Obama Skips Church

Well, Jim, at last something surfaces upon which we agree!

 

You are mixing statements of different context, confusing them both, and misrepresenting what I wrote!

We should have less federal government! It should be much smaller and less involved in our daily lives. I've written that!

I did not write anything claiming the federal government "should have a part in assuring Christianity is important in our daily lives"! I wrote that "The object is to recognize where we came from and impact where we are going by making Christianity important in our daily lives including what we do in government. The object is to make sure we don't end up being persecuted!" That means we should apply Christian principles to what we do in government. Our laws should be modeled accordingly because this is the only real truth system. Everything else is a lie, a fake, or an immitation! Doing this does not viiolate the prohibition against making laws respecting an establishment of religion. It just means applying the principles of Christianity to the making of law. This does not give respect to a particular national church or "establishment of religion".

The phrase "where we came from" refers to the Christian heritage upon which our nation was original founded. Like it or not that's where it started and continued for generations. Not all immigrants to America have been Christian and not all naturally born Americas have been either. A Christian heritage does not imply some kind of mass salvation applied to a whole nation of people. Each must work out his own salvation as an individual person. That's why some are uncomfortable with the term "Christian nation" because this this respect there's no such thing. Yet in another sense of the meaning it implies a predominance of citizens who formed and grew the nation to what it became. It implies that we, as a people and through our government, desire to act according to God's laws and not those of man. God's laws are the only truth so a government and a people rooted in anything else including a "secular" society is doomed to living in lies and deceptions.

 

This illustrates the problem! I prefer a Christian leader who is also competent in the area he will lead. I do because the only way a person can really do the right thing is by seeking to know and follow God's will. A non-Christian will not do this because they are following a truth system that is based upon lies and deceptions. This may not seem so important is some areas of life but when it comes to matters dealt with by Presidents, Senators, Representatives, Judges, etc. I think it is supremely important! This does not imply concurrence with the actions of some who thinks they're on a a mission to carry out the "will of God" if, in fact, they really aren't. That is why good systems of government have good measures of checks and balances. It is also a good reason not to have a national church that could be corrupted by the politics of man. Yet not one bit of this lessons the importance or need to have Christian leadership in our government. They will more likely do right by all - Christians and non-Christians alike - than those who are not.

 

The teachings of Islam are extreme and the consequences can be deadly to non-Muslims and especially to Christians and Jews. I'm sure there are disagreements amongst them and some more radical than others. But their book reveals their beliefs and those beliefs condone the killing of infidels like you and me in the name of Allah simply because they refuse to believe. All non-Christian beliefs are dangerous because they are based upon lies and deceptions but Islam is all the more dangerous because of its endorsement of violent acts. Many of it's laws are contrary to our common law and, if implemented in America, would shock the daylights out of most citizens. Be careful what you label as harmless and non-radical. It is a sleeping giant of many members waiting for the moment to demonstrate how radical it can be.

 

This is the infamous Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and it is no surprise to me that it surfaces now as "proof" by those who want to claim that America was not founded in Christianity!

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London. They wanted to know on what grounds Tripoli was acting. The envoy's response was: "It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once." It seems Muslims have had this attitude towards Christians for a long time!

The treaty was negotiated in 1796 to secure safe passage of American vessels off the Barbary Coast of Africa. Contrary to popular legend it was not signed by George Washington but, rather, John Adams. The treaty was first written in Arabic and translated to English in Algeria. It is believed that article 11 was actually not part of the original terms of the treaty but, instead, a letter written in Arabic between local leaders to appease entering into a treaty with an infidel nation. Perhaps the political appeasement of the day sought to permit one to express their disdain for the other.

Charles Bevans wrote in "Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America, 1776-1949": "Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation with its famous phrase, “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion,” does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pashna of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatsoever on the point.”

Adams did not think of America as anything less than a Christian nation. In 1813 he wrote to Jefferson stating: "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young gentlemen could unite. And what were these general principles? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all these sects are united. And the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence. Now I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles or Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature." He could not have agreed with the implied meaning of the bogus article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797.

Regardless, the Islamic pirates of the Barbary Coast didn't do right by the treaty and continued to attack our ships. So in 1801 we went to war with Tripoli one action of which included the basis for the phrase "from the shores of Tripoli" in the Marine hymn. This forced a new treaty to agreed upon in 1806. It did not include the proclamation that America was not founded on the Christian religion!

 

[SIZE=+1]

The article is well know by all students of this subject so it is no surprise to see it quoted now!

The intent here is exactly what it states! It prohibits the federal and state governments from requiring its officers to submit to a religious test as a qualification. We can only imagine what kind of test that would be in today's world! The only correct answers would be that all faiths are equally true, there are many paths to Heaven, people are fundamentally good, Jesus Christ was a historical figure and good teacher, diversity mandates acceptance of homosexuality, etc.

It does not prevent the citizens from applying their test - test of any type including religious - to the candidates they chose to represent and serve them. This is an important distinction.

Those who've succumbed to the "separation of church and state" lie have wrongly concluded that it is unlawful to consider a person's religious beliefs as a qualification for office and they are, somehow, prohibited from "testing" such a person accordingly.

The intent of the Constitution is to protect the people from the government - not the other way around. The restrictions apply to the government - not to the people nor to the Church. [/SIZE]

 

Don't you think that Muslims reading the Old Testament would conclude that Christianity is an extreme and dangerous religion as well?

Num 31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
Num 31:8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; [namely], Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.

Num 31:14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, [with] the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
Num 31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
Num 31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
Num 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

 

Which Muslim are you talking about? I assume this is a hypothetical question. You might as well talk about a Hindu or a Buddhist becoming President because none of these events seems to be likely in the near future.

 

Big difference! The Bible is relating historical events as part of the prelude to the coming of Christ - not giving commands for us to go kill non-Christians. Islam is based on lies and deceptions. Christianity is based on truth.

 

Those that would want to become President, Senator, Representative, Judge, etc. for all the reasons stated in my posts on this and other threads and especially because of their endorsement of violence against Christians who refuse to convert - if that were possible - to Islam.

 

Back to the op.....Mr. Obama missed church............

Well, Mr, Clinton never missed church and openly carried his Bible with him..........and the rest of the story....................

Cheers,

Jim

 

I won't argue with you about Christianity being the truth. I was merely stating that to a nonbeliever these OT commands by God look a lot like what the Muslims are quoting from the Quoran.

 

....was that he sinned. Hmmm. I've done that.

 

A non-believer is not capable of understanding the truth of God's word.

 

Good to know someone say something good about Bill, he wasn't our best moral example but he left us economically in good shape...

 

This was my point, you are equally unqualified to interpret Muslim teachings. I still invite you to have a conversation with your neighbors. I believe you will find they are just normal everyday American's like you and I trying to pay bills and live day to day. Sure, they have a different Religious belief but you'll find Radical Islam is an unappreciated minority in their faith. Your view of Muslim teaching is not the norm for the majority.

Please, go meet your neighbor. Tell them about Jesus and what he's done for you and listen to their belief's and views of going's on in this world. You will find American's really share a common enemy and it doesn't have to be each other.

 

That's what I'm saying. We agree.

 

I don't think anyone is unqualified to interpet anything muslim. Theres a big difference between christianity and islam. One being we have the Holy Spirit to teach us scripture, the God inspired scriptures, as was stated a person must have the Holy Spirit to understanding scripture. Not so with islam and the koran, it is nothing more then a book, not god inspired, and if we are qualified to read any book and understand what it is saying, then we are qualified to read the koran and understand it and understand what islam teaches.

 

[SIZE=+1]

Believers are able to discern the truth from the lies because they have the written word of God and the indwelling Holy Spirit. We have the benefit of believing in the one true God.

I have many conversations with my neighbors at home and at work regarding beliefs. They are, generally, respectful discussions and there is no ill will among us as neighbors or co-workers. There are many "good" people in the world that are completely lost and their compass for living is based on something other than God

Yes, we may have common enemies among men and common goals among men and, to that extent, we can certainly work together. This is, in part, the meaning of tolerance. We live and let live.

But, on a grander scale, we do not have a common enemy . Satan is our enemy because he is Christ's enemy but he is the friend of all who do not believe in Christ Jesus.

We must never lose sight of this. We must never trust Islam to be a harmless peaceful religion that will be content to co-exist with us. It may be relatively docile now in America but if it continues to grow in strength it will continue to demand more influence in society including adapting our law to become Islamic law. It will resort to its fundamental teachings and radical leaders will rise among them. Pay attention to the rumblings and you will see this is already starting to happen. [/SIZE]

 

isn't he the cause of the current economic woes, easing requirement for home loans to people who couldn't pay for it, and didn't even qualify for a loan. yeah, pretty good shape he left us in.