RUCKUS'S BLOG: 1 OUT OF 4 REPUBLICANS SAY OBAMA IS ANTI-CHRIST...3 OUT OF 4 JUST THINK HE'S MUSLIM FASCIST TYRANT

Comment by Santia McEntire on March 30, 2010 at 3:40pm

I love how all of a sudden white people are really loosing there minds! It's like when the minority community is being shited on by the government no one cares, but the moment it effects white people all hell done broke loose! SMH!

Comment by Kelsey E on March 30, 2010 at 5:53pm

1) I love how no one seems to know the true definition of socialism.
2) Gotta appreciate how we can spend billions of tax dollars on a war no one wants to be in yet everyone freaks out over a healthcare bill that not only opens many opprotunities for millions of americans, but will also lower our deficit tremendously in 10-15 years.
3) It seems that no one knows how to be original anymore since socialist, muslim, and "where's your bith certificate, nigger boy?" seems to be all anyone can say. Come on. If you want to insult the guy at least come up with SOMETHING more creative than that.
4) I hate VA with a burning passion and wish to GTFO as soon as possible.

Comment by Randy Duke on March 30, 2010 at 6:05pm

KelsyE I whole heartedly agree, only I am in Kentucky and feel the same. These moron are being controlled by the same rich white guys that caused this mess. OH! And they call Obama a Nazi cuz they can’t say the other N-word

Comment by Lou Harrell on March 30, 2010 at 6:47pm

Kelsey, I couldn't have put it better.

War in Iraq is so fucked up, soldiers are complaining about Burger Kings being shut down.

Comment by TerrorBlades on March 31, 2010 at 5:14am

Damn, Americans go crazy! As A European this is funny as shit! :D
And it's funny with such open scare tactics, SOCIALISM! Socialism or communism for that mater, just thrown around like they know exactly what it is. Love this They say stuff like "Mao, Stalin, Marx and Obama" as if Maoism Marxism and Stalinism is the same thing! Man, sometimes Conservative Americans are better then comedians.

Comment by simo on March 31, 2010 at 9:54am

I'm from England. Come and live here, as in the majority of developed nations, we have healthcare provided by the state, just because your poor, doesn't mean you have to do die because you cant afford treatment. We have evangelicals and highly conservative people, but i'm afraid in a developed country such as England, where we are free to believe in science and whatever we choose, these people are just a bad joke, and considered as such by most of society. Get a grip America, your Republican psycho Christian zealots will have you back in the middle ages. Land of the free, does America not realise that the whole of the modern world is laughing at them?? (Apologies the sane lefties among you)

Comment by Chandler-Dion on April 2, 2010 at 8:13am

Not all of us Conservative Americans are insane, people..lol. We have legitimate concerns about our country and the direction in which it is going [being led]. And American conservatives are not alone in this. MOST Americans feel that way. As for the objections to the "healthcare reform law". Simply because the Democratic Party in this country slapped the name "healthcare reform" on the bill does not make it so. Understand something, ALL of us agree that our health care system is in a shambles. All of us agree in the individual steps to help insure the poor. But this was a mammoth 2700-page bill and insuring the poor did NOT take up 2700 pages, I assure you. So we have good reasons to have concerns. As to the future cost, one commenter quoted the Congressional Budget Office's PROJECTIONS that it will lower the deficit in 10-15 years. But understand, this is just a projection. A prediction. A theory. In 2000, when we began with a budget surplus, none of us could have predicted the attack on 9/11, the ensuing two wars we were misguided into entering, and the two occupations we continue to perpetrate on Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet those events and acts blew the budget surplus away [thanks to the foolish policies of George W. Bush and BOTH the Republican AND Democratic Parties who continued to approve these horrible decisions]. Furthermore, the Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare systems have all failed to stay within their predicted cost ranges and, in fact, new laws had to be passed to "shore up" the respective budgets of those programs and ensure their survival. So do you honestly believe what the CBO predicts about the cost of the health care law will hold true for the next 30 years? One main difference between the state of health care in the U.S. and the state of health care in countries with these programs already in place is that other countries can focus on PREVENTIVE care which keeps the cost of long-term care low for them. We have an overwhelming number of catastrophic health care issues [made worse by our unhealthy lifestyles] which will make those costs much higher for us. Not to mention the fact that, in this country, we have a serious issue with government taking steps to increase its power and further erode individual liberties (something else this bill does with its mandates and threats of fines if individuals do not purchase what the government orders them to purchase).
As for Obama...I don't think the man is a Muslim. I honestly don't think the man is religious at all. And I don't use all the derogatory names to describe him either. I WILL say, however, that he is NOT the candidate who received a mandate from the American people in November 2008. Many of his policies reflect similarities in basic substance to those of George W Bush if you examine them closely [Iraq, Afganistan, Gitmo, Off-shore drilling, Immigration "reform", the patriot act, etc, etc]. He has flipflopped on every issue he campaigned on and the way Washington does business and its politics have not changed at all, they've gotten worse...more divisive. The problem is that too many of the people who voted for him on November 2008 have been "napping" since the election. They have not held the same set of rules regarding accountability that we had for Bush and that is dangerous.
And one last comment regarding Obama and the Anti-Christ. I do not know if this is true, no man can know who the anti-christ is until the time comes when he will be allowed to reveal himself as such. But those who believe in scripture and Christian prophecy cannot ignore the dangerous signs. Our world and society is being aligned and designed to make way for his appearance. I am well aware of how this sounds to people who are non-believers or Christians who do not read the prophecies. But it would seem to me that, in a modern society where people are allowed to believe in whatever they choose to believe in, criticizing these people for their beliefs is tantamount to denouncing a Muslim for worshiping Allah or a Buddhist for not believing in Christ at all. Derogatory words from BOTH sides of an issue only serves to further polarize us. Remember that people. Now I will step down from my soap box.

Comment by Maurice on April 2, 2010 at 2:29pm

@ Chandler-Dion... I agree with 95% of your comment... except for the anti-christ part. There is NO future anti-christ, or future Mr. Diabolical. Read 1 John in context, as well as all NT scripture... using audience relevancy (understanding who the letters were written to, when they were written, and why they were written, and the message that the writer was trying to convey to that group of people)... For example, the majority of mainstream Christendom assumes that the book of Revelation is foreshadowing events that are to happen 2000 years after it was written. However, they ignore key verses that point out that the events in that book were to shortly
come to pass (Rev. 1:1,3)... and that the letter was addressed to a contemporary group of people... the seven churches in the province of Asia (Rev. 1:4)... churches that don't even exist today... furthermore, the "signs of the end" that most reference in Matt. 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 (Olivet Discourse) is not in regards to the end of the world, but they were signs that would demonstrate the end of an age, or period of time... that period of time was the existence of the Old Covenant System, which revolved around the Temple. Jesus said that all of those signs would take place before the end of the age, which would be denoted by the destruction of the symbol of the Old Covenant... the temple... please refer to Matt. 24:1-3, and notice what Jesus says about the temple and it's coming destruction, and also notice the three questions the disciples then ask:
1) When will this happen?
2) What are the signs?
3) What are the signs of the end of the world (Greek translation is aeon, which means "age")?

All of these things happened, including the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, in 70 AD. This was the judgment that was released upon those that murdered Jesus. This was his coming (Parousia)... it was a simultaneous judgment upon the Jews, as well as a salvation/deliverance of believers from the tyranny of the Jews and Roman Empire.

All biblical prophecy has been fulfilled. This is why Jesus Christ is truly Lord of all. If he did not come at the time He said he would come (associated with the destruction of the temple), then Jesus would be a false prophet. He would also be a false prophet because He said...

Matthew 16:28
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Mark 9:1
And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Also, take a look at Jesus responding to the high priest about Him being the Christ, the Son of God...

Matt. 26:64 (AMP)
64Jesus said to him, You have stated [the fact]. More than that, I tell you: You will in the future see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Almighty and coming on the clouds of the sky.

...Jesus says that he, the high priest will witness His coming...

Last point I want to make, in regards to THAT time being the "END TIME"...

Take a look at Hebrews 9:26...

26For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

... it was "the end of the world" that Jesus appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself... the writer clearly states that Jesus' cruxifixion happened at the end of the world... again, the word " world here is the Greek word "aeon", which means age...

We, as Christians, must get our eschatology correct because we're looking foolish to the world (unbelievers and athiests). All of this predicting dates, and moving dates makes us look flaky and foolish. There are athiests who do not believe because we have given them an erroneous end-time teaching (dispensationalism) that isn't even scriptural.

I adjure you, as well as any Christian that may read this, to re-read the NT with the eyes of a first century Christian, to whom these letters were written. Understand the significance of the message, and also, research what happened historically during this time (between 63-70 AD). This will answer a lot of questions and also serve as a powerful evangelistic tool because you will be able to see through historical account how Jesus prophesied exactly what He did.

Also, research Flavius Josephus, a Jewish scholar/historian that worked for the Roman Empire during this time. It will paint the historic canvas/backdrop that can help you put scripture in its proper perspective...

Alright, I'm done!

Comment by simo on April 5, 2010 at 2:03pm

when will the religious among you realise, that religion and politics don't mix. look at the middle east. and 'Chandler-Dion'

"I WILL say, however, that he is NOT the candidate who received a mandate from the American people in November 2008".

I seem to remember George W Bush not winning the election, Fox announcing that he did, and it was so. How could Americans stand for this? This is not democracy (as you're country led the developed world into a war fighting for it). How can a country fight so fervently for democracy, when they cant even support it at home?

and @ Maurice;

If you want to talk history. None of the gospels (those of which made the cut obviously) were written by anyone who met jesus, they were written based on the content of the letters of st Paul, who also never met Jesus. I would like to know why evangelicals consider this evidence?

I have no problem with most the values outlined in the Bible, but why does this need the theology to support it, fear? Core values were developed through tens of thousands of years (you may not agree with this as you may believe the world is less than 10,000 years old but i'll continue) of the evolution of civilization, making ideologies that benefit the progression. My point, murder isn't wrong because Moses received a mandate from god on a little hill, its wrong because it has negative externalities on society. Numerous other civilizations, developed similar values, completely separately, with no influence from the Bible.

So, i'll reiterate, why do we require the theology?

Comment by Maurice on April 5, 2010 at 3:17pm

@ simo - Three of the gospels were not written by people with first hand accounts of Jesus (Matthew, Mark and Luke)... The book of John is a first hand account, however. John was the youngest of the disciples. Furthermore, it would be impossible for the other three to have written their volumes based on the accounts of the Pauline epistles because none of those epistles addressed the activities of Jesus in detail. Paul/Saul was a persecutor of Christians, so he would not have been privy of the information regarding Jesus and the disciples in the first place. Most of Paul's revelation of Jesus came through his personal encounters with Jesus and heaven ( 2 Corinthians 12:1-3). Thus, those three books (Matt., Mark & Luke) would have to be second hand accounts of witnesses that were close to Jesus. Not only that, the detail in all three confirms and validates each other. Though written in different literary styles, the stories/accounts are similar... kinda like multiple news outlets reporting on the same story.

Religion and politics don't mix when both are used to further a certain agenda. IMO, the Right and Left are equally guilty of using this tactic. Right... using it to "support Israel" and "American interest (oil)... which are both wrong... and, the Left, using the "What Would Jesus Do?" mentality and the "all things common" approach to social justice, which is absolutely out of context with scripture to begin with. "All things common", as referenced in Acts 4, was in regards to people belonging to the church, and within that church community, there should be no lack of anything... it was never in regard to government, or Rome, at that time, making things common. Besides, what does the Left, bible-believing Christians do with Jesus telling His disciples that "the poor will be with you always"??? Was Jesus about making things common for everyone, or wasn't he?

In regards to theology being required, IMO, it should not be required because I believe that every human being bears the consciousness of what's right or wrong (Romans 2:14-15). So you're absolutely correct in your assessment of "murder's negative impact on society"...

Any more questions regarding the bible, feel free to ask... or send me an email... I'll be happy to discuss its validity.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page