of their souls after this life is over, whatever I may believe about homosexual practice.
What I meant by that “evil” comment, is that my wife thinks gay couples are just as deserving of marriage as straight couples and we’ve seen how great gay couples can be at raising children (we see it with my cousin back home in Texas, who’s raising an autistic teenager with his partner and doing excellently; and our neighbours here in Dublin are a gay couple raising a baby they adopted last year. I think that if more conservatives actually met gay people and stopped seeing them as childish caricatures, the fear would go away).
As for abortion, a personal opposition to abortion is perfectly reasonable (I do not share my wife’s conviction that abortion is morally reprehensibly however) but making that decision for other women is unfair. As such, both myself and my Catholic wife are very much pro-choice.
—————————————
More power to your friends who have adopted, especially the ones who are raising an autistic child. It’s because of people like them that there is another option for many women dealing with unwanted pregnancies.
Which brings me to my next point; my belief is that abortion should not necessarily be taken away as a legal option, but women with unwanted pregnancies should be counceled (not coerced, counceled) that adoption is a better option.
Fixed it
Just curious- Do you realize that the tangent this took about this statistic was, in fact, started by you?
No one before your post #123 (that I could find) made a reference to Christians being more charitable. You responded to a comment by Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul that said that Republicans are more charitable.
So… all of this venting on the subject of an atheists’ ability or inability to access community-controlled (or enabled) charities was really a tangent subject that you started and then railed against several commenters here for not understanding you.
So what about the other 67 million people who voted for him?
Obama himself couldn’t even send a couple of bucks to his own brother living in poverty.
Here are my sources. ABC’s 20/20 and Philanthropy.com
Do you have any proof whatsoever about your assertions or are you just pulling all of this out of your wazoo?
FIFY.
Liberal playbook
Item 1: Ignore facts.
Item 2: Call conservatives stupid.
Item 3: Repeat Items 1 and 2.
Just how we Christians dislike the smears, lies, and falsehoods unfairly used against us. You yourself said religions have “no redeeming qualities.” But, ironically, you go on to lament the fact that those of us who share a common belief worship in community and unite behind charitable causes while claiming atheists have no such recourse.
Again, that’s not our fault. You choose to adhere to a belief system that shuns the notion of community as religious people see it. That’s your choice. Don’t lament the fact we stand united in groups based on a shared religious perspective. As other atheists here have pointed out, they are capable of finding charities to donate to and don’t begrudge the communal nature of religious groups.
The statistic was not made up – it’s a fair statistic based on actual research. We can’t change that. And as someone else pointed out, you got down this whole “other nations are irreligious and far more charitable than the US”. Something several of us debunked right away because your statement was categorically false.
Yes, two people who happened to make their riches by working and living in a free market society. They are free to spend what they’ve earned as they please; goodness knows they have more money than all of us here combined. I don’t begrudge Gates or Buffett the fact that they’re wealthy. That’s the American dream and no one has the right to take that wealth from them unless THEY choose to donate and give of their own free will.
However, their donations don’t disprove or negate the fact that people who have a lot less still give and in amazing amounts. And that conservatives and religious people still tend to give more than their liberal counterparts.
OMU,, why are you so afraid of Christians, would you be also afraid of Jesus Christ? Maybe some of the Christians don’t live up to Christ’s standards but thats no excuse to defame the whole religion. We consider some of the things you are for are sinful and we will not bend just because its popular in society. The final answer will come at the Final Judgement and I would hate to be in your shoes but then of course you say you don’t believe all of that. When that day comes and you tell the Great Judge that you didn’t believe, He will remind you that He had sent folks to remind you that He was real and alive indeed. Don’t crash into a hot eternity when you don’t have to. Furthermore Brezhnev and others have not made socialism work and they had lot more time then the short term nazi regimes ever had.
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
That basically sums up my feelings on Christianity. If Christians actually behaved as Jesus apparently did, I think I would like Christians a lot more.
Omu said:
You mean the Jesus that
1. taught marriage was between one man & one woman,
2.the Jesus that spoke more about Hell than anyone else in the Bible,
3.the Jesus that affirmed the books of Moses (including Leviticus & Deuteronomy) as being the very Word of God,
that Jesus?
Which is always codespeak for some liberal, wishy-washy, hippy, pacifist vision of Christ.
Which He wasn’t.
You also forget that Christ was true man AND true God…and wholly without sin. Honest Christians, myself included, realize we are flawed and sinful.
I’ll cut you a deal: we’ll act like Christ when you truly understand who Christ was and what He really stood for. And here’s a hint: He didn’t stand for doing whatever made you “feel good”; He demanded a lot of personal responsibility and self-control from His followers. Notions our culture regularly shuns.