Advent Talk

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Click Here to Enter Maritime SDA OnLine.

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: The Presidents acceptance speach  (Read 7985 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

christian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 345
The Presidents acceptance speach
« on: January 25, 2013, 02:56:55 AM »

While there was some pride attach to the fact that Obama was re-elected as President for a second term over Mitt Romney, I none the less was still a little concern. I can understand the Presidents desire to want all people to have the freedom to love, however is it wise to equate sexual deviance with love. Please pray for the President that he will see that love and putting the ******************** is not love. Every society has certain norms that must be maintain in order for that society to operate with sanity. There must be a common sense standard " the bible says come let us reason together" I do believe that even outside of Christian belief the act of sodomy has common sense risk that need to be addressed. By the way this is not a black thing or a white thing or even a God thing as much as it is a common sense thing.  What do you think?


******************************************
Edited to remove inappropriate content.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2013, 09:32:33 PM by Artiste »
Logged

Bob Pickle

  • Defendants
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4061
    • Pickle Publishing
Re: The Presidents acceptance speach
« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2013, 03:31:22 PM »

I thought his speech made no sense. He swore his oath on the Bible, referred to God creating us, and spoke of being under law, and yet he overtly attacked the very law our Creator established.

Over in Europe a litigant just lost a court case. They had lost their job for refusing to give sex therapy to two men or two women, took this blatant discrimination against their religious beliefs to court, and lost.

I think the U.S.'s assault against the 7th commandment is paving the way for the mark of the beast. If the state can alter to 7th commandment despite whatever the Bible and God says, there really isn't any logical reason why the state can't alter the 4th commandment too.

The president doesn't really believe that all men everywhere are endowed with certain inalienable rights, inalienable under any and all circumstances, rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Otherwise, Osama wouldn't be dead, and Guantanamo would be shut down. It all has to do with which infractions one wants to punish, and which ones one wants to overlook.
Logged

christian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 345
Re: The Presidents acceptance speach
« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2013, 08:50:42 AM »

I thought his speech made no sense. He swore his oath on the Bible, referred to God creating us, and spoke of being under law, and yet he overtly attacked the very law our Creator established.

Over in Europe a litigant just lost a court case. They had lost their job for refusing to give sex therapy to two men or two women, took this blatant discrimination against their religious beliefs to court, and lost.

I think the U.S.'s assault against the 7th commandment is paving the way for the mark of the beast. If the state can alter to 7th commandment despite whatever the Bible and God says, there really isn't any logical reason why the state can't alter the 4th commandment too.

The president doesn't really believe that all men everywhere are endowed with certain inalienable rights, inalienable under any and all circumstances, rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Otherwise, Osama wouldn't be dead, and Guantanamo would be shut down. It all has to do with which infractions one wants to punish, and which ones one wants to overlook.

I don't believe that the country is overriding the fourth commandment because the commandment as in ten commandments do not trump the law of the land. It is the Catholic church (the emphasis being church) in the name of religion that changed the Sabbath to Sunday worship. No government of man is obliged to keep the commandments of God, rather it is their job not to interfere with the conscience of man when it comes to his personal religious beliefs. The Governments job is to protect the free status of man and his wealfare as a community providing him with the freedom to do so. So the question has to do with the health and prosperity of the country more than a religious thing. Point in case, I would not want a law enacted to make someone keep the true Sabbath either. However with homosexuality there is a Physical consequence as well as a mental consequence to the country that transends Christianity. There are certain health laws that are in place that will effect the procreation and health of he community at large if violated. Again it transends the right of a person to love whom who chooses. In the rescent past history that is why we had laws against sodomy because of the health and cohesiveness of the society.  I do understand the tragedy that has been a part of the antigay movement and to a larger degree the lack of love showed and expressed by the church toward the gay community. The church and those in it have often picked and chosen which sins they find egregious in their sight instead of qualifying sin as being sin. Case in point, if the true meaning of marriage was kept in light of the bible every man that laid with a virgin or forced himself on her would have made her his wife. Somehow the church does not follow its own standards as written by the bible. -----The country has certain laws that are needed to keep the country safe "thou shalt not kill" this is an universal law that protects man and his freedom to prosper. Love and sodomy anr not part and parcial that is my point, and it, in my point of view is wrong to connect the one with the other.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2013, 09:53:44 AM by christian »
Logged

Bob Pickle

  • Defendants
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4061
    • Pickle Publishing
Re: The Presidents acceptance speach
« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2013, 11:45:38 AM »

According to Rom. 13:1-10, every government on earth has a moral obligation to enforce, to a point, the 2nd table of the Decalog. Since no man can read the heart, the government's obligations extend only to actions, not thoughts. The enforcement of the 1st table of the Decalog is off limits.

I realize that it is the papacy, not the U.S., that has altered the 4th commandment. But this flippant disregard of the 7th which is so rampant among so much of society, regardless of "orientation," demonstrates an attitude that invites divine judgments.

Sure, we can use secular arguments for opposing gay marriage, but doing so brings us down to the level of having to pit reason against reason. Our strongest weapon is the sword of the Spirit, and God has declared in no uncertain terms that the governments of earth are supposed to enforce (to a point) the 2nd table, not override it.

When the president and the courts and the legislatures get to the point that they think so much of themselves, are on that big of an ego trip, that they think they can override explicit commands of God regarding marriage, enforcing Sunday rest in violation of the 4th commandment isn't that big of a step further.

The president swore on two Bibles, cited the Declaration of Independence regarding God creating us, called freedom a "God-given promise," referred to "God's grace upon us," invoked God's blessing, and cited "the words of Scripture." At the same time he had the audacity to call on the entire country to repudiate what God has said in Scripture about the iniquity of homosexual practices.

He spoke either out of ignorance or out of presumptuous rebellion. Are there other possibilities?
Logged

christian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 345
Re: The Presidents acceptance speach
« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2013, 04:32:31 AM »

According to Rom. 13:1-10, every government on earth has a moral obligation to enforce, to a point, the 2nd table of the Decalog. Since no man can read the heart, the government's obligations extend only to actions, not thoughts. The enforcement of the 1st table of the Decalog is off limits.

I realize that it is the papacy, not the U.S., that has altered the 4th commandment. But this flippant disregard of the 7th which is so rampant among so much of society, regardless of "orientation," demonstrates an attitude that invites divine judgments.

Sure, we can use secular arguments for opposing gay marriage, but doing so brings us down to the level of having to pit reason against reason. Our strongest weapon is the sword of the Spirit, and God has declared in no uncertain terms that the governments of earth are supposed to enforce (to a point) the 2nd table, not override it.

When the president and the courts and the legislatures get to the point that they think so much of themselves, are on that big of an ego trip, that they think they can override explicit commands of God regarding marriage, enforcing Sunday rest in violation of the 4th commandment isn't that big of a step further.

The president swore on two Bibles, cited the Declaration of Independence regarding God creating us, called freedom a "God-given promise," referred to "God's grace upon us," invoked God's blessing, and cited "the words of Scripture." At the same time he had the audacity to call on the entire country to repudiate what God has said in Scripture about the iniquity of homosexual practices.

He spoke either out of ignorance or out of presumptuous rebellion. Are there other possibilities?

 The President follows a long line of Presidents that talk out of both sides of their mouth. I always find it interesting when we are surprise by the actions of Presidents in the White House when their actions are contrary to the bible when they have never lined up with the biblical God. Do I think, like some have said, that President Obama is the worst President in history, of course not that would be foolish. I do think that some of the things in the light of the bible are absolutely countrary to what God would want for his people and being the first black President does not negate that.
Logged

Gailon Arthur Joy

  • Defendants
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1539
Re: The Presidents acceptance speach
« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2013, 08:10:43 AM »

Just over a half century ago, the first Catholic elected president of the United States made a point of calling very decisively "...ask not what your country can do for you, but ASK WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY..." President John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

A half century later this democratic head of state has reversed that and instead made it clear he wants the 98% to ask - what can your country do for you - sign up now for benefits and we will transfer the wealth of the 2% to cover your benefits!!!

The demise of democracy comes when the majority populace votes benefits to them selves at the minorities expense...the unlimited trough of government is open and available for all...sign up today to get "your fair share" FREE!!!

At Davos, Switzerland this winter the "WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM" met and these captains of industry, banking, technology and government saw a proposal for a new WORLD BANK with a quasi
gold standard based upon a rolled out one ounce gold bullion...a proposal the Vatican and China have made no secret they support and are planning to implement with or without US support.

I am told that such a proposal would quickly see gold move to 5000 Euro or about $6,800/ounce. In fact, there has been a trend to monetize gold in european, middle eastern and asian economies in response to the GROWING economic crisis!!!

What do you want to bet this new world bank will be based in Rome??? (yup, not New York)!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy
Logged

SDAminister

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
Re: The Presidents acceptance speach
« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2013, 06:17:08 PM »

According to Rom. 13:1-10, every government on earth has a moral obligation to enforce, to a point, the 2nd table of the Decalog. Since no man can read the heart, the government's obligations extend only to actions, not thoughts. The enforcement of the 1st table of the Decalog is off limits.

I realize that it is the papacy, not the U.S., that has altered the 4th commandment. But this flippant disregard of the 7th which is so rampant among so much of society, regardless of "orientation," demonstrates an attitude that invites divine judgments.

Sure, we can use secular arguments for opposing gay marriage, but doing so brings us down to the level of having to pit reason against reason. Our strongest weapon is the sword of the Spirit, and God has declared in no uncertain terms that the governments of earth are supposed to enforce (to a point) the 2nd table, not override it.

When the president and the courts and the legislatures get to the point that they think so much of themselves, are on that big of an ego trip, that they think they can override explicit commands of God regarding marriage, enforcing Sunday rest in violation of the 4th commandment isn't that big of a step further.

The president swore on two Bibles, cited the Declaration of Independence regarding God creating us, called freedom a "God-given promise," referred to "God's grace upon us," invoked God's blessing, and cited "the words of Scripture." At the same time he had the audacity to call on the entire country to repudiate what God has said in Scripture about the iniquity of homosexual practices.

He spoke either out of ignorance or out of presumptuous rebellion. Are there other possibilities?

 The President follows a long line of Presidents that talk out of both sides of their mouth. I always find it interesting when we are surprise by the actions of Presidents in the White House when their actions are contrary to the bible when they have never lined up with the biblical God. Do I think, like some have said, that President Obama is the worst President in history, of course not that would be foolish. I do think that some of the things in the light of the bible are absolutely countrary to what God would want for his people and being the first black President does not negate that.

Obama is the first black President? What makes you call him black and not white?

SDAminister
Logged

Bob Pickle

  • Defendants
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4061
    • Pickle Publishing
Re: The Presidents acceptance speach
« Reply #7 on: February 15, 2013, 07:24:28 PM »

"How little of the spirit of Christ has been manifested in the treatment given to the colored race in this so-called Christian country!  The Negro's color, the features that tell of his African descent, are a badge of humiliation to the whole race, because of the prejudice of the white people against them. They are often treated as if it were a disgrace to sit by their side, or even to worship in the same congregation. There is a large class with white blood in their veins, and bearing in their faces only the slightest traces of African descent, whose lives are embittered by the prejudice against them, being stigmatized as unworthy to associate with the whites, even in the worship of God" (4MR 8).

Doesn't seem right at all, this prejudice that treats as black someone who is mostly white, or even half white.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up