Hi natan…
Yes, Chris, they have made it clear that the focus of this website is on Jesus and the need for revival, but I will say this again, the genesis of this thread is entirely political in nature, and furthermore, I think.....no, I know that is disingenious of you to say that you are not attacking SENATOR Obama, right after you rake him over the coals, for socio-political issues, that even the Republican Party is not serious about ending.
You “know” that it is disingenuous of me to say that I am not “attacking” Senator Obama? How did I attack him? By presenting links to his own beliefs???
Brother, the issues that I raised were in response to your claim that Obama is a “righteous man.” I simply questioned how a man with the particular beliefs could be deemed “righteous” when NONE of us are righteous. You might want to read my post again. These are not “socio-political” issues any more than “murder” or “fornication” is a socio-political issue. It is a SIN issue that has plagued this nation for years. I didn’t mention the Republican Party…and I don’t care to comment on your claim that they are “not serious about ending” such horrendous evil practices. I merely wanted to respond to your claim about righteousness.
The thread was created by Greg in response to an article that he read. The individuals here are not commenting on the political of the matter…but the stated beliefs of the man who could possibly become the President of the United States of America. We aren’t attacking his politics. We are questioning his beliefs.
Brother, there is an extremely thin line for some regarding just what constitutes a “political post.” I don’t think that anyone was endorsing either the Republican Party or its presumed candidate. Like Keith Green used to say, “
[i]God is neither an American or a Republican[/i].” But sin is still sin – even if it is promoted from a Senator or a President.
I’ve often wondered just what Paul was meant to accomplish in his journey to Rome. Our Lord told him that he “must testify” in Rome – the capital of the largest empire on Earth (Acts 27:24). But what was he supposed to say? Was he supposed to ignore sin – or expose it so as to cause the leaders to realize just how lost they were? But I have seen a great deal of believers in this day literally preach that we should not speak about sin – but focus on God. Even many modern churches prefer to neglect any mention of sin, so as to “focus on what people can do rather than what they can’t.” In the end, we have a bunch of people who continue to do what they shouldn’t do and claim that anyone who tells them otherwise is “judging” them.
I don’t believe that Paul went to Rome to be a politician (or even political). However, I imagine that some people accused him of it – just like they accused men like Martin Luther and George Whitefield. I believe that Paul probably preached to them a message similar to the message he preached elsewhere. I imagine that this included a message about sin and the penalties of living in it. The Word tells us that Paul exerted his influence even into “Caesar’s household” (Philippians 4:22). John the Baptist also preached to political leaders. He preached to Herod about the sinfulness of adultery (which led to his imprisonment and subsequent execution). Some of the prophets in the Old Testament preached to kings and were killed. Others preached to kings and influenced entire nations and kingdoms of this world (like Moses, Jonah, Samuel, Nathan, Isaiah, Esther, Joseph, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego). I don’t believe that they neglected to mention sin. Rather, it is through the exposure of sin (what is against the Law of God) that reveals our separation from God. A great tool of the devil has been to cause people to think that they are alright as they make excuses for their sin.
Abortion is a terribly horrendous sin. It is probably one of the greatest sins of our age – outside of neglecting a relationship with Christ. Homosexual practice is a sinful and shameful practice. Persecution of worship is just as sinful today as it was in Esther or the prophet Daniel’s day. These are not “political” issues. These are SIN issues that some people try to legislate and force upon a nation. Yes, they are every bit as sinful as racism, hate, bigotry or neglecting the poor. However, I don’t know of anyone who makes excuses for any such sins. However, this modern age has produced a group of people who selfishly would prefer to MURDER unborn babies or parade their grotesque sinful nature in front of children than to have someone tell them what is right or wrong. And why should this not surprise us? The first commandment in the Satanic Bible is to “do what you will.”
So when I described the beliefs in which Senator Obama promotes himself, I am not taking a “cheap shot” at the Senator. Rather, I am exposing the sinful practices of which the Senator has embraced as “fundamental human rights” – even though he often considers himself a Christian (who happens to have attended a church for 20 years that preached against the deity of Christ). Why did I include these beliefs in the first place? Because of your proclamation that Obama is a “righteous man.” So, in a sense, you brought it up.
I don’t think that anyone has claimed here that the founding fathers of this nation envisioned a “theocracy” (a government ruled and guided by God). I certainly embrace a “separation of Church and State” – simply because it is difficult to find two Christians who completely believe on two given doctrines. However, I certainly understand that the bulk of the founding fathers were not the “secular humanists” in which modern historians attempt to depict them. The vast bulk of firsthand writings and autobiographies indicate that most of the founders of this nation were extremely influenced by their belief in Christ – and this belief found its way into the foundation of the nation.
Brother, I apologize if this might have made you uncomfortable. I do not wish to raise the issue of “politics” in this thread. In fact, I didn’t even bring it up. To me, this is an issue of SIN. I am not trying to influence you “politically” one way or the other. I simply wanted to question the rationale of calling a man “righteous” who continually proclaims his belief in the slaughter of unborn babies as a “fundamental human right.” Personally, I feel the liberty to vote in elections and ballot referendums. There are issues that matter to me far more than others (like abortion, restrictions on practices and expressions of faith, and forced homosexual acceptance). But I do not see this as becoming “engrossed” in politics, but rather allowing my Christian beliefs to follow me into a voting booth. I feel a responsibility to my wife, future children and neighbors to raise my voice in opposition to legislated grotesque sinfulness.
Please forgive me if you thought that this was a “slight” upon you or your beliefs. However, I disagree with your assertion that this was an “attack” on or a “raking over the coals” of any candidate or political party. And I certainly will continue to pray for anyone (including both candidates) who could possibly be raised to such an office in the government that could affect so many – including the lives of over millions of unborn babies over the course of the next four years or more.
![[image]](http://freethought.mbdojo.com/titleXI.jpg){kind=link}