Obama, the antichrist ?

[Sequoia]

You can say that, because harry reid, and nancy pelosi controlling everything. She is the speaker of the house, and he is the Senate Majority Leader. They decided if the house and senate even will vote on something.

Dems. have a large majority in the house so they can pass something even if every republican votes no for it. the Senate is 49/49 with 2 independents.

This is the procedure I found concerning this.A Presidential veto can also change the amount of votes required by both.

When all committee amendments and all Senators' floor amendments have been disposed of, the bill is ordered engrossed and read a third time, which step ends the amendatory process. The third reading is by title only. The question is then put upon passage of the bill, which requires a simple majority vote. If a resolution has a preamble, it may be agreed to, amended, or stricken out after the resolution has been adopted. The title to a bill is also acted upon after its passage; the title may be amended if amendments made to the bill necessitate such a change. At any time before its passage, a bill may be laid on the table or postponed indefinitely, either of which motions has the effect of killing the bill. Alternatively, a bill may be made a special order for a day certain, which requires a two-thirds vote; laid aside temporarily; recommitted to the committee which reported the bill; referred to a different committee; or displaced by taking up another bill by a majority vote.

Most bills are passed by a voice vote only, but where a doubt is raised in such a case, the Presiding Officer, or any Senator, before the result is announced, may request a division of the Senate to determine the question. Before the result of a voice or division vote has been announced, a roll-call vote may be had upon the demand of one-fifth of the Senators present, but at least 11--one fifth of the presumptive quorum of 51.

In the case of a yea-and-nay vote, any Senator who voted with the prevailing side or who did not vote may, on the same calendar day or on either of the next two days the Senate is actually in session, make a motion to reconsider the question. On a voice vote or division vote, however, any Senator may make the motion. If made before other business intervenes, it may be proceeded with and is debatable. It may be laid on the table without prejudice to the main question and is a final disposition of the motion. A majority vote determines questions of reconsideration. If the motion is agreed to, another vote may be taken on the question reconsidered; if disagreed to, the first decision of the Senate is affirmed. The making of such a motion is privileged but may not be made while another matter is pending before the Senate.

Only one motion to reconsider the same question is in order. Such a motion, under rule XIII, may be withdrawn by the mover by leave of the Senate, which may be granted by a majority vote or by unanimous consent. A bill cannot be transmitted to the House of Representatives while a motion to reconsider remains unacted upon.

|| Signatures of Speaker and Vice President ||

Upon receipt of an enrolled bill from the Government Printing Office, either the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House endorses it, certifying where the bill originated. If, after examination by the Enrolling Clerk of that House, the bill is found to be in the form agreed upon by both Houses, a slip is attached thereto stating that the bill, identified by number and title, has been examined and found truly enrolled. It is then presented to the Speaker of the House for his signature, which is announced in open session. Usually, enrolled bills are signed first by the Speaker. The bill is then transmitted by messenger to the Senate, where it is signed by the Vice President.

Under the rules of the House, the Committee on House Oversight is charged, when an enrolled bill has been duly signed by the Speaker and the Vice President, to present the same, when the bill has originated in the House, to the President of the United States for his signature "and report the fact and date of such presentation to the House." If it is a Senate bill, this responsibility of presenting the bill to the President falls on the Secretary of the Senate.

An error discovered in a bill after the legislative steps in its passage have been completed may be corrected by authority of a concurrent resolution, provided the bill has not yet been approved by the President. If the bill has not been enrolled, the error may be corrected in the enrollment; if it has been enrolled and signed by the Presiding Officers of the two Houses, or by the Speaker, such action may be rescinded by a concurrent resolution agreed to by the two Houses, and the bill correctly re-enrolled. If it has been presented to the President, but not acted upon by him, he may be requested by a concurrent resolution to return it to the Senate or the House for correction. If, however, the President has approved the bill, and it has thereby become a law, any amendment thereof can only be made by the passage of another bill, which must take the same course as the original.

Neither shows that the Spearer of the House or Vice President of the Senate has the power to decide whether a bill will be voted on.Their signature is only to certify the bill & I think refusing to do so would be malfeasance.

[ghostmaster]

This is in response to some of ghostmaster's posts but for everyone to comment on.

I'm going to post some personal beleifs so take or leave them as you like.

First let's start with this although Abraham's sons Isaac and Ishmael had different mothers I see no proof that Ishmael went & started a different religion.I think he did start the Arabic tribes that are now in the Middle East.And Muslim Arabs trace their ancestory back to Ishmael.

The covenent(the old testament) between God also known by the tetragramaton YHWH & pronounced in English as Jehovah or Yaweh .The covenent  Abraham was made 13 years after  Ishmael's birth.So this was passed down through Isaac also known as Israel.This genetic line became known as the Jews.This is the God Christians worship.

I don't beleive Allah is this God but that Allah came from the Egyptian gods.So Christians & Jews worship the same God .

Muslims worship a different god.To me that makes their god a false god that doesn't exist.

Also  Ishmael could not have started the Muslim religion since it did not exist befor approx. 670 A.D.

The Christian religion was started by Jesus the son of God this is the new covenent or testament between God & mankind.Both the old  & new testaments are blood covenents.

Now there are several denominations of Christians & their interpretations of the Holy Bible differ.But as far as I know all hold the beleif that Jesus is the son of God .This is what binds all Christian's together.That would include the Catholics to me just another denomination.

I know the Catholic church was responsible for executing many Protestants as heritics when they had that power.One of the many wrongs done in the name of religion but I don't know how they would justify this form the Bible.

Allah has nothing to do with Egyptian gods.

Ishmael didn't start Islam.  Muhammed did.  Muhammed is supposed to be a direct decendant of Ishmael and therfore Abraham, and one of God's prophets.  They worship the one god.  Allah isn't his name, he is nameless.  Allah means "the God".  They also believe that Jesus was a great prophet of God, but reject the trinity.

"According to Francis Edwards Peters, "The Qur'an insists, Muslims believe, and historians affirm that Muhammad and his followers worship the same God as the Jews (29:46). The Quran's Allah is the same Creator God who covenanted with Abraham". Peters states that the Qur'an portrays Allah as both more powerful and more remote than Yahweh, and as a universal deity, unlike Yahweh who closely follows Israelites.[7] According to the Encyclop

[mudmanc4]

Wow, it's so frickin complicated, thats the problem, or is it supposed to be like this, are we really meant to be separated, and have different languages, so we cannot communicate.

[Sequoia]

It all started with Abraham, and the 2 religions split with Abraham's children, Isaac, and Ishmael.....most christians don't even know this.

ghostmaster's quote above is why I said

Also  Ishmael could not have started the Muslim religion since it did not exist before approx. 670 A.D.

ghostmaster referred to two religions split at the time of Isaac & Ishmael.

I know the religion of Isaac also called Israel.

So what was the other religion started at this time?

Ishmael didn't start Islam.  Muhammed did.  Allah isn't his name, he is nameless.

From the Wiki you ghostmaster linked:

about Allah

The term was also used by pagan Meccans as a reference to the creator-god, possibly the supreme deity in pre-Islamic Arabia.[4]

So the word Allah came from pre-Islamic Arabia & is of pagan origin.

Refer to this wiki link on the tetragramation.Where you will find this is the name of the God of Israel.Since the God of Christians is the same as the God of Israel Christians do worship the same God as the people whose religion is Judaism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YHWH

Since the God of Israel has a name He can't be the same as Allah who according to ghostmasters post is nameless.

Wow, it's so frickin complicated, thats the problem, or is it supposed to be like this, are we really meant to be separated, and have different languages, so we cannot communicate.

The answer to that is simple .It's yes. Check out the Tower of Babel in the old testament.I think there is even more to the story than told.I believe this is when different races were created as well as the languages.So one minute you were of the Jewish race like everyone else on Earth at the time .The next minute you were Oriental ,black ,etc

[mudmanc4]

Yes, and the new babel is where, anyone ?  I know the answer, who else does ?  What about Esperanto, who here speaks it ?

Have a little break, and watch this video.  Maybe not.

[ghostmaster]

Let me break this down so you can see what im trying to say.  I wasn't clear enough earlier.

They are the same diety.  Jews gave God a name, Yahweh.  Muslims simply do not name him.  They say Allah, meaning "the diety".  Lets say for example, you name your dog charlie.  Lets say I am your neighbor, and I tell you that your dog is digging in my yard, and I wish you to stop him.  You reply with, "who, charlie?".  And I say,  "yes, your dog".  We are talking about the same dog, but you say his name, when I don't.

Ishmael didn't start any religion.  Isaac didn't start a religion.  Their decendants did.  Muhammed is a decendant of Ishmael, and Isreal decended from Isaac.  I didn't mean to say Ishmael started a religion.

Even some Arab Christians refer to God as "Allah".  

[Roco]

good post again  ghostmaster

hell  , there are days when I am glad I have no religion , just the true faith in the knowledge  of human failure , and the need to improve , Hey, it's 2008 and time to stop the hate,

,for me, Ghostmaster for Prez, 

[ghostmaster]

I hate discussing religion, because it is a very personal and sensitive topic.  I am no expert, but I do try to be completely unbiased when it comes down to it.

This article also helps in understanding. According to this one, the concept that the God of Muhammad is different than that of the christian faith, or the jews developed in western culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Islam

What I've been trying to say, is that although they disagree many things, such as the trinity, they still are based on the same God of Abraham.

I would have to reject that nomination Roco.  Im not greedy or unethical enough to take that job lol...

[tdawnaz]

Yes, and the new babel is where, anyone ?  I know the answer, who else does ?  What about Esperanto, who here speaks it ?

Have a little break, and watch this video.  Maybe not.

i don't know where the new babel is...where is it?

...and what's esperanto

that vid freaked me out...

[Sequoia]

The Jews did not give God a name.God gave the Jews His name through divinely inspired scripture.

On the Islam side why would they want their god to be the same as Israels'' God or the same God that Christians worship ?

The Muslims hate both Jews & Christians or anyone that worships differently than them.

If Allah & Jehovah or Yahweh are the same then why do the Muslims hate Jews & Christians ?

Of course Muslims kill other Muslims that are a different sect so I guess that might explain that.

I guess I can't be convinced that Allah is the same as my God.

To me Allah is a god taken from the pagan Meccans .

The last Wiki link was mostly about what the quran had to say about Allah but it did say this.

Islam teaches that its God is the same god worshiped by the members of other Abrahamic religions such as Christianity and Judaism (29:46).[9

This is not universally accepted by non-Muslims.

The last sentence would include my beliefs.

The trinity is interpreted some different in Christian denominations.

My own beliefs are there is

God the Father His name is Jehovah or Yahweh.

There is Jesus the only begotten son of God.

There is the Holy Spirit .As far as I know the Holy Spirit doesn't have a name.

I believe them to be separate beings but that may be a man's definition.To actually know how spirit beings of such power that the universe was created by God (Jehovah or Yahweh) through Jesus are actually " physically" connected is beyond my understanding.In that I don't feel I am alone in the lack of ability to conceive that.

Maybe when I get to the other side & am spirit myself I will understand better.

[tdawnaz]

in my mind the holy spirit is the mother of us all at least that's what i decided when i was barely able to talk and that's what i told my mother...so that's always been my belief...that makes the holy trinity...mother father son...see

k...now nail me up and burn me at the stake

[Sequoia]

There actually isn't much written in the Bible describing the Holy Spirit.So I can't argue with your concept that much.

The Bible says this about the Holy Ghost which is the same as the Holy Spirit.It doesn't sound motherly.I thought you might find it interesting.

Acts 2:2-4

"2. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

3. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

4. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. "

Someone who isn't Christian probably does have a different concept of the Holy Spirit if they believe in that being at all.

tdawnaz; you did say at the time you said this you were barely able to talk.

Would it be a correct assumption that meant you were a young child at the time?

If so I take it you were being taught Christianity at the time.

[tommie gorman]

Bible Qur'an

Monotheistic, Trinitarian, (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6-8; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14) Monotheistic (5:73; 112:1-4), denies the Trinity (5:73).

Jesus is God in flesh (Col. 2:9) Jesus is not God, (5:17, 75)

Jesus was crucified (1 Pet. 2:24). Jesus was not Crucified, (4:157).

Jesus rose from the dead (John 2:19-20). Jesus did not rise from the dead.

Jesus was the Son of God (Mark 1:1). Jesus was not the Son of God ( 9:30)

Holy Spirit, 3rd person in the Godhead.  He will bear witness of Jesus (John 14:26; 15:26). The Holy Spirit is the angel Gabriel (2:97; 16:102).

Salvation by grace through faith (Eph. 2:89). Salvation by sincerity and works (3:135; 7:8-9; 21:47; 49:14; 66:8-9).

The Devil is a fallen angel (Isaiah 14:12-15). The Devil, Satan, is not a fallen angel, but a fallen Jinn (2:34; 7:12; 15:27; 55:15).

Man is fallen, a sinner (Rom. 3:23). Man is basically good.

Disciples were Christians (Acts 11:26). Disciples declare themselves Muslims, (5:111).

Worship on Sabbath (Exodus 20) then later on Sunday (Rom. 14:5-6; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2). Worship on Friday (62:9).

Miracles, numerous are recorded. No Miracles recorded, except they claim the Qur'an is a miracle.

Makes numerous prophecies Makes no prophecies.

http://www.carm.org/islam/Bible_koran_diff.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, there are a lot of differences between Christianity and Islam. I will mention them in very clear words. First, and foremost, the two different books, the Koran and the Bible. Second, the two different founders, Mohammed and Jesus Christ. Third, the two different deities, the God of the Bible, and Allah of Islam. Fourth, the two different ways of salvation. The way of Cain, which is salvation by works, and the way of God, which is salvation by grace alone. Then, I would say, fifthly, that the two different standards of life. You know you'll go to the Koran, and you'll see a big difference between the standard of life in the Bible and in the Koran, concerning marriage and divorce; concerning dealing with the wife. You go to the Koran and you'll see in reference to the wife, that the Koran permits the Muslim to beat his wife. In the Bible we see "love your wife as Christ loves the church". This is a very big difference. Then concerning kindness to all mankind, the Koran declares once and again, that the Muslims should go to war against Jews and Christians, and kill them. Then, concerning peace and war. Jesus Christ told Peter, "Put your sword away. Those who will take the sword will die by the sword." Mohammed told his followers, "Go and fight!" Then sixthly, the two different declarations. In clear words, the Koran denies the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ. And the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is the focal point of the Bible. Take the cross from the Bible, and the Bible is a dead book. But the Koran says, "they did not kill Him, nor crucified Him."Lastly, I would say the two different eternal destinies. The Koran is very clear, and let me read from the Koran if you will. Here is the Koran in my hand, and in surat mariam , and surat mariam is surat number19, and in verse 66, "and man says, "When I am dead, shall I then be raised up alive?" And then it ended saying here, "There is not one of you, Muslims. There is not one of you, Muslims, but will pass over hell." I shall repeat, the Koran is telling the Muslims, "There is not one of you, but will pass over hell." This is with your Lord, a decree which must be accomplished. When I read such verses in the Koran, I ask myself this question: why would anyone embrace a religion that will take him to hell? It is very clear, it is a decree that god will accomplish for every Muslim.When you go to the Bible, the Lord Jesus Christ said that we have in Him eternal life. "Whoever hears my voice, and believes in me, he has been transformed from this to life." There is eternal life to the Christian. And in the Koran there is a different destination. These are the differences between Christianity and Islam.

http://www.geocities.com/islampencereleri3/question3.htm

[mudmanc4]

i don't know where the new babel is...where is it?

...and what's esperanto

that vid freaked me out...

  Esperanto is a language that has been developed for all nation of the world to speak.  So as we near the  " one order " then we all will be able to communicate.  Sounds simple , and gun, and ooh neeeto , but scary as hell is your versed. <a href=http://www.esperanto-usa.org>Esperanto</a>

As for babel,

known officially as the Tower Building and unofficially as the 'crystal palace.'  You should also know that "the EU.

[mudmanc4]

Have you ever heard that a dog 'knows' when an earthquake is about to hit?

Have you ever heard that a dog can 'sense' when a tornado is stirring up, even 20 miles away?

Do you remember hearing that before the December tsunami struck Southeast Asia, dogs started running frantically away from the seashore, at breakneck speed?

Do you know that dogs can detect cancer and other serious illnesses and danger of fire?

Somehow they always know when they can 'go for a ride' before you even ask and how do those dogs and cats get home from hundreds of miles away?

I' m a firm believer that animals - and especially dogs - have keen insights into the Truth.

And you can't tell me that dogs can't sense a potentially terrible disaster well in advance.

Simply said, a dog just KNOWS when something isn't right .. . when impending doom is upon us they'll always try to warn us.... !!

[scdreamin3]

Wow.You guys are still going at it? I have been away for a day and come back and its still going. lol. All I can say is Mudmanc4---Awesome thread. Wonder if you thought it would go this far. lol. But I guess when you talk religion, it is a never ending conversation.

That video was REALLY!!!! unnerving. There are many things going on in this country that we do not know about(and probably really don't want to know truth be told), and all of the agencies we don't know about(and probably don't want to know about), being funded by all of the controversial private funders (that we probably don't really want to know about).

  Some of those private funders contribute to political figures to strengthen their campaign and possibly in return get favor? Obama's campaign declined public funds.--

Obama abandons pledge, seeks donor funds

By Christina Bellantoni

The Washington Times

June 20, 2008

Presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama - the “people-powered” presidential candidate who previously promised to publicly finance his campaign - on Thursday abandoned that pledge, becoming the first candidate since the funding system’s post-Watergate creation to decline the money.

The decision to forgo more than $84 million in public funds and instead raise massive sums from a 1.5-million-donor network was hailed by supporters as allowing his fundraising juggernaut - which went live with ads in 18 states Thursday - a clear advantage against presumed Republican nominee Sen. John McCain.

But Mr. McCain, other national Republicans and some campaign finance reformers excoriated the senator from Illinois as breaking trust with voters.

Mr. Obama is the first major party candidate to decline public financing of the general election campaign since 1974 when Congress created the system designed to reduce the influence of wealthy donors in politics. It’s a system Mr. Obama once said he “strongly” supported but now believes is “broken” and being manipulated by Republicans.

The senator revealed the long-anticipated move in a Web video to his massive list of supporters, urging donations and underscoring the reason he is opting out.

“If we don’t stand together, the broken system we have now, a system where special interests drown out the voices of the American people will continue to erode our politics and prevent the possibility of real change,” Mr. Obama said. “Join me, and declare your independence from this broken system and lets build the first general election campaign that’s truly funded by the American people.”

McCain aides said Mr. Obama has proved himself a “typical politician” since he retreated from his pledge to “aggressively” try to reach an agreement, and the Democrat acknowledged to supporters it was no easy decision, “especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections.”

Mr. McCain told reporters Thursday he will stay within the public financing system and called the Obama decision a violation of trust that he considers “disturbing to all Americans.”

“This is a big deal,” the Arizona Republican complained, saying Mr. Obama “completely reversed himself.”

In 2000, Republican George W. Bush became the first candidate to scrap public financing in the primary, and most major-party primary candidates have followed suit.

Sen. Russ Feingold, Wisconsin Democrat who partnered with Mr. McCain in 2002 to reform campaign finance laws by primarily eliminating the unregulated flow of cash to national political parties, disputed the Obama premise that the system is broken.

Mr. Feingold also praised his own proposed bill to reform the system again, a measure Mr. Obama supports and Mr. McCain does not. The Feingold bill increases the public financing spending limits from $75 million to $100 million per candidate and eliminates state-by-state funding limits for the primaries. It requires disclosure of big donors who bundle multiple donations.

“Senator Obama is committed to reforming the current system, and I look forward to working on this and a wide range of other reform issues with him when he becomes president. But this decision was a mistake,” he said.

Mr. Obama, who had $46.5 million in the bank as of April, will solicit money from the same private donors who helped him raise more than $265 million since the campaign began in January 2007.

Mr. McCain, who has raised $96 million to date, had $24 million cash on hand at the end of April.

But when each candidate’s figures is combined with their respective party figures, it’s Mr. McCain with the advantage - something his team has been pointing out lately and a fact the Obama camp used as justification for the decision.

The Republican National Committee’s $40 million cash on hand at the end of April brings the Republican Party total to $64 million on hand, while the Democratic National Committee’s $4.4 million in the bank gives the Democrats about $51 million in total. New figures for May will be released Friday, and both parties have been holding big-dollar fundraisers.

The Obama campaign argued Mr. McCain forced the issue by using the Democrats’ prolonged primary season after he wrapped up the nomination to raise money and run a general election ad in Ohio 21,000 times. Obama aides said he had given a green light to spending from outside groups not governed by the same laws since Mr. McCain last week said, “I can’t be a referee” to which groups are running attack ads.

The RNC lashed out as well, noting that the toughest ad on television - hitting Mr. McCain for his support for the Iraq war - is sponsored by independent pro-Obama groups MoveOn.org and AFSCME. They also noted that labor unions plan a $53 million anti-McCain campaign.

Team Obama pushed back against broken promise accusations, saying Mr. Obama always said the two camps would have to agree.

But aides said yesterday that Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain never personally met to talk about the issue and that the Obama campaign said no agreement was possible after the campaigns’ chief attorneys met for less than an hour earlier this month.

When Mr. Obama began to back away from that suggestion during the primary season, his rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, sharply criticized him for going back on his word.

The McCain campaign also provided a “timeline” of his reversal that began with his February 2007 inquiry to the Federal Elections Commission as to whether he could raise money from donors but later return the money if the Republican nominee agreed to use only public funds for the general.

“Should both major party nominees elect to receive public funding, this would preserve the public financing system, now in danger of collapse, and facilitate the conduct of campaigns freed from any dependence on private fund-raising,” the Obama campaign wrote the FEC.

In a November questionnaire for the Midwest Democracy Network Mr. Obama answered, “Yes,” he would “participate in the presidential public financing system,” and even added: “Senator John McCain has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge.”

“I do not expect that a workable, effective agreement will be reached overnight,” Mr. Obama wrote in a USA Today February editorial. “When the time comes, we will talk and our commitment will be tested. I will pass that test, and I hope that the Republican nominee passes his.”

Blogger Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos hailed Mr. Obama’s decision and said it would have been “political malpractice” for Mr. Obama to “tell his millions of small-dollar donors that they couldn’t invest financially in his campaign.”

“Of course, Republicans will whine that Obama ‘broke his promise.’ They’ve got no other choice. McCain is getting crushed financially, and has little of the popular support that Obama enjoys,” Mr. Moulitsas said.

Obama supporters also cheered the decision on BarackObama.com, which the campaign turned into a hub announcing the decision and urging donations under a “Declare your independence from a broken system” banner.

Sheree Williams boasted that she had “just donated another $50″ and promised to give another $200 on June 30. “Who’s with me??? Let’s take back AMERICA!!!” she wrote. She exemplifies the Obama network - the average donation is $88, far less than the $2,300

And is the New Babel the technology of Biotechnical engineering? Did I get the answer right? What do I win? lol

Check out this website. http://www.clonaid.com/page.php?8 Weird eh?

And here: http://www.globalchange.com/clone.html

Now I say that Obama wins the election and he clones himself and in 20 years Obama and his mini Obamas will take over the world.

[ghostmaster]

Ok, I give up..

This is why I hate discussing religion.  There are HUGE differences between Islam and Isreal.  But the religions are based on the same God of Abraham.  That is all im trying to say.  Im not saying they are the same thing.

The differences on how God is percieved from each side are why there is such hate between them.

As for all the rest of this superstitious one world, apocolyptical nonsense......nevermind.....

And how many times do I need to say, that Allah isn't a name.  It is a word that means "the diety".  The Meccans may have refered to their God as Allah, but that doesnt mean its the same god.

For example.  We are walking together on a trail, and you stump your toe and scream, "God dammit".  You are a christian.  2 minutes later I trip over a stump and scream, "God dammit".  I worship the spaghetti monster.  We both screamed the same thing, but were referring to 2 different "Gods".

[tdawnaz]

There actually isn't much written in the Bible describing the Holy Spirit.So I can't argue with your concept that much.

The Bible says this about the Holy Ghost which is the same as the Holy Spirit.It doesn't sound motherly.I thought you might find it interesting.

Acts 2:2-4

"2. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

3. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

4. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. "

Someone who isn't Christian probably does have a different concept of the Holy Spirit if they believe in that being at all.

tdawnaz; you did say at the time you said this you were barely able to talk.

Would it be a correct assumption that meant you were a young child at the time?

If so I take it you were being taught Christianity at the time.

i do consider myself a christian...in that i believe in christ

the bible i take with a grain of salt...it's been translated by man to suit himself...for that moment and circumstance

yes i was a small child...maybe 2...i talked full sentences very early so that was her estimate...but no, i was't being educated yet in religion of any kind...

i also told her (at about the same time as the "holy spirit mother in heaven" stuff) that before i was born that i chose them to be my parents.

the mother's job is the earthly plane...she's that whisper in the wind...that's her domain...that's what she takes care of...this is her garden, as it were...this is my belief...what the bible says...eh not so much...but there is much reference to her in there...and one that speaks of her directly...but i don't know scripture so i can't point u there...i only live by what i feel...

as far as obama goes...it's a bad feeling...bad...and thinking about it makes me feel sick for all of us

[Sequoia]

ghostmaster ;

I understand what you have posted about Allah being the same as the God of Abraham.I just disagree with that.I doubt you can convince me otherwise .I doubt I can convince you otherwise .So on this point I guess it is a stalemate.

As for the expletive in the example in the post above.I never use it as it violates a core tenet of my religion.

Don't take that for I never use any expletives just not that one.I shouldn't use any but sometimes they do slip out.

tommie gorman;

A couple of comments on your post.

I have never heard that "The way of Cain, which is salvation by works" to me the way of Cain is murder.

The sin all mankind is under is the sin of Adam.Some say Eve sinned first & that's true but Eve's sin was disobedience to God.I'm not sure what Eve's fate would have been if Adam had not joined her.

Adam also committed the sin of  disobedience but the main sin he committed was that he loved Eve more than he loved God so he joined her.That is the sin all Adam's descendants have been punished for .

Next I of course believe in the crucifixion of Jesus or the cross as many times it is put.Non-Christian & even some Christians don't understand it as well when put this way.

It is the blood that was shed by Jesus while on the cross that created the new covenant or testament between God & mankind.This is a blood covenant between God &  those of mankind that believe.Similar to but much greater than the blood covenant between God & Abraham.

Another blood covenant was the Passover.

The blood covenant being the strongest of covenets with God.

It is faith in this that gives salvation by grace.

The death & resurrection of Jesus is the miracle that proved the covenant.So faith in the miracle is also necessary.

I might as well cover one more thing.I would like to see Christians begin to use Jesus the Christ so Christ wouldn't be used like it is Jesus's last name.

tdawnaz ;I'm not trying to be argumentative.But "holy spirit mother in heaven" would be a strange choice of words for a child that age who had not heard them somewhere. I'm not saying all together like you said them .Those are pretty religious words not to have heard them somewhere. Maybe separately like holy spirit one time & mother in heaven another.

If you say this is not a possibility I will just accept that.

I'm not a believer of the mother earth philosophy or past lives but I know many are .Don't mistake that for saying I'm not in favor of taking care of the environment.I certainly think the people of the Earth are doing a poor job of that.I'm not sure of the best way to fix that.

[tdawnaz]

seems to me that we have gotten way off topic here...the point of this topic is obama...we're not supposed to be debating religion, the bible, and God

how did it get off on this anyway...

we can voice opinions and nobody need try to sway anyone else to their way of thinking...but we are not going to get into a bunch of debating the bible...bible thumping...flaming this topic will get out of hand...

so let's keep this in line...and away from the debating actual religion...and stick to the question at hand

and i will add here that i should have never posted my thoughts on the holy ghost here...or anywhere in this forum...nobody in this forum cares about my beliefs or urs...this is just a discussion

[tommie gorman]

Well lets look at this in a way. Obama was raised as a small impressionable child as a Muslim. For all I know he still believes from way back that it is still is true. And also wants to  run a predominately Christian country. And Muslim and Christianity is what the topic has gone to. So not too far off really.

There is no way a god can tell two different people to do the opposite.

Koran: Kill Jews and Christians.

Bible: Love (and of course war is war ) But mostly peace.

[tdawnaz]

right u r tommie...i'm just saying to keep the bible thumping out of this...

state ur opinions...they don't need backed by verses from a book...either book

[ghostmaster]

Look at it this way. I was raised as a pentecostal as a small impressionable child.  Now I think they are completely insane.....

Obama says he is a Christian.  He swore on the bible when he took office.  Lets just leave it at that.

[coknuck]

I swore on the bible when testifying for a friend in Court! I know I was not telling the truth! As far as I'm concerned the Bible is a guilt trip passed down through the ages. It was written by Man Century's after the fact, so how much truth or fact can be in it anyhow!

[mudmanc4]

Obama is giving many people negative feelings, the media isn't telling that part, he's now pissed off many because of the

" ludicris thing " . A video that he made thinking that since obama said he had his songs on his MP3 player, that he would go along with anything Ludacris said, well, that seems to have backfired , MUST SEE ! <a href="http://uploadingit.com/files/762234_oir6t/YouTube%20Video.mov">Obama/Ludacris song</a>

One more thing, I started this thread for one reason, to have a mature discussion about the seriousness of what is being played out within the politics of the world , we can't deny that there is something just wrong about the truth, and what is being told.

Thread's such as this are not even tolerated here, for the simple fact that instead of discussing opinions, people get out of hand trying to prove to others there opinion.  I am surprised that it has lasted this long.

I would personally appreciate everyones cooperation here, this subject is not going away, weather or not we discuss it here or not, the rest of the world will be. 

I'll say it as nice, and simple as possibly, we all know what will not be tolerated, there will be no warnings, the offensive post will simply be deleted.  That goes for myself as well.