runner: << It seems the gw high priests such as Al Gore, Tim Flannery, Garnaut disagree with you. >>

TRTL's correct - you're delusional. Please indicate where Gore, Flannery or Garnaut have predicted anything to do with anti-Christs or second comings in 2010.

david f: <<Polycarp wrote:

"Anyone can be and often is a 'tool of satan' to the extent that they actively oppose the message of Christ."

A bigoted Muslim could say, "Anyone can be and often is a 'tool of satan' to the extent that they actively oppose the message of Mohammed." >>

I think that Porky does a very good job of being a "tool" - however, I don't think Satan's got anything to do with it.

*We have witnessed the lies, the deceit, the vindictiveness against a Sarah Palin because:*

Actually runner, the press are pretty much in agreement that she
simply hasn't got the brains to have her finger on the button of
16'000 or whatever nuclear weapons. Already she is talking about
war with Russia and she hasn't even been elected.

Bad judgement was the Bush/Cheney problem and bad judgement will
again be the problem, if Sarah Palin becomes prez-vice prez. That
is the reality.

Look where 8 years of Bush/Cheney has taken America. Their biggest
problem when Clinton left office, was what to do with the budget
surplus. Now America is a basket case, no matter how much George
prays to the lord.

Some posters in their fixation to convert the world to their version of Christianity (sic) have missed the point.

Debating (A structured contest between two delineated diametric opposing points of view)… is entertainment not reality, necessarily advance the topic and is never conclusive.
Yet some presumably intelligent individuals take every opportunity to hijack all topics in this way in the mistaken beliefs that
• They might win conversions or
• Have some ulterior/more personal reason for their tactics.

firstly all they succeeding in doing is entrenching others deeper into their own convictions.
The second is not the purpose of this site.

Rational inquiry draws conclusion from ALL the facts as “Truth is the destination not the journey”.

Arguments involving gross selectivity, tactics, argument by unrealistic extremes result in tedious rehashing of well known, understood self-referential dogma, ad hominem and gain saying.

Statistical (aggregation) may be appropriate in generalizations but when it comes to the individual (their beliefs) they are both invariably unrepresentative and potentially insulting to individuals.

Christianity/religion aren’t binary they exists in a cornucopia of flavours (as do people) all of which are valid to that individual. Were it not so God would be both capricious and unforgiving not worthy of reverence. To then assume that any one person has the right to change the view of others is arrogant and in extreme cases obscene.

Likewise while I am described as an atheist the above criticisms apply to those who are evangelistic ‘God busters’. This site doesn’t really boast these.

We all have much to offer by way of perspective if we can recognize opinion from facts and argue accordingly.

Objectively Obama is the better of two options but more importantly I wonder can any human live up to the Hype/expectation on him? Assuming that is, he can get past the racial paranoia/superiority that permeates US politics.
Palin is an example of this paranoia. Clearly she isn’t ready for world leadership one could argue she’s barely appropriate to run a state with a population comparable to Tasmania without losing focus on her role.

It really doesn’t matter whether Obama is a Christian or not. He calls himself a Christian but there is evidence to suggest that he is not a Christian in the traditional sense.
https://www.christianadc.org/pages/page.asp?page_id=45184

Obama is more Christian than McCain who divorce his wife for frivolous reasons (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/11/nation/na-divorce11). Obama is more Christian than Palin who abused her power while in office. He is more Christian than George Bush and Dick Cheney who went to war to line their pockets
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/dickcheney/halliburton.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0403-10.htm

He is more Christian than Bill Clinton who got a blowjob while in the White House.

Judging from Obama’s married life and the lifestyle of his family, we can be sure that America are in safe hands when he becomes the President

Philip Tang wrote: "He is more Christian than Bill Clinton who got a blowjob while in the White House."

What are the statistics on Christians vs. non-Christians getting blowjobs?

He also wrote: "Judging from Obama’s married life and the lifestyle of his family, we can be sure that America are in safe hands when he becomes the President."

I voted for Obama by absentee ballot because I thought he would be a better president. However, if I thought he would be worse than McCain I would not have voted for him.

An exemplary private life has little or nothing to do with a politician's competence in office.

Dear Spikey.. 'actively opposing' is quite different to simply holding different beliefs.

If you wish to see a good example of what 'actively opposing' is... feel free to explore what is happening in the Islamic world by Sunni's against Ahmadiyya's.

But actively opposing the message of Christ is, for example the Circumcision party that went about during Pauls time claiming Christians must obey the whole Mosaic law and also be circumcized.
This issue was dealth with at the firs council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.

THE DIFFERENCE if Obama was Muslim, is found in a considerable number of my posts. It would depend on what support base such a person had.
I don't think it would ever happen or be allowed to happen.
The question is not whether a person is Muslim, but their Islamic position. If he was a sufi.. like FH...probably no big deal. However, if he was a Wahabi .. a different story. If he simply said "I desire to follow the example of Mohammad" that would, in my opinion make him a Wahabi.