|
Post by john316 on Feb 1, 2009 5:53:39 GMT -5
news.aol.com/article/obamas-nonbeliever-nod-unsettles-some/316339In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama celebrated America as a "nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers." Some Christians are taking issue with the approach to inclusiveness, saying the president misrepresented America's culture and heritage. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Feb 2, 2009 9:04:48 GMT -5
news.aol.com/article/obamas-nonbeliever-nod-unsettles-some/316339In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama celebrated America as a "nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers." Some Christians are taking issue with the approach to inclusiveness, saying the president misrepresented America's culture and heritage. Thoughts? Well..... the actual quote was That being said....He is correct. We are all of the above.
|
|
|
Post by fs on Feb 7, 2009 8:12:59 GMT -5
At first In dreaded Obama's win, but now have come to realize he may well not be so bad.
|
|
|
Post by gordonmike on Feb 8, 2009 11:32:40 GMT -5
Obama is the savior of America, not Jesus Christ/
|
|
|
Post by john316 on Feb 8, 2009 13:04:06 GMT -5
Obama is the savior of America, not Jesus Christ/ Jesus Christ is the true Savior of the world. Repent, Trust, and Obey HIM and flee from the wrath to come.
|
|
|
Post by fs on Feb 9, 2009 15:44:07 GMT -5
I agree with Obama and Tony Holland.
I feared an Obama win but m,ore and more I like what he is doing
I now say praise God for Obama.
|
|
amgar
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by amgar on Nov 15, 2009 20:03:00 GMT -5
The "Reverend" he chose to pray was inclusive in his prayer. @3:18 www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pEH37JIgBU"Let us take that power back to our homes, our workplaces, our churchs, our temples, our mosques, wherever we seek your will."
|
|
|
Post by curritodelacruz on Dec 16, 2010 16:45:18 GMT -5
Obama is a far cry betetr than that false Christian George Bush who dragged this country through the sewer as a fanciful elected dictator, all while waving a flag of Christ . He is no christian and he is hell bound .
|
|
|
Post by revevangelist on Dec 16, 2011 9:30:47 GMT -5
Saying that Obama is ok is a concern here. He is a Liberal and socialist and his policies and his speaches are always against the Biblical Worldview. I think we need to compare Obama to the Scriptures and then I believe you will see what I am saying here. Those who can support him need to examine themselves in light of God's Word to see if they are in the faith.
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Dec 17, 2011 14:41:35 GMT -5
this was originally posted early in his presidency, and some of the later posts were trolls so don't get too worried. I'm pretty sure anyone who frequented this site knows by now how horrible Obama is.
Hopefully they also know that Ron Paul is the best choice for America in the coming up election.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 20, 2011 20:44:34 GMT -5
Ron Paul said baby-killing should be a state's right. He might be best economically or in other ways, but Jesus said what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Dec 21, 2011 14:40:27 GMT -5
Ron Paul is very against abortion, in fact while what you said about it being a states right is true his suggestion to fix it permanently is that he supports a constitutional amendment to define life beginning at conception. When he says that he's for states deciding on abortion, he's referring to the punishment that those who abort should face. That should be the state's right to decide how the punishment is carried out, just as how states deal with murder right now. Watch it yourself, the first link has him speaking about the amendment himself (I cut straight to that part, but if you want to watch the rest of his answers, it wouldn't be a bad idea) and the second video is a compilation of various of his pro life speeches. www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTh3gxd19x0&feature=relmfu#t=6m31swww.youtube.com/watch?v=_p76SznG48s
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 22, 2011 20:19:00 GMT -5
That is a better explanation than I've heard from him before. It would be a relief if he was not compromised on this like I thought.
So, what if one state decides the penalty for killing an unborn child is a fifty dollar copay? What does the federal government do? Or if killing Chinese people only has a penalty of attending racial tolerance classes? What does the federal government do? Is he consistent in this way? What would he recommend if Nebraska reduced the penalty for killing a woman to a small fine?
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Dec 24, 2011 14:37:14 GMT -5
The reason why states having control is better than federal control is that the people have far more sway in the way it is legislated. Which would be worst to you, 50 states forced to have abortion have no punishment or one state that has punishment as a slap on the wrist?
Also, your exaggerations of killing chinese people or killing women could technically be done already anyway, but it hasn't because we aren't a nation of savages.
What you need to realize is that bringing the power to the state is the best and easiest way to overturn roe vs wade. Roe vs Wade took the power away from the states and officially ended your fight against abortion. If that was over turned and brought back to the states, then your fight would actually be a lot easier in your state and in other states where there are those that fight. My point is that the way it is now, you have very little chance of winning but with Ron Paul's plan you have a much better chance to divide and conquer.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 25, 2011 23:03:19 GMT -5
What planet are you from? We aren't a nation of savages? Don't be such a diplomatic hippie. The right to govern is based on the right to life. Any government (whether state, federal, big, medium, small) that doesn't execute abortionists is pulling the rug out from underneath its own feet. If the state does nothing and the federal government likewise then both are guilty. It's not about roe vs wade, its about not murdering the unborn. If roe vs wade is gone but some state is harboring baby-killers then someone needs to do something. The value of human life needs to be upheld through the rule of law - the execution of penalties. The bible says eye for eye, tooth for tooth, burn for burn, wound for wound. People who murder a child by vacuum aspiration (suction) abortion deserve to be dismembered by a high power vacuum and then poured into a medical waste bin on public tv with a coupon code for free rusty coat-hangers. The bible says "A wise king scattereth the wicked, and bringeth the wheel over them." and "A king that sitteth in the throne of judgment scattereth away all evil with his eyes."
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Dec 26, 2011 14:43:55 GMT -5
A diplomatic hippy? So because I point out the fact that your arguments are flawed with slippery slopes, I'm suddenly a hippy? Turning abortion laws over to the states does not instantly make everyone in the state want to start killing chinese or women without any punishment.
So tell me which of your republican candidates are for ripping apart mothers or doctors who perform abortions? Sounds like a stance that none of them are going to be willing to take. Sounds like a stance any sane person wouldn't take to boot.
Now lets be honest though, do you really think any of the presidential candidates are going to make any real changes to abortion laws? Even Ron Paul wouldn't be able to overturn Roe vs Wade and return it to the states, so whats the big hold up on it anyway? Even Rick Santorum who's the big family man wouldn't be able to get abortion changed even if he made it his main goal of his presidency. If it's just a philosophical worry you have, I already explained his beliefs. Make a life at conception amendment and then let the states determine the punishment, just as they do for murder.
What America needs is someone who can bring real change and protect our liberty. Do you like how the government is being run now? If so go vote for Obama or Mitt Romney. If you want more over the top regulations and power hungry federal agents looking to steal our rights, then go vote for Newt Gingrich. If you want someone who lies through her teeth or is maybe so delusional that she actually believes the lies she spews, go vote for Michelle Bachmann. If you want someone who can really bring America back to greatness again, then you should be voting for Ron Paul.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jan 1, 2012 16:31:34 GMT -5
I think you misunderstood. I was calling you a hippie because you said we are not a nation of savages. I was not saying Paul's idea is a slippery slope. I was just using other examples to examine the principle. You seem like you think it's not as bad to kill unborn people as it is to kill born people.
Republicans are fools too. I don't know anyone who is actually concerned about God destroying America. Is Ron Paul? If so then he might be sane. The fact that we even VOTE over abortion and homosex is a joke to begin with. You don't VOTE over stuff like that. You just obey God or die. Period. America doesn't just need a good candidate, she needs to wake up and obey God before God knocks her block off. A good candidate would not be electable because this nation is wicked.
You should worry about YOUR campaign. Have you repented of your unbelief? What good is Ron Paul going to do for you when God drop-kicks you into the lake of fire?
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Jan 2, 2012 12:02:18 GMT -5
I'm not worried about God destroying America. I'm worried about America destroying America because it's something that I can actually work towards fixing. Since you didn't answer who you thought would be a better candidate, I guess I'll just have to assume that you don't have one and since your only real argument was to tell me I'm going to burn in hell (which isn't really an argument at all) then I'll assume this is probably as far as this conversation will civilly go.
I don't know, perhaps you don't plan on voting. Though if you do plan on voting I hope you'll pray on it and find the same answer that I did or at the very least that I convinced you that Ron Paul isn't the Godless baby killer that you may have imagined before.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Mar 2, 2012 20:08:59 GMT -5
I'm not worried about God destroying America. I'm worried about America destroying America because it's something that I can actually work towards fixing. Since you didn't answer who you thought would be a better candidate, I guess I'll just have to assume that you don't have one and since your only real argument was to tell me I'm going to burn in hell (which isn't really an argument at all) then I'll assume this is probably as far as this conversation will civilly go. I don't know, perhaps you don't plan on voting. Though if you do plan on voting I hope you'll pray on it and find the same answer that I did or at the very least that I convinced you that Ron Paul isn't the Godless baby killer that you may have imagined before. Kureji I don't think it is right to vote over other people's rights. If this country has gotten to the point where we are accepting proaborts as legit citizens and we have to vote over whether babies should be cared for then God has given america's authority over to the devil (duh). It is futile to vote against God. A nation does not have voting rights until it has a right to be born. America denies its children the right to be born. Therefore this nation has no right to vote. That is my opinion though, not a bible verse. It seems likely to me that abstaining from voting in this wicked doomed nation could be more likely to stir God's compassion than the pragmatic approach of casting ballots w/ murderers.
|
|