tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post7814146363031335279..comments2024-03-24T03:21:03.154-04:00Comments on CAMPONTHIS: PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND BARACK OBAMA...a match made in hellSJ Camphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-14267979266588224122008-07-30T08:23:00.000-04:002008-07-30T08:23:00.000-04:00Not to beat a dead horse, but I recently came acro...Not to beat a dead horse, but I recently came across an interview with Sen. Obama published in Relevant Magazine. Here is the URL:<BR/><BR/>http://www.relevantmagazine.com/life_article.php?id=7591&print=trueBlueDeaconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05641178784714584337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-76970460180988093662008-07-01T12:43:00.000-04:002008-07-01T12:43:00.000-04:00Obama is the worst possible candidate for Presiden...<I>Obama is the worst possible candidate for President, and I pray that you and the rest of America will that come election day.</I><BR/><BR/>If he is elected, which at this point is likely, will <I>you</I> 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.<BR/><BR/>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 <I>we</I> as a church need to repent?" Because conservative Christians got this one wrong and are now paying the price.BlueDeaconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05641178784714584337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-55112186887662302552008-07-01T12:26:00.000-04:002008-07-01T12:26:00.000-04:00Actually, legally, physically, and spiritually, sh...Actually, legally, physically, and spiritually, she committed adultery. A mistrial doesn't mean that a crime didn't happen.<BR/><BR/>Here are some quotes from James Cone's book, which Wright insists is the basis for his theology:<BR/><BR/>http://dugan49.newsvine.com/_news/2008/03/17/1373257-what-rev-jeremiah-wright-believes<BR/><BR/>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.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12908743547734644629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-12286524645070124912008-07-01T11:31:00.000-04:002008-07-01T11:31:00.000-04:00What you said was that the woman did not commit ad...<I>What you said was that the woman did not commit adultery. This is untrue.</I><BR/><BR/>Legally (and that's the key phrase here,) no, she did not.<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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.)<BR/><BR/>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 <I>want</I> any substantive change).<BR/><BR/><I>I have backed up my positions continually with Scripture, not conservative ideology.</I><BR/><BR/>You have proof-texted according to your ideological biases, not <I>proven</I> anything. I know the difference.BlueDeaconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05641178784714584337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-48740570902334385722008-07-01T11:20:00.000-04:002008-07-01T11:20:00.000-04:00What you said was that the woman did not commit ad...What you said was that the woman did not commit adultery. This is untrue.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>If they are easy, please post them instead of making excuses. I have backed up my positions continually with Scripture, not conservative ideology.<BR/><BR/>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.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12908743547734644629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-47563486744112370202008-07-01T11:05:00.000-04:002008-07-01T11:05:00.000-04:00The accusation was still valid, no matter what the...<I>The accusation was still valid, no matter what the Pharisees did wrong. You deny this, in contradiction of the Scriptures.</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I> 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.</I><BR/><BR/>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 <I>him</I> 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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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><BR/><BR/>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?BlueDeaconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05641178784714584337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-9570525802368131392008-07-01T09:32:00.000-04:002008-07-01T09:32:00.000-04:00however, it's clear from the passage that they mad...<I>however, it's clear from the passage that they made a false accusation against her and they had to walk.</I><BR/><BR/>The accusation was still valid, no matter what the Pharisees did wrong. You deny this, in contradiction of the Scriptures.<BR/><BR/>You did not give me any reasons why you consider my reading of Scripture weak. Please provide some sort of evidence for your position.<BR/><BR/>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."<BR/><BR/>http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north397.html<BR/><BR/>Reasons to vote for Obama:<BR/><BR/>Iraq - Both candidates have the same basic plan<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Liberties - Same. Comparing candidates to someone who is not running is useless.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Religious figures - This is a political issue? I was under the impression that neither of the candidates was running for pastor.<BR/><BR/>What I'm looking for is issues where Obama's position matches Scripture more than McCain's (or other candidates), not comparisons to Bush.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12908743547734644629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-59175522093201548222008-06-30T22:49:00.000-04:002008-06-30T22:49:00.000-04:00Was the accusation false, though? Your response ha...<I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>I am still waiting earnestly for a reason to vote for Obama. Please list yours in the next post.</I><BR/><BR/>I'll give several:<BR/><BR/>Iraq.<BR/><BR/>Fractured relations with European allies because of our "go-it-alone" mentality under the current President.<BR/><BR/>Suspension of basic liberties to fight the "war on terror."<BR/><BR/>Polarization based on race, class, culture and language.<BR/><BR/>Religious figures who use controversy to buttress their own waning authority.<BR/><BR/>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.BlueDeaconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05641178784714584337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-41068739328913959012008-06-30T16:59:00.000-04:002008-06-30T16:59:00.000-04:00Was the accusation false, though? Your response ha...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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>I am still waiting earnestly for a reason to vote for Obama. Please list yours in the next post.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12908743547734644629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-28492217583119982142008-06-30T16:34:00.000-04:002008-06-30T16:34:00.000-04:00There is no indication in John 8 that the accusati...<I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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 <I>entire</I> 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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>And here's a bit of trivia most people don't know: Those kind of abortions, not covered under <I>Roe v. Wade,</I> 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?BlueDeaconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05641178784714584337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-52300737106223235492008-06-30T15:51:00.000-04:002008-06-30T15:51:00.000-04:00@BlueDeacon:There is no indication in John 8 that ...@BlueDeacon:<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>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.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12908743547734644629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-52128909156955282752008-06-27T18:06:00.000-04:002008-06-27T18:06:00.000-04:00Our goal is to preach the Gospel like Jesus did. W...<I>Our goal is to preach the Gospel like Jesus did. What did Jesus do? He told people to "go forth and sin no more".</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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 <I>everything</I> that does not come from faith is sin." [my emphasis]<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.BlueDeaconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05641178784714584337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-34397526470011379382008-06-27T16:38:00.000-04:002008-06-27T16:38:00.000-04:00You are correct. Our goal is to preach the Gospel ...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.<BR/><BR/>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.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12908743547734644629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-34787599867723349352008-06-27T16:16:00.000-04:002008-06-27T16:16:00.000-04:00Do you want us to stop opposing abortion and gay m...<I>Do you want us to stop opposing abortion and gay marriage?</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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?</I><BR/><BR/>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.BlueDeaconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05641178784714584337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-54392385988058183582008-06-27T15:52:00.000-04:002008-06-27T15:52:00.000-04:00@BlueDeacon:HomosexualityI also agree with you tha...@BlueDeacon:<BR/><BR/>Homosexuality<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Constitutionality<BR/>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?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12908743547734644629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1990634014462030472008-06-27T15:41:00.000-04:002008-06-27T15:41:00.000-04:00I agree with you that homosexuality is not above a...<I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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 <I>all</I> 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) <I>money.</I><BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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, <I>Plessy v. Ferguson,</I> an 1896 Supreme Court ruling, actually allowed segregation; it took the 1954 <I>Brown</I> decision to reverse it.<BR/><BR/>BTW, Obama has publicly stated that he doesn't favor gay marriage.BlueDeaconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05641178784714584337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-63323370349316299392008-06-27T15:11:00.000-04:002008-06-27T15:11:00.000-04:00I agree with you that homosexuality is not above a...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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12908743547734644629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-2893372698590302812008-06-27T14:41:00.000-04:002008-06-27T14:41:00.000-04:00You just addressed me by my birth name as well and...<I>You just addressed me by my birth name as well and we don't know each other ... do we?</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>If it's not the racial thing, it's the name thing. BTW, Hussein IS part of his name. B. Hussein Obama.</I><BR/><BR/>You know full well that "Hussein" is of Arabic origin and thus, in this context, <I>always</I> 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.<BR/><BR/>From here on out, I may just use "Mr. Camp."BlueDeaconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05641178784714584337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-8442381114619910922008-06-27T14:23:00.000-04:002008-06-27T14:23:00.000-04:00I was specifically referring to our propensity to ...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.<BR/><BR/>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!"<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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.BlueDeaconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05641178784714584337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-48943003320065067582008-06-27T14:22:00.000-04:002008-06-27T14:22:00.000-04:00bluedeaconYou just addressed me by my birth name a...<B>bluedeacon</B><BR/>You just addressed me by my birth name as well and we don't know each other... do we?<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>But in the future, please call me by one my blogger names Campi; Puff Campi; Campius; Stephanos Campius; Dude; or S. John Camp.<BR/><BR/>:-)SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-31833904753787161712008-06-27T13:56:00.000-04:002008-06-27T13:56:00.000-04:00@BlueDeacon:What selective citation? I read the re...@BlueDeacon:<BR/><BR/>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: <BR/><BR/><I>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.</I> Romans 1:32<BR/><BR/>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.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12908743547734644629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-19129841194548915812008-06-27T13:16:00.000-04:002008-06-27T13:16:00.000-04:00Steve -- For the sake of common decency, consider ...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.BlueDeaconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05641178784714584337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-38361401639422107852008-06-27T13:01:00.000-04:002008-06-27T13:01:00.000-04:00To AllHere is The Born Alive Infant Protection Act...<B>To All</B><BR/>Here is <A HREF="http://www.nrlc.org/federal/born_alive_infants/index.html" REL="nofollow"><B>The Born Alive Infant Protection Act</B></A> that Barry Obama opposed.<BR/><BR/>This just isn't a matter of public policy; this is a matter of personal convictions on the sanctity of life.SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-56481524095896994852008-06-27T12:36:00.000-04:002008-06-27T12:36:00.000-04:00I'm looking at Romans 1:21-27 and it says God gave...<I>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><BR/><BR/>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, <I>the</I> common theme with homosexual behavior is rejecting God -- but you don't need to be gay to reject God.<BR/><BR/><I>So, in lieu of character, what can we judge the candidates on? Political issues, maybe?</I><BR/><BR/>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.BlueDeaconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05641178784714584337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-77506329448430052432008-06-27T12:02:00.000-04:002008-06-27T12:02:00.000-04:00Just telling me I'm wrong isn't actually an argume...Just telling me I'm wrong isn't actually an argument. I need some reason or evidence.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12908743547734644629noreply@blogger.com