“Our primary focus at the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association has always been promoting the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” Ken Barun, chief of staff for the association, wrote in a statement. “We removed the information from the website because we do not wish to participate in a theological debate about something that has become politicized during this campaign.”
This is the same kind of logic, I suppose, that prompted Billy and his family to support George. W, Bush's book signing at The Cove. You may remember, this is the same book where George Bush confirmed his wholehearted support of water boarding. The Billy Graham organization, and many individuals who support neocon policies, should perhaps consider taking a closer look at theology instead of throwing it out the window whenever the winds of politics blow. Remember some basic theology from kindergarten? "Two wrongs don't make a right." Mormonism is, in fact, still an occult, even though Obama may be considered the less desirable candidate in a close race, especially when considering Obama's pushing through of the NDAA. the Fast and Furious cover up and the Benghazi cover up. However, Graham's desire to adopt situational ethics and an atheistic end-justifies-the-means philosophy is not an acceptable answer.
Removing Mormonism from an objective list of cults underscores how people will become quite lost ethically and logically when they put ideologies over basic scriptural precepts. Mormonism is a cult that leads people towards a false salvation and a false Christ. To deny these facts because of a friendship or because of political ideologies is both unnecessary and deceitful. Christians promoting candidates who praise waterboarding is another issue. Amazingly, Graham's book-signing event and waterboarding endorsement at The Cove was after George W. had already left the White House. No excuses there. One can only wonder.
I'm not quite sure how first-class deception and throwing theology out the window help in "promoting the Gospel of Jesus Christ." This gives the false message that we Christians supposedly need to whitewash the truth or lie a little in order to help God out with an election and with life in general. Wrong idea and wrong message. That message does not represent the Jesus Christ I know nor does it reflect the gospel in any way shape or form.
It's really too bad that neocon Christians such as Graham did not have the foresight to stand behind true Christian candidates such as Ron Paul, who stand for such inconvenient truths as basic civil liberties for all people, the right not to be tortured, the right not to be imprisoned indefinitely without a trial, and so on. On the other hand, these pesky little subjects just might get in the way of electing the next neocon puppet. In this latest move, Billy Graham seems to be reasserting his claim for the "Greatest Christian Neocon Puppet Award" after a bit of a hiatus.
Tags: Billy Graham list of cults, Mormonism is no longer a cult, relativism, neocon Christians, politically correct Christians, Christian deception, neo-con puppets
We are agreed on the craven and hypocritical nature of Graham's action, even if we disagree on the Christian nature of the candidates and prospective candidates.
ReplyDeleteI wonder just how unthinking Rick can be when he thinks that Obama is a worse choice than Romney. The GOP campaign is based on little more than lies and the appeasement of whoever they're courting at the time.
ReplyDeleteThe only people i can understand voting for Romney are old rich white men. I wouldnt agree with their choice, but i could unerstand it. Everyone else who votes for the Romney/Ryan ticket is voting heavily against their interests.
Rick, I dont think you're and old rich man (though you're 2 out of 3), so why on earth would you support the Romney ticket?
There's a trait you forgot in describing the republican demographic: Christian.
ReplyDeleteThat's why.
Hmm. Seems a comment of mine went missing.
DeleteThe Christians who vote republican aren't even voting with their religious beliefs, since the GOP's policies aren't remotely those of the Jesus described in the Gospels. There seems to be a "Capitalist Jesus" that these people worship.
So, those Christians are voting along some imagined "Tribal" lines, not with their religious beliefs.
Which doesn't explain why Rick, who claims to be all rational and logical and stuff, would claim people should vote for Romney (or even Paul - see below).
Any human being who would endorse the NDAA does not deserve to ever set foot in public office - let alone be re-elected as president. Only complete fools would vote for such a person if they know what the NDAA is about.
ReplyDeleteUS Totalitarian State Wins After All: Obama Reinstates NDAA Military Detention Provision
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/us-totalitarian-state-wins-after-all-obama-reinstates-ndaa-military-detention-provision
Which means throwing out Romney's running mate, as well as the vast majority of republicans in Washington. It also looks like Romney himself would have signed the bill, and so we have to disqualify him from office too, right?
DeleteYou advocating doing that Rick, or are you just against Obama for no rational reason?
Rick, the NDAA might be bad. Heck, the ravings of conspiracy theoriests could actually be correct. That doesn't even come close to showing that Obama is likely to be a worse president than Romney. Romney's history of lies, flip-flopping (which I know you hate), and pandering to whoever he happens to be speaking too, coupled with his shady history should make any rational person have serous second thoughts about voting republican (apart from the rich old white guys the republicans favour).
As I stated earlier, voting republican is voting against your interests and voting for an unscrupulous and immoral (even ammoral) candidate.
So Rick, you going to provide any actual reasons why someone should vote for Romney rather than Obama? As I pointed out above, the NDAA is not a distinguishing piece of evidence.
Shorter version of the above comment:
DeletePerhaps Obama is simply the better of two bad choices?
Oh, I think Rick would agree; he doesn't want to vote for Romney, he wants to vote for Paul, nonwithstanding the part where Paul is either a) a screaming incompetent who doesn't deserve to be in office or b) a hateful bigot, whose "liberties" extend only to people who have enough money to pay for them.
DeleteWell, Rick doesn't have the opportunity to vote for Paul, since Paul lost the GOP nomination.
DeleteRick has to choose between Obama and Romney for president, regardless of how he might wish otherwise.
Also, Ron Paul didn't even bother to turn up and vote for/against the NDAA.
Rick, if some legislation is as dangerous as you maintain the NDAA of 2012 was, and someone didn't even bother to vote against it, should that person set foot in public office?
imnotandrei - it sounds like Paul is much like the rest of the GOP, esp your point b.
DeleteSounds like old rich white guys are the people Paul panders too as well.
Rick, why would you vote for someone who was going to screw you over so the 1% will get even richer?
So Rick, in order to remove a president who failed to veto some troubling legislation (even though I belief he mentioned the troubling parts) you'd vote in the group of people who actually lobbied for, voted for in large numbers (the Repubs were split ~200-~40, while the Dems were about even either side), and probably wrote in the troubling piece of legislation?
DeleteIf that isn't an irrational position to hold I don't know what is!
Obama's Benghazi cover up.
ReplyDelete"Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show."
http://www.westernjournalism.com/new-benghazi-emails-reveal-incredibly-stupid-cover-up/
So, the Whitehouse claim that a video incited a spontaneous riot and the Whitehouse did not know about the threat until it was too late are both patently false claims.
As Obama was whisked away to Las Vegas for a fund raiser, US citizen were being killed and he knew about it, could have prevented it, and did nothing. This is Obama's little 9/11. Like most people in a state of denial, most Obama supporters will probably learn about this and think nothing of it, though it is criminal and amounts to an act of blatant treason.
The underlying reason for these actions seems to be to limit free speech on the Internet. Something Obama has been also threatening to do with his "Internet kill switch." Yeah, really good candidate for a second term in office.
Rick, you still seem to be avoiding the actual point.
DeleteObama is far from being perfect, but all signs point to a Romney presidency being far worse.
You seem to be engaged in some sort of tribalism, rather than approaching this in a rational manner.
Funny; it was the Republican-led house that refused to authorie more money for embassy security, and yet it's Obama's fault when an embassy is attacked?
DeleteAlso:
As Obama was whisked away to Las Vegas for a fund raiser, US citizen were being killed and he knew about it, could have prevented it, and did nothing.
Where do you get this? The article talks about knowing "within two hours" of the attack happening; this is hardly time to "prevent it"; it's not like we have Special Forces troops stationed next to teleporters, and what was he supposed to do? Scramble fighter jets to fly into another country's airspace with minimal warning to....waggle their wings at the attackers? It's not like it was a nice clear target area.
This does not rise to the bar of "treason" by any means; not being able to stop an attack on U.S. citizens anywhere in the world is not part of the President's duties.
I agree with Havok here; this is tribalism on your part.
I find it interesting, also, that you can discern the "underlying reason" for what Obama's doing; as if you can read his mind. And, as always, you leap to the worst reasons for someone you dislike, regardless of the evidence behind it.
Don't worry imnotandrei, Romney "feels" like he'd be a better president to Rick. Policies and actions don't matter when you're backed by solid reasons like that - after all, Rick just "feels" like Christianity is true either, and that's worked out well for him :-)
DeleteRick: Any human being who would endorse the NDAA does not deserve to ever set foot in public office - let alone be re-elected as president. Only complete fools would vote for such a person if they know what the NDAA is about.
ReplyDeleteA little further reading.
The NDAA, as you should well know Rick, is the budget for the military. It is voted on every year. Last year the vote was stymied and blocked until the end of the year, so it seems Obama had little choice but to sign the bill (or else the military would have been pennyless). When Obama signed it he made mention of his disagreement with the indefinite detention provisions.
So, thanks to Republicans putting this measure in, stonewalling the process of approving the bill, and voting for it in large numbers, the bill was passed and Obama was left having to sign it to keep the US's war machine running.
And yet, somehow, you lay ALL of the blame at Obama's feet. You do not have any left over for the majority of Republicans who voted for the bill, for those who included the indefinite detention provisions, for those who've said they support the bill and would have signed it (ie. Romney), and for those who claimed to be against it but couldn't be bothered turning up to vote against it (Paul).
You really are letting your emotions of tribalism trump your reason here, no doubt about it.