The Heretic

[ChumpDumper]

So Obama, according to a message board poster, misinterprets scripture.

That isn't high on my list of reasons to vote for or against someone for president.

If you prefer a full-on Christian theocracy based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, that's ok. I just don't think it's going to happen.

[jochhejaam]

So Obama, according to a message board poster, misinterprets scripture.

That isn't high on my list of reasons to vote for or against someone for president.

If you prefer a full-on Christian theocracy based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, that's ok. I just don't think it's going to happen.

I'm sure it doesn't phase a lot of people. Justifying preferred sins by wresting the truth from Scripture has been going on forever.

And no, I don't prefer a Christian theocracy.

[ChumpDumper]

Preferred sins?

And no, I don't prefer a Christian theocracy.

Then what is your point?

[Ignignokt]

Preferred sins?

Then what is your point?

that obama's disingenous use of scripture to promote a sinful lifestyle is dishonest could be one, or simply that he's wrong.

[Phenomanul]

that obama's disingenous use of scripture to pander to sexual cons uents is dishonest and simply wrong.

I believe that if phrased this way we are closer to the intent of JJ's initial observation.

[jochhejaam]

Preferred sins?

Yes, preferred sins. Specific God-forbidden sin, that brings great pleasure to those that profess to be Christians, so much so, that instead of abstaining from the sin they torture or contour Scripture through contextual manipulation to rationalize or justify their sinful behaviour. Voila! The best of both worlds (or so they believe).

Then what is your point?

What in my posts would lead you to believe that I favored a Christian theocracy?








.

[td4mvp21]

Supporting abortion and gay marriage/civil unions has nothing to do with a person's Christianity or faith in God. I find it insulting to question someone's faith based on the latter, because I am for abortion rights and I consider myself a Christian. I believe in God, that Jesus is His Son, that He is our Saviour, so am I not a Christian, or less of a Christian because I support abortion rights? I can't see me standing before God, only to have Him condemn me to because I supported abortion rights. I can't see Him saying "You are not a very good Christian, because you supported abortion rights. But I guess you can enter Heaven anyway."

On the topic of abortion, Obama said his support for keeping it legal does not trespass on his Christian faith. <---Then your knowledge of God and scripture is superficial, twisted and one of convenience.

"I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington <----Yeah, forget about the fact that they're aborting their Creators means of bringing new life into this world. That's my view," Obama said about abortion. "Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don't think it makes me less Christian. Okay." <---No, it's not!

Who are you to say he's less of a Christian and has twisted views on Christianity? Are you God? Do you live in a perfect world where no one has to consider abortion? What if someone gets raped and gets pregnant as a result? What if the pregnancy could result in serious health problems? What if it could kill the mother? The fetus isn't the only thing that matters here. I think it's de able for anyone to judge another person's faith. Obama is a Christian and that is what he believes-so what? He interprets the scriptures a different way than you do. If believing in abortion rights is indeed a sin, it's not any worse than lying, cheating, stealing, murder, etc. You sin too so I guess you have a warped sense of Christianity

[ChumpDumper]

that obama's disingenous use of scripture to promote a sinful lifestyle is dishonest could be one, or simply that he's wrong.

Yeah, calling him a heretic kind of made his point about judging Obama. I still don't know what it has to do with electing him -- unless of course someone preferred our laws be directly based on scripture.

[angel_luv]

Obama needs to pick a position, Christian or secular.

Actually, by trying to please everyone, he has already chosen.

[Phenomanul]

Supporting abortion and gay marriage/civil unions has nothing to do with a person's Christianity or faith in God. I find it insulting to question someone's faith based on the latter, because I am for abortion rights and I consider myself a Christian. I believe in God, that Jesus is His Son, that He is our Saviour, so am I not a Christian, or less of a Christian because I support abortion rights? I can't see me standing before God, only to have Him condemn me to because I supported abortion rights. I can't see Him saying "You are not a very good Christian, because you supported abortion rights. But I guess you can enter Heaven anyway."



Who are you to say he's less of a Christian and has twisted views on Christianity? Are you God? Do you live in a perfect world where no one has to consider abortion? What if someone gets raped and gets pregnant as a result? What if the pregnancy could result in serious health problems? What if it could kill the mother? The fetus isn't the only thing that matters here. I think it's de able for anyone to judge another person's faith. Obama is a Christian and that is what he believes-so what? He interprets the scriptures a different way than you do. If believing in abortion rights is indeed a sin, it's not any worse than lying, cheating, stealing, murder, etc. You sin too so I guess you have a warped sense of Christianity

I think most people in the pro-Life camp agree that when the mother's life is in danger that abortion may become a necessary means to save her life - once all other alternatives have been weighed and considered.

In the case of rape however... there are other alternatives to abortion - such as adoption (unless the rape was incestual in nature - because that becomes a quality of life issue for the baby due to any number of defects and diseases that are inherited when people of highly similar genotypes produce offspring).

People in the pro-Life camp simply don't want to open the flood-gates to irresponsible use of the procedure, or as a stop-gap birth control method. Supporting that use of abortion, is disrespectful to life and its Author... chiefly GOD... it's an irreconcilable difference.

[angel_luv]

I have never been in the position where I knew a mother whose life was endangered by her pregnancy. I cannot imagine much that is more horrible.

However, if you choose to end the baby's life to save the mothers, there should at least be an acknowledgement that that is what was done.

A baby is a human life regardless of the cir stances of its conception and birth.

I feel strongly about this, probably all the more so as my mother ( a young, single parent) came very close to aborting me.
She had an appointment and changed her mind right before entering the doctor's office.

[Holt's Cat]

If Obama had engaged in theft or adultery, perhaps the thread le would have read, "the adulterer" or "the thief" (although I personally wouldn't have started a thread for either of those). For those that read this as an assault on sexuals, you have completely misunderstood it's intent (like it went right over your heads).
The focus was on Obama, and his gross misinterpretation of Scripture.
I would suggest a refresher course on comprehension for those that chose to see it as anything other than that.
Of course, the frustration of not being able to refute the crux of the thread left them with no alternative, other than to create diversionary arguements that had nothing to do with his heresy.

We are only discussing this due to the fact that there are political movements afoot to deal with various issues related to sexuality, which, while undoubtedly of import and interesting from a theological and puerile standpoint, are minor in terms of the actual volume of sinful deeds going on in this country as opposed to say, again, heterosexual adultery. If we are going to use the federal government as well as state and even local governments to strike against sin how about a national movement against adultery? If there was anything which disrupts and destroys families, hurts children, and is just as evil as the concept of two dudes cornholing each other then it has to be adultery.

But that's never the case. Why? I can think of a few thousand issues that are of greater concern to this nation than that which affects between 2 to 5% of the population. You want to advance the cause of your faith? Start with yourself. Not with the ballot box.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE]

We are only discussing this due to the fact that there are political movements afoot to deal with various issues related to sexuality

That may be your reason for discussion, and while you may be the mouthpiece for others on this board, you certainly don't speak for me.
I posted it here because of the hypocrisy and heresy of a high-profile individual.

The juxtaposition;
-Heresy is responsible for damning innumerable people to .
-The commission of a Christian is to lead them to Christ, and away from .

You may think of this as minor, but God, who sacrificed his Son for the Redemption of sinful man, and that redemptive man, who became impassioned for Christ through that redemption, do not see it as minor.
Nor will the impassioned Christian be moved or silenced by your silly
admonition to "start with yourself, not with the ballot box".


Are you a Christian?

[ChumpDumper]

More judgment to follow.

[Holt's Cat]

That may be your reason for discussion, and while you may be the mouthpiece for others on this board, you certainly don't speak for me.
I posted it here because of the hypocrisy and heresy of a high-profile individual.

The juxtaposition;
-Heresy is responsible for damning innumerable people to .
-The commission of a Christian is to lead them to Christ, and away from .

Lead by example and by explaining what Christianity is about, not by trying to legislate them into becoming Christians.

You may think of this as minor, but God, who sacrificed his Son for the Redemption of sinful man, and that redemptive man, who became impassioned for Christ through that redemption, do not see it as minor.
Nor will the impassioned Christian be moved or silenced by your silly
admonition to "start with yourself, not with the ballot box".

Right. Christianity is about forcing people to believe through the electoral process. I'm glad that Christianity has become how you vote and not what you believe and do.

Are you a Christian?

Yes. But I'm not whatever you are.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE]

Lead by example and by explaining what Christianity is about, not by trying to legislate them into becoming Christians.

I'm agree and aware of all of that. Perhaps it will be helpful to those that aren't.

Right. Christianity is about forcing people to believe through the electoral process. I'm glad that Christianity has become how you vote and not what you believe.

Your admonition was silly because I've never advocated advancing my belief in Christ through the ballot box.
It would be helpful if you would educate yourself on someone's position before running of at the mouth (keyboard).

Yes. But I'm not whatever you are.

Ditto

[Holt's Cat]

So Christianity is not about the ballot box according to you?

Nor will the impassioned Christian be moved or silenced by your silly
admonition to "start with yourself, not with the ballot box".

How you vote does not determine whether or not you are a Christian. That admonition might be silly to someone content to fuse Christianity with politics into some kind of uber-American religion.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE]

So Christianity is not about the ballot box according to you?

My intent, and I've already clarified that, but I'll revisit it once more in a last ditch effort at helping you to understand; Your "start with yourself, ballot box" statement was ridiculous, because I have not advocated advancing or furthering Christianity through legislation.

How you vote does not determine whether or not you are a Christian. That admonition might be silly to someone content to fuse Christianity with politics into some kind of uber-American religion.

Are you suggesting that I've implied that Christianity is determined by political affiliation? If so, you have a nasty habit of mischaracterization.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

That was standard liberal-apostate Christianity. Nothing he said was a surprise. If you go into any of the mainline Protestant churches, odds are better than half that the pastor will agree with the stuff Obama said.

And that is why I reject mainline churches.

Not a fan of same sex marriage then?

that would be a good debate, I'm not sure if this forum has ever done that one.

[Extra Stout]

Not a fan of same sex marriage then?

that would be a good debate, I'm not sure if this forum has ever done that one.

My position is that if the state grants benefits to married couples, it should not withhold them from other kinds of households. It is unfair to charge people higher taxes, or withhold inheritance and visitation benefits, because their decisions about their relationships are not acceptable according to my moral code. As I read the Scriptural tenets regarding marriage, I fail to find the passages where God ordains joint tax filing.

Regardless of whether people follow the moral tenets of Christianity, they are human beings created in God's image, and are to be treated with respect. Without that underlying moral basis, democracy is pointless.

However, the idea that Christianity affirms same-sex marriage is a complete overturning of its morality as it was understood for its first 1,900 years. Christianity from the start adopted the Jewish abhorrence toward sexual conduct, in stark contrast to the widespread acceptance of sexuality in pagan Roman and Greek culture. In fact, it also adopted the Jewish abhorrence toward abortion, which likewise had widespread acceptance in the pagan cultures.

[Extra Stout]

Supporting abortion and gay marriage/civil unions has nothing to do with a person's Christianity or faith in God.

It would indicate that such a person is woefully ignorant about what his faith teaches, or has been instructed by false teachers.

I am for abortion rights and I consider myself a Christian.

Then you don't understand what your faith teaches about the significance of human life, and what it represents with respect to God.

I believe in God, that Jesus is His Son, that He is our Saviour, so am I not a Christian, or less of a Christian because I support abortion rights?

I can't speak to the quality of your faith in general, but your view on abortion stands in contrast to the belief of Christians in all times and all places prior to the modern age of liberal theology, when the error became common.

I can't see me standing before God, only to have Him condemn me to because I supported abortion rights.

Error on certain moral tenets is not damnable.

I can't see Him saying "You are not a very good Christian, because you supported abortion rights. But I guess you can enter Heaven anyway."

That's probably because you're not familiar with the parts of Scripture that talk about the judgment of your works.

[DarkReign]

When my life is reduced to the pleasing of imaginary men in the sky, only then will I know the true bottom of humanity.

[2centsworth]

My position is that if the state grants benefits to married couples, it should not withhold them from other kinds of households. It is unfair to charge people higher taxes, or withhold inheritance and visitation benefits, because their decisions about their relationships are not acceptable according to my moral code. As I read the Scriptural tenets regarding marriage, I fail to find the passages where God ordains joint tax filing.

You've heard of the Marriage Penalty when it comes to income taxes?

Everything else you discussed can be handled through a trust.

[Extra Stout]

You've heard of the Marriage Penalty when it comes to income taxes?

For most couples, the marriage penalty has been eliminated, at least through 2010, and there is now a marriage bonus.

Everything else you discussed can be handled through a trust.

It takes a lot more than that.

For example, if Trisha buys her gay domestic partner Lisa a $15,000 ring for her birthday, she is liable for a gift tax.

If they want to have a joint bank account or dual le to a home, uh, good luck with that.

Really, there are seven or eight separate legal procedures they would have to go through to start to obtain the same legal protections as a married couple. They have to pay attorney's fees -- lots of them -- to get them.

That's not any more equal than it would be to let a white person vote on recognizance, while making a black person bring three kinds of photo ID, a signed and notarized affidavit of his iden y, another signed and notarized affidavit from the local sheriff verifying that he has not committed a felony, oh, and also having him pay a processing fee for the privilege.

[2centsworth]

For most couples, the marriage penalty has been eliminated, at least through 2010, and there is now a marriage bonus.

You're mistaken brother.

Two single people can make $362,000 before hitting the 33% tax bracket while it takes $195,000 for a married couple. Where's the bonus in that? btw, that type of scenario applies to all levels except the very bottom.

For example, if Trisha buys her gay domestic partner Lisa a $15,000 ring for her birthday, she is liable for a gift tax.

You're allowed a $12,000 gift exclusion per year plus a $1,000,000 life time gift exclusions in excess of $12,000. So Trisha is just fine.

If they want to have a joint bank account or dual le to a home, uh, good luck with that.

where, in Saudi Arabia? I have joint bank accounts with unrelated people.

Really, there are seven or eight separate legal procedures they would have to go through to start to obtain the same legal protections as a married couple. They have to pay attorney's fees -- lots of them -- to get them.

I think I've already done a good enough job of shooting you down. Nevertheless, you can get these legal procedures, which btw I recommend for everyone, for as little as $500. I don't see how dying without any estate planning is a benefit to married people.

That's not any more equal than it would be to let a white person vote on recognizance, while making a black person bring three kinds of photo ID, a signed and notarized affidavit of his iden y, another signed and notarized affidavit from the local sheriff verifying that he has not committed a felony, oh, and also having him pay a processing fee for the privilege.

I respect you ES, but you're way off.