Reason every Jew & Christian to verify Obama's birth

Discussion in 'Politics' started by windcatcher, Aug 12, 2009.

  1. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Deu 17:14 When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that [are] about me;
    Deu 17:15 Thou shalt in any wise set [him] king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: [one] from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which [is] not thy brother.

    Nuff said.
     
  2. alatide

    alatide
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Messages:
    974
    Likes Received:
    0
    You understand that this is talking about the nation of Israel, correct? It has nothing to do with American politics. But, by the way, Obama has already presented a valid birth certificate. Move on.
     
  3. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Barak Obama is my Brother (feller human bean) and my President :saint:
     
  4. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are misapplying Scripture for political purposes. Please stop.
     
  5. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,655
    Likes Received:
    225
    Why did the Founding Fathers have strict rules concerning one's citizenship as a requirement for the office of President?
     
  6. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    >Why did the Founding Fathers have strict rules concerning one's citizenship as a requirement for the office of President?

    Probably for the same reason slaves were counted as less than human.

    The Founding Fathers didn't write the Constitution, the winners of the 2nd American Revolution did.

    from http://patism66.blogspot.com/2008/03/history-of-birth-records.html

    "Certified birth certificates are a fairly recent invention, common only since the 1900s in the United States. Prior to that, births frequently went unrecorded or were written down by doctors, midwives, church officials, government bodies or family members . . . ."

    I suppose the invention had something to do with segregation and miscegenation, same as marriage licenses. See

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
     
  7. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Somewhat of a nonsequitor, since Obama's status as a natural-born citizen has been adequately verifed (with the excption of those who rely on World Net Daily as their primary news source).
     
  8. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,126
    Likes Received:
    220
    Are you talking about the short form or the long form certificate?
     
  9. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,655
    Likes Received:
    225
    I'll answer it myself.

    It's because it's because people (generally) feel an affection and loyalty to the land of their birth.

    It's the same reason for God's command cited in the OP.
     
  10. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is exactly the point. Thanks Aaron.

    Martin.... some others I understand ....as they have already either their excuses or their challenges.... but you?....... I'm disappointed....... My Bible finds application in so many things.... and when I follow it, God always blesses. The more I read it, the more meaningful it becomes in its relavance to everything. The wisdom and the truth contained therein is unmatched...... and it is amazing that "so many pagans" (so called or characterised by some on here) who founded our coutry......... still wrote documents which (very few.... if any.... who post on this board consider as 'inspired') not only honored God but also followed remarkably close to the wisdom in the Book which you think I should stop reading and using as a standard by which I judge other things and make my decisions.

    I'm sure, Martin, when you say "You are missapplying.......[snip]. Please stop." you either don't mean it or else you know not what you're saying........... But that is exactly what you are saying: i.e. you think I should stop reading and using as a standard by which I judge other things and make my decisions.
     
  11. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sorry my reply disappointed you. Maybe you will give me a chance to explain what I did, and did not, mean by what I said.

    That (bold) is most certainly not what I said or meant. My point was, and still is, that we should not misapply Scripture for any reason. And we should certainly work to not misapply Scripture when it comes to politics.

    I agree with you when you say that when we read, apply, and follow God's Word He blesses. Certainly the Word of God is to be our standard for life. However that does not mean that we can randomly apply passages while ignoring their context and original meaning. When that kind of sloppy hermeneutic is practiced, it results in theological anarchy. A great example of such anarchy is TBN, Paul/Jan Crouch, Benny Henn, and others. They wrongly divide the Word of Truth and end up promising things the Bible never promises to us. We have to be very careful to apply Scripture properly. That means paying close attention to the context of the verse(s). My concern with your post was not that you are a part of the theological anarchy that is so prevalent today thanks to Paul and Jan Crouch. My concern with your post was not that I disagree with the point you are making. After all, the writers of our great Constitution understood the exact same point:

    "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of Presidenet..." (Art. 2 Sec. 3).

    Therefore, if it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that President Obama, or any President, did not fulfill that requirement I would certainly call for his/her impeachment. The historical reasons for that section of the Constitution in many ways still exist today.

    My concern with your post was that you applied a Scripture to a situation that the Scripture does not deal with. Deuteronomy 17:14-15 deals with Israel's request for a king. In effect, they wanted to be like the world around them (Deut. 17:14, 1Sam 8:1-6). God gave them their request with a very strong warning attached (1Sam 8:7-22). While there are certainly many principles in these verses that we can apply to our lives, the United States is not Israel. The situation Israel was in is not, and never has been, the situation of America. God's concern for Israel was that they remain true to Him. By bringing in a foreigner they might be tempted to walk even further away from His ways.

    I am not saying anything like your assertion (in bold). My concern is that we always properly apply the Word of God and not misuse it for political, social, or personal reasons. We should always strive to be faithful to the Word of God. Part of that faithfulness is being carefully to properly divide it. I am not saying that you are not careful, I'm sure you are, but in this case I think your application of the verse missed the mark.


    I never said that anyone should "stop reading and using as a standard by which I judge other things and make my decisions", I never said that at all. I said your post was, "misapplying Scripture for political purposes". It was the misapplication that I asked you to avoid.

    Of course that should be clear from simply reading what I said,

    "You are misapplying Scripture for political purposes. Please stop."

    I hope that clears up the matter.
     
    #11 Martin, Aug 15, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 15, 2009
  12. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Well there are a lot of folks born in this country who don't have any affection for it!
     
    #12 OldRegular, Aug 15, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 15, 2009
  13. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    The wisdom of that scripture is correct.

    If it was good then..... it is also good now.
    It is not misapplication to give it consideration.

    It is a disrespect of the word of God to dismiss it as unimportant in a question regarding the origins and loyalty of leadership.
     
  14. Nonsequitur

    Nonsequitur
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    637
    Likes Received:
    0
    Uh....no. A nonsequiter is like....."Is it colder in the country than it is in the winter?"
    The 'nonsequiter' you mentioned is nothing but something that you disagree with.
     
  15. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you are still missing my point. I never said that the passage was unimportant. My point was, and still is, that you are ignoring its context and therefore misapplying it.
     
  16. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is very clear to me.
    It was God's order to Israel.

    It also contains God's order to any who are observant of the wisdom of his word.

    There is no political interest that I have in quoting that scripture.
    I guess most, if not all, would just say its accidental that the writers of our constitution had specific requirements which exceeded the other office holders of our land.... and it just happens to agree with the Bible.

    Now........ are you suggesting by your stand..... that it is possible that we could have someone in the Presidency which doesn't conform to the natural born qualifications of our constitution. Well..... if that should be the case..... isn't it a matter of compliance with the law.... or is it just politics to you.

    To recognize this scripture by any who believe God's Word and its literal or practical application is not a misapplication.

    But your rebuke is noted: Snubbed. I recognize the authority of God's Word even over the concern of a 'brother', brother!
     
  17. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    A nonsequitor is something that does not logically follow what preceded it. The question of why the Framers (not the founding fathers) placed strict qualification for a POTUS does not follow with the scripture verses referenced in this thread, since Obama's birth status as a natural born citizen is indisputable, for two reasons:

    1 - it's been adequately verified that Obama was born on US soil, which alone qualifies as him as a natural born citizen.
    2 - Obama's mother was a natural born US Citizen, which alone qualifies him as a natural born citizen.

    Even if one of those is in question, the remaining item is sufficient to constitutionally qualify him as POTUS-eligible.

    But regardless of Obama's citizenship, Deuteronomy 17 refers to the King of Israel after the Jews rejected the concept of judicial rule. The chapter has nothing to do with, nor was it intended to be a litmus test for, any currently sitting presidents, prime ministers, or other heads of state of any country. Hence, the question of Obama and Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution is a nonsequitor to Deuteronomy 17.
     
    #17 Johnv, Aug 18, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 18, 2009

Share This Page

Loading...