Evidence for God from Science

Ok, who says that Obama was always biased against the Christians?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/18/ ... cnnSTCText

hmmm, I'm still the cynic....Obama uses anyone who will get him approval. He will support gay marriage and gay rights. I wonder if the debate hosted by Rick made Obama realize that choosing him wilkl placate CHristians.

I do think he respects him....I see it as political win-win for him. He will still support gay rights....in the long run someone speaking at inaguration means nothing with rtespect to laws and definition of marriage.

cslewislover wrote:... Also, not all mega churches are bad. I was really surprised to find out that by the definition of mega church, the one I go to is one (one of the smaller ones, but still in there), and it's completely bible-based.

You mean there exist churches that aren't?

Byblos wrote:

cslewislover wrote:... Also, not all mega churches are bad. I was really surprised to find out that by the definition of mega church, the one I go to is one (one of the smaller ones, but still in there), and it's completely bible-based.

You mean there exist churches that aren't?

Lol, are you being serious? I wasn't thinking of Catholic or Orthodox churches when I wrote that, by the way.

cslewislover wrote:Lol, are you being serious? I wasn't thinking of Catholic or Orthodox churches when I wrote that, by the way.

No, actually I was being a little facetious. It's just that I think whenever the expression 'Bible-based church' is used the underlying assumption is that it's a non-Catholic church, as if Catholic churches are not Bible-based. It's one of those hang-ups I have, sorry.

Byblos wrote:

cslewislover wrote:Lol, are you being serious? I wasn't thinking of Catholic or Orthodox churches when I wrote that, by the way.

No, actually I was being a little factitious. It's just that I think whenever the expression 'Bible-based church' is used the underlying assumption is that it's a non-Catholic church, as if Catholic churches are not Bible-based. It's one of those hang-ups, I have, sorry.

It's quite allright.

I still can't get a grasp on Obama, it is surprising he picked Warren, which gives me more to hope for...or more to be skeptical of.

If he really does lead from the center (thats the best we could hope for) then it is possible we could get more done in the house and senate, but, I don't forsee much being hashed out with abortion or the DOMA.

Care to take a guess anyone??

Cross.eyed wrote:I still can't get a grasp on Obama, it is surprising he picked Warren, which gives me more to hope for...or more to be skeptical of.

If he really does lead from the center (thats the best we could hope for) then it is possible we could get more done in the house and senate, but, I don't forsee much being hashed out with abortion or the DOMA.

Care to take a guess anyone??

I know what you are saying, but Bush didn't do much for abortion either.. As far as I know it's still legal to have one...

Yes it is still legal and probably will be for some time to come.

ALL politicians hammer on this while running for office and afterwards, we hear little about it from them.

Cross.eyed wrote:Yes it is still legal and probably will be for some time to come.

ALL politicians hammer on this while running for office and afterwards, we hear little about it from them.

Yes, I think that many politicians probably fall into this category.. Whether they are a dem or a republican..

Gman wrote:

Cross.eyed wrote:I still can't get a grasp on Obama, it is surprising he picked Warren, which gives me more to hope for...or more to be skeptical of.

If he really does lead from the center (thats the best we could hope for) then it is possible we could get more done in the house and senate, but, I don't forsee much being hashed out with abortion or the DOMA.

Care to take a guess anyone??

I know what you are saying, but Bush didn't do much for abortion either.. As far as I know it's still legal to have one...

Bush signed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act and forced it in at a federal level when Obama kept knocking it back in his state. Some other things I have read include:

• Banned Partial Birth Abortion — by far the most significant roll-back of abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade.
• Reversed Clinton's move to strike Reagan's anti-abortion Mexico Policy.
• By Executive Order (EO), reversed Clinton's policy of not requiring parental consent for abortions under the Medical Privacy Act.
• By EO, prohibited federal funds for international family planning groups that provide abortions and related services.
• Upheld the ban on abortions at military hospitals.
• Made $33 million available for abstinence education programs in 2004.

On the issue of this thread, does inauguration by Warren really mean that much?

No, the inaugural speech really means nothing. That's why I am inclined to see it simply as political maneuvering. I wonder why he picked him, other than he talked with him a bit. I will be far more impressed if he choose supreme court judges who were prolife than choosing someone to give a speech who is pro-life. He can annoy the gay-marriage crowd all he wants with someone else's speech as long as *he* supports them elsewhere. It's not as if he agrees with him.

Now perhaps he does view him with respect and let's keep praying, after all, Rick is God's instrument and He could choose that relationship to bring Obama back to a more CHristian worldview.

Thanks for the facts on Bush, K, There is a BIG difference between Obama and Bush on that issue and we will see the fruits of this election on that issue alone.

It's odd how the media refers to Warren as "America's Pastor"...he most certainly is not mine. I am not a follower of Warren and the emergent church. The term "Bible-based" is thrown around quite a bit and any church that makes such a claim should be opened to scrutiny (Jehovah's Witness churches are "Bible-based").
President-elect Obama's choice of Warren is strictly politically based.
Allow me to put this question out to all: If you disagree with Obama's choice, who would you have liked to see him pick?

Kurieuo wrote: Bush signed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act and forced it in at a federal level when Obama kept knocking it back in his state. Some other things I have read include:

• Banned Partial Birth Abortion — by far the most significant roll-back of abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade.
• Reversed Clinton's move to strike Reagan's anti-abortion Mexico Policy.
• By Executive Order (EO), reversed Clinton's policy of not requiring parental consent for abortions under the Medical Privacy Act.
• By EO, prohibited federal funds for international family planning groups that provide abortions and related services.
• Upheld the ban on abortions at military hospitals.
• Made $33 million available for abstinence education programs in 2004.

On the issue of this thread, does inauguration by Warren really mean that much?

Ok, you might have got me there... As for as Roe v. Wade, however, it would probably take a miracle to turn that over... Perhaps Obama maybe taking a different approach to it... http://www.prolifeproobama.com/plpo.pdf