It is with amazement that I see a "Bishop" (I hate titles in the Church. Bishop is the latest fad. Before that it was Apostle. Before that, Prophet) giving such accolades to a man simply because he is of the same race. Two things, Mr. Jakes. First, Obama is HALF Black, since you are paying attention to race. He is not fully Negro. Does THAT matter, or are you just happy to claim someone as one of your own if he has ANY Negroid blood in his veins? If we all go back to Adam and Eve, and again down through the lines of Noah, as his "faith" teaches, then we ALL sprang from a common ancestry, just different genetic combinations. It is with great wonder that I look to see how simple yet so complicated it is for genetics to propagate under God's plan and create all varieties of people.
Here is an absolute apostacy of a quote from Jakes.
However, what I really hope people take away from that night is that this is not just a victory for African Americans, it is a victory for democracy that proves that our country provides possibilities for all people. It is also a sign that a metamorphosis is in progress. Today we saw that Americans respect experience, but are interested in change. I hope that we can somehow merge the best ideas of our differences and emerge with a president who epitomizes our highest and best ideals.
Here are some problems with that quote. First, it is not yet a total victory for anyone. It is potentially a nomination and it is not yet secure, but most likely will be. Second, it is not a victory for "African Americans". Personally, I despise that term since it is a misnomer. Not all Blacks in America came from Africa or from ancestors that came from Africa. Furthermore, there are millions of Whites in Africa, as well. I do not consider myself an "Anglo American" or a "Franco American". I am an American. Period. Should White men and women who immigrated from South Africa or other nation on that continent also be referred to as "African Americans?" If my French ancestors were native to French colonies in Africa, then later immigrated to North America, should I start referring to myself as "African American"? Why so many terms by which Black wish to be referenced? There was Black, Colored, Negro, now "African American". Choose one and stick with it. Thus, I refuse to use the term in every day vernacular, just as I refuse to use the term "gay" to refer to homosexuals. Both are hijacked, inaccurate terms arbitrarily and autocratically derived.
Third, we do not live in a "democracy". We live in a representative republic. There is a huge difference. Mr. Jakes should know that, but he instead perpetuates the lie of us being a democracy.
Fourth, Americans DO respect experience. Barack Hussein Obama just has very little of it to be taken seriously as a candidate by everyone who will not vote for him. That has been a major topic of discussion since he announced his candidacy. Mr. Jakes, to WHAT experience do you refer?
Fifth, we can not "emerge with a president who epitomizes our highest and best ideals" in this election cycle. None of the three candidates (stooges) reflect that statement. If Obama epitomizes our highest and best ideals, then the United States must be a Socialist nation and no longer exists in its original form as bound by its Constitution or foundation. Wherein does Barack Hussein Obama reflect the highest ideals of America? He wants to socialize medicine, he refuses to meet with our military leaders in Iraq, he wants to raise taxes, and turn a Republic run on capitalism into a Socialist Utopia.
Another quote by Jakes is
I congratulate not just Sen. Obama on his victory, but the country on this landmark event that has shattered a past all too often filled with reasons to separate us as opposed to a voice of reason to unite us.Mr. Jakes, it is not the color of Obama's skin that divides him from those of a different skin tone. It is his politics, his beliefs, his lack of experience, and just plain being an inappropriate candidate for President. The only people who are united are those who put their skin color ahead of their principles, or are liberals and therefore have no sound principles.
As a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, T.D. Jakes of all people should be absolutely disgusted with the racist, hateful, and theologically errant pastor, Jeremiah Wright's teachings. As the leader of his home, Barack Hussein Obama chose Rev. Wright to perform his marriage ceremony, baptize him and his children, provide spiritual nourishment for his family, and to sow into that infertile ground with his money and time. Nobody can convince me that you can go to a church for two decades and not understand the sort of philosophies perpetuated by the leader of said church. To deny that is a blatant lie and is of the Father of All lies. For T.D. Jakes to endorse this behavior, indirectly endorse these values, and to approve of a man who has been thusly indoctrinated is just plain wrong and antithetical to the Gospel he claims to represent.
I have no problem congratulating Barack Hussein Obama on his accomplishment. It is indeed an historic event and great accomplishment. However, when men of principle fail to exhibit the very substance for which they purport to stand, it disgusts me. I am a man of faith in Christ before I am a White man or an American. My faith determines my principles and my identity, not my skin color. I have had problems with the theology of T.D. Jakes as it is. This obviously shows more problems with Jakes' theology. Disgusting.
10 comments:
Well, Troy needs to CHILL OUT!!! You sound so MAD at Obama. You loose most rational people by beginning your commentary with the use of the name "HUSSEIN" to refer to Barack Obama. What's the point - if you are not trying to scare people about Obama. Thats a name his African dad (who left when Barack was 2) gave him. A name he does not use.
Secondly, You seem VERY ANGRY!!!
Third, you accuse TD Jakes of putting race ahead of principle. What you fail to understand is that when you are in a minority race, it impacts you in some way.
Think about the Jewish Americans. After their oppression, they are committed to selecting leaders that protect their interest, so they support ONLY pro-JEWISH candidates.
I dont hear you criticize Jewish Americans. I support them because it is a legitimate concern to see that candidates look out for your interest, after you have been oppressed.
Obama may be young (like Clinton and Kennedy), but Bush was a inexperienced. However, they all did some good things.
OBAMA has always called for a better tone and attitude on race relations. Give him some credit.
You may not agree with him, but its unfair to spread hateful commentary.
Finally, read Obama's policies. Dont go by Rush or Sean Hannity's commentary.
You are entitled to your opinion, BUT NOT your facts.
You totally miss the point. First, Jakes, allegedly a "born again Christian" is not maintaining a world view consistent with the very values and perspective he espouses. Ergo, he is a heretic.
I am not mad at Obama. I merely find him to be an abomination and antithetical to the foundation of this nation.
As you pointed out, Hussein IS his name. It is not a scare tactic. It is using his name.
Angry? Yes, I am pissed off that a man who is in the position of spiritual authority and influence is leading people astray. It pissed off Jesus. It pissed off Paul. It pissed off Peter. And it pisses off me.
Yes, I accuse Jakes of putting race ahead of principle. So do many other people who are leaders in the Church, and rightly so. IN CHRIST, race means nothing. IN CHRIST, we are supposed to find unity. IN CHRIST, we are supposed to mark those who walk unruly. IN CHRIST, we are supposed to be identified with HIM, not with our race. There is neither Jew nor gentile, bond nor free, male nor female IN CHRIST. Jakes is IN NEGRO with his perspective, not IN CHRIST. That is a problem and an abomination.
As to your comments about Jewish folks, they do not espouse the IN CHRIST and are of the world. Ergo, I expect them to act like the world. In endorsing Obama, Jakes has endorsed someone who supports abortion and homosexual marriage. Both are anathema to the values espoused by Jakes. His race came before his principles. Period. The problem is that you have a worldly point of view, not a spiritual one.
Lest you forget, in your example, Bush was indeed the executive of a large state. I am no Bush apologist, by the way. Just that truth is truth.
I could not care less what Obama is calling for, allegedly. No, I will not give him any credit.
It is NOT unfair to spread TRUTH. That is what I did and will continue to do. See, truth does not come from you, from Obama, or even from me. Truth is an established standard by one who is higher than I. I shall merely proclaim it, whether you or anyone else likes it or not.
You say that I am entitled to my opinion but not my facts? Facts are facts and I did not establish them. I merely point them out.
BTW, I don't get my info from Rush or from Hannity. Try again. I am a conservative, ergo I think for myself. Get your talking points from somewhere other than the DNC or from the ledgers of Madeline Murray O'Haire.
troy i think your understanding is quite darkened. Obama stands for many things that christians are against but this election is not about religion, its about democracy.
ideally obama should say no to gay rights but thats clearly mixing religion and politics. no on what grounds. thats no different to muslims who make bibles illegal.
we cannot have a president who persues a christian agenda. what if a president persued a hindu agenda? a bhuddist agenda. by denying gay people their right we are endorsing the chineese who deny christians their rights because they are a minority.
as a christian i marvel that so many christians are naive enough to belive a government will be pro- christian.
Gay people pay taxes, they are not harming anyone. If they want to have sex, thats their right. If they want to buy a house together, thats them. if they want to marry let them. what christians want to do is to create a state that favours their interests and neglects those of others.
td jakes as a christian has a right to express his joy that obama has made such a historic advance. being a christian does not mean you should be ignorant. anyway he did not endorse obama, he expresses his joy that obama had done well. what you are demanding of td jakes is that he not have a political opinion. i support obama because of his tax policy- period. yes he is pro choice but thats not my business. the tax system needs to be addressed.
your argument that race is not an issue is flawed. its just as ignorant as saying gender is not an issue. yes, from a philosophical stand point these are of no consequence but we all know that race is an issue to many people. many white people have said they would never vote for a black man. thats a fact. so that obama has managed to bridge the racial divide is an accomplishment that is worthy of applause. even white people have commended obama for this extraodinary feat, are they putting their race before their faith by commending obama. Your comment is clearly inspired by racial undertones. jsut because td jakes is black does not mean he commended obama because he is black, if obama was hispanic do you think td jakes would not have congradulated him.
if hillary clinton had won the nomination and joyce meyer had applauded her or being the the first female nominee, would you have accused her of putting her gender before her faith.
even if person is not a christian it does not mean we should refuse to acknowledge them. obama is a great man, i don't subscribe to all his ideals but i respect his talent. he is eloquent and intelligent, even a christian can see that. for you to persecute td jakes because he simply expressed his point of view is nothing less of being incerdibly naive or just plain simple stupid.
Well, Eddie, I appreciate the feedback, but do disagree. Gay rights is in no way "clearly mixing religion and politics". It is a matter of sound public policy. You claim, "Gay people pay taxes, they are not harming anyone." I vehemently disagree that they are not harming anyone. Au contraire, they are harming the fabric of society, encouraging the rest of America and the world to accept their unnatural choice to be a civil right, and are actively working to destroy the morality of the majority of the nation with their moral corruption.
You said, "christians are against but this election is not about religion, its about democracy". No, we do not live under a democracy. Actually, the writers of both of our constitutions for this nation detested democracy. That is why we have a republic rather than a democracy. We have never been a democracy...ever.
You said, "td jakes as a christian has a right to express his joy that obama has made such a historic advance." Yet Jakes made a political, public choice that is anathema to the very gospel he allegedly preaches. Knowing what Jakes claims to believe, I personally question his faith. Supporting Obama merely because he is Negro is putting that fact ahead of the foundation of the religious views he supposedly espouses. Period. It is blatant hypocrisy and quite honestly, it is heresy.
You made the false assertion of "what you are demanding of td jakes is that he not have a political opinion." Not at all. Actually, I believe quite the opposite. I believe that ministers should have strong political views and should have the right to express them. However, those views should be in line with their religious views. The views of Obama are contrary to Christianity, which Jakes supposedly peddles. THAT is the issue at hand. Ergo, SHAME ON T.D. JAKES for this stance.
You also added, "i support obama because of his tax policy- period. yes he is pro choice but thats not my business. the tax system needs to be addressed." While I agree that the tax system needs to be radically addressed (I am an ardent supporter of the Fair Tax plan), Obama has no real tax plan. What is Obama's plan other than to raise taxes on the rich and redistribute wealth? He has no real plan but rather has demonstrated an incredible ignorance of economics in his rantings about taxation.
And YES, a candidate being pro-choice IS INDEED YOUR BUSINESS! It is everyone's business in this nation. You claim to be a Christian. If the wanton slaughter of innocent life does not phase you in the least bit, does not give you concern, then I seriously question your faith in Christ. Abortion is murder. Period. I seem to remember something in a commandment about murder.....
Eddie, you again dumped on my lawn, so here it goes again. You claim, "your argument that race is not an issue is flawed." No, it is not. Read again. Race is not nor has ever been an issue with me. It is principle. It is the issues that matter to me. I would vote for Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, and like thinking conservatives over liberal white guys every time.
You ask, "if hillary clinton had won the nomination and joyce meyer had applauded her or being the the first female nominee, would you have accused her of putting her gender before her faith." You better believe I would in a second. To me, that is an absolute no-brainer.
Your assertion that "obama has managed to bridge the racial divide" is specious at best, but certainly inaccurate. He has deepened the chasm, actually. Everything seems to be about race. If anyone discusses an issue publicly that is contrary to Obama's position, the race card is played. I find it amusing, since Obama is half white but claims to be Negro. He is only half Negro. Any criticism of his inexperience, his liberalism, his ignorance of economics or foreign policy has been met with accusations of racism. That has not crossed the racial divide, it has deepened it.
"if obama was hispanic do you think td jakes would not have congradulated him" That is exactly what I believe. You can make all the accusations of "Your comment is clearly inspired by racial undertones" you want, but it is unfounded and most inaccurate. By the way, my message would have been carrying undertones, not inspired by them, had your assertion been accurate, which it is not.
"obama is a great man" OH??? HOW???
"for you to persecute td jakes because he simply expressed his point of view is nothing less of being incerdibly naive or just plain simple stupid." Alas, the hypocrisy deepens with the passage of time and continuing in liberalistic twaddle. You were not intelligent enough to leave it alone, you had to come back for a second round before I even got a chance to respond to the first and decided to leave a flaming bag of dog poo on my lawn. Personally, I find the support of Barack Hussein Obama to be, in your words, "nothing less of being incerdibly naive or just plain simple stupid".
Try spell check some time. Get saved. Never show up with a knife to a gun fight.
you stil haven't anwered my second post. and you are running away from tne fact of the matter TD JAKES DID NOT ENDORSE OR SAY HE SUPPORTS OBAMA!!!
he simply congradulated him and applauded his achievements. what part of that offends you.
if you thought he supported him then you guessed wrong. TD Jakes made it clear afterwards that this was not his intention.
so unless you are so desperate to believe this lie then you can take the explanation from the man himself. he is the one who wrote the piece so he can explain exactly what he meant.
your argument is based on a notion that td jakes himself has publicly disowned. he has said he did not mean to endorse any candidate.
you will notice that td jakes made no mention of supporting obama or supporting his policies. SO WHERTE DO YOU GET THE IDEA THAT HE SUPPORTS HIM
exchanging pleasantries with a candidate or applauding his achievements does not equate to endorsement. DOES IT?
"Au contraire, they are harming the fabric of society, encouraging the rest of America and the world to accept their unnatural choice to be a civil right, and are actively working to destroy the morality of the majority of the nation with their moral corruption."
this comment you made shows that you are limited in your world view. morality is a relative. in iran for example christian are being killed for destroying tgh emoral fibre of society. and they are. they have different beliefs from the majority. so are these regimes right in persecuting them, denying them the right of congregation etc?
your views are as fundamentalist as those of many muslim dictatorships that deny christian minorities the right of worship because they say christianity goes against the moral fabric of their society, are they right. your assertions justify their argument.
Eddie, those are the last comments you are going to be allowed to leave. You have shot your wad now.
Did you actually read the Jakes comments? I did. They are an endorsement. Period. Jakes went far beyond "exchanging pleasantries". He gave an endorsement.
Am I limited in my world view? You better believe I am. Is my stance on homosexuality a fundamentalist one? You better believe it is. This is not a bad thing, it is a positive thing. It is the same stance that has been taken since the beginning of time. It is the same stance that GOD HIMSELF takes. Ergo, I adopted it. If you are indeed a Christian and claim that title, as you have done here, then the belief system to which you just claimed to ascribe teaches the same thing. It has for two thousand years. Christianity is not the first values system to believe that very thing, either. If you do not have the same fundamentalist views on obvious sin, on which God says is an abomination, then you are the one with the problem, not me. Period.
Interestingly enough, you whined that I did not answer your second post. HELLO...I was answering the first one, and your second one was not even posted to the blog when I started on it, so relax and stop throwing stones.
You made one comment that shows the difference between someone who has convictions and one who does not. You said, "morality is a relative". No, Eddie, it is not. Like Jakes, you obviously abrogate your responsibility as a Christian and take upon yourself your own morality rather than those of the faith you claim to espouse.
Do you know what it means or is like to be "born again"? If you do, you would know exactly what I am talking about. However, being a natural man, I doubt you do.
YOU came to my blog and dumped on it. When I answered rationally and civilly, you started screaming, complaining, and hurling insults. That is typical of a liberal and a carnal individual.
matt. 12;30--- JESUS SAID "He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathers not with me scatters abroad. We are living in a time when even the elect are being deceived Matt.24;24. There are many preachers and pastors in America that claim to love Jesus Christ, but they have compromised with satan, the world, and the selfesh desires of there own hearts, that they have become blind to the truith of Gods Word. As for myself I will stand on THE WORD OF GOD and place my FAITH AND FUTURE in THE FINISHED WORK OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.If you are one that did cast your vote for a person wether green or purple in color, that is for what God calls evil in His sight, such as Hands that shed inocent blood (Proverbs 6;17) Your hands will bare the blood of every inocent baby that is butchered because YOU said YES TO MURDER with YOUR VOTE. The same is true if the one you voted for thumbs his nose at God and His word by standing with and supporting sin sick men and women who God calls an abomination in His sight.(Leviticus 18;22)And also in the new testament (Romans 1;26-32)Your vote was recorded in Heaven and you are going to share in the sins of the depraved.You are responsible before God For your actions.Matt.12;36-37 By YOUR WORDS YOU SHALL BE JUSTIFIED and by YOUR WORDS YOU SHALL BE CONDEMNED.YOUR VOICE WAS HEARD BY YOUR VOTE.I pray that you REPENT and seek forgiveness through Jesus Christ. John 8;12 FOLLOW JESUS!
Post a Comment