Pastor takes issue with Dobson's Obama comments

I was not on the board in 2004, however I care any time a professing Christian manages to butcher the Word of God or throw it out the door by blatantly ignoring Scripture. Especially when such is pointed out to them.

In defense of Bush however, he has strongly stood for the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, and makes no attempt in hiding or obscuring his faith. He openly and freely shares his faith as president. In other words he does not see the need to dilute it or his views in regards to the above. Whether he erred or is mistaken in Scripture is another story. I am not beyond being corrected but I do not make statements or take position which I know are blatantly against God.

Obama support the killing of children through abortion, in late term abortion, and even after birth, from a failed abortion. This is a crime against God and humanity as the vast majority of representatives/people would not support the latter.

He wishes to undermine state rights in regards to the sanctity of marriage and is heavily supported by the homosexual movement. He states Jesus sermon on the mount to be "radical". I do not see how someone who professes to be a Christian can call Jesus a liar and his Word to be "radical". What Christian could support such a scary individual? He mixes Old Testament Covenant with New Testament Covenant and then has the hypocritical fortitude to say people need to read their Bibles.

If you cannot handle the truth, be it Obama or Bush, then I guess it is "radical".

 

Do you have any proof of this? I know that some conservative Christians want to undermine states' rights in regards to marriage by pushing a Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. constitution.

 

No, you find such comments to be in opposition to your beliefs. You also find history, the bible, and facts to be in contrast to your statements.

You state the "presidency" to be purely "secular". Secular means devoid of religion or God. Every President has invoked the Blessings of God and worked with Churches or faith based groups.

You can continue to make such statements but your only kidding yourself and not impressing other's. Your stating people to be having a "hissy", a teenage term by the way, only shows a limited maturity.


God says

You believe God is a liar KenH?

 

Since you and some other folks are having the hissy fit, what does that say about your level of maturity????

As to your rather snide question to me, I reply:

Romans 3:4 (English Standard Version)

By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written,

"That you may be justified in your words,
and prevail when you are judged."

 

Obama opposes the federal DOMA (defense of marriage act). This act was put forth in order to protect state rights! Hence the rights of People of the various states. You have it completely backwards!

As most every state has amendments which recognize the sanctity of marriage as being between a man and woman. Many states without such amendments put it to the People in regards to marriage. In every case the People voted for the sanctity of marriage and against gay marriage. Even in California. However, each of these states could be compelled to recognize gay marriage thus nullifying their democratic process. Again as shown in California through the Judicial system.

The federal DOMA insures states have the rights, as the Constitution insures, in maintaining their sovereign nature in such issues. Obama opposes this to the joy of the gay community.
Amendment 10. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You KenH make a "snide" comment in saying people are throwing a "hissy" fit as a child then fall off your chair when someone challenges that maturity? Nobody is throwing a "hissy" fit but instead only putting forth the truth.


But again, God says He oppoints governing authorities and yet you say God has no place in government! Deal with it.

In Christ

 

I support DOMA. I oppose the effort by some conservative Christians to take away states' rights by adding a marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

By the way, I never said that God has no place in government. God is in the entire universe. He created it.

 

Revmitchell: //This is the kind of junk you get when you fail to hold to the inerrancy of scripture.//

It is not obvious to me what you are talking about. Maybe the answer lies here?

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=154034

Anyway, we are NOT allowed to speak other than "inerrancy of scripture". See the BB (Baptaist Board) SOF (Statement of Faith) over here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/sof.html

Off course, 'all Scripture' is not bound to one of the 66 books of the Bible, one translation, one language, etc.

Over here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=30182&page=12

is a poll about 'inerrancy'.

Read it an you will see that there is a wide variety of what 'inerrant' means. About half the folks left on BB believe inerrant =

3 The Bible is inerrant in the original autographs
​

(I don't, i Believe the RIGHT STUFF

6 The Bible is inerrant in all faithful English translations)
​

 

Dobson went off the rails a long time ago and stopped being relevent when President Reagan went out of office. I'm not kidding myself, like some seem to be in the practice of, into thinking that in this election, or any other election, there is an ungodly and Godly candidate and if I don't get it right Jesus is going to be really mad!

 

You make some good points here KenH for which we can agree upon. I would like to point out a few things however.

The entire purpose of the federal DOMA and why it is being called for is to support state rights. It does not compel states to recognize marriage as between a man or woman as that is left to states rights. http://www.domawatch.org/index.php

State DOMA's as you and I agree left it to the People of their respective states in voting or enacting legislation upon the issue of marriage. Most every state has a DOMA amendment -or- it was put to a vote by the People of those respective states. In every case in which it was put to a vote, the People voted against gay marriage and for the sanctity of marriage.

In both cases above, whether through their elected officials or by voting, the People stated they support the sanctity of marriage. This is the overwhelming national opinion also in recognizing marriage as only between a man and woman.

The problem is these states/people can still be compelled to recognize gay marriage through Judicial or Official activism. IE: If a gay couple travels to California to be married, upon returning to their home state, their home state can be compelled to recognize their marriage and subsequent benefits. Despite the fact their state may have a legislated or voted upon DOMA.

As in the case with California, the federal DOMA would protect the People's voice against judicial and official activism. The People of California overwhelmingly voted in a constitutional and democratic process to support the sanctity of marriage. Only to have such as Gavin Newsom ignore it and then an activist court throw it out. They will have to go through the process again with the same possible shenanigans.

AMEN! and well stated.

However, this is now somewhat contradictory on your part as you in a dogmatic fashion defended and argued

I say dogmatic fashion because when such as you are stating now was stated by others, you objected and continued with a defense of secularism. As God assures us "...there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God" a secular presidency is incorrect. This as promised in the Bible but also in conjuntion with the religious interactions as pointed out with our Government.



Yes, God created all things and insures Blessings to those Nations which recognize him. We can also be assured of few Blessings or even wrath in turning from him. I am glad our President and Government can still invoke His name, as throughout our history, but a day may come in which they cannot.

take care,:jesus:

 

Ken, I take it that your POV is reflected in this piece by Bill Press in WND on 'You Can't Legislate by the Bible'.

What I find both interesting and disturbing, the pastor Caldwell's statements seem just as reflective of his attitude as the attributes he tries to accuse Dobson of.
1) Essentially he's saying that a Christian who declares the Biblical position on the sanctity of the home and family values, or the exclusiveness of faith in Jesus to the necessity for salvation in contrast to the relevant statements of a candidate regarding the candidate's own belief connected statements, is wrong. But this pastor believes it is acceptible for him to correct Dobson's position and defend the public misrepresentation of the Christian faith by Obama.
2) The pastor views Dobson's comments as being 'holier than thou' one up-man-ship: (imo, Dobson's comments are not a 'put down'.....but the reader must judge for him/her self his own perception of Dobson's comments.) The pastor Caldwell is doing to Dobson what he accuses Dobson of doing, regarding the 'right' position on faith.
3) The pastor Caldwell approves of his own endorsement of a Presidential candidate, and sponsors a defense support site for his candidate, but rebukes Dobson who has NOT endorsed a candidate so far, and who the only accusation of Dobson is that Dobson should not present the scriptural truth to a public who may be receiving Obama's expression of beliefs as Christian truth.

BTW, I wonder what this pastor Caldwell's endorsement will do to his IRS..... 501 c3 tax status?

This May Prove Interesting

FYI, In our country's early beginnings, it was customary for preachers to present the virtues and vices of the candidates for office, as they understood them to be, before the congregation of their churches.....which included endorsements. It was not uncommon to have prayers before the election, and prayers offered for those entering office and recently elected. It was not uncommon, in some cases, for sermons to be preached to the elected officials before or as part of their presentation before their inaugeration and oaths of office. Such messages often included Scriptural directions regarding responsibilities and decisions which they would face in office and appealed to the recognition, reliance and urged dependance on God in carrying out their duties.

 

Your support is wasted on a useless act of Congress.

The Constitution rendered it useless before it was even written.

As soon as one state legalized same sex marriage, they all did. Whether they like it or not.

Your state's rights argument was dead on arrival.

 

Personally, I don't trust Obama or McCain. While Obama opposes the Defense of Marriage Act and McCain claims to defend it, McCain damaged the sanctity of marriage by committing adultery when he was married to his first wife. The other woman is the person he's currently married to! Actions speak louder than words!

 

No it doesn't.

sec·u·lar Pronunciation: \ˈse-kyə-lər\ Function:adjective Etymology:Middle English, from Anglo-French seculer, from Late Latin saecularis, from saeculum the present world, from Latin, generation, age, century, world; akin to Welsh hoedl lifetimeDate:14th century 1 a: of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b: not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c: not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners>2: not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation <a secular priest>3 a: occurring once in an age or a century b: existing or continuing through ages or centuries c: of or relating to a long term of indefinite duration <secular inflation>

 

That is not true at all. Arkansas has never recognized homosexual marriages in Massachusetts or California and has not been forced to do so by the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the U.S. Supreme Court ever does so, then we can discuss what to do next. Unless that happens your argument has no relevance.

 

Carpo: // As soon as one state legalized same sex marriage, they all did. Whether they like it or not.//

About a dozen states, including my state of Oklahoma, have passed laws saying that they will not recognize any marriage performed by any alien state, other country, or Indian Nation save between one man and one woman.

So looks like The Attorney General of the Sate of Oklahoma (AGSO) will be arguing before the Supreme Court of the USofA (SCOUS) first time a Gay couple (Married in California or Mass. but living in Oklahoma) wants to adopt a child, get a divorce, or start an Indian Casino. :tonofbricks:

Not a Marriage: :1_grouphug:

 

There are those (myself included) who believe that just as God appointed Kings and rulers in times past.... he still does..... to this day. I am not particularly despondent or jubilant over either prospect for the next POTUS. I am particularly jubilant over the fact that God is still on the throne and that His will always comes to pass.... and that it works together for good to those........

That said...... either candidate will be a step down from the rich history of this country, and I believe a sign of coming judgement on our society.......

 

If you think he is appointing the President, why even vote? He appointed Bill Clinton, why wouldn't He appoint Obama?

 

Yes it is.

Better take another look at the old Constitution , there , Ken.

 

Could be.

All there has to be is a challenge.

 

No, it isn't.