Will America Ever Have a Muslim President? (1 Viewer)

[Pasty]

We should all work this out over a game of Wheel of Fortune. I think it would answer a lot of questions regarding Obama's Muslim-like appearances.

I've got the perfect puzzle to start:

"People Who Annoy You"

 

[DavidM]

I'll keep it brief. Do the outspoken Christians on this board who doubt Obama's religious identity as a Christian, invest the same amount of time questioning those Christians they know on a personal level -- friends, family, fellow churchgoers -- with similarly circumstantial criteria?

My understanding has always been that Christians should, in following Jesus' teachings and examples, welcome in people of any background and that is, in fact, a driving tenet of the faith. And that the mission of many Christian churches is to bring into the fold, non-Christian believers, so that they too might be saved. How utterly hypocritical to then use a person's background as a basis to question their sincerity as a follower of Christ. Those Christians should cease in trying to "spread the word" if the conversion is subject to lingering judgmental uncertainty by peers.

John 10:9

I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

 

[MSUSousaphone]

For MSUSousaphone - Your interpretation of Christianity is not universally held, by even all Christians, and certainly not over the long history of Christianity. People have read the same texts you have and then thought that the ethnic cleansing of the natives in various lands (Africa, the America's etc) was the Christian thing to do. Remember, Christ came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill. That Law in the Old Testament commands us to kill pagans, non-believers, witches, etc. So, someone can just as easily read the Old and New Testament, and believe that Christians are supposed to kill false prophets. Hey, I believe RCS is a "witch", who wants to throw the first stone?

Ah, but there you have it again, we are arguing people instead of teachings. I will always concede that there have been huge pain and suffering done in the name of Christ but I thik it comes solely from the violence and hate in the people and none of it is from Christ's teachings. The true teachings of Christ would be to NEVER use violence. Just like when Peter took up the sword to try and protect him before he was arrested.

The Christians on the Crusades or inquisitions or witch hunts or really any of that stuff you may want to bring up was brought upon by people and it DOES go against the actual teaching of Christ. Christ never condoned hurting false prophets, non-believers, infidels....anything. Everything taught was to turn the other cheek and lead by example.

So I would say that the violence came from those people and not Christ's teachings. Kind of like if a Saints fan killed a Falcons fan in the name of New Orleans. Would the fault be with the Saints orginization or did someone take product the team put out and put there own violence to it?

V chip, I am no theologian (I can't even spell it for certain), but I would just guess that its because some of Christ's teachings contradict edicts from the Old Testament (all the stonings and violence and things) and then the ones we keep weren't contradicted....? Brennan knows that stuff.

 

[MSUSousaphone]

I'll keep it brief. Do the outspoken Christians on this board who doubt Obama's religious identity as a Christian, invest the same amount of time questioning those Christians they know on a personal level -- friends, family, fellow churchgoers -- with similarly circumstantial criteria?

My understanding has always been that Christians should, in following Jesus' teachings and examples, welcome in people of any background and that is, in fact, a driving tenet of the faith. And that the mission of many Christian churches is to bring into the fold, non-Christian believers, so that they too might be saved. How utterly hypocritical to then use a person's background as a basis to question their sincerity as a follower of Christ. Those Christians should cease in trying to "spread the word" if the conversion is subject to lingering judgmental uncertainty by peers.

John 10:9

I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Exactly. Was Jesus checking IDs at the Sermon on the Mount? Bad joke but do you (the intolerent ones) really think Jesus would turn someone away or shun them because of their past? In fact, Scripture says otherwise. He led by example and sometimes chastised and preached but he NEVER tunred anyone away, stereotyped, or used violence.

 

[Waymer]

Ah, but there you have it again, we are arguing people instead of teachings.

Well, not entirely. It's an argument about the interpretations of the Bible. I'm not saying those people were right, because I don't believe they were, but people can interpret things many different ways when dealing with a fairly complex piece of text.

Can any Christians say for fact that they know exactly what the teachings mean? 99% of us might agree on something, but a simple passage can be interpreted many ways and the other 1% can see otherwise. Being in the majority does not necessarily mean that something is a fact. Just take the commandment "Thou Shalt not Kill." We all know how many times the term kill has been interpreted, and that's a fairly straight forward command.

 

[SaintJ]

Exactly. Was Jesus checking IDs at the Sermon on the Mount? Bad joke but do you (the intolerent ones) really think Jesus would turn someone away or shun them because of their past? In fact, Scripture says otherwise. He led by example and sometimes chastised and preached but he NEVER tunred anyone away, stereotyped, or used violence.

I said "You know
They refused Jesus too"
And he said
"You're not him"

-- Robert Zimmerman of Hibbing, MN

 

[MSUSousaphone]

Well, not entirely. It's an argument about the interpretations of the Bible. I'm not saying those people were right, because I don't believe they were, but people can interpret things many different ways when dealing with a fairly complex piece of text.

Can any Christians say for fact that they know exactly what the teachings mean? 99% of us might agree on something, but a simple passage can be interpreted many ways and the other 1% can see otherwise. Being in the majority does not necessarily mean that something is a fact. Just take the commandment "Thou Shalt not Kill." We all know how many times the term kill has been interpreted, and that's a fairly straight forward command.

I understand where you're coming from, and the discussion would be completely over if somewhere in the Christ's teaching its said, 'hurt the infedels,' or, 'kill the false prophets'. Then there would be something there to misinterpret.

In this case, though, there is nothing that can be misinterpretted. Nowhere in it does Jesus say to convert by any means necessary and his actions would contradict that line of thinking.

So its not a case of people getting something out of a text that other people don't, its more of a case where people totally took something from out of nowhere and tryed to shove it in.

 

[CCL36]

In Regard to Waymer.

I'm relatively outside this discussion but to be courteous and answer your assertions here we go.

1. My concerns with Obama are more than the implication that sympathizes with Islam (whether true or not) for example the implications of liberation theology.
2. Christianity = Islam has been rehashed over and over on this board and there are even implications in this thread.
3. Ascribing to a person the action of making Ignorant statements consistently versus the label of an ignorant person is not even worth discussing.
4. Understanding Scripture is a grace that God gives that comes from seeking the truth. We all are capable of honest and open discussion and we are all capable of learning in areas where we may hold false beliefs in relation to the Bible.
5. Inspiriation and Presevation of Scripture is a debate in itself, I have come to believe both are true of the Bible so unless the discussion is about Inspiration or Preservation my Biblical arguments have consistently been framed in the context of the recieved text - the standard 66 books of the bible.
6. Obama has made statements that he has had an experience with Christ but not that Christ is the exclusive means of salvation for all of mankind. Today many people claim Christ so it is hard to place total confidence in peoples profession especially politicians.
7. As for what type and if your Christian that is for God to judge, but your harshness in regard to my previous posts that were crafted in biblical honesty and your vague accusatory nature in regard my previous religious comments is unbecoming for honest Christian discussion.

 

[CCL36]

I'll keep it brief. Do the outspoken Christians on this board who doubt Obama's religious identity as a Christian, invest the same amount of time questioning those Christians they know on a personal level -- friends, family, fellow churchgoers -- with similarly circumstantial criteria?

My understanding has always been that Christians should, in following Jesus' teachings and examples, welcome in people of any background and that is, in fact, a driving tenet of the faith. And that the mission of many Christian churches is to bring into the fold, non-Christian believers, so that they too might be saved. How utterly hypocritical to then use a person's background as a basis to question their sincerity as a follower of Christ. Those Christians should cease in trying to "spread the word" if the conversion is subject to lingering judgmental uncertainty by peers.

John 10:9

I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Every Christian should reach out to all people regardless of their identity, in fact we should be praying for terrorists that they would come to know Christ in a saving manner. But to examine people that ascribe to places of leadership that we play an active role in determining is clearly a responsible and Christian attitude.

 

[Waymer]

In Regard to Waymer.

I not into this discussion but to be courteous and answer your assertions here we go.

1. My concerns with Obama are more than the implication that sympathizes with Islam (whether true or not) for example the implications of liberation theology.
2. Christianity = Islam has been rehashed over and over on this board and there are even implications in this thread.
3. Ascribing to a person the action of making Ignorant statements consistently versus the label of an ignorant person is not even worth discussing.
4. Understanding Scripture is a grace that God gives that comes from seeking the truth. We all are capable of honest and open discussion and we are all capable of learning in areas where we may hold false beliefs in relation to the Bible.
5. Inspiriation and Presevation of Scripture is a debate in itself, I have come to believe both are true of the Bible so unless the discussion is about Inspiration or Preservation my Biblical arguments have consistently been framed in the context of the recieved text - the standard 66 books of the bible.
6. Obama has made statements that he has had an experience with Christ but not that Christ is the exclusive means of salvation for all of mankind. Today many people claim Christ so it is hard to place total confidence in peoples profession especially politicians.
7. As for what type and if your Christian that is for God to judge, but your harshness in regard to my previous posts that were crafted in biblical honesty and your vague accusatory nature in regard my previous religious comments is unbecoming for honest Christian discussion.

In regards to #6.

I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/januaryweb-only/104-32.0.html?start=2

There's even more specific quotes than that out there. But I think that is what you are driving for at this point.

As for the rest, I think we know we will never agree with each other. But I'm thankful it is God judging me and not you.

 

[Waymer]

I understand where you're coming from, and the discussion would be completely over if somewhere in the Christ's teaching its said, 'hurt the infedels,' or, 'kill the false prophets'. Then there would be something there to misinterpret.

In this case, though, there is nothing that can be misinterpretted. Nowhere in it does Jesus say to convert by any means necessary and his actions would contradict that line of thinking.

So its not a case of people getting something out of a text that other people don't, its more of a case where people totally took something from out of nowhere and tryed to shove it in.

Oh, I completely agree. It's a square peg in a round hole. I was speaking in more general terms about the Bible, not that specific topic.

 

[CCL36]

In regards to #6.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/januaryweb-only/104-32.0.html?start=2

There's even more specific quotes than that out there. But I think that is what you are driving for at this point.

As for the rest, I think we know we will never agree with each other. But I'm thankful it is God judging me and not you.

To be honest I can't think of one time where we have crossed paths in a discussion though maybe we have. We have discussed so much over the years in this forum during that time I have sought to represent the intent of the scripture and not my own personal opinion. I haven't claimed to have written the Bible I have just tried to faithfully expound it in a way that an honest person could check me out and raise concerns and questions which I have endeavored to answer. As for who is going to judge you and me Christ made it clear that the true God would judge us according to His Word. Biblically speaking the true God is a God of Mercy and a God of Truth whether one likes it our not.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Ah, but there you have it again, we are arguing people instead of teachings. I will always concede that there have been huge pain and suffering done in the name of Christ but I thik it comes solely from the violence and hate in the people and none of it is from Christ's teachings. The true teachings of Christ would be to NEVER use violence. Just like when Peter took up the sword to try and protect him before he was arrested.

The Christians on the Crusades or inquisitions or witch hunts or really any of that stuff you may want to bring up was brought upon by people and it DOES go against the actual teaching of Christ. Christ never condoned hurting false prophets, non-believers, infidels....anything. Everything taught was to turn the other cheek and lead by example.

So I would say that the violence came from those people and not Christ's teachings. Kind of like if a Saints fan killed a Falcons fan in the name of New Orleans. Would the fault be with the Saints orginization or did someone take product the team put out and put there own violence to it?

V chip, I am no theologian (I can't even spell it for certain), but I would just guess that its because some of Christ's teachings contradict edicts from the Old Testament (all the stonings and violence and things) and then the ones we keep weren't contradicted....? Brennan knows that stuff.

To my knowledge there are only two rules that Christ contradicted from the Old Testament - the dietary laws and the Sabbath. He did however say that the Law (of Moses) still stands, and that law commands us to kill witches and stone false prophets. It wouldn't be to hard assume that Christ commands to be good to only fellow Christians and the state should fulfill the law of Moses, including the destruction of infidels.

My point is to show that it's very easy for someone to come along read a religious text and pull up all sorts of quotes to say what they want. Christianity is not immune to that...