McCain rejects minister's endorsement

Daughter of the King wrote:

<quoted text>Your right about the piano dropping (Crashing) instead of a pin.. hopefully you can write something with a sweet melody of a piano sometime..Yes it was the romans who did the actual killing of Jesus, but it was the religious leaders of the Jews who master minded the whole thing.. Just like charles manson, he did not actually do the killings but he master minded the whole thing. Do you think Charles manson is innocent? As far as the bible is concerned.((Men guarded the bible, even their very lives to copy the bible exactly right...(I know also that God is a big enough God to watch over his word))))...... Here is a little history before it was written in english..... 1,400 BC: The first written Word of God: The Ten Commandments delivered to Moses.
500 BC: Completion of All Original Hebrew Manuscripts which make up The 39 Books of the Old Testament.
200 BC: Completion of the Septuagint Greek Manuscripts which contain The 39 Old Testament Books AND 14 Apocrypha Books.
1st Century AD: Completion of All Original Greek Manuscripts which make up The 27 Books of the New Testament.
315 AD: Athenasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, identifies the 27 books of the New Testament which are today recognized as the canon of scripture.
382 AD: Jerome's Latin Vulgate Manuscripts Produced which contain All 80 Books (39 Old Test.+ 14 Apocrypha + 27 New Test).
500 AD: Scriptures have been Translated into Over 500 Languages.
600 AD: LATIN was the Only Language Allowed for Scripture.
995 AD: Anglo-Saxon (Early Roots of English Language) Translations of The New Testament Produced.
1384 AD: Wycliffe is the First Person to Produce a (Hand-Written) manuscript Copy of the Complete Bible; All 80 Books.
1455 AD: Gutenberg Invents the Printing Press; Books May Now be mass-Produced Instead of Individually Hand-Written. The First Book Ever Printed is Gutenberg's Bible in Latin.
1516 AD: Erasmus Produces a Greek/Latin Parallel New Testament.
1522 AD: Martin Luther's German New Testament.
1526 AD: William Tyndale's New Testament; The First New Testament printed in the English Language..........Men guarded the bible, even their very lives to copy the bible exactly right... I know also that God is a big enough God to watch over his word)))).....

Impressive, considering your earlier posts. I'm not wholly convinced that the Bible is still as it was first printed (translations are rough and even the same language evolves over time, try reading BEOWULF in its original English form) and it is still the word of a man, or men. I notice you do not mention the King James version at all .. would you consider that an unauthorized version?
I certainly do not consider Manson innocent, but then I don't consider insanity an adequate defense against murder. The Family members who actually did the stabbing, shooting, etc. still must be considered the killers - it was their weak-mindedness that allowed for them to be led into killing. Since it was still the Romans that carried out the act (and remember, they ruled the area at that time - they didn't need to take orders from the Jews) I still believe it was they, not the Jews, who had the greater culpability.

Sh1tbird wrote:

<quoted text>
Impressive, considering your earlier posts. I'm not wholly convinced that the Bible is still as it was first printed (translations are rough and even the same language evolves over time, try reading BEOWULF in its original English form) and it is still the word of a man, or men. I notice you do not mention the King James version at all .. would you consider that an unauthorized version?
I certainly do not consider Manson innocent, but then I don't consider insanity an adequate defense against murder. The Family members who actually did the stabbing, shooting, etc. still must be considered the killers - it was their weak-mindedness that allowed for them to be led into killing. Since it was still the Romans that carried out the act (and remember, they ruled the area at that time - they didn't need to take orders from the Jews) I still believe it was they, not the Jews, who had the greater culpability.

I copied where I left off on my last post, so yes we see there is the good ole james version.. The william Tyndales bible was the first one written in english and it is online, go there.(its interesting) I looked up alot of controversial scriptures and it is the same as the king james but of course the King James has more clarity. King james did an awesome job of copying..........We have to remember that copying the bible is not a game like telephone but it is the word of God!! and I believe these people understood that and were very careful on thier copying... Here is where I left off..........526 AD: William Tyndale's New Testament; The First New Testament printed in the English Language.

1535 AD: Myles Coverdale's Bible; The First Complete Bible printed in the English Language (80 Books: O.T. & N.T. & Apocrypha).

1537 AD: Tyndale-Matthews Bible; The Second Complete Bible printed in English. Done by John "Thomas Matthew" Rogers (80 Books).

1539 AD: The "Great Bible" Printed; The First English Language Bible Authorized for Public Use (80 Books).

1560 AD: The Geneva Bible Printed; The First English Language Bible to add Numbered Verses to Each Chapter (80 Books).

1568 AD: The Bishops Bible Printed; The Bible of which the King James was a Revision (80 Books).

1609 AD: The Douay Old Testament is added to the Rheims New Testament (of 1582) Making the First Complete English Catholic Bible; Translated from the Latin Vulgate (80 Books).

1611 AD: The King James Bible Printed; Originally with All 80 Books. The Apocrypha was Officially Removed in 1885 Leaving Only 66 Books.

Get Real wrote:

Who cares? McCain is a Bush-look-alike-loser regardless.

You obvioulsy don't bother yourself with facts. If you had ever spent a moment researching, reviewing voting records, past political battles, etc, you would certainly not make such an ignorant and misguided comment. Go ahead, bless us with your flood of facts to support the likeness between McCain and Bush. During your much anticipated intellectual enlightenment, please exclude voting to go to war with Iraq. Most democrats voted for the war like republicans. The fact that B HUSSEIN Obama didn't is mot surprising since he's an Anti-American Muslim with the worst voting record of all the candidates. Although, at least in the matter of the war, he actually voted yes or no instead of present for a change. Obama probably couldn't vote on many issues as he may be unable to comprehend complex or simple matters. Look at it. He was the member of Rev Wrights anti-white racist church for over twenty years and never noticed it. Not the sharpest tack in the box.

Brasidias wrote:

<quoted text>Why is it the liberal response is always slander? Can you not address the specific claims made by Goldberg? As for your (and several others) accusing me of having only a single source, you are sadly mistaken. My reading list from this last year alone is probably longer than your last ten. But then, I don’t know you and this may not be true. I can only assume so based on your emotional response.
I like Goldberg and I think his work is well researched and verifiable. Tell me why you think it is not. Please leave your invective and slander out and go to the facts.

Try getting some more sources to back you and Goldilocks Goldberg Goldman and any other Golds you can think of. If it's verifiable, verify it.

my post was not to show that they were to reap what was sewn but to point how forgiving our Father is.

“Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do”(Luke 23:34). Those who crucified Jesus were not aware of the full scope of what they were doing because they did not identify Him as the Messiah. While their ignorance of divine truth did not mean they deserved forgiveness, Christ’s prayer in the middle of their mocking Him is an showing the limitless compassion of divine grace.

Loons wrote:

<quoted text>
You obvioulsy don't bother yourself with facts. If you had ever spent a moment researching, reviewing voting records, past political battles, etc, you would certainly not make such an ignorant and misguided comment. Go ahead, bless us with your flood of facts to support the likeness between McCain and Bush. During your much anticipated intellectual enlightenment, please exclude voting to go to war with Iraq. Most democrats voted for the war like republicans. The fact that B HUSSEIN Obama didn't is mot surprising since he's an Anti-American Muslim with the worst voting record of all the candidates. Although, at least in the matter of the war, he actually voted yes or no instead of present for a change. Obama probably couldn't vote on many issues as he may be unable to comprehend complex or simple matters. Look at it. He was the member of Rev Wrights anti-white racist church for over twenty years and never noticed it. Not the sharpest tack in the box.

Finally, a person with facts, maybe you can help us. Who's Hillary's pastor, & what is the name of her church? what is her 20 year church history?
No one on the web, has any idea, thanks.

Reverend Edward Matthews, retired, is the closest Hillary has to a pastor of her own. She is United Methodist by definition. Her membership is with First United Methodist Church in Little Rock, Ar. although it has been 17 years she has not moved her membership hmmmmm.

Humanity wrote:

<quoted text>
Finally, a person with facts, maybe you can help us. Who's Hillary's pastor, & what is the name of her church? what is her 20 year church history?
No one on the web, has any idea, thanks.

I did find this link http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/25/past...

jus my 2 cents wrote:

Reverend Edward Matthews, retired, is the closest Hillary has to a pastor of her own. She is United Methodist by definition. Her membership is with First United Methodist Church in Little Rock, Ar. although it has been 17 years she has not moved her membership hmmmmm.

Thanks, I've asked this question since the Wright isseus, came to light on at least 20 blogs. No one have been able to answear.
The same people associate Obama to Islam, with the knowledge of his 20 year church history at Wrights.
And no one ever ask, Bill or Hillary, their religious info or background.
Lets me know, that those hard working christian Democratic Kentucky voters, are actually racist.

Brasidias wrote:

<quoted text>Why is it the liberal response is always slander? Can you not address the specific claims made by Goldberg? As for your (and several others) accusing me of having only a single source, you are sadly mistaken. My reading list from this last year alone is probably longer than your last ten. But then, I don’t know you and this may not be true. I can only assume so based on your emotional response.
I like Goldberg and I think his work is well researched and verifiable. Tell me why you think it is not. Please leave your invective and slander out and go to the facts.

With posts like this,

"Brasidias wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry if those nasty facts disturbed your restful delusion. Go back to sleep.

and many others you have set the tone for many of the responses you have received. Your posts are full of ad-hominems yet you call what I have posted slander?

I call what Goldberg wrote editorial because it fits in that he reiterates a known event as revised history setting up a personal commentary which is an opinion. I would go so far from the critiques I have read to call many of his portrayals of events revised enough to be labeled as straw men, set up to be knocked down based upon a preconceived bias.

I have not read the book and I am not planning to do so based on several reviews that indicate beyond a reasonable doubt that it is biased to the point that the only purpose of reading it would be to know ones enemy.

Here is an excerpt from one of my favorites,

Scott Horton wrote this for Harper's,

Read it in its' entirety at http://harpers.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-900024...

The fact that political issues command attention and engage the public suggests that all is well in a democratic state. But then I wade into these books and get discouraged. All is not well. We no longer live in an age of Pitts, Burkes, Tom Paines and Alexander Hamiltons. The quality of dialogue that rages in these books is generally vapid, mundane, crude political diatribe. The books are often little more than a chain of ad hominem attacks on political personalities. I don’t see much basis for distinction between writers on the “left” and the “right” in this field, though the later seem to have a sustained predominance in the marketplace. Granted this is not true of every book, though surely it is true of the great majority.

What’s missing? A serious engagement with great ideas. A willingness to think consequently, to pull out of the rut of mundane partisan politics, to approach national and international politics in a manner divorced from the “gotcha” world of contemporary rhetoric. Is this sort of dialogue worthy of our society? Does it serve us?

Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism, is certainly not the worst of the worst. But it’s amazingly bad. The fact that it secured publication with a major publishing house and that it is offered up as a subject for conversation on talk shows around the country says something rather profound about our culture, I am afraid–and not positive.

Brasidias wrote:

<quoted text>Why is it the liberal response is always slander? Can you not address the specific claims made by Goldberg? As for your (and several others) accusing me of having only a single source, you are sadly mistaken. My reading list from this last year alone is probably longer than your last ten. But then, I don’t know you and this may not be true. I can only assume so based on your emotional response.
I like Goldberg and I think his work is well researched and verifiable. Tell me why you think it is not. Please leave your invective and slander out and go to the facts.

PS my guess is that the only way for your reading list to be much longer than mine is if you are retired or independently wealthy. It is also not always what you read that counts but how it relates to things you have actually done in your life.

I often read material that differs from my own opinions. One of my favorites was the late great William F. Buckley Jr. Too bad the right no longer has men of his stature in their ranks.

I do not however waste much time on books like Goldberg's that have been declared by so many as a waste of time.

Please consider signing the pettion to have Fr Michael Pfleger removed as a priest. Pfleger is racist and his behavior is unbecoming to a Catholic priest. Pflager has supported Barack Obamas Pastor Jeremiah Wright and made reprehensible.

http://youtube.com/watch...

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/removable-of...

Humanity wrote:

<quoted text>
Finally, a person with facts, maybe you can help us. Who's Hillary's pastor, & what is the name of her church? what is her 20 year church history?
No one on the web, has any idea, thanks.

Her religion, much like her speech pattern, varies with geographical region.
In the South, she's Southern Baptist.
Illinois, she's a Lutheran.
California, Scientologist
In areas with several denominations and no clear majority, she's Methodist. They are one of the more tolerant sects.

Sh1tbird wrote:

<quoted text>
Her religion, much like her speech pattern, varies with geographical region.
In the South, she's Southern Baptist.
Illinois, she's a Lutheran.
California, Scientologist
In areas with several denominations and no clear majority, she's Methodist. They are one of the more tolerant sects.

I truly see your point, maybe we should assign Hillary a new christian faith?
From what you have listed above, I believe "CHRISTCAMELEON", would be a rather good choice.:-)

Washingtons culture of deception
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin4...

NO to Read ID
http://www.republicmagazine.com/magazines/Rep...

What to do when you don't like the candidates
http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom111.h...

Money bomb to make history
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2008/...

get real wrote:

<quoted text>
Yup. He used to think waterboarding was torture.

Get your facts straight before you speak!

From: NEW YORK TIMES

(January 25, 2008) Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field.

We have shuddered at Mr. McCain’s occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle. He was an early advocate for battling global warming and risked his presidential bid to uphold fundamental American values in the immigration debate. A genuine war hero among Republicans who proclaim their zeal to be commander in chief, Mr. McCain argues passionately that a country’s treatment of prisoners in the worst of times says a great deal about its character.

Mr. McCain was one of the first prominent Republicans to point out how badly the war in Iraq was being managed. We wish he could now see as clearly past the temporary victories produced by Mr. Bush’s unsustainable escalation, which have not led to any change in Iraq’s murderous political calculus. At the least, he owes Americans a real idea of how he would win this war, which he says he can do. We disagree on issues like reproductive rights and gay marriage.

In 2006, however, Mr. McCain stood up for the humane treatment of prisoners and for a ban on torture. We said then that he was being conned by Mr. Bush, who had no intention of following the rules. But Mr. McCain took a stand, just as he did in recognizing the threat of global warming early. He has been a staunch advocate of campaign finance reform, working with Senator Russ Feingold, among the most liberal of Democrats, on groundbreaking legislation, just as he worked with Senator Edward Kennedy on immigration reform.

That doesn’t make him a moderate, but it makes him the best choice for the party’s presidential nomination.

charles wrote:

McCain is too old to be president. I found a website that shows Old man Mc"Cane" making alot of mistakes on the trail. If you dont believe hes old just go to this site and watch the videos.
the site is www.McCanes.com

A lot of spin about nothing...Here read the New york Times if you can!From: NEW YORK TIMES

(January 25, 2008) Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field.

We have shuddered at Mr. McCain’s occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle. He was an early advocate for battling global warming and risked his presidential bid to uphold fundamental American values in the immigration debate. A genuine war hero among Republicans who proclaim their zeal to be commander in chief, Mr. McCain argues passionately that a country’s treatment of prisoners in the worst of times says a great deal about its character.

Mr. McCain was one of the first prominent Republicans to point out how badly the war in Iraq was being managed. We wish he could now see as clearly past the temporary victories produced by Mr. Bush’s unsustainable escalation, which have not led to any change in Iraq’s murderous political calculus. At the least, he owes Americans a real idea of how he would win this war, which he says he can do. We disagree on issues like reproductive rights and gay marriage.

In 2006, however, Mr. McCain stood up for the humane treatment of prisoners and for a ban on torture. We said then that he was being conned by Mr. Bush, who had no intention of following the rules. But Mr. McCain took a stand, just as he did in recognizing the threat of global warming early. He has been a staunch advocate of campaign finance reform, working with Senator Russ Feingold, among the most liberal of Democrats, on groundbreaking legislation, just as he worked with Senator Edward Kennedy on immigration reform.

That doesn’t make him a moderate, but it makes him the best choice for the party’s presidential nomination.