BamaCult

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told a crowd at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, Sunday that he believes the Sermon on the Mount justifies his support for legal recognition of same-sex unions. He also told the crowd that his position in favor of legalized abortion does not make him "less Christian."

"I don't think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state," said Obama. "If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans." ((Hear audio from WTAP-TV)) St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans condemns homosexual acts as unnatural and sinful.

Obama's mention of the Sermon on the Mount in justifying legal recognition of same-sex unions may have been a reference to the Golden Rule: "Do to others what you would have them do to you." Or it may have been a reference to another famous line: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."

The Sermon, recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, includes the Lord's Prayer, the Beatitudes, an endorsement of scriptural moral commandments ("anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven"), and condemnations of murder, divorce and adultery. It also includes a warning: "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves."

The passage from St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, which Obama dismissed as "obscure," discusses people who knew God but turned against him.

"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised," wrote St. Paul. "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

On the topic of abortion, Obama said his support for keeping it legal does not trespass on his Christian faith.

"I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington. That's my view," Obama said about abortion. "Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don't think it makes me less Christian. Okay."

Obama opened his town-hall-type meeting at the college with a short speech and then provided lengthy answers to a handful of questions. One questioner, Leon Forte, a Protestant clergyman, asked Obama about evangelical Christians who were concerned about his position on issues that conservatives consider "litmus tests."

"Your campaign sets a quandary for most evangelical Christians because I believe that they believe in the social agenda that you have, but they have a problem in what the conservatives have laid out as the moral litmus tests as to who is worthy and who is not," said Forte. "So, I will ask you to speak to those two questions."

Obama volunteered that he believed Forte was talking about abortion and homosexual marriage, and then he gave answers on both issues that were not as explicit as positions he has staked out on these issues in other venues. Last Thursday, for example, as reported by Cybercast News Service, Obama published on his Web site an "open letter concerning LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) equality in America."

In that letter, Obama said he favored same-sex unions that were equal to marriage--including adoption rights--and that he was open to states codifying same-sex marriages.

"As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws," Obama said in the letter. "I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples--whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage."

In Ohio on Sunday, before mentioning the Sermon on the Mount, Obama insisted he was against "gay marriage" and did not mention his support for allowing same-sex couples to adopt children and have the same "family" status as heterosexual couples.

"I will tell you that I don't believe in gay marriage, but I do think that people who are gay and lesbian should be treated with dignity and respect and that the state should not discriminate against them," said Obama on Sunday. "So, I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other. I don't think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans. That's my view."

Obama also has been more aggressive in framing his pro-abortion position previously than he was on Sunday. When he was in the Illinois Senate, for example, he repeatedly opposed a bill that would have defined as a "person" a baby who had survived an induced-labor abortion and was born alive.

In a 2001 Illinois Senate floor speech about that bill, he argued that to call a baby who survived an abortion a "person" would give it equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment and would give credibility to the argument that the same child inside its mother's womb was also a "person" and thus could not be aborted.

When the Illinois Senate bill was amended to make it identical to a federal law that included language to protect Roe v. Wade--and that the U.S. Senate voted unanimously to pass--Obama still opposed the bill, voting it down in the Illinois Senate committee he chaired.

Yet, in Ohio on Sunday, Obama depicted abortion as a tragedy to be avoided, while being kept legal.

"On the issue of abortion, that is always a tragic and painful issue," he said. "I think it is always tragic, and we should prevent it as much as possible .... But I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington. That's my view. Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don't think it makes me less Christian. Okay?"

"These days, we haven't been at the home church--I haven't been home on Sunday--for several months now. So, my faith is important to me. It is not something that I try to push on other people. But it is something that helps to guide my life and my values."

As indicated previously, and especially during the 11 Sept 2008 evening presidential-candidate interview, Obama exposed his plan for his tyrannous brand of socialism against America with him as the overseeing dictator.

In the pseudo-sacred name of "volunteerism," Obama apparently intends to establish a system of offering government incentives and financial assistance under the condition that those who receive it will do what he and his administration designate and apportion as certain types of hard work he calls "community service." We remember the fenced and confined concentration camps with the Arbeit Macht Frei (Work Makes Free) of a previous regime in Europe during the 1940s. Obama's brand might of course generally not utilize physical fences and confinement for those admirers who cooperate and comply.

These incentives and benefits would not merely be bonus checks from the government for a little extra money, but instead be income related to the very life-support of the participants. In other words, welfare payments, school-loan-assistance grants, housing and vehicle-purchase loans from the government, food stamp and medical care and rent assistance, and perhaps eventually even Social Security checks, would only be given out to recipients who do whatever Obama and his administration decide they should do, designated as "voluntary" community service "for the country," both internally and internationally in foreign lands.

His intent seems to have the result of mobilizing for constructive opportunities those young people who are simply laying around doing nothing, getting into trouble, trying to overcome boredom by getting into destructive gangs, narcotics acquisition and use, video games, graffiti vandalism, lootings and assaults, etc.

Clearly, such indolent and trouble-causing young people will not voluntarily join up with Obama's government brigades unless there is monetary benefit or law-enforced compulsion behind it, and even more importantly, a personal allegiance to Obama, Obama's vision and intentions for his version of The American Dream and The American Way, and a mutually-agreed-upon enemy and adversary to hate and fight against. Such was the pattern antichrist-like Adolf Hitler took in pre-war Nazi Germany in his ascent from young Nazi Party member to Fuehrer of the Reichstag with the stated enemy being the jews and the goal being the reconstruction of Germany's industry and economy. Atheistic-communist Lenin followed a similar course in aligning the Russian people against the previous czar and his associates living in affluence at the expense of the common people. In both cases, a false and satanic theocracy was imposed against genuine saints of the Lord.

Why Obama's socialism would be tyrannous as previously mentioned is due to Obama's actual lack of genuine Christian and Biblical worldview. What religious-heretic Obama has declared about Christianity is lamentable misapplications and distortions [against and not of] Scripture, such as using verses of New-Testament-quoted love, forgiveness, and non-judgmentalness to tolerate and accept everything from abortion homicide to homogay perversion. Thus, Obama's bureaucratic administration, including Obama himself, would be legalistic, narrow-minded, demanding in polite but required sorts of law-enforced and statute-enforced ways, and non-imaginative as to accomodating and giving free-rein space and privacy and no-strings-attached funding relating to the unique aspirations and talents of those true Jews who think outside the box, have special gifts of certain abilities, and should not be confined to the one-size-fits-all educational or vocational objectives of godless bureaucrats and administrators who do not have the creative and Jesus-as-God-glorifying, total-Bible-promoting, mind of Christ.

The words: "Palestine" and "palestinian(s)" are artificial terms found NOWHERE within the Sacred-66-books Old-and-New-Testaments HOLY BIBLE.

God's Law, specified in both Testaments of Scripture, clearly designated and continue to designate Israeli territory (specifically defined within Scripture) to Jews - not so-called "palestinians."

Thus, the Holy Land is NOT [purported] "ancestral homeland" of properly-punished-and/or-excluded antisemitic arabs (particularly blasphemously-heretic cultic-muslim/moslem ones).....but rather to those the Jesus-as-Messiah geneological ones the LORD apportioned and apportions in His Word who have faith in Christ along with works congruent with that faith.

The trouble-causing descendants of Ishmael have been and should continue to be ousted as God directed Abram and Sarai.

Heretically, quite lamentable is the erroneous inclusion of the one-and-only use of the word "Palestine" in the KJV and KJ21 instead of the correct word "Philistia" in the ASV, JPS, RKJV, RSV, etc. Joel 3:4 - which is another example of despicable human faultiness, lying deception, infidel apostasy and/or accursed ignorance here and there not merely in the KJV but also occurring here and there in every English mistranslation/translation of the actual and real Sacred-66-books HOLY BIBLE.

As much as the KJV is accurate regarding the words "younger women" in their rendition of I Timothy 5:14 instead of the wrong words "younger widows" (lamentably found in most every other English Translation except the WTNT and Wesley NT), grievous and diabolical semantical errors are plentious within the KJV, as for example the uncalled-for euphemism of "abusers of themselves with mankind" (whatever THAT means or implies!) instead of the correct word "sodomites" (Gr. arsenokoitai) in I Corinthians 6:9, misuse of the word "Easter" instead of passover in Acts 12:4, miswording of "Would that God my lord" in II Kings 5:3 instead of "Would that my lord," and so forth.

NO English "bible" translation to my knowledge has I Timothy 5:11 translated correctly according to the exact and precise inerrant Scrivener-Trinitarian Greek New-Testament Text. As you can logically concur that all younger widows are younger women, but not all younger women are younger widows, so the Greek word for "younger women" [ne(o)teras] and the word for "widows" [ch(e)ras] are obviously two distinct, separate, and dissimilarly-spelled Greek words. Thus, I Timothy 5:11 SHOULD read: "But refuse younger-women widows..." instead of "But refuse younger widows...." Of course, substantiation that the word [ne(o)teras] does mean: "younger women" and ONLY means "younger women" is found in use of that singular and specific Greek word in I Timothy 5:2 and 5:14 and correctly rendered ONLY as "younger women" in most English Bible translations.

There is even a problem with corrupt Greek Texts purporting to be authentic New-Testament Texts. The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus contain obvious gross errors, as does the Westcott-and-Hort and Nestle Greek texts related to the errant Metzger-Aland United Bible Society text. Apparently the true and correct trinitarian Greek Text of First John 5:7 from Erasmus is based on Latin manuscripts being that additional Greek manuscripts for such have not yet been discovered or are not readily available publicly.

The interlinear Greek-English New-Testament text edited by Gene Ricker Berry includes a concocted Greek-text addition to the last verse of the last chapter of the New-Testament book of Romans in which Berry states that Phoebe is the author of Romans. NO other English translation IN EXISTENCE has THAT erroneous inclusion!

QUESTION NUMBER ONE: Is it acceptable for a military chaplain of the United States armed forces to end public prayers in the name of the deity Jesus Christ, and/or rather pseudo-deity "allah?"

QUESTION NUMBER TWO: Should the phrase performing abortion or instead the phrase committing abortion be used by the media when abortion is done?

QUESTION NUMBER THREE: A follow-up to the previous question. The exact same New-Testament Greek-Text word brephos is used both for the pre-born babe John in Luke 1:41 AND for the already-born babe Jesus in Luke 2:16. Does that clearly prove the personhood of the preborn human babe with soul in the womb of a human mother?

QUESTION NUMBER FOUR: The New-Testament Greek-Text words malakoi and arsenokoitai are exclusively translated into the English words "effeminate" and "sodomites" respectively pertaining to those the Scripture verses of First Corinthians 6:9-10 state will not inherit the kingdom of God. Without any additional qualifications at this point, will homogay effeminate and homopervert sodomites indeed not inherit the kingdom of God?

QUESTION NUMBER FIVE: The opening verses of Leviticus chapter 27, two verses of Ecclesiastes 7:27-28, Isaiah 3:12, Nahum 3:13, First Corinthians 14:33-38, First Timothy 2:12-14, and First Peter 3:7 obviously infer that the weaker-sex gender are worth less than the superior gender and should not teach nor serve as combat soldiers in authority over men. Does that clearly prohibit a woman from becoming Commander-in-Chief President of the United States?