7 votes

Leftists squeal over hearing Bible at prayer breakfast

Dr. Ben Carson’s prayer breakfast blast at the national debt, progressive taxation, and other leftist insanity has stolen the national stage temporarily. Newsmax reports,

Opening his remarks with quotations from the Old Testament books of Proverbs and Second Chronicles, the neurosurgeon blasted the nation’s $16.4 trillion debt, its cumbersome tax system — and its “inefficient” health care system.

Although Obama kept his cool at the moment, other leftists got fairly bent out of shape over the audacity of someone actually applying the Bible at a prayer breakfast. As Breitbart.com reports, Democrat Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky criticized the speech as “not appropriate.”

She said,

I think it’s really–not really an appropriate place to make this kind of political speech, and to invoke God as support for that kind of view. But I think of most of all the kind of message that he was giving shows a real empathy gap with where the American people are right now, and I think it’s reflective of where many of the Republicans and Tea Parties are right now, that we need to have an economy that works for everyone.

More:
http://americanvisionnews.com/5458/leftists-squeal-over-hear...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Your bad? I though you were

Your bad? I though you were Good?

GoodSamaritan's picture

That phrase has been around since the 70s

It's about as old as "far out".

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Your bad what?

Your bad what?

GoodSamaritan's picture

Try an urban dictionary

.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Try an urban dictionary for

Try an urban dictionary for what?

GoodSamaritan's picture

I can't tell if you really don't understand

or are just trying to be funny.

In case it's the former, see http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=my%20bad

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Based on your comments so

Based on your comments so far, it appears that you are using the word "bad" as a noun. In order to be a complete sentence, the fragment "My bad" is therefore at least missing a verb.

duh (do people need to

duh (do people need to explain that for you too?)

Explain what?

Explain what?

GoodSamaritan's picture

It's slang...

"My bad" stands alone - it's not used in the form of a complete sentence. I already suggested an urban dictionary for you.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Suggesting an urban

Suggesting an urban dictionary to me does not negate the fact that a complete sentence must contain at least one main clause (i.e. one subject and one verb). Obviously it is your prerogative to attempt to express yourself using less than complete sentences, however I'm convinced that it would be more beneficial to yourself and others were your refrain.

GoodSamaritan's picture

Huh?

"...however I'm convinced that it would be more beneficial to yourself and others were your refrain."

That's known as a "fail". You can look that up in the same urban dictionary while pondering the meaning of "my bad".

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

I could understand if you

I could understand if you were to call the error in my sentence a failure (the word "failure" being a noun, unlike the word "fail", which is a verb). Personally, I would be more inclined to call it a mistake.

LOL

Saying "my bad" is like saying "my fault".

_________________________________

Freedom - Peace - Prosperity

GoodSamaritan's picture

A quote from the article

So learn this, and learn it good: It’s OK when leftists themselves try to cloak their theft and wealth redistribution in Christian language, but when conservatives preach the truth straight from biblical principles, it’s not appropriate, it’s political correctness, and it lacks empathy!

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

It's lame either way...

...regardless of which side uses it. C'mon, this is a book that also says women descended from a man's rib and there was a talking snake. It says you can give a woman holy water to drink to determine if she has cheated on her husband (her belly will swell and her thigh will rot). This is from a God that ordered troops to slay women and children and keep the virgin girls for themselves (Numbers 31:17-18). He orders women specifically to stay silent in churches, and to learn in silence and never teach men (1 Timothy 2:11-14). It says slaves must completely obey and fear their slavemasters, even if the master is cruel and unjust (1 Peter 2:18), and it is not immoral for a slavemaster to beat his slave to near-death, as long as the slave survives a day or two (Exodus 21:20-21), the reason stated is because the slave is his "money".

Whether left or right, who could recognize any credibility in such a book?

GoodSamaritan's picture

What's lame is your lack of exegetical skill

If your comment accurately summarizes your understanding of the texts referenced, then you have a long way to go in repairing your credibility.

This forum isn't the best venue for sorting it all out for you. Perhaps the shortest path would be for you to find a commentary that's reputable among Biblical scholars and study that alongside the Scripture you're trying to interpret.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

great rebutal, now go obey obama as god established

Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.

Romans 13
Submission to Governing Authorities
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

GoodSamaritan's picture

A total misunderstanding of Romans 13

And an equally inappropriate application of Hebrews 13. As I indicated, your exegetical skills are non-existent.

It probably wouldn't take 30 seconds to locate numerous sources on the Internet where you could learn the context of those passages and their proper application.

Nowhere in Scripture will you find any command to blindly obey a tyrant. Those who rule are bound by the same laws as the rest of us. That's why there's no divine right of kings in the Bible. The prophet Daniel openly refused his king's law under penalty of death. John the Baptist rebuked King Herod for his sexual sins and paid with his life. Peter continued to preach even though he was commanded by the governing authorities to stop. Paul used his Roman citizenship to challenge the Roman Empire. He spent a great deal of time in prison because he was seen as a threat to the Empire. Every one of Jesus' Apostles lost his life for defying the governing authorities, except John who was exiled.

Don't bring a pea-shooter to a gunfight.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

"Do this with joy and not with grief..."

True, especially as many Christians consider this "God's Country", this would seem a very important command of God to obey. God's appointed leader of God's country.

So basically, we need to submit to Obama for he keeps watch over our souls, and we need to do it with joy. He does not hold terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. He is God's servant for our good.

So I wonder, if the left uses this, will the right still defend using the Bible for political justifications?

GoodSamaritan's picture

I will give you that some Christians are also guilty

of misunderstanding and misapplying Romans 13. Unfortunately, the state-can-do-no-harm or we-must-always-obey-the-state interpretations lend support to the left and right wings within Christendom. Neo-cons use such passages for their own agendas. The blame often lies with pastors who fail for various reasons to study Scripture thoroughly before teaching their congregations.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

I've been doing that for years...

This is nothing new for me. I've been interested in religions for many years. I've conversed in depth with quite a few Biblical scholars on these topics. I don't just pull verses and not check for context. I encourage anyone who read my post to check them for context.

God sending a bear to maul children to death for making fun of a bald man? Sure it's wrong of those kids, but they're kids, and mauled to death? I checked the context and basically the story is what it appears to say.

And discriminating against the handicapped (Leviticus 21:17-23). The blind, people with broken hand or broken foot or with flat nose, or dwarves, shall not approach the altar of the Lord. The reason stated? Because they will PROFANE God's sanctuary. Again, I've researched and discussed the context with many, it is what it says.

GoodSamaritan's picture

Then you need better informed "scholars"

"God sending a bear to maul children to death for making fun of a bald man? Sure it's wrong of those kids, but they're kids, and mauled to death? I checked the context and basically the story is what it appears to say."

What's missing in your analysis is a proper understanding of the role and authority God gave his prophets in the Old Testament. They weren't just common preachers - they were God's appointed emissaries to deliver His very words to the Israelites. Any affront to them was taken by God as an affront to Himself. By mocking the prophet, those kids were in effect mocking God. The Old Covenant was of Law, not Grace. As a consequence, punishment was usually swift and harsh.

As for Leviticus 21, again I suggest you find better counsel. I'll only state one reason for the discrimination. Being under the Law, the priestly ceremonies could only be performed by men who represented Israel's best, including outward appearance. Just as the tithe was to be given from first fruits, the best of the field and flock. Just as a sacrificial lamb had to be without spot or blemish. These were types or shadows of the true perfection in the Christ to come.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Religion

I'm sure we would agree on many things (we're both here). On whether the Bible should be used as justification for laws (by either side), I don't think we could see eye-to-eye. You see it as infallible, I don't see it as free from moral corruption. I don't think that's going to change.

You Don't Sound Any Better

There are plenty of examples of even adults mocking God who weren't treated so harshly. If these special preachers were truly kind and holy, they wouldn't even think of bringing such violent death upon little children (I wouldn't), especially for such a petty superficial thing. But apparently, you think otherwise.

And what kind of message from these emissaries was that sending?

As for God's discrimination of those with injuries or physical deformities, that throws the whole "it's what's on the inside that counts" view. Not a very spiritual view at all I would think. "Don't let them come near my altar, they are less than physically perfect!" And what a message to send to anyone you know who is physically "less than perfect".

So is that the kind of morality you teach to your kids?

GoodSamaritan's picture

I did a quick search

for a more detailed answer on the mauling and I agree with the interpretation: http://www.gotquestions.org/Elisha-baldhead.html

What those young men (not little children) did was not a petty offense. Again, the Israelites were entirely dependent upon God's prophets to know what He required of them. Prophets literally spoke the exact words God gave them to speak.

Your other point about judging someone based upon what's inside is confirmed in 1 Samuel 16:7, "But the Lord said to Samuel, 'Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.'"

The requirements for office of priest were very precise and exclusive. Everything about their offices and work was symbolic of the offices and work of the Messiah to come. As much as perfection could be expected of a human, it was expected of them.

As for the morality I teach my children, we live in the New Testament period when those symbols/shadows/types of things to come have been fulfilled and explained in Jesus Christ. I don't live my life by Moses and the Prophets but according to the Messiah, Jesus.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Re: I did a quick search

Morally, it was a petty offense to send a bear to maul children for something so petty that would just slide off anyone with a healthy amount of security (it was Elisha who called out the curse). It's not a good message. What was considered adult was much younger than what we consider adult today. There is no exact age stated in the Bible but very old Jewish customs seem to indicate around 12. I've seen many explanations that try to soften this, but it is what it is. Our views differ on this. You can justify it, I honestly and sincerely can't.

You don't live by the things in the Old Testament (hopefully then you're not one of those who also insists on the Ten Commandments being put up in publicly funded buildings), but you do believe that God is morally infallible. Therefore, whether or not anything in the Old Testament is still in effect or not is irrelevant - all things He commanded should stand the test of common morality at any time and regardless of who it was directed toward. Agreed?

Whether or not beating a slave to death (as long as the slave survives a day or two) is still allowed is irrelevant. Teaching that discriminating against injured or physically deformed people was at one time morally sound, you might feel is ok. Or at one time it was completely moral to slay little babies and children and force virgin girls to be wives (Numbers 31:17-18).

Peter says that all slaves should be subject to their masters with all fear, to the bad and cruel as well as the good and gentle (1 Peter 2:18). This is just an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. It's really no wonder why so many religious were able to shake their fingers at the abolition of slavery.

Do you teach your daughter that specifically women are to be silent in churches (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)? It is a sin for women to teach or usurp authority over men (1 Timothy 2:11-14)? Mentality like this is no surprise why many religious could oppose women's suffrage. Anyone who marries a divorced woman is living in adultery (Matthew 5:32)? It's morally ok for those in Israel to be executed for cursing their mother or father (Mark 7:10)? If you do, then I commend you for not being a hypocrite.

GoodSamaritan's picture

Where to begin?

I think the major part of the problem here is that you don't understand the purposes for which God gave us the Old Covenant. You are also confusing some of the Law given by God with the man-made laws of that culture. More than once Jesus corrected religious leaders who were following the latter rather than obeying God.

To call the mocking of God's prophet a "petty offense" is to compare your personal standard of morality to that of God's. Your opinion of right and wrong doesn't trump God's. He set the laws that the Israelites were to follow and they knew they would be judged by them.

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah" Jeremiah 31:31. This passage was fulfilled in Hebrews 8:8-13, where the author points out the many "faults" of the Old Testament and contrasts them to a new way with better hopes and promises - the perfect New Testament.

The old covenant revealed the coming Messiah. There are over 300 prophecies concerning His birth, ministry, miracles, suffering, death, resurrection and ascension.

The old covenant revealed sin. Paul wrote, "For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin" Romans 3:20. In other words, trying to live up to God's standard of righteousness is clearly an impossible task as proven by the record of the old covenant.

There were several types of slavery in that culture. The most common type was indentured servitude for paying off a debt. Nowhere in Scripture did God ever approve of abusing slaves.

I'm not going into the rest because you seem to want to blame Christians for the misdeeds of some who either don't understand Scripture or deliberately misapply it. There is only one standard for measuring Christianity - Jesus. He was a Jewish Rabbi who frequently did the unthinkable for a man in that culture - let alone a Rabbi. He spoke freely to women, even a Samaritan woman, lifting them out of oppression and treating them as anyone else. He rescued a woman caught in adultery who was about to be stoned to death as required by the law. He spent time with tax collectors (considered the worst of thieves) and prostitutes. He healed on the Sabbath - forbidden by the authorities. He often rebuked the authorities, embarrassing them by pointing out their hypocrisies and calling them derisive names in front of crowds.

Jesus said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-20. Sinless perfection is still required for salvation and the Messiah has always been the only means provided by God, all the way back to Genesis chapter 3. The OT pointed to Him and the NT reveals Him. The OT showed that it is impossible to please God by our works. The NT teaches that salvation can only come through faith in the Messiah's works on our behalf.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

I don't think you're understanding my point...

Keep in mind that to a non-Christian, using verses from the Bible to justify the Bible is just circular reference. The concept of "anything God does is good, regardless of how cruel and unjust it seems, because because the Bible says so" holds weight to you but not to a non-Christian.

In Ephesians 6:5 slaves are commanded to be subject to their masters with fear and trembling (key words "fear" and "trembling"). 1 Peter 2:18 takes it even further to include subjection to cruel slave masters. And somewhat consistent with that, in Exodus 21:20-21 God allows slave masters to beat their slaves to death as long as the slave survives a day or two. You can twist it all you want, unless you can give a good rational justification that isn't just blind faith "because God can do no wrong", those things are still immoral and cruel. If your morality tells you otherwise, well, there is a perfect reason why religion shouldn't be a basis for our laws.

My point is simply that to use the Bible as justification for laws that blanket our entire country, many who follow non-Judeo Christian religions or no religion at all, is not right. All laws should be supported by logical and rational arguments, not the arbitrary dogma of one religion that not everyone believes. In a country that values liberty, following religious moral codes should always be by choice (it's called religious freedom, an important concept in this country).

And that's why I can mock a prophet of God and not get mauled. It's why a woman is not forced to learn in silence, can even teach or usurp authority over a man, is not forced to submit to her husband in everything, and is not forced to cover her head (1 Corinthians 11:7-9). It's why we allow men to marry divorced women (Matthew 5:31-32). It's why we got rid of slavery and don't even allow debtors to beat people to death.

GoodSamaritan's picture

I do understand and I'll try to clarify

The Bible is a self-authenticating library of 66 internally consistent books. To use passages of the Bible to interpret other passages of the Bible is the foundation of proper Scriptural exegesis.

Any system of morality not based on God’s unchanging laws is merely someone’s opinion-of-the-moment that says, for example, murder is not ok under this circumstance but is ok under the other circumstance. If there is no absolute measure of right and wrong then there is no rational basis for condemning anyone’s behavior. Justice is then decided by "might makes right". The majority of our leaders in DC are criminals by my standard but they see me as a criminal if I refuse to obey their unconstitutional laws. Who’s right? My standard is absolute and theirs is circumstantial.

The Greek words translated "fear and trembling" do not instruct the slaves to be afraid of their masters. Rather, they are to have respect for their masters based on the institution of the authority that is placed over them, an authority that is an archetype of the authority God has over man. In this regard, "fear and trembling" is an idiom that is also used in 2 Corinthians 7:15 and Philippians 2:12 where believers are told to have such respect for God.

The instructions in 1 Peter 2:18 are directed at believers only and for the purpose of representing Christ even to unjust masters. I think your understanding of slavery in the Bible is skewed by our American history. Please read http://www.bible.gen.nz/amos/themes/slavery.htm. It is short and I think does a good job of explaining the vast differences between the two.

"And that's why I can mock a prophet of God and not get mauled." Actually, you can’t mock a prophet of God because they all died at least a couple millennia ago. As for the rest, requirements in the NT regarding behavior are directed at Christians only. That’s easy enough to prove because Hebrews 11:6 says, "And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him."

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father