Barack Obama | Blogs | Evangelical Christians | News

Christian Blogger: LGBT People And Barack Obama Are Responsible For Terrorism

6a00d8341c730253ef01a3fd28bc05970b-800wi

Writing on Christian Post last week, Michael Bresciani launched a sustained attack on President Barack Obama's pro-LGBT policies and suggested that gay people are responsible for terrorism.

Bresciani is the publisher of AmericanProphet.org

In a blog post titled The Perversion and Terrorism Connection - Modern Man’s Ball and Chain, Bresciani wrote that "homosexuals see injustice on every level of society because they are not fully accepted and their normal is seen by most as damaging perversity. They don’t realize that the more their plight becomes accepted as the norm, the closer the rest of the world is in danger of judgment."

Making the link between gay people and terrorism, he argued that "the days of warning about judgments due to perversion are over, these judgments have already begun and terrorism is part of it."

Bresciani continued that Barack Obama's liberal interpretation of the bible is "a satanically inspired lie" which "has already cost close to sixty million bodies lost to abortion, untold numbers of good minds have been lost to godless academia’s hidden agenda. Character and what remains of the human heart have been hijacked by the morally repulsive trends of the pop-culture generations top voices and all that remains to be stolen and usurped is our very eternal destinies."

Arguing that St. Paul would disagree with Obama, he says that the President "is a pompous politician and former community organizer who prior to his run for president accomplished virtually nothing of any notable significance" who dismisses "the words of [St. Paul] as obscure and not worth taking seriously."

 

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Wasn't St. Paul also a community organizer?

    Posted by: DC Insider | Aug 19, 2014 9:21:15 AM


  2. "Credit doesn't go to the critics..." --T. Roosevelt

    Posted by: dc20008 | Aug 19, 2014 9:39:06 AM


  3. Of course much of what he says, can be turned around and said, very truthfully, about Mr. Bresciani and his cabal. It is always clear that these people are really just describing themselves, as agents of Satan, twisting everything to suit his needs. It is just sad they don't or won't see it until it is too late, and they have destroyed the earth to suit Satan.

    Posted by: Critifur | Aug 19, 2014 9:53:55 AM


  4. You're very correct. I didn't "realize" any of that.

    Posted by: Tigernan | Aug 19, 2014 9:56:56 AM


  5. Only Gays blame Jews for everything these Days....

    Posted by: rochon | Aug 19, 2014 10:10:09 AM


  6. blah blah blah, just ignore idiotism.

    Posted by: Matt27 | Aug 19, 2014 10:35:41 AM


  7. @DCINSIDER

    The "st. paul" you are typing about never existed.

    Posted by: Thuban | Aug 19, 2014 11:00:20 AM


  8. That's ridiculous. Everyone knows that Dora the Explorer is responsible for terrorism.

    Posted by: Jack M | Aug 19, 2014 11:09:44 AM


  9. Terrorism is exclusively the work of religious extremists. Mr. Bresciani couldn't see the irony in that if it blew up in his face.

    Posted by: Chadd | Aug 19, 2014 12:10:25 PM


  10. That's great give this blogger more publicity. That is exactly what they wanted. So we fall right into it like fools. Do we need to commment on every wack job out there? Stupid doesn't always need more attention. Their commments speak for themselves.

    Posted by: Dawson | Aug 19, 2014 12:11:09 PM


  11. because that makes sense! that's like Scott "crimes against humanity" Lively's claims that Gays were the architects of the holocaust. which is why gay men were rounded up and put in camps. or something.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Aug 19, 2014 12:14:45 PM


  12. Michael, honey, for the record, "Paul" never really existed. "Paul/Saul" is a composite fictional character and the books of the New Testament not considered the "four gospels" were written by unknown authors to perpetuate the nascent jesus myth that was taking shape in those days. Repeat. "Paul" is not a real, historical person. Also, Michael, dear, you need some grammar lessons.

    Posted by: jamal49 | Aug 19, 2014 12:34:27 PM


  13. This is a grown man trapped in a world of make believe, no different from a child. When children play, it's acceptable for anyone playing to make up new rules and details to develop the story. Religion is the exact same process taken seriously and practiced by adults.

    Grow up! Terrorism is a _real_ problem that needs _real_ solutions, not cartoon solutions invented by adult children pretending to know things they don't know.

    Posted by: JJ | Aug 19, 2014 12:48:51 PM


  14. so he is saying osama bin laden and al queda were the righteous sword of god's justice

    If osama was still alive, he would agree


    Posted by: Hislv | Aug 19, 2014 12:49:24 PM


  15. along the lines of jamals post

    On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt

    by Richard Carrier , historian and philosopher

    It looks at the facts and shows there is no evidence for jesus ever existing

    Posted by: Hislv | Aug 19, 2014 12:53:11 PM


  16. Roger Ebert is the counterexample to Teddy R's claim, DC200008.

    Posted by: Randy | Aug 19, 2014 1:02:23 PM


  17. @thuban

    He must have existed or otherwise how did he get a city named after him? :)

    Posted by: DC Insider | Aug 19, 2014 1:29:58 PM


  18. Guys, it is almost certain that Paul existed, although some books of the New Testament attributed to him were very likely written by others (possibly his followers). There's a paper trail of writings and those can be analyzed textually to determine with some reasonable certainty if they were written by the same person.

    See http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/people-in-the-bible/the-quest-for-the-historical-paul/

    Now, his "seeing the light" on the way to Damascus, if it happened, was probably the result of dehydration or eating the wrong type of mushroom, and any "miracles" attributed to him were undoubtedly fictional embellishments, and the "saint" thing is simply a Catholic custom - the religious equivalent of making someone a British knight. But that doesn't mean there wasn't some guy who wrote those letters and set the direction of Christian theology.

    Posted by: Bill | Aug 19, 2014 7:01:14 PM


  19. Bill

    There are no contemporary accounts of paul

    a man who supposedly was a radical missionary trapsing around the roman provinces.

    Rome was notorious about documenting everything.

    Posted by: Hislv | Aug 19, 2014 7:10:33 PM


  20. so let me get this right, if gays are accepted in society, this is causing god to be judgmental and in turn making god cause terrorism.......I don't recognize that god and I don't think he would do that just because he created gay people and is not judgmental toward us or causing terrorism........but, of course, gays are responsible for hurricanes, earthquakes and tsunamis as we gays are so powerful!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by: Bernie | Aug 19, 2014 7:45:57 PM


  21. @Hislv:

    Read http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?ArticleId=304

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_early_Christianity#Paul_of_Tarsus

    We have a collection of letters attributed to Paul. Unless you believe in miracles, someone wrote them, and with textual analysis it can be determined if these are likely the result of a single author or multiple authors.

    BTW, saying that "Rome documented everything" is a stretch - they documented what was important to them. There were lots of crazy preachers running around the ancient world. You won't find a comprehensive list of them (by name and activities) in surviving Roman manuscripts: it's too much work to provide full dossiers on each and every crazy guy who got up on a soap box and spouted.

    Paul was probably flying too low to figuratively show up on Roman "radar", and was only important to Christians, who the Romans thought were a kind of crazy at best and subversive at worst.

    Posted by: Bill | Aug 19, 2014 9:24:51 PM


  22. then bill

    where are the contemporary christian accounts of paul?

    I never said they were not written by 1 man. 1 Forger in the 400s CE doesn't mean paul existed or wrote them

    You argument on consistency is meaningless.

    Without a person not paul at the time writing about paul outside of the new testament means there is no contemporary proof of paul being real what so ever

    All real historical figures were mentioned or written about by people living in their area at the time they existed.

    Posted by: Hislv | Aug 19, 2014 11:15:37 PM


  23. actually here you go

    earliest pages of the Epistles of St. Paul, dating from 180 to 220 AD,

    a single writer very well could have written them but there is no proof paul existed and wrote them

    paul if he existed died around 67 CE. to 153 years before the oldest copy in existence

    Posted by: Hislv | Aug 19, 2014 11:21:06 PM


  24. should say

    113 to 153 years after

    Posted by: Hislv | Aug 19, 2014 11:21:42 PM


  25. @HISVL: you really can't be serious. If you need reading material, try http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13232-saul-of-tarsus for a non-Christian assessment of Paul (if necessary the citations at the bottom of that page).

    Your idea that "All real historical figures were mentioned or written about by people living in their area at the time they existed" is silly: most people living from roughly 1 to 100 C.E. thought the Christians were a bit odd at best and subversive at worst. You won't find records on any of them, aside from texts like the Bible. If all of them were being ignored, why would Paul be treated differently?

    BTW, the consensus seems to be that 7 of the letters in the Bible attributed to Paul were written by him and that the "Acts of the Apostles," which mention Paul, were written by someone else. A minority believes that all of the letters were composites.

    So, he nearly certainly existed. It isn't surprising that we haven't found very early manuscripts - the early Christians were a contentious lot and a lot of material was destroyed in an effort to stamp out "heresy" once a standard flavor won out. The interesting ones would be the ones lambasting Paul as a heretic, but manuscripts like that would have almost certainly been destroyed by later church officials who managed to find them.

    Posted by: Bill | Aug 21, 2014 3:02:24 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «LGBT Ugandan Refugees Face Persecution, Unemployment Difficulties In Kenya« «