SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : News and Current Events : Obama: America is 'no longer Christian'

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next Page )
PosterThread
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4499


 Re: The privledge of ownership.

Hi natan...

Quote:

Natan4Jesus wrote:

I await this website's leaderships answer, as I happen to agree with Brother EJG, [b]because I know Senator Obama, [u]I know he is a righteous man[/u], I know that he loves Jesus[/b].


Greg and the Mods have attempted to make it clear that this website's focus is upon the Lord and a need for a revival in this world. This has little (if anything) to do with political opinions.

As for Senator Obama being a "righteous" man: It may help to remember that there is none righteous (no, not one). But you said that you [u]know[/u] him? Have you asked him how he can remain so righteous when [url=http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/womenissues]he opposes ANY limits on abortion[/url]? Have you asked him how he could attend a congregation for 20 years that preached racially divisive "Black Liberation Theology" rhetoric -- and a church that [url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,954683,00.html]does not embrace the deity of Christ[/url]? How does he "righteously" promise to use the office of the President [url=http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome]to promote and enforce acceptance of homosexuality[/url]? How can he be so "righteous" when he "[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=all]admits to uncertainty about the existence of an afterlife[/url]?"

I'm not trying to attack Obama; rather, I just want to question your own words. Obama might be a nice guy. He may even be a sincere guy. But "righteous" is probably out of the question -- just as it is for all of us.


_________________
Christopher

 2008/8/21 21:03Profile









 Chris

Yes, Chris, they have made it clear that the focus of this website is on Jesus and the need for revival, but I will say this again, the genesis of this thread is entirely political in nature, and furthermore, I think.....no, I know that is disingenious of you to say that you are not attacking SENATOR Obama, right after you rake him over the coals, for socio-political issues, that even the Republican Party is not serious about ending.

and rebuke me for my views, which is fine, we can agree to disagree, no problems with that, but for folks to say "no political posts", when in reality, I feel its really "no political posts that dont jibe with the party line".

lets be authentic here. I'll bow out of this thread, I dont want to disobey the rules, guidelines, cause anybody to stumble.

I just dont believe that the founding fathers envisioned a theocracy, which is what I discern that some in the church would like to see in America. Be careful of what you wish for, you might get it.

God bless you, God bless you all, natan

 2008/8/21 22:34
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re: Chris

Quote:
lets be authentic here



Lets. Do we not know you Natan as someone else?


_________________
Mike Balog

 2008/8/21 23:21Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4499


 Re: Chris

Hi natan…

Quote:

Yes, Chris, they have made it clear that the focus of this website is on Jesus and the need for revival, but I will say this again, the genesis of this thread is entirely political in nature, and furthermore, I think.....no, I know that is disingenious of you to say that you are not attacking SENATOR Obama, right after you rake him over the coals, for socio-political issues, that even the Republican Party is not serious about ending.


You “know” that it is disingenuous of me to say that I am not “attacking” Senator Obama? How did I attack him? By presenting links to his own beliefs???

Brother, the issues that I raised were in response to your claim that Obama is a “righteous man.” I simply questioned how a man with the particular beliefs could be deemed “righteous” when NONE of us are righteous. You might want to read my post again. These are not “socio-political” issues any more than “murder” or “fornication” is a socio-political issue. It is a SIN issue that has plagued this nation for years. I didn’t mention the Republican Party…and I don’t care to comment on your claim that they are “not serious about ending” such horrendous evil practices. I merely wanted to respond to your claim about righteousness.

The thread was created by Greg in response to an article that he read. The individuals here are not commenting on the political of the matter…but the stated beliefs of the man who could possibly become the President of the United States of America. We aren’t attacking his politics. We are questioning his beliefs.
Quote:
and rebuke me for my views, which is fine, we can agree to disagree, no problems with that, but for folks to say "no political posts", when in reality, I feel its really "no political posts that dont jibe with the party line".

Brother, there is an extremely thin line for some regarding just what constitutes a “political post.” I don’t think that anyone was endorsing either the Republican Party or its presumed candidate. Like Keith Green used to say, “[i]God is neither an American or a Republican[/i].” But sin is still sin – even if it is promoted from a Senator or a President.

I’ve often wondered just what Paul was meant to accomplish in his journey to Rome. Our Lord told him that he “must testify” in Rome – the capital of the largest empire on Earth (Acts 27:24). But what was he supposed to say? Was he supposed to ignore sin – or expose it so as to cause the leaders to realize just how lost they were? But I have seen a great deal of believers in this day literally preach that we should not speak about sin – but focus on God. Even many modern churches prefer to neglect any mention of sin, so as to “focus on what people can do rather than what they can’t.” In the end, we have a bunch of people who continue to do what they shouldn’t do and claim that anyone who tells them otherwise is “judging” them.

I don’t believe that Paul went to Rome to be a politician (or even political). However, I imagine that some people accused him of it – just like they accused men like Martin Luther and George Whitefield. I believe that Paul probably preached to them a message similar to the message he preached elsewhere. I imagine that this included a message about sin and the penalties of living in it. The Word tells us that Paul exerted his influence even into “Caesar’s household” (Philippians 4:22). John the Baptist also preached to political leaders. He preached to Herod about the sinfulness of adultery (which led to his imprisonment and subsequent execution). Some of the prophets in the Old Testament preached to kings and were killed. Others preached to kings and influenced entire nations and kingdoms of this world (like Moses, Jonah, Samuel, Nathan, Isaiah, Esther, Joseph, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego). I don’t believe that they neglected to mention sin. Rather, it is through the exposure of sin (what is against the Law of God) that reveals our separation from God. A great tool of the devil has been to cause people to think that they are alright as they make excuses for their sin.

Abortion is a terribly horrendous sin. It is probably one of the greatest sins of our age – outside of neglecting a relationship with Christ. Homosexual practice is a sinful and shameful practice. Persecution of worship is just as sinful today as it was in Esther or the prophet Daniel’s day. These are not “political” issues. These are SIN issues that some people try to legislate and force upon a nation. Yes, they are every bit as sinful as racism, hate, bigotry or neglecting the poor. However, I don’t know of anyone who makes excuses for any such sins. However, this modern age has produced a group of people who selfishly would prefer to MURDER unborn babies or parade their grotesque sinful nature in front of children than to have someone tell them what is right or wrong. And why should this not surprise us? The first commandment in the Satanic Bible is to “do what you will.”

So when I described the beliefs in which Senator Obama promotes himself, I am not taking a “cheap shot” at the Senator. Rather, I am exposing the sinful practices of which the Senator has embraced as “fundamental human rights” – even though he often considers himself a Christian (who happens to have attended a church for 20 years that preached against the deity of Christ). Why did I include these beliefs in the first place? Because of your proclamation that Obama is a “righteous man.” So, in a sense, you brought it up.
Quote:
I just dont believe that the founding fathers envisioned a theocracy, which is what I discern that some in the church would like to see in America. Be careful of what you wish for, you might get it.


I don’t think that anyone has claimed here that the founding fathers of this nation envisioned a “theocracy” (a government ruled and guided by God). I certainly embrace a “separation of Church and State” – simply because it is difficult to find two Christians who completely believe on two given doctrines. However, I certainly understand that the bulk of the founding fathers were not the “secular humanists” in which modern historians attempt to depict them. The vast bulk of firsthand writings and autobiographies indicate that most of the founders of this nation were extremely influenced by their belief in Christ – and this belief found its way into the foundation of the nation.

Brother, I apologize if this might have made you uncomfortable. I do not wish to raise the issue of “politics” in this thread. In fact, I didn’t even bring it up. To me, this is an issue of SIN. I am not trying to influence you “politically” one way or the other. I simply wanted to question the rationale of calling a man “righteous” who continually proclaims his belief in the slaughter of unborn babies as a “fundamental human right.” Personally, I feel the liberty to vote in elections and ballot referendums. There are issues that matter to me far more than others (like abortion, restrictions on practices and expressions of faith, and forced homosexual acceptance). But I do not see this as becoming “engrossed” in politics, but rather allowing my Christian beliefs to follow me into a voting booth. I feel a responsibility to my wife, future children and neighbors to raise my voice in opposition to legislated grotesque sinfulness.

Please forgive me if you thought that this was a “slight” upon you or your beliefs. However, I disagree with your assertion that this was an “attack” on or a “raking over the coals” of any candidate or political party. And I certainly will continue to pray for anyone (including both candidates) who could possibly be raised to such an office in the government that could affect so many – including the lives of over millions of unborn babies over the course of the next four years or more.


_________________
Christopher

 2008/8/22 0:04Profile









 Mike Balog

Mike I wrote:

Quote:
lets be authentic here"




to which you asked:

Quote:
Lets. Do we not know you Natan as someone else?



You know who I am, you know exactly who I am.

There won't be any guessing on your part, its the same brother who would corresspond with you in long heartfelt letters , agonizing over this Church, to which you would respond months later, or not at all.

I always understood, the pressures of life, the burden of faith in a world gone dark. Its hard to keep up with corresspondence. I understand it all Mike.

But nothing has changed here, there's a thread entitled "give me a redneck", some of the most inciting carnal dross I think I ever read on this forum, imagine if a black brother read that kind of filth. To a black a "redneck" means lynching, firebombing churches and schools, hatred, seperate drinking fountains, bathrooms, raw hatred, and to make it worse one of your moderators is gleefully participating in it.

you know who I am. say it.

 2008/8/22 2:43
reformer
Member



Joined: 2007/6/25
Posts: 764


 Re:

Quote:

Mahoney wrote:
Quote:
Obama: America is 'no longer Christian'



Were we ever?



Your right, NO we were not a Christian nation!! Thats the point, we are trying to make this a Christian nation. When it is not!


"The 1796 treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion" (see below). This was not an idle statement, meant to satisfy muslims-- they believed it and meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams."

[img align=left]http://freethought.mbdojo.com/titleXI.jpg[/img]
















"When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that [b]"no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."[/b] (Article 6, section 3) This provision was radical in its day-- giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike. [b]They wanted to ensure that no single religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had.[/b] Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention religion, except in exclusionary terms. The words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution-- not once."


I love this country and wouldn't want to be anywhere else. But it is exhausting, to hear we were a Christian nation. The real christians need to be concerned about doing the Lords work, instead of trying to change politics so to strengthen the christian faith.

 2008/8/22 6:57Profile









 Re:

It's impossible to love the Jesus of the Bible while voting for legislation that [b]murders[/b] "the least of these". It is the very height of [b]hypocrisy[/b].

I dont know what other names Natan has posted under, but what is this attitude of challenging people in such a manner as you just did to Mike? You love to be self righteous and call me out... and chastise me publicly... but can't handle it when it happens to you.

I can see why you like Mr. Obama. [i](refer to last sentence of first paragraph)[/i]

Krispy

 2008/8/22 7:52
PaulWest
Member



Joined: 2006/6/28
Posts: 3405
Dallas, Texas

 Re: Mike Balog

Quote:
You know who I am, you know exactly who I am


Quote:
you know who I am. say it.


You know, Neil, from your second post I knew it was you...and I was happy. I really thought it would go well this time, that you gained a bit of maturity and self-control and we could have Christian fellowship without these interludes.

Disclosing the nature of your personal and private correspondance with Mike Balog was wrong. It was hurtful and undeserving. I could have unmasked you here at the very beginning, back when you were quarrelling with Brothertom, but I held my peace, hoping, somehow the root of bitterness had finally been dealt with.

Please, brother, let's just move on to greater and higher things. We want you to stay, and we love you.


_________________
Paul Frederick West

 2008/8/22 8:48Profile









 Re:

I love you, Neil... and you [i][b]know[/b][/i] it.

Krispy

 2008/8/22 8:54









 Re:

reformer... all that treaty was saying is that America is not a "theocricy", which it has never been. It's saying that we are not a church run state, and no every claimed it to be. In fact, thats what the Pilgrims and other early settlers were trying to get away from.

However, taking this one paragraph and making it override every other thing written by the Founding Fathers... including the Declaration of Independence & the Constitution... is to take it completely out of context. It's the same as taking a single verse from the Bible and using it to try build a doctrine that contradicts the rest of scripture.

No, America is not a theocracy, so on that point I do agree. In our country men have (supposedly) been free to worship however they saw fit... Christian, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim...

And I support those freedoms. When I served in the Marines I served every American... not just those who I agree with.

And thats all that treaty was saying. To the Muslims their piracy was a religious matter (and financial... funny how religion and money go hand in hand). The US was declaring that their should be no mistaking our position on this... it was not a religious matter for us, it was a criminal matter. Muslims then, just like today, want to declare everything a religious matter. A jihad, if you will.

It was no such thing. It was piracy and theivery.

Right after 1800 we went to war with them, and you should read the writings of Thomas Jefferson concerning the Muslim nations. It reads like today's headlines.

Krispy

 2008/8/22 9:17





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy