This Is Not a Christian Nation # 5 Barrack Hussein Obama
Posted: Saturday, May 08, 2010
by Dr. Brice E. Vickery
Supernutrient Corporation
That we " were " a Christian nation has been proven beyond a doubt no matter what the revisionists do or say on their way to their " Eternal Reward " . Now I understand that with them there is considerable latitude about what eternal reward means.
With the greatest of simplification there are two worldviews: Almighty God is our Creator, or there is no creator. Since God has given us an instruction manual, the Holy Bible, we Christians are supposed to know where we stand and why.
Thats why we see protests among the " liberals " about the National Day Of Prayer, the labeling of murderous, adulterous, mothers who practice infanticide, as whores, and the " Dangerous " Tea Party people who still have some sanity left, as ignorant mal-contents not deserving of the attention of our ass-kissing media and the new " Nobility " , our legislators.
The 2010 elections may or not be pivotal. After all a change back to the Republicans offers the same old bull because they don't want to follow the " money trail " any more then the Dems, so they wont want to audit the Federal Reserve either because then- they can't rape us anymore. See Ron Pauls bill in the House and J. DeMints bill in the Senate, which are always shoved into committee.
Aside from the fact that we have a lying Marxist/socialist leader whose power was defined when he " got those people on the bus! " and whose principles were exposed when he threw his " pastor " UNDER THE BUS, the real sign of what may happen in six months may be- the state of our Christian Church.
There are real Christians and there are the " feel good, don't talk about sin, and lets all sing along together, make a million, and God will prosper you--- like one big eye, and one small eye, Joel Osteen. He gives you " feel good " pap!
Heres what the instruction manual says about our present time: 2 Timothy 3: 1-5: This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
So these " Christians " are deluded and hell-bound just like the " straight thinking "
Man- worshipping lefties!
A majority of these TWO groups are in fact going to a HELL that they don't believe in. I think that you should reconsider or consider for the first time. The instruction manual is pretty clear on the fact that there is no reprieve- the agony is ongoing- the stench is beyond belief- and there is no escape- and there is NO HOPE forever!
I would recommend that you read " 23 Minutes in Hell " by Bill Wiese. If you can't afford it (all you wealthy lefties) or all of you (perpetual welfare people) contact me and I will see that you get one.
Brice E. Vickery
This Article has been viewed 445 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
More commentsDad,Your article speaks loudly to your passions as a Christian and as a Doctor to heal humanity. I felt a little disoriented as to why Mr. Stone, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Robertson were so quick to judge this article as opposed to your others. My conclusion is they seem to be motivated by fear, psychologically and spiritually. You have taught me in this lesson the actions or re-actions of others can be quite damaging.The disinformation ringing through evil motivations is clear. Why else would they be so quick to argue and have their beliefs instilled upon you in personal attacks. They obviously are educated but desensitized to whats happening in biblical proportions to mother earth and humanity. Even Charles Darwin was highly intrigued to his death with his own personal battles of belief in Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. These men in their own words, in their own hypothetical situations, defy their own beliefs.The mind is a tricky thing but our soul lives on forever, with the consequences of our choices being our ultimate destiny. So Dad, continue your destiny and I will continue mine. We will pray that peace be with these gentlemen as they continue their search for The Creator.A true believer in Jesus Christ our Lord, Love Laura. Dr. Brice E. Vickerys daughter.Hello LauraI respect your love for your father.If your father speaks as strongly as he does and feels the right to do so in a public arena, then surely he is strong enough to handle dissenting opinions. His whole demeanor is aggressive. We are all adults here. Why not act as adults, with freedom of speech for ALL. It is the brain that is a tricky thing, the mind has great capacity for truth.A TRUE BELIEVER IN TRUTHBless youMs. Goshwin StoneI have read the threads here and what I find interesting is that the tactics used to disarm Dr. Vickery is one I see on many blog sites. Attack the man not the content of what he is saying and then to throw in brow beating his daughter for defending his right to express his views and then to use langauge expressing admiration for her love of her father when in fact you our expressing criticism, is way off base. There is nothing wrong with speaking the truth and yet to claim the truth written by Dr. Vickery is hateful is nothing but a cope out. This type of infantile mentality is only surpassed by the inability to preceive reality.Miss StoneI would respectfully correct you on one small point. Whether or not Dr. Vickery "feels" his right to speak strongly in this forum begs the point, he "has" the right. (THat is one of the things this country is about, the right to speak freely, and anonymously if we so choose.) Wether or not he "feels" this right does not make the right any less true. It is an absolute truth.Should you choose to "feel" that a truth is unlikely or impossible is your choice,for sure. However, what is not in your realm of choice is the actual truth.For example: whether or not all sides of an equilateral triangle are equal. You cannot have a truth which says one side is unequal. In that case your version of the truth would be a lie. It is equally untrue that the mind has any capacity for truth apart from God, it will, if left to its own devices, simply become a spin machine, very much like a modern day politician. So Miss Vickery is correct when she says the mind is a tricky thing. Unless of course you would care to clarify your distinction between the mind and the brain.respectfullyMr. AnonymousThe right to speak freely is an absolute truth? This is a perfect example of the fallacy of what Mr. Anonymous calls absolute truth.
First I'd have to ask if you believe absolute truth is afforded by the U.S. Constitution or the Bible? (They are not the same thing, btw.)Secondly, do I have the right to come into your house any time I'd like and speak freely? I think not. I think this precludes your "truth" from being absolute.Neither do you have the right to come into my house and speak freely, unless I allow you. Currently, because of private property rights in the U.S. I am allowing you. I could change my mind at any moment, and where would that leave your "absolute truth"?
Just saying many things aren't as absolute as some would make them out to be. While I may believe that there is such a thing as absolute truth, I certainly don't trust your or Dr. Vickery's warped interpretation of what it is.Actually a deluded believer. Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, No man comes to the the Father , but by ME!
The founding fathers often prayed for God's guidance you can see reference to this in Ben Franklin's writings. So it stands to reason that the crafting of the consitution and the men who did so had a strong faith in God's divine guidance
Just want to make sure I have the rules of engagement and duplicity down here, Dr. Vickery engages in a forum were he expresses his frustration over politicians whom make promises to protect us and the constitution and instead look out for them selves and line there pockets with gold. Some people here then claim concern for such angry rhetoric and when pushed they resort to angry rhetoric of there own, yet excuse there own behavior and stand firmly by it. Do I have this right so far? Then when others point out they should just address the subject matter barbs are then exchanged here as well. So much concern over angry rhetoric it makes one concerned does it ?oops correction: So much concern over angry rhetoric it makes one concerned or does it ?
I'm going to ignore the ramblings, ranting and disruptions and get back to the subject. Was this and Christain nation. I submit Adams wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson in which he declared: The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were the only principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite..And what were these general Priciples? I answer the general priciples of Christainity, in which all these Sects were United: An the general principals of English and Americain Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assit and maintain her independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrail, mudane SystemWow, its a hot bed of discussion here between the postmodernists and the realists. Looks like the postmoderns are sadly losing ground because they cannot seem to address the actual points or answer actual questions but they are very good at using obfuscation tactics like insult and revisionist linguistics. Let me give you an exampleMs. Gosh Stone acuses the doctor of angry dangerous rhetoric full of self righteous racism and then refers to her ownportrayals of the doctor as "White, male, self-righteous and egotistical, cruel, maybe even bordering on evil, self-serving, gluttenous, with an absolute ugliness of spirit" as "testiness" which was the fault of the doctor's evil mudslinging. This is the postmodern specialty known as revisionist linguistics. It is a method by which you can act any way you like and then call it something else. Then you can see yourself as a loving person full of compassion even though you have a mouth like a garbage can. Its brilliant really, a simple tactic learned from any two-year old. Just say "no". So, when people accuse you of having potty mouth you can just say "no I don't, you do" or when people accuse you of not answering the questions you can say "I refuse to stoop to actually answering anything" and when people ask you "why?" you can call them some rude names and refer to yourself as a loving compassionate person who cares deeply about things like race (except the white kind) and creed (except the Christian kind) and truth ( except the actual kind)"Out of the abundance of the heart, speaks the mouth" (luke 6:45)Well, I have read the thread and found it lots of fun but Melanie from USA is right, back to the point now. Are we or not a Christian nation. Dr. Vickery says we aren't any longer, although we were. Mr. Lewis says he concedes that it is plausible that our nation was influenced by Christian principles, although he is not impressed by certain quotes the founding fathers made concerning the importance of God and the bible. I agree with Mr. Lewis that the founders didn't want to enforce religion, that doesn't mean that they didn't realize the authority of God or at least the importance of God's involvement in government. (They invoked prayer in congress for a reason.) So, although they saw the destructive influence of theocracies they also saw the need to recognize God's place as the One whose Blessings were needed to make the union of the states a success. No one is saying that the founders wanted a theocratic form of government, they knew that that meant government taking the role of God. That's what religion usually boils down to, the institution taking the role of God.THe founders were the first ones to realize this distinction between religion and God and they attempted to keep religion from squelching people's freedom to know God. So the Constitution is as much meant to protect people's ability to worship God as it is meant to protect them against the tyrannies of religious institutions.Hello Eve,Perfectly chosen name, don't you think. Each comment speaks for itself. Including Dr. Vickery's racist and sexist ones. "Potty mouth"? If the shoe fits.DaveYour comment is too oblique to know exactly to who or what you are referring. You will have to be a little clearer.
An excerpt from How The Bible Formed our Nation: the pigrims got a toehold in the New World. The Puritains came next in wave after wave of migration. By the end of the seventeenth century, the Puritains outnunbered the Pilgrims and the two were practically indistinguishable. Then the Presbyterians, also followers of Jesus Christ via the teaching of John Calven and John Knox, came in great waves
"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."-Randall Terry, Founder of Operation RescueQuoted in The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana. 8-16-93
Fundamentalism is variously described by various authors, but to me it really boils down to a rather simple test: In my view, a fundamentalist religion is a religion, any religion, that when confronted with a conflict between love, compassion and caring, and conformity to doctrine, will almost invariably choose the latter regardless of the effect it has on its followers or on the society of which it is a part.
Gott Mit Uns (God is with us) proclaimed the belt buckles of the Nazi SS storm troopers. Of course, every religious fundamentalist makes the same claim. The way that the fundamentalist justifies the exercise of his influence and power in society is that God is on his side, and needs his efforts to see that God's work is done. The famous Christian fundamentalist political technician, Ralph Reed, even says of himself, "I'm the stealth candidate... I paint my face and travel at night." How does he morally justify that kind of deceptive behavior? Does the end justify the means? Or is God simply incapable of implementing His own agenda without Ralph's help?
The fundamentalist believes that he is right. Period.He believes he knows the will of God. We've all seen that bumper sticker that says, "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." Of course the fallacy is that there's no proof, or even reliable evidence, that God ever said anything.When someone takes such a doctrinaire approach to religion, without being willing to accept that he may be wrong, it becomes very easy to believe that he knows what's right for everyone else as well.When he believes that he knows what is best for everyone else, it is a very short leap to the feeling that he has the right, if not the responsibility to impose on others the point of view he is so sure is not only correct, but even infallible. After all it is for their own good, is it not?Thus the fundamentalist has, by his conviction that he is correct, justified the extinction, by force if neccessary, of opposing points of view. This is why so many highly public fundamentalists take positions that would not only be familiar, but quite comfortable to most fascists. This is why Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue, feels justified in saying that he doesn't want pluralism. It is why Ralph Reed used to describe himself as the "stealth" candidate, "painting [his] face and travelling at night."
"Clearly there is much at stake in the public policy debates that underlie the influence and epidemiology of this meme complex in our society. For this reason, we cannot simply make the unwarranted assumption that because it's the dominant religion, and it outwardly at least, preaches love and tolerance, that it's good.Besides the public policy issues, there is the mental health issue of the hosts of the meme complex as well. How many suffer, without understanding what has happened to them, that they are the targets of a system originally designed two thousand years ago to preserve a culture and religion from an immediate threat, and give their means and their lives over to it? How many families are broken, how many lives ruined, how many friendships destroyed, simply because everyone assumes that because it's religion, it's good? How many innocent victims, such as humanists, gays and feminists, should be made to suffer so that the meme complex can be allowed to propagate freely? The time has come for some serious study of this phenomenon, both from a personal mental health and a public policy perspective. And the time has come that we should base our public policies on what we now know are the consequences of being infected with this meme complex. We are now well aware of the consequences for the believers and their families, neighbors and society. Can we stand by and allow the unfortunate consequences of this meme complex to continue to propagate themselves? Personally, I think not. One and a half millenia ago, the meme complex led to the destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria. That single act, for which the perpetrator was sainted, led to the stifling of scientific progress for more than a millenium, and allowed the death and persecution of millions. We know better now. Let us not make that same mistake again."Scott BidstrupThe Mind Virus
Ideas behaving in society like viruses in the body
What is a meme? A meme is an idea that behaves in society like a virus does in a body. They're all around us. Political or sexual jokes, for example, can behave like memes, they start with one person, are retold time and again, and end up travelling around the world, as they're told and retold, and in so doing, they behave like viruses. They infect (the joke is told to the 'host'), they reproduce (are retold by the 'host' where they 'infect' new 'hosts,' etc.), they mutate (are told in variations that arise in the retelling), and they can even have vectors (books and magazines, for example).
Like viruses, memes can be benign like many physical viruses, or they can be pathological, producing illness, just as do many physical viruses. Like physical viruses, they can be only modestly infective, or they can be highly virulent. They can control behavior, just as physical viruses can, and they can even direct physical evolution, as explained by the recent article on them in Scientific American (see The Power of Memes, by Susan Blackmore in the October 2000 issue, page 64). The whole range of behaviors that are seen in physical viruses can be seen to have analogies in memes.Anonymous! You forget something that is called the carnal mind. It is already sick, sinful, and HELL bound!
More comments
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.