Obama: I'm Not a Muslim!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Ivon Denosovich, Jan 24, 2008.

  1. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here the Obama campaign fires back.
     
  2. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Clintons are power hungry thugs.

    Obama is like Romney. I will not vote for him because of issues, not his faith.
     
  3. steaver

    steaver
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    9,005
    Likes Received:
    82
    Faith. The scriptures tell us to not be yoked together with unbelievers.

    Biblical morals. The scriptures tell us to have nothing to do with the works of darkness. If a candidate is openly practicing sin, such as supporting murder through the apathy of "pro-choice", then they are to be rejected outright.

    Issues. Once the biblical "no-nos" are dealt with one can listen to the ideas of each candidate and pray whom the Lord might direct them to yoke up with.

    God Bless! :thumbs:
     
  4. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that it is wrongheaded to be a single issue voter. We should not attempt to set up a theocracy in these United States. I will always oppose such an effort.

    Frankly, if I think that an atheist would be a better president I would vote for him/her over a Christian.
     
  5. steaver

    steaver
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    9,005
    Likes Received:
    82
    Amen brother! I am going to try do better to find points of agreement between us and make note.

    God Bless! :wavey:
     
  6. steaver

    steaver
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    9,005
    Likes Received:
    82
    I would tend to agree.

    However, I cannot allow biblical principles to become issues of deliberation. If I did then everything is up for grabs. Drunkenness, adultery, homosexuality, stealing, fornication. All these things could be "issues". They are not and must be nipped in the bud.

    So the right thing to do is expell those who want to make a biblical wrong a right. Then move on to the debateable issues. Like how do we take care of people in the best way, this is an issue that can be debated through different ideas. Whereas abortion has no choice of view (for the Christian now mind you).

    Now I am speaking as a Christian on a Christian board. I don't see why these facts should be challenged by another Christian. The democrats made abortion an issue to be discussed. It has no other choice for Christians than absolutely wrong. Therefor anyone embracing abortion as a choice must be rejected right off the top.

    God Bless! :thumbs:
     
  7. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the crux of our disagreement, steaver, is that I do not support the idea that just because something is a sin that the government should outlaw it. I support only making those actions that harm another person's unalienable rights against the law. This is why I think all abortions should be outlawed as the act of abortion violates the basic right to life of an unborn child. One can oppose abortion without any reference to the Bible or Christianity by basing one's opposition on basic human rights.

    Of the five sins you mention I support totally outlawing only stealing and outlawing drunkenness only in a case such as DUI.
     
    #7 KenH, Jan 24, 2008
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2008
  8. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    >Drunkenness, adultery, homosexuality, stealing, fornication. All these things could be "issues". They are not and must be nipped in the bud.

    Yes, because they are state, not national issues.
     
  9. steaver

    steaver
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    9,005
    Likes Received:
    82
    Brother, they are Christian issues. We are Christians, our duty is to align our thoughts with Christ. If something goes against the teachings of Christ we must reject it outright and trust our Lord for any provisions we may need or preceive we need because of our stand.

    We cannot seperate our church and state. As Christians we can help our state along in the RIGHT direction.

    God Bless! :thumbs:
     
  10. steaver

    steaver
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    9,005
    Likes Received:
    82
    Why?

    I apply God's word for all my convictions. How do you come to this conclusion?

    God Bless! :thumbs:
     
  11. steaver

    steaver
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    9,005
    Likes Received:
    82
    Basic human rights come only from God.

    God Bless!
     
  12. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because otherwise one is advocating a theocracy if he/she wants every sin to be outlawed by the government.
     
  13. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree. :thumbs:
     
  14. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then by definition, despite your claims to the contrary, you advocate theocracy.
     
  15. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
    Hmmm...

    Strange thinking. It seems that it is primarily "sins" that are outlawed now.

    Could it be that you see yourself as the arbiter of which "sins" should be outlawed, since no attempt I am aware of has ever been made to outlaw "every sin". :confused:
     
  16. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not true. My building an ice cream store next to a house, and on my property no less, isn't sinful but it violates dozens-- if not hundreds-- of laws from zoning regulations to municipal regulations. Also, abortion most certainly is a sin and it isn't outlawed now. The only "strange thinking" I see is your defense of the status quo.

    I don't speak for KenH, but I *do* see myself as the arbiter of which sins should be outlawed. FWIW, you, and every other person, with a political philosophy fits that description as well. The difference between us, carpro, is that I want ALL personal sin (that which an individual choses to subject himself to while respecting the rights of others to abstain) to be legal, whereas you want SOME personal sins to be legal (yours no doubt) while banning OTHER personal sins. You can fault libertarains for logical consistency: you can't fault us for undisciplined thinking.
     
    #16 Ivon Denosovich, Jan 25, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 25, 2008
  17. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by carpro
    Strange thinking. It seems that it is primarily "sins" that are outlawed now.





    I'm surprised you left out the dastardly sin of speeding as an exception. :smilewinkgrin:

    Sometimes "primarily " can be a key word. I guess you missed it.

    Sins such as murder, assault, all forms of thievery and fraud and perjury as well as many others are definitely sins and definitely outlawed now. Abortion was.

    There are all kinds of Biblical rules concerning man and his ability to get along with others. Many have been adapted by our modern society as guidelines to live by, but not necessarily sinful. Rules concerning the disposition of property are even biblical, but not necessarily sinful.

    You argument is specious, at best, and full of baseless assumptions.

    I suppose you would readily vote for an athiest, too, as long as he agreed with your "worldly" views. :(
     
  18. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I would. Would you vote for a Mormom? How about a Catholic? I fail to see how "heresy A" is better or worse than "heresy B." Btw, I still don't get what's so objectionable about legalizing all personal sin. Please explain how that would be a mistake.
     
    #18 Ivon Denosovich, Jan 25, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 25, 2008
  19. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
    An athiest would be off limits for me.

    They lack a compass and don't understand they are not in control.

    What is "personal" sin?
     
  20. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    I too would vote for an atheist, Mormon, Jew, Buddhist, or whatever. We elect public servants. Whoever is the best person for the job. I stand by the "no religious tests" mandate of the Constitution. I am not voting for a spiritual leader, but a person to work in our government.
     

Share This Page

Loading...