Thursday, April 24, 2008

PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND BARACK OBAMA
...a match made in hell

UPDATED:
Here is The Born Alive Infant Protection Act that Barry Hussein Obama opposed. This just isn't a matter of a difference of opinion on public policy; this is the degenerate, depraved, deep-seated beliefs of an unprincipled man. This is barbarism.


"For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.

Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth.

Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them."
-Psalm 139:13-16



ignity is a lost word in our society. Common courtesy is a thing of the past. There seems to be little nobility left in how we treat one another anymore. I realize this is a generalization, but I believe the core idea holds true. If we expand this to basic considerations in how we "love our neighbor", we see this erosion of dignity at the most crucial and disturbing of levels - our children. School shootings are rampant and devastating; fighting between students is up; kids are not even safe walking home a few blocks home from school anymore; in an instant they can be tragically kidnapped, raped, brutalized and emotionally scared for life. It's even become fashionable, almost sport, to video tape premeditated beatings of fellow classmates, as we have witnessed recently, only to post them on YouTube then as a sick form of entertainment. Human life is no longer precious; no longer cherished; no longer dignified.

Is it any wonder that this lack of dignity - a lack for human dignity - begins with the most fragile and defenseless in our world... our unborn children.

This lack of dignity has been elevated to new lows by Planned Parenthood's actions of late. I refer you to another YouTube installment below as to why the abortion mill industry, championed by Planned Parenthood, is committing genocide through racial-targeting; this time, against the African-American community. Watch this disturbing piece and hear firsthand how some of their own workers endorse the donation of funds, fueled by racism, to specifically abort black babies. PP is a shameful, money-driven, racist organization that is a blight on our nation - and they benefit financially from our tax dollars. Unthinkable!

Not only have they helped fund and encourage the deaths of millions of unborn children in our land, but now through its workers, they have no conscionable objection whatsoever, racially targeting the abortion of babies in the African-American community as part of its agenda.

And who is the latest laky kissing up, pandering to, and thanking PP for the fine work they do on behalf of women and our families? None other than radically pro-abortion, pro partial-birth-abortion, and pro live-abortion advocate... Barack Hussein Obama.

Don't drink the Kool-Aid.

WATCH THIS...



AND THEN CONSIDER THIS...
"Planned Parenthood likes to think of itself as above all reproach — a champion of women’s rights and also (as its annual report claims) the nation’s “social justice movement.”

But this week, in front of Planned Parenthood offices at 1108 16th St. NW in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, a group of black pastors and pro-life activists (joined by two GOP congressmen) will demand a congressional audit of what the group alleges are a pattern of racist practices, funded by taxpayers, at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics.

Planned Parenthood’s latest trouble began when a feisty pro-life student magazine called Planned Parenthood offices in seven states, posing as an openly racist donor seeking to make sure his check could be earmarked to abort “a black baby.” The resulting phone conversations [above] are horrifying listening."
-ED MORRISSEY, HOTAIR.com

60 comments:

Gage Browning said...

This is one of the saddest things I have ever seen. The Rev. Al Martin at Trinity Baptist Church was right in his sermon on our Great National Sins. We are bloodguilty. The blood of the innocent like that of Abel is crying up to God for justice. God help us. I also heard recently a quote that I think came from Billy Graham (in his early days) and that is...If God doesn't judge America, then he will have to apolgize to Sodom and Gomorrah." God help us we are so bloodguilty.

Gage Browning
Post Tenebras Lux

theoldadam said...

Obama is just another re-packaged Marxist who doesn't care one wit for this country. We may not know all that much about this guy who changed his name from Barry to Barack. If we want a better idea of who he really is we should look at the people he hangs around with, including his wife.

The fact that this guy would even have a chance at becomung President tells us that we are in big trouble.

-Steve Martin San Clemente, CA

bretts said...

Steve,

I agree completely with your sentiments here; but if you will permit me to play devil’s advocate:

How would you reconcile the call for dignity and common courtesy in society with the doctrine of total depravity?

And what does abortion politics have to do with the Gospel?

roadwolf said...

Steve,

Why the need to spell out Barack "Hussein" Obama in your post? Do you refer to other public figures and friends that same way, addressing them by their entire name? I am sure "Barack Obama" or "Mr. Obama" would be fine... what is the implication or use of his given middle name... any ulterior motives here?

Chris Parker

Sarah said...

I'm totally against abortion, but I do believe that a lot of people who work at abortion clinics believe (albeit erroneously) that they are helping the women that come in...this guy's comments that he wanted the money to be earmarked for black abortions could have been interpreted in their minds as him wanting to help blacks because maybe they're less likely to be able to afford it?

Of course, he did spell it out to some of them (like when he said he wanted fewer blacks in the world)...but even then, they probably just wanted his money and were willing to placate him however they could so he'd give (so they were probably not agreeing with him that more black babies should be killed, since they claim to not even see abortion as murder).

Does that make sense? I just thought that this video didn't overtly make me think that these clinics were racist, whatever else they may be.

But I do agree that Obama's support of P.P. is another major reason why I don't want him as my president!

SJ Camp said...

Chris
No hidden motive or agenda here. That is his name.

Campi

SJ Camp said...

Sarah
"this guy's comments that he wanted the money to be earmarked for black abortions could have been interpreted in their minds as him wanting to help blacks because maybe they're less likely to be able to afford it?"

In complete context the caller was actually pinpointing the reason for earmarking those funds... it was a specific racist agenda. There could have been no misunderstanding of his intentions. And remember, he was doing research and calling incognito and recording these inquiries to reveal PP's real practice and values.

Steve

SJ Camp said...

bretta
"How would you reconcile the call for dignity and common courtesy in society with the doctrine of total depravity?"

1 Peter 3:15-16; 2 Timothy 2:24-26; Titus 3:1-8

"1Pet. 3:15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;
1Pet. 3:16 and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame.

2Tim. 2:24 The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged,
2Tim. 2:25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,
2Tim. 2:26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

Titus 3:1 ¶ Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed,
Titus 3:2 to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men.
Titus 3:3 For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another.
Titus 3:4 But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared,
Titus 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,
Titus 3:6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
Titus 3:7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Titus 3:8 This is a trustworthy statement; and concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God will be careful to engage in good deeds. These things are good and profitable for men.

"And what does abortion politics have to do with the Gospel"

I wouldn't refer to it as abortion politics, but more of what the Scriptures refer to as defending the the defenseless - in this case the unborn.

It is also honoring the sixth commandment.

Thanks for your questions... Hope this helps a bit more towards a biblical response.

Campi

SJ Camp said...

Gage
I agree with you wholeheartedly. A time for us as believers to speak up once again on this important issue and not play politics with the unborn.

SJ Camp said...

theoldadam
Obama is a socialist--that is clear. And yes, a man is known by the friends he keeps.

This should be looked at very closely before people blindly follow a hollow message of the audacity of hope (which, btw, is a jeremiah Wright concept).

Enough said.

littlegal_66 said...

Surely PP is aware by now that this undercover experiment/investigation was going on. Have they even acknowledged any of these calls, or are they just ignoring it in hopes that it will go away? (Probably, that's a typical M.O. with groups such as this).

This shouldn't be allowed to be swept under the rug, and BHO needs to be called on the carpet on this.....before it's too late.....(as in....November). It's outrageous. As they say, politics make strange bedfellows. (And how much more strange can you get than an Obama/PP alliance)?

donsands said...

"None other than radically pro-abortion, pro partial-birth-abortion, and pro live-abortion advocate... Barack Hussein Obama."

That's his stance alright. I read an article where he spoke with the liberals, and he was very bold for woman's rights.
When he spoke at Messiah College he was a lot different, and made it seem as though he was against abortion, to a point. He's smooth.

I hope McCain nails him on abortion when they debate, if Obama is indeed the Democrat, and not Hillary.

Just show the truth. Lay it out for all to see.

My daughter was talking with some other young women, and one of them was pregnant, but she found out it was a girl, and she wanted a boy, so she was considering aborting the baby. Inconvenient for me, so kill the baby. Or, simply I don't want that kind of baby, kill him, or her.

Brian said...

If there are any liberals that read this blog, Steve Camp is trying to affect them in order to assist OPERATION CHAOS!

I jest. Abortion is the most primary social justice issue Christians need to stand up for. The racism thing is new to me. All I can say is "wow."

Sarah said...

"In complete context the caller was actually pinpointing the reason for earmarking those funds... it was a specific racist agenda. There could have been no misunderstanding of his intentions. And remember, he was doing research and calling incognito and recording these inquiries to reveal PP's real practice and values.

Steve"

I agree completely that he was trying to give them that impression! It just didn't sound like he made that clear to EVERY person they showed him talking to, but maybe they just didn't play the entire conversation and it's implied that he said the same thing to everyone (because he obviously made it clear to several of the people on the video).

So I totally get the intention of his calling these clinics, just didn't see that the video made it entirely clear that he presented it in that way to each woman he talked to! :-)

In any case, it's horrible that they would take money specifically for that, knowing his "intentions" were racist (horrible they'd take money for abortions at all, really).

Thank the Lord He will one day fully redeem this fallen world!

doggo said...

Steve,

To piggyback on Sarah’s comments, the caller could have replaced black with “white”, “red” or “martian” babies and I believe PP would take their money. The racist line of reasoning is flimsy in my view; PP will murder on demand.

Jim

Robin said...

God is so good - the truth is being exposed about this terrible organization. Nothing really surprises me about what PP does anymore, but it continues to sicken me. Obama has bought into the lies that are rampant about abortion and how it "helps women." It surely isn't helping the preborn women that are being aborted. Anyone can read up on the founder of PP, Margaret Sanger, and realize that her whole reason for starting PP was racially motivated. Thank you, Steve, for doing a part in educating the public about Obama. And all of us can do our part in educating our friends and neighbors about the lies we have all been fed about abortion (and there are many!) There are many good websites to read through to find the truth. One final thing, abortion is not a political issue, and it has everything to do with the Gospel.

Only Look said...

Even though we are depraved God values us more than the Sparrow and has spared no expense at Calvary to save us. Though he hates our old nature his compassion and love is everlasting and he weeps I am sure, even to this day of how little we value life for He said, "All those who hate me love death"

Is this nation so caloused that we no longer weep over such depravity?

Our redemption draws near for because of lawlessness the love of many will wax cold.

Grace upon grace,

Brian

Dave Algie said...

Let's assume that abortion is an act that for reasons that are at best "misled" (Probably more insidious than that?) takes innocent lives and causes massive, completely unnecessary destruction. It's utterly unjustified. In the light of this, perhaps Steve's attack here on Obama (The "socialist")could be seen to have merit. But only if he is going to post a searing expose on George Bush and the invasion of Iraq, an act that for reasons that were at best misled (Probably more insidious than that?)continues to take innocent lives and causes massive, completely unnecessary destruction.

Hayden said...

Dave,

Red Herring alert. Talking about whether this falls in the 'Just War' category can be another post but to equate abortion and war is disingenious at best.Steve doesn't have to prove your politics. This is his blog. Stay on the topic and address what he has written.

If you are talking about the 08 election George Bush is not on the ticket.

SJ Camp said...

Hayden
Wow... gobsmacked big time. Where have you been all my blog? Keep it up. Love the urgency and the conviction.

Dave
I know this is a tough issue. Running for president makes it equally as complicated, yet heightened in importance in a much needed way.

I am not a one issue voter--I look at the totality of any candidate and then make my decision. I haven't supported President Bush on all matters. There have been problems. And yes, the war in Iraq is a good/bad thing.

However, abortion is a worldview of personal conviction; war is an act of government. Mr. Obama supports the unbridled killing of millions of unborn children. He is the most liberal out of any congressman or senator currently seated. He supports partial birth abortion wholeheartedly. But most shocking is for live abortion. Live abortion! A perfectly healthy baby left to die because a partial birth abortion wasn't performed accurately or completely. That is barbaric... don't you agree?

He should come clean on this. He has not. But, let me be clear, the reason for my post is not about Obama - he is the after thought. It is first and foremost about Planned Parenthood and its tax payer funded genocide against the African American community.

Let's stay focused there.

I appreciate your comments here.
Steve

rosemarie said...

In California, a woman gets pregnant and decides she wants to terminate her pregnancy, she tells the baby's father to pay for an abortion or she goes to a clinic to terminate her baby's life for free. The father has no right to stop her and no matter how he feels, he may have to pay up. Another woman gets pregnant and although her partner told her he didn't want to be a father, she decides to keep the baby and he has no say. He pays child support. A pregnant woman on the way to have an abortion is hit by a drunk driver and as a result of those injuries, the baby dies but she survives. The driver can be tried for vehicular homicide.

A politician wants women to vote for him, so he panders to them. There are more women who want the freedom to terminate their baby's life for their own convenience. The 'pro-choice' women have the power.
The candidate who wants their vote tells them what they want to hear. It is a strategic maneuver to take undecided women's votes from Clinton.

Planned Parenthood wants to receive donations so they can keep the abortion mills churning out death on demand. They don't have enough integrity to see abortion as murder, why would you expect them to have integrity about where they get their funding?

I wonder why we expect the world to be consistent with their opinions on abortion when professing Christians fall on either side of the 'pro-life/pro-choice' battle? Not to mention the homicidal loons that blow up abortion clinics and kill doctors in the name of being "pro-life."- with tears, rosemarie

kschaub said...

Those of you interested in this should also listen to John Pipe's sermon: When is Abortion Racism?, a sermon he delivered on January 21, 2007 that also addresses the statistical anomalies of Planned Parenthood's abortions performed and the strategic locations of many of their clinics.

You can read it here. It is also available in Spanish.

BlueDeacon said...

Sorry, but I don't share everyone's horror over the possibility of Obama becoming president -- and, yes, I plan to vote for him despite his views on abortion.

Reason? Folks who are boo-hooing that today never considered the general incompetence of conservative candidates -- which I saw even back in the day -- that folks voted for precisely because they were "pro-life" and usually only for that reason. Furthermore, we have used the abortion issue only to troll for votes and and willfully -- and in some cases, deliberately -- separated it from other legitimate issues concerning the "sanctity of human life," and we're paying for that today with our lack of influence.

And do you know what also bothers me about all this? The arrogance and lack of Christian charity I've seen, including personal attacks, on this blog toward people we don't see eye-to-eye with! That strikes me as somewhat arrogant and hypocritical given what the Gospel is supposed to be about -- reconciliation. Do you really think that Obama (or any pro-choice political candidate, for that matter) is going to look on this blog and find a true manifestation of the Savior? Before we make all these quasi-prophetic statements about our opponents, perhaps we ought to consider that "judgment starts with the house of God." As far as I'm concerned, we don't have the authority right now to speak on such issues.

Hank said...

@BlueDeacon:

You're right, we don't have the authority to speak on this. Fortunately, God does, and He has done so very clearly in His Word. God is also unchanging, so His authority applies at all times, including now. Obama is does not hold with any Christian values despite all of his talk of being religion-friendly. One who truly believes in the Scriptures cannot vote for Obama based solely on the issue of abortion.

BlueDeacon said...

One who truly believes in the Scriptures cannot vote for Obama based solely on the issue of abortion.

That comment proves my point. As I said before -- but it apparently bears repeating -- we Christians have supported political candidates only on their stance on abortion regardless of any expertise, experience or qualifications and our nation has been ill-served in the process, let alone the cause of Christ.

I also offer the following hypothetical: Say, by some miracle, abortion actually was outlawed and simply disappeared. Would be then have a more just, "life-affirming" society? Sorry, but I personally have way too much respect for the devil to believe that for even a second -- we still live in a fallen world and that evil will just manifest itself in another way. And you have to know that Satan really couldn't care less about the issue itself; his whole game is to keep people from recognizing Jesus as LORD and will use even "pro-life" as a distraction in order to do it (and in fact has consistently done so). That's why I cannot accept that view.

Hank said...

@BlueDeacon:

Actually, yes, a society which did NOT murder thousands of innocents a day would, by definition, be a more just and life-affirming society than one that DID murder those innocents. I understand that Satan is a dangerous adversary, but I have enough respect for Christ that I believe it's better to follow His law no matter what, and that includes abortion.

I am confused as to why you consider conservative candidates to be opposed to the cause of Christ. Almost uniformly, liberal candidates are in favor of humanistic philosophies and policies, which cannot be any farther removed from what Jesus wanted for us. Obama, in particular, believes that there are many ways to be saved. Jesus says there is only one, Himself. Obama does not recognize Jesus as Lord. Why then, would you cast your vote for him?

BlueDeacon said...

Actually, yes, a society which did NOT murder thousands of innocents a day would, by definition, be a more just and life-affirming society than one that DID murder those innocents.

Well, abortion is generally illegal in Latin America (which, at least by American standards, ideologically tends toward the left), so I'm not sure how the argument is made in this case. Even Daniel Ortega, the Reagan Administration's bete noir in the 1980s and who no one would call a devout man, enacted a strict abortion law a couple of years ago in Nicaragua at the behest of the Roman Catholic Church.

I am confused as to why you consider conservative candidates to be opposed to the cause of Christ. Almost uniformly, liberal candidates are in favor of humanistic philosophies and policies, which cannot be any farther removed from what Jesus wanted for us.

For openers, most ideological conservatives are not -- repeat, not -- evangelical Christians; as such, they can never approach God in the same way we do. That's the problem when you confuse faith with ideology; you have agnostics like Karl Rove lionized by Jerry Falwell and true-blue believers such as Ron Sider and Jim Wallis denigrated because they dare say that conservatives get some things wrong.

Truth is (at least in my experience), conservatism is akin to Phariseeism rather than Christianity because the power-obsessed Pharisees completely missed the point -- which was Jesus.

Hank said...

@BlueDeacon:

All I'm saying is that America would be more just if we didn't allow abortion. I would think that was obvious. I am not saying that McCain is a Christian because of his anti-abortion stance. However, he is a better choice. McCain might not be good for Christianity in America, but Obama definitely won't be. If I have to pick between two candidates, neither of them Christian, I'll pick the one whose policies line up with Scripture. Why do you think Obama is better than McCain?

BlueDeacon said...

I'll pick the one whose policies line up with Scripture.

BTW, abortion is not even mentioned mentioned in the Scripture (an anti-abortion stance, which I do subscribe to, is only implied).

Further, other issues, too many to mention here, also merit consideration. Then, you have to consider the actual workings of politics and governing -- making laws, delivering constituent services and fielding complaints -- which make up most of the time that legislators and executives spend. With these things in mind, conservatives' failure to govern effectively, especially over the past seven years -- they wanted the authority but not the responsibility -- has led more Christians than people realize toward the distasteful option of voting for pro-choice candidates.

One man who attends my church and is more conservative than I -- he's a former pastor and a graduate of a local Reformed seminary -- said he would make his Presidential choice based not on positions but on general character, and as of now he would also likely vote for Obama. I understand that. Also, the hyperbolically apocalyptic language of the "abortion-and-gay-marriage" crowd is now falling on deaf ears in a more general sense because of that failure.

Steve, if you're reading this, pumping up the outrage as you did on this entry has truly gotten old. It's time for a new attitude.

SJ Camp said...

bluedeacon
For openers, most ideological conservatives are not -- repeat, not -- evangelical Christians; as such, they can never approach God in the same way we do. That's the problem when you confuse faith with ideology; you have agnostics like Karl Rove lionized by Jerry Falwell and true-blue believers such as Ron Sider and Jim Wallis denigrated because they dare say that conservatives get some things wrong.

1. Rove is not an agnostic. "Rove was asked about it in an interview by Chris Wallace on Fox News and denied being an agnostic, saying "I'm a Christian. I go to church. I'm an Episcopalian."

2. I have met Ron Sider but I don't know personally Jim Wallis. The problem with both of these men is not one of social compassion representing liberalism; but having that social compassion constrained through the fulcrum of Scripture. Love without truth can lead to an empty headed sentimentiality; and truth without love can breed a cold hearted orthodoxy.

Both are needed. When Biblical self-sacrificial love is constrained by the truth of Scripture it yields a powerful witness of the gospel and can impact culture by being salt and light demonstrating the good works that overflow from the truly regenerated life.

3. Ideology is not devoid of faith principles. For a Christian to divorce faith beliefs from public policy convictions is intellectual, moral and religious suicide. Again, it is not an either or but a both and.

Steve
Rom. 13

BlueDeacon said...

Rove is not an agnostic. Rove was asked about it in an interview by Chris Wallace on Fox News and denied being an agnostic, saying "I'm a Christian. I go to church. I'm an Episcopalian."

That tells me absolutely nothing -- having been in media for most of my adult life and worked in even Christian media for a time, I believe absolutely nothing that comes from conservative sources (because they have shown a willingness to, in some cases, outright lie). Nor does his "church attendance" mean anything -- for all we know he attends one of those "apostate" Episcopal churches that we love to hate. As I said before, most conservatives aren't Christians!

I have met Ron Sider but I don't know personally Jim Wallis. The problem with both of these men is not one of social compassion representing liberalism; but having that social compassion constrained through the fulcrum of Scripture. Love without truth can lead to an empty headed sentimentality; and truth without love can breed a cold hearted orthodoxy.

Well, I've been a member of Sider's organization for 20 years and have even written for its magazine, and in that time I have found literally nothing in anything it puts out that contradicts Scripture. I also know that conservative "orthodoxy" drove Wallis out of the church for a time.

But they are critics, Wallis more so, of conservative ideology, which in practice seeks or desires to maintain cultural dominance and is not above even using "God" to do so, which is the real reason conservatives can't stand them -- deep down they know that if people listen to them and start reading the Bible for themselves without all the cultural assumptions that the Reformation placed on it they will no longer be seen as the repositories of truth. I saw that in an interview -- more accurately, an insult-fest -- Gene Edward Veith did with Sider a few years back that was published in World magazine.

Getting back on topic, this is basically the problem with the abortion issue. I still don't see how simply banning it (which I do favor) will make that much difference in this country's moral state. I see this as part of the conservative campaign of what I call "lazy evangelism," in which people, among other things, pray for the Holy Spirit to sweep people into the church so that they can live their lives the way they want and opt out of spiritual warfare. That's what all this bellyaching about abortion and gay marriage (which I also oppose) really represents.

When Biblical self-sacrificial love is constrained by the truth of Scripture it yields a powerful witness of the gospel and can impact culture by being salt and light demonstrating the good works that overflow from the truly regenerated life.

I'm 47 years old, have been a Christian for almost 30 years, live in the area with just about the world's highest concentration of Reformed churches and grew up OP, and I have never consistently seen that from Reformed culture. I had to go elsewhere to find what you're talking about, and today I attend a theologically conservative but non-Reformed evangelical church that is having more impact on my city than any other I can think of. But, based on what you have already said, you would probably call it "liberal." And, really, where is the love in that?

For a Christian to divorce faith beliefs from public policy convictions is intellectual, moral and religious suicide.

That does not mean, however, that you have to subscribe to a particular ideology to be a serious Christian; indeed, I submit that for the last 30 years or so ideology has informed Scripture rather than the other way around. If that were not the case we would have always had evangelical Christians of all persuasions working together for the common good.

Hank said...

@BlueDeacon

I asked for a reason to vote for Obama and got nothing but a general appeal to his character. I have yet to hear the man say anything that makes me think his is a heart after God, who defines character. Obama is in favor of the murder of innocents, which is, by the way, specifically mentioned in Scripture (it's the 6th commandment, not an implication). Obama is in favor of homosexual marriage, also condemned in Scripture. Obama sat in the pews of a preacher for 20 years and then disowned him as soon as it was politically damaging. What I'm looking for here is some counterpoint to these actions, something from the too-many-to-mention issues that you spoke of earlier. Obama has no character that I can see.

BlueDeacon said...

I asked for a reason to vote for Obama and got nothing but a general appeal to his character. I have yet to hear the man say anything that makes me think his is a heart after God, who defines character.

Given the character -- or, perhaps more accurately, the demonstrated lack thereof -- on the part of some "conservative" policitians who have purported to be Christians (for me, Tom DeLay and the current occupant of the White House come to mind first), what you said comes across to an unbelieving world only as so much hogwash. I've already mentioned that many Christians will vote (and have done so) for anyone who takes the right position on certain issues regardless of character, causing all kinds of problems for both the nation and the church.

Obama is in favor of the murder of innocents, which is, by the way, specifically mentioned in Scripture (it's the 6th commandment, not an implication).

Under Biblical law you need at least two witnesses to convict someone of a crime and the accuser also must participate in any execution, which is why King David didn't die for putting out a contract on Bathsheba's husband. That's also why you cannot directly prove an anti-abortion stance using Scripture; even my conservative former denomination understands that.

BTW, the Scripture also does not preclude "gay marriage" as such, only homosexual conduct and only on the basis that it belongs to the "world system." (If you don't believe me, look at the entire chapters where homosexuality is discussed -- there is not a single exception.) The real problem is that in Western culture we often choose marriage partners due to "hormones" instead of what glorifies God and strengthens families -- deal with that issue and "gay marriage" goes out the door.

Obama has no character that I can see.

You're just not looking hard enough. Remember, he has undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard and thus had his pick of cushy law firms to work for after graduation; instead, he became a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, which (if you've ever been there) is far from glamorous. To me, that demonstrates more character than the "orthodox," politically conservative Christian who leads a comfortable life in the 'burbs but rails against moral rot -- that person will send in money to Focus on the Family or the American Family Association but has no direct investment in making things better for everyone, espcially those of lower socio-economic class.

I mentioned in an earlier post about the non-Reformed evangelical church I attend. It's located in a poor urban neighborhood and has developed extensive diaconal ministry to the indigent in that area. Yet, while we do evangelize, we don't simply tell folks to "get saved and shape up"; because we understand that the poor are that state in part because of political decisions made at the top, we also encourage political agitation, similar to the Prophets of old (my pastor preached through the entire book of Isaiah eight years ago). But guess who some of our critics and opponents are? Conservative, "orthodox" Christians.

Hank said...

@BlueDeacon:

I never said that conservatives have more character. I said that Obama doesn't have any.

I'm not even sure what you are arguing against. I said that Obama is in favor of abortion. I have millions of witnesses if needed, and his voting record as well.

Abortion is murder. Scripture says not to murder. How is that not a direct anti-abortion stance?

Gay marriage is homosexuality. Scripture says homosexuality is an abomination. How is that not an anti-gay-marriage stance?

John McCain's father and grandfather were both Navy admirals. McCain graduated from the Naval Academy and was in a POW camp for six years, where he was tortured. He has physical disabilities to this day because of the torture he underwent. He was offered early release from the camp and refused because he wanted to stay and support his fellow POWs, not leave them behind. Are you suggesting that Barack Obama has a leg up on John McCain in the character department?

BlueDeacon said...

I never said that conservatives have more character. I said that Obama doesn't have any.

And that is a false accusation, frankly.

Gay marriage is homosexuality. Scripture says homosexuality is an abomination. How is that not an anti-gay-marriage stance?

Read the specific Scriptures that refer to homosexuality -- without your biases -- and it should be obvious what I'm talking about.

Are you suggesting that Barack Obama has a leg up on John McCain in the character department?

Obama did not leave his wife for a richer, younger woman. You tell me.

Hank said...

Just telling me I'm wrong isn't actually an argument. I need some reason or evidence.

Nope...not really obvious. I'm looking at Romans 1:21-27 and it says God gave them over to shameful lusts - homosexuality. I don't know what you are talking about, but it isn't in Scripture. Please provide the passages that support your position.

I agree with you there. McCain is not any better in character than Obama, but the opposite is true too. So, in lieu of character, what can we judge the candidates on? Political issues, maybe?

BlueDeacon said...

I'm looking at Romans 1:21-27 and it says God gave them over to shameful lusts -- homosexuality. I don't know what you are talking about, but it isn't in Scripture. Please provide the passages that support your position.

That's just the kind of selective citation I'm talking about. Read the rest of the chapter and then move on into chapter 2, and the context in which Paul was writing should be clear. As I suggested, the common theme with homosexual behavior is rejecting God -- but you don't need to be gay to reject God.

So, in lieu of character, what can we judge the candidates on? Political issues, maybe?

First, you should judge a candidate based on the presumed ability to do the job effectively regardless of ideology (because, as I said before, elected officials generally just do not have the time to lead grand crusades for or against this or that). A commitment to the U. S. Constitution is a must, also transcending ideology. "Issues" should rank further down because everyone has pet projects he/she wants to see being addressed.

SJ Camp said...

To All
Here is The Born Alive Infant Protection Act that Barry Obama opposed.

This just isn't a matter of public policy; this is a matter of personal convictions on the sanctity of life.

BlueDeacon said...

Steve -- For the sake of common decency, consider using the name he uses, Barack Obama, not "Barry" -- because using his childhood nickname signifies a certain intimacy (which doesn't exist in this case) or otherwise a lack of basic respect, which violates the "do unto others" principle. That would include disparaging him by bringing up his controversial middle name, which he inherited from his father.

Hank said...

@BlueDeacon:

What selective citation? I read the rest of the chapter and into 2 as you suggested, and I see no indication that we should approve of gay marriage. In fact, this passage says exactly the opposite:

Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. Romans 1:32

Obama has said many times that he believes that in interpreting the Constitution in light of the evolving morals of America, not on what the founders intended. This doesn't sound like a commitment to the Constitution, but whatever he feels.

SJ Camp said...

bluedeacon
You just addressed me by my birth name as well and we don't know each other... do we?

There is a double standard when it comes to Obama. If it's not the racial thing, it's the name thing. BTW, Hussein IS part of his name. B. Hussein Obama.

I was being descent by calling him by his name. Why is that offensive to you? I don't think it is to Barry, Barack, B. Hussein, or Obama.

But in the future, please call me by one my blogger names Campi; Puff Campi; Campius; Stephanos Campius; Dude; or S. John Camp.

:-)

BlueDeacon said...

I was specifically referring to our propensity to elevate homosexuals as a special class of sinners. The only thing that has to do with marriage is that heterosexuals in Western culture often marry for similar reasons that gays want to, which is why the divorce rate is so high even in the church. My point is that eliminating same-gender marriage isn't as simple a process as simply banning it; we need to get back to the original purpose of marriage, which is to strengthen families and communities, not for personal fulfillment. And for us Christians that also means selecting partners based on God's ultimate purpose.

Some insight: The singles pastor of my church has suggested at up to 70 percent of Rome was homosexual (because there were far fewer men than women due to infanticide of female babies, which in that day was common). In the light of what Scripture really says about homosexuality, God calls us Christians to a different value system to say, "Hey, world (whistle), you wanna know how to live the right way? Let us show you!"

Obama has said many times that he believes that in interpreting the Constitution in light of the evolving morals of America, not on what the founders intended. This doesn't sound like a commitment to the Constitution, but whatever he feels.

Well, racial discrimination was considered Constitutional at one point. Truth be told, the conservative movement took hold in the South in part due to its contempt for the civil-rights movement, with even "conservative" Christians considering it the will of God. So that doesn't really say anything.

BlueDeacon said...

You just addressed me by my birth name as well and we don't know each other ... do we?

No, but that is a name you have actually used in public. I have different names used by different people in different contexts; if someone other than fraternity brothers and those who hung out at the house were to call me by my nickname I would call that inappropriate.

If it's not the racial thing, it's the name thing. BTW, Hussein IS part of his name. B. Hussein Obama.

You know full well that "Hussein" is of Arabic origin and thus, in this context, always used in a derogatory fashion. In fact, about a year-and-a-half ago the Washington Times published a false story that he had attended Muslim religious schools when he was living in Indonesia, trying to insinuate that he was a closet radical Muslim that wanted to convert everyone to Islam. That's why the use of his middle name is inappropriate -- it plays up a Muslim heritage he doesn't have, and I think you know that.

From here on out, I may just use "Mr. Camp."

Hank said...

I agree with you that homosexuality is not above and beyond other sins and that banning gay marriage wouldn't put a stop to homosexuality. However, Obama says that homosexuality isn't wrong, and that he would encourage it. This is in direct opposition to God.

In regard to slavery, that was only what the people interpreting the Constitution felt it meant, not what it really said. Obama wants to interpret the Constitution the same way, to allow abortion and gay marriage. This is also in direct opposition to God, as well as the Constitution.

I want a candidate who interprets the Constitution in light of the Word of God. McCain won't do a good job, but Obama will be actively working in the other direction.

BlueDeacon said...

I agree with you that homosexuality is not above and beyond other sins and that banning gay marriage wouldn't put a stop to homosexuality.

That leads directly to what I've been saying all along. As I said, I reject homosexual conduct as contrary to the will of the Father; however, were we to examine all of our nation's sins -- I just mentioned one that conservative Christians don't address very often, if at all -- in light of the totality of Scripture (the prophets Isaiah, Micah and Amos are especially relevant here), we would recognize our utter spiritual bankruptcy. The trouble is that abortion and gay marriage, above all other issues, raise passion and (not unimportant) money.

In regard to slavery, that was only what the people interpreting the Constitution felt it meant, not what it really said. Obama wants to interpret the Constitution the same way, to allow abortion and gay marriage.

When I referred to racial discrimination, I was not just limiting the discussion to slavery because none of us were around then. However, many people who are have lived through the civil-rights movement, and more than a few "Christians" still harbor resentment toward Martin Luther King Jr because of his work. Also, Plessy v. Ferguson, an 1896 Supreme Court ruling, actually allowed segregation; it took the 1954 Brown decision to reverse it.

BTW, Obama has publicly stated that he doesn't favor gay marriage.

Hank said...

@BlueDeacon:

Homosexuality
I also agree with you that America is extremely corrupted, but what is your point? Do you want us to stop opposing abortion and gay marriage? If so, then Obama is the right man to vote for. If not, don't vote for him. Obama HAS publicly stated that he doesn't think that homosexuality is wrong, which removes the only reason to fight against it. He may not favor gay marriage, but he sure won't stop it.

Constitutionality
Again, I fail to see your point. Just because the Supreme Court did something doesn't mean it's Constitutional. Obama will appoint judges that will bend the Constitution to their own whims, just like they did when Roe v. Wade was handed down. He will not protect the Constitution, but destroy it. Why are you voting for him again?

BlueDeacon said...

Do you want us to stop opposing abortion and gay marriage?

Not the point. We've already established that we probably won't ban them anyway, and in fact our activism at this point is doing more harm than good. Our goal is to preach and live the Gospel and thus show folks a better, higher way to live. Only then will we gain an audience.

Just because the Supreme Court did something doesn't mean it's Constitutional. Obama will appoint judges that will bend the Constitution to their own whims, just like they did when Roe v. Wade was handed down. He will not protect the Constitution, but destroy it. Why are you voting for him again?

Excuse me, but conservative presidents have done the very same thing over the past 30 years. Robert Bork was rejected for a seat on the U. S. Supreme Court precisely because he was exposed as a judicial activist, and Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito and John Roberts all belong to the Federalist Society, which is a right-wing legal fraternity that is activist by definition. So it goes both ways -- but it's convenient to ignore that.

Hank said...

You are correct. Our goal is to preach the Gospel like Jesus did. What did Jesus do? He told people to "go forth and sin no more". He told people to repent of their sins, because judgment is coming. What does Obama tell people? That homosexuality isn't wrong! Me living the Gospel means that I have to oppose sin, in this case by not voting for a man encouraging sin.

Once more, I'm not arguing for McCain. My point is that Obama is the worst possible candidate in the field. The judges he appoints will actively work to destroy Christian values both in law and society, and living the Gospel means that I can't vote for a man who will allow that.

BlueDeacon said...

Our goal is to preach the Gospel like Jesus did. What did Jesus do? He told people to "go forth and sin no more".

Understand, however, the context of those words He gave to the woman "caught in adultery" mentioned in John 8: Although the Scripture is not explicit about this, the Pharisees apprently had set him up in a potential "Catch-22" situation to get him in trouble either with the Romans or the religious leaders; however, it's clear from the passage that they made a false accusation against her and they had to walk.

Besides, telling someone to forsake sin without the presence of the Holy Spirit reminds me of a retort I heard a lot in high school: "Quit acting normal!" The Scripture is clear in saying that you can't obey God without Him -- nor will you even want to. As Paul said (and I don't remember the specific reference), "... for everything that does not come from faith is sin." [my emphasis]

My point is that Obama is the worst possible candidate in the field. The judges he appoints will actively work to destroy Christian values both in law and society, and living the Gospel means that I can't vote for a man who will allow that.

That's pure conjecture on your part. But -- what if he is elected and turns out to be an exemplary chief executive? I found it hilarious just how ga-ga many conservatives went over Hillary this year when 15 years earlier they tried to destroy Bill for some of the same reasons you mentioned. You see, Bill Clinton, for all his failings, knew how to run a government and represented our country well overseas.

This is why you simply cannot vote for a candidate based only on his/her stances on certain "hot-button" issues and if you do ... well, that's what we're looking at today. The Republican Party is looking at some serious losses in Congress in four months because the conservatives who ran the party were exposed as arrogant incompetents more interested in power than responsibility (which is my definition of original sin). You may say that "God will not be mocked," but He especially will not put up with self-righteous politics done "in His Name." Maybe that's why Obama became so popular.

Hank said...

@BlueDeacon:

There is no indication in John 8 that the accusation was false. The text makes it plain that she was "caught in the act of adultery." She was not freed because she was innocent, she was freed because no one condemned her. However, leaving that aside, your argument does nothing to justify Obama's positions or your willingness to vote for him. He called God a liar when he said that homosexuality is not wrong. You are going to support him?

It's not conjecture when Obama himself has said that he will only appoint judges that will uphold Roe v. Wade. Bill Clinton, for all of his "good" representation overseas, continually vetoed partial-birth abortion bans, strengthened the welfare state, and promoted homosexuality. I actually can vote for a candidate based only on hot-button issues, because I am called by God to oppose the work of evil men. You are proposing that Christians should support this vile politician, and have failed so far to give me a single reason to do so. Obama is popular because he stands against God.

BlueDeacon said...

There is no indication in John 8 that the accusation was false. The text makes it plain that she was "caught in the act of adultery." She was not freed because she was innocent, she was freed because no one condemned her.

To understand why "no one condemned her," you have to understand the Law. First, the Pharisees never brought the man in (he too was to be stoned). Second, to prove a capital crime you have to have at least two witnesses, but to deliberately watch people having sex was also a no-no (which indicated that it may have been a "sting operation"). Third, under the law, women who had had sex and her partner had had an ejaculation were ceremonially unclean -- and, keep in mind, they brought her into the temple where Jesus was teaching.

There was a specific reason why they tried to do this -- if He said "No," He would had advocated breaking the Law; but if He said "Yes," the Romans would have come after him because under Roman law the death penalty was not to be used for mere religious crimes. Jesus recognized that subterfuge and this redirected their question.

It's not conjecture when Obama himself has said that he will only appoint judges that will uphold Roe v. Wade. Bill Clinton, for all of his "good" representation overseas, continually vetoed partial-birth abortion bans, strengthened the welfare state, and promoted homosexuality. I actually can vote for a candidate based only on hot-button issues, because I am called by God to oppose the work of evil men. You are proposing that Christians should support this vile politician, and have failed so far to give me a single reason to do so. Obama is popular because he stands against God.

That, with all due respect, says more about what I consider your weak reading of the Scriptures -- and yes, I'm calling it by its name -- than anything I believe personally. Part of the reason the Republican Party and the conservative agenda that drove it are on their way out is that they have refused to consider the entire counsel of God, which also addresses justice for the poor, widows and orphans; economic exploitation by the rich; and worship of power and money, which are rarely addressed in depth by "conservative, orthodox Christians" but are right in God's Word, in black and white, and a surprising number of evangelical Christians are starting to get it, thank God. I considered the political tactics and/or policies of the likes of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Pat Buchanan and Newt Gingrich as evil from a Biblical perspective because they only concentrated power in the hands of a few and caused their backers to think they were God. And what's the first commandment? "You shall have no other gods but Me." By justifying such immoral policies as biblical (and sweetening them with "pro-life" and "anti-gay" measures), conservative Christians have only damaged the witness of Christ. At times I feel I almost have to apologize for being a Christian not only for that but also for the extreme arrogance we display in pushing them.

FWIW, the "partial-birth abortion" bill was nothing more than political chicanery to separate Clinton from his pro-choice support; his enemies hated him so much they were willing to do anything to take him down, similar to the John 8 passage. (I know almost the entire story.) They knew full well that Clinton vetoed the bill because it didn't contain any "life/health" exceptions and wanted to raise more outrage against him in the process.

And here's a bit of trivia most people don't know: Those kind of abortions, not covered under Roe v. Wade, were already illegal in most states; Operation Rescue demonstrated against a clinic in Wichita, Kan. for about a month in 1992 precisely because it was one of the very few that did those kind of abortions. The number of abortions, which I would suggest occur only due to fetal deformity, the bill criminalized was by one estimate only 2,500 per year, a pittance compared to the over a million that take place annually. So what was the issue other than making a cheap political point?

Hank said...

Was the accusation false, though? Your response has little to do with your original claim that the woman wasn't caught in the act of adultery.

What you consider my weak reading of Scripture IS what you believe personally. Please provide some reason for considering my understanding to be weak. Conservatives actually give more to charity than liberals.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

Obama holds human knowledge up as greater than the Word of God every time he confirms homosexuality or abortion, thus violating the 1st Commandment directly.

I am still waiting earnestly for a reason to vote for Obama. Please list yours in the next post.

BlueDeacon said...

Was the accusation false, though? Your response has little to do with your original claim that the woman wasn't caught in the act of adultery.

It was "entrapment," so the actual accusation became invalid. There is a way to go about things and the Pharisees didn't do it, so the case basically was thrown out because the evidence against her was gathered illegally.

What you consider my weak reading of Scripture IS what you believe personally. Please provide some reason for considering my understanding to be weak. Conservatives actually give more to charity than liberals.

I know where you're going with that, and it's irrelevant. Conservative think tanks, symphony orchestras, hospitals and universities all qualify as "charities," but none of those really help the down-and-out. Further, on average about 97 percent of the budget of most churches goes for operating and capital expenses and most of the rest goes to foreign missions.

My church is one of the few evangelical churches in my city that actually does that kind of ministry to the poor and spends plenty to do so, and yet we also argue for change in the political system so that the poor can make their own way -- which you erroneously called "expanding the welfare state." That's why I stand by my statement that your reading of Scripture is weak; I've read the whole thing in context and it does NOT support a faux libertarian agenda.

I am still waiting earnestly for a reason to vote for Obama. Please list yours in the next post.

I'll give several:

Iraq.

Fractured relations with European allies because of our "go-it-alone" mentality under the current President.

Suspension of basic liberties to fight the "war on terror."

Polarization based on race, class, culture and language.

Religious figures who use controversy to buttress their own waning authority.

These are things that conservative ideologues, aided by Christian "enablers," have foisted upon this country to not only its detriment but also the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Hank said...

however, it's clear from the passage that they made a false accusation against her and they had to walk.

The accusation was still valid, no matter what the Pharisees did wrong. You deny this, in contradiction of the Scriptures.

You did not give me any reasons why you consider my reading of Scripture weak. Please provide some sort of evidence for your position.

I'm glad your church is spending on the poor; that's the way it's supposed to work. The state is not supposed to provide for the poor. We are. This is why I am opposed to "expanding the welfare state."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north397.html

Reasons to vote for Obama:

Iraq - Both candidates have the same basic plan

Relations - Bush can't be elected again, so he is not a consideration. What you need to prove is that Obama's position on Europe is better than McCains, not Bush's.

Liberties - Same. Comparing candidates to someone who is not running is useless.

Polarization - Obama spent 20 years in a church that believes God is for black people and against white people. He's probably not the right man to heal the rifts between races.

Religious figures - This is a political issue? I was under the impression that neither of the candidates was running for pastor.

What I'm looking for is issues where Obama's position matches Scripture more than McCain's (or other candidates), not comparisons to Bush.

BlueDeacon said...

The accusation was still valid, no matter what the Pharisees did wrong. You deny this, in contradiction of the Scriptures.

Not according to Old Testamant Law, it wasn't -- and that was the point. And here's the question that I think I raised before that no one picked up on: Why did King David not die after he put out a contract on Uriah, clearly violating the Sixth Commadment? Answer: Insufficient witness -- under the Law he could never have been prosecuted. End of that discussion.

I'm glad your church is spending on the poor; that's the way it's supposed to work. The state is not supposed to provide for the poor.

But, as I said, we also encourage the state and private institutions to change policies and provide opportunities to those in need so that they can stay out of poverty; simple charity just won't do it because the poor can get hooked on that as well. We undestand that at my church -- but most conservatives resent such things as "affirmative action" to remedy past injustices because they believe they're entitled to have their way.

Obama spent 20 years in a church that believes God is for black people and against white people. He's probably not the right man to heal the rifts between races.

Utterly, utterly false -- my own pastor, a white conservative evangelical Republican, has said some of the very same things in our pulpit, and you wouldn't dare call him a racist, would you? Besides, if Jeremiah Wright really were a racist whites would not be allowed to attend his church; however, many do. In fact, a Catholic priest who knew Wright told the story about a black female parishioner who wanted to break off an engagement to a white man for fear that she would lose credibility in the black community; he got wind of it and convinced her to go ahead with the wedding and the couple is still together today. If Wright were a racist he would have told them to break it off or discouraged them in getting together in the first place.

But you know what? I am myself a black man and know of few conservatives who have the authority to speak on race because they're the ones whom blacks had to fight during the civil-rights movement. (In fact, when I was in college I was asked to leave an evangelical campus fellowship only because I was black.) Because they wanted to hang on to their authority no matter what and Martin Luther King Jr. threatened that to the max.

What I'm looking for is issues where Obama's position matches Scripture more than McCain's (or other candidates), not comparisons to Bush.

I can find them easily but will not give you any examples here because, based on what you have already posted, even if I did you would discount them or deny they're even Scriptural. This discussion ultimately has not been about the holy Word of God and its ramifications; this is about ideological contaminants, to which which I refuse to bend. Besides, Bush's positions were supposedly "Scriptural"; after all, he is a Christian, isn't he?

Hank said...

What you said was that the woman did not commit adultery. This is untrue.

Well, yes, if your pastor said that God is opposed to one group of people based on skin color, he is racist. That's kinda the definition of racism. Also, you still need to show that McCain IS racist, even if it were the case that Obama was not.

If they are easy, please post them instead of making excuses. I have backed up my positions continually with Scripture, not conservative ideology.

Bush is not a Christian. He was quoted as saying that he "prays to the same God as Muslims do." Many of his policies are anti-biblical.

BlueDeacon said...

What you said was that the woman did not commit adultery. This is untrue.

Legally (and that's the key phrase here,) no, she did not.

Well, yes, if your pastor said that God is opposed to one group of people based on skin color, he is racist. That's kinda the definition of racism.

That is not what Wright said and you can't prove that he did. "Black liberation theology," which many people subscribe to, is far different from racism in that it uplifts people but doesn't tear down any specific race. (If anything, it is a reaction to historical racism -- that in my experience most conservatives don't want to address.)

You said that Obama wasn't the right person to facilitate racial healing. Are you suggesting the likes of Clarence Thomas? The conservative movement has promoted him heavily to bury the issue but without any substantive change (because it doesn't want any substantive change).

I have backed up my positions continually with Scripture, not conservative ideology.

You have proof-texted according to your ideological biases, not proven anything. I know the difference.

Hank said...

Actually, legally, physically, and spiritually, she committed adultery. A mistrial doesn't mean that a crime didn't happen.

Here are some quotes from James Cone's book, which Wright insists is the basis for his theology:

http://dugan49.newsvine.com/_news/2008/03/17/1373257-what-rev-jeremiah-wright-believes

Now, since my previous postings have been backed up with references both to Scripture and news sources and you have ignored both, I see no point in arguing with you any longer. Obama is the worst possible candidate for President, and I pray that you and the rest of America will that come election day.

BlueDeacon said...

Obama is the worst possible candidate for President, and I pray that you and the rest of America will that come election day.

If he is elected, which at this point is likely, will you follow Biblical guidelines and pray for him regularly, that he may discharge the duties of his office faithfully? If could be that God is placing him in office for specific reasons, one of which may be a rebuke to arrogant religious conservatives more interested in posturing than in actual governance -- which is why someone you clearly despise has a shot of becoming the unofficial leader of the Free World. (I'm not the first person to say something like this, either.) Even at that, the political trend is Democratic anyway.

Therefore, your complaining about what I'm doing and not doing is on this thread is beside the point because, as we know, nothing happens unless God Himself allows it for a specific purpose. The question will hopefully be, "What then do we do?" And then, "LORD, do we as a church need to repent?" Because conservative Christians got this one wrong and are now paying the price.

BlueDeacon said...

Not to beat a dead horse, but I recently came across an interview with Sen. Obama published in Relevant Magazine. Here is the URL:

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/life_article.php?id=7591&print=true