Obama Says Some Have `hijacked' Faith

It seems that Obama, like most liberals, believes that Christianity should conform to his view of the world, instead of the Biblical view.

 

Is that the view that people should be killed for working friday night thru Saturday night?

 

Sarcasm will get you nowhere.

If you were actually familiar with the Bible, you would know that the prohibition and penalty you speak of pertained to Jews and the Jewish sabbath in the Old Testament.

It was never practiced by Christians. Of course, those who are biblically literate already knew that.

The liberal Obama falsely accuses conservatives of doing precisely the same thing liberals are actually doing--creating division.

 

Another take on it from Crosswalk enews.

"Obama Lashes Out at Some "Christian Right" Leaders OneNewsNow.com reports that Senator Barack Obama told a church convention Saturday that some right-wing evangelical leaders have exploited and politicized religious beliefs in an effort to sow division. "Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and faith started being used to drive us apart," Obama reportedly told the national meeting of the United Church of Christ. "Faith got hijacked, partly because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, all too eager to exploit what divides us. At every opportunity, they've told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and intelligent design... I don't know what Bible they're reading, but it doesn't jibe with my version.""

 

So we have a new version. The NWOV (New World Obama Version)

 

Just for the sake of argument, where in the Bible does it say that we, believers, are to impose on civil government what the Bible says about certain things like gay-marriages, abortion, creation, and so on ?

While the Bible does indeed speak out against homosexuality, it is spoken in the context of Christianity, that is, its prohibition is to those who call themselves with the name of Christ and identify themselves with Christ.

Come on, let's discuss this.

Is Obama correct ? Or is he wrong regarding this:

 

His belief is accurate. This is a matter for the states to decide as the states have not delegated this matter to the Federal Government. No federal constitutional amendment should be required as the federal government has no authority over such issues.

 

Obam is being dishonest. I am normally a states rights man but the homosexual activists are working through the federal government to impose homosexuality on the whole country. Obama knows this. If we agree to leave it at the state level the problem is that the libs will not. the libs want the conservatives to make no attempt to remove it from the state level while in the background and behind the scenes they are working feverishly to do just what they are calling for the conservatives not to do. He is a hypocrit.

The libs are trying to madate homosexuality through hate crime legislation at the federal level. And then there is the issue of trying to make state who do not recognize homosexual marriages, recognize them if they are done in another state by effect overruling thier own state constitution. So lets drop the sherade and get real about this. If the libs would leave it at the state level so would we. But they aren't and they are being hypocrits about the whole thing as well as liars. That goes for Obam, the shirt tail rider, and every other libs who supports such nonsense.

And where in scripture does it say that the church should disregard the Bible while in the voting booth or in thier decision making process as public servants. We true Christians do not lead dual lives but live it out in everything we do.

 

Something Obama, Paul, and others don't get: marriage is a standard. So is life. You cannot have one standard in one state and another standard in another state. This is not speed limits or school funding. Roads are different. Schools are different. Marriage is not. Life is not.

 

Maybe, but unfortunately, America is a nation of autonomous (supposedly) states with their own government, or at least that's what I understand, perhaps simplistically.

 

You can certainly have more than one standard in individual sovereign states (there are different ages of consent in varied states, do we federalize this as well?). It would actually be quite nice as you could have legal sodomy in some states and those that fear God can go to the states that do not endorse such abomination. Each individual state should make this determination as this was not a delegated power to the federal government. If Oregon or New Hampshire wants to legalize sodomy, so be it. If Texas wants to outlaw it, so be that. If there's a state whose people say, it's not up to government to legislate a God-ordained institution so be that. This is what happens in a free constitutional republic. However, having a centralized authority in the fed dictating to all states how marriage and/or civil unions should be defined, takes power upon themselves that the states did not give to them.

 

I wouldn't have a problem with having a federal consent law. No big deal.

I'm as anti-paternalist (I consider myself mildly liberterian, with a small "L")as they come, but we can't have a country of 50 countries. Federalism should be kept to a minimum, but there are areas where Federalism is acceptable to all. Art I.10 is one example of the Feds telling the states what to do (There are many others). So obviously, it's acceptable.

Well, I don't share your opinion. What if Colorado wants to legalize rape?

The "Fed" doesn't get its power from the states. You are right that we are a Republic, but Art IV, 1-2 opens the door for the "Fed" to enact uniformity across state lines.

Oh well...we're way off topic :tonofbricks:

 

Who are "liberals?"

 

Oooh...oooh..oooh can I but in.

In this case it would be those who believe that there should not be any cultural norms or traditions to oppress those who do not agree.

In other words it is fancy talk for anything goes. Like Obama, and the shirt tail rider, also kennedy and the rest of their ilk believe. Let us just leave it up to the individual to strut around with their but cheeks hanging out, holding hands with the same sex in public, kissing, fondling each other in an open and obnoxious way. Teaching Americas innocent children that disgusting and perverted sex is acceptable in God's eyes.

Or we can teach them that God changes and although He once did not allow women preachers it is ok to ignore scripture and just say that God can do a new thing with no scripture to back it up and in direct contradiction to scripture.

Or we can teach the children of America that the bible doesn't really mean what it says and it is just a bunch of stories that we can interpret ina any way that fits our fleshly desires so that we can walk in direct disobedience to God with no godly fear or reverence.

Lets just accept new and exciting cutlural norms so that America will mirror Soddom and Gomorah. That is a good definition of liberal.

 

Sounds like you're a federalist then. Why bother having states when we can have the feds make all our laws for us?

Why not? In the Paris of Treaty the Brits recognized thirteen individual sovereign states for that's what we were. Individual states united for certain delegated common causes.

"His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof." - Treaty of Paris​

What if Texas wants to outlaw sodomy? This great state outlawed the practice and then the feds came in and said you can't do that (Johnson v Texas).

The "Fed" was given delegated powers by the individual sovereign states. Legislating marriage was not a delegated power the states gave to the fed.

 

This is a farce. Obama questions "what Bible" others are reading, in speaking to a denomination which clearly repudiates the Bible.

 

Unfortunately, some religious groups are defined far more by what and by whom they are against rather than what they are for. I am certainly not on the inside of the UCC, but I suspect that this quote reflects the insider atmosphere that starts with the premise, "we are against anything those fundamentalists are for."

It works both ways, too. When Southern Baptists meet, there is a militant atmosphere about the long-defeated "liberals" in the SBC (of whom there were never more than a handful!).

Combative rhetoric is seldom fair and nuanced discourse. But it rallies the troops!

 

No, he's saying that God is not a Republican.

 

I believe that the term liberal has been misused to mean anyone who doesn't believe everything you do. Most so-called liberals are really moderates. How would you like to be continually called a fascist? Oh, and also told that no one with your political views could possibly be a Christian?