Advent Talk
General Category => General Discussions => Topic started by: christian on May 10, 2012, 02:31:22 AM
-
Recently, Obama came out in support of the right of Gay couples to marry. In an interview he sited many of the reasons his evolving opinion brought him to that point. First, that he believed after having talk to many gay couples, that despite his religious beliefs, that in keeping with "doing unto others what you would have them do unto you" it was the right thing to do. Secondly, it should lay to rest the contention that he is a Muslim, since I can tell you Muslim's absolutely hate Homosexuals. But in the truth of the Bible homosexuality and all its deviance is definitely a sin. Obviously the man is being attacked by demons and needs our prayers. Now I am left with a deli- ma, can't vote for Romney and can't vote for Obama, so who will I vote for?
-
Too bad
:caution:
-
Recently, Obama came out in support of the right of Gay couples to marry. In an interview he sited many of the reasons his evolving opinion brought him to that point. First, that he believed after having talk to many gay couples, that despite his religious beliefs, that in keeping with "doing unto others what you would have them do unto you" it was the right thing to do. Secondly, it should lay to rest the contention that he is a Muslim, since I can tell you Muslim's absolutely hate Homosexuals. But in the truth of the Bible homosexuality and all its deviance is definitely a sin. Obviously the man is being attacked by demons and needs our prayers. Now I am left with a deli- ma, can't vote for Romney and can't vote for Obama, so who will I vote for?
There are times when it may be best not to vote
-
Bristol Palin Has A Bone To Pick With Obama Over Gay Marriage
Bristol Palin Has A Bone To Pick With Obama Over Gay Marriage
Image Credit: Laura Segall/Getty Images
Bristol Palin, the 21-year-old daughter of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, has another bone to pick with President Obama.
The former ‘Dancing with the Stars’ contestant chastised the president for allowing his young daughters Sasha, 11, and Malia, 14, to influence his stance on gay marriage.
In an exclusive interview with ABC News on Wednesday, Obama said that his daughters “have friends whose parents are same-sex couples.”
“There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we’re talking about their friends and their parents and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently,” Obama said. “It doesn’t make sense to them and, frankly, that’s the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective.”
In a blog posted Thursday, Palin criticized the president for consulting his “teenage daughters” — emphasizing the word “teenage” — when making “a massive change in a policy position that could affect the entire nation.”
“I guess we can be glad that Malia and Sasha aren’t younger, or perhaps today’s press conference might have been about appointing Dora the Explorer as Attorney General because of her success in stopping Swiper the Fox,” Palin wrote.
Palin then berated Obama for not being an “actual leader” and explaining to his young daughters, whose views she suggested were inspired by “one too many episodes of Glee,” that even though their friends had same-sex parents, “that’s not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage.”
“While it’s great to listen to your kids’ ideas, there’s also a time when dads simply need to be dads,” Palin said in the blog post.
Palin broke out her skeptic pen in March as well to scold Obama over his decision to personally call Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke, whom Rush Limbaugh called a “slut” after she testified before Congress about birth control.
“Dear President Obama, You don’t know my telephone number, but I hope your staff is busy trying to find it,” Palin wrote in her blog post.
Palin said she “figured I might be next” to get a call because of the “reprehensible things” liberal comedian Bill Maher, who donated $1 million to the pro-Obama Super PAC, has said about her and her family.
“He’s made fun of my brother because of his Down’s Syndrome. He’s said I was “f—-d so hard a baby fell out,” Palin wrote. “If Maher talked about Malia and Sasha that way, you’d return his dirty money and the Secret Service would probably have to restrain you.”
-
Recently, Obama came out in support of the right of Gay couples to marry. In an interview he sited many of the reasons his evolving opinion brought him to that point. First, that he believed after having talk to many gay couples, that despite his religious beliefs, that in keeping with "doing unto others what you would have them do unto you" it was the right thing to do. Secondly, it should lay to rest the contention that he is a Muslim, since I can tell you Muslim's absolutely hate Homosexuals. But in the truth of the Bible homosexuality and all its deviance is definitely a sin. Obviously the man is being attacked by demons and needs our prayers. Now I am left with a deli- ma, can't vote for Romney and can't vote for Obama, so who will I vote for?
:ROFL: I am in the same dilemma. Who knows, I hear tell that Clinton's now want to challenge Obama and Hillary to run, lol and if that happens maybe Sara will get in against Hillary. Who knows what the sneaky government will do or who has the most money to buy. Pretty much in a shambles this country, and I do not believe it will be any better.
But...as we are apart of supposedly a group fighting for religious liberty we are supposed to choose the best for as long as we have that choice. but first the main reason to vote is the way God intended in his views.
We should not vote for a forced society under a group of socialists or power from their extreme wealth or contributors. (lol so that leaves only Sara in) This country was not founded for the reason of the European countries as they persecuted but was followed in this new land under the disguise of Satanic agencies to spread their Kingly views upon a free people that now is almost gone again and wars of men and women died to preserve.
Will it be repaired this late in history? I don't think so. In fact all the turmoil, lies, and corruption in the land and "within" God's church as spoken on here is too late to turn back. In fact the few of SDA multitude or the ones on the right side can now claim as the hero's aboard the plane that headed into the capitol as their destiny closed without no way out... Lets Roll...... :praying:
and OBAMA was not as he appeared and all for the wrong reasons. and if something don't change we are in it again really big this time and very hard hard times.
and Oh yes, the marriage of Barney Franks is now exploited from our government. Has anyone looked at the statistics of Gays being from the other Party. It's not only the government sifting, its the church also. Makes no difference the party or the church, It is sifting away...
-
It no problem with me about Obama's decision. His decision does not mean that he thinks it is morally right. He is dealing with the civil rights of individuals. Adventists believe that we should have total freedom of choice. People are free to believe whatever they want--even it is wrong.
-
It no problem with me about Obama's decision. His decision does not mean that he thinks it is morally right. He is dealing with the civil rights of individuals. Adventists believe that we should have total freedom of choice. People are free to believe whatever they want--even it is wrong.
But where do we stop? In advocating for gay marriage, Obama has gone far beyond simply advocating for toleration of those who happen to be attracted to the same gender. He is now advocating for toleration of the crime of homosexual behavior.
So how far will our politicians go in sanctioning other crimes? Will they now seek civil right protection for drug dealers and hitmen who are simply trying to make a living? And if not, what reasoning will they use to distinguish between varioous crimes in deciding which to sanction and which to condemn?
Then there is the very real issue of whether two men or two women are really married just because the state says they are. We cannot lie, and thus if they really aren't married, despite the state saying otherwise, we cannot say they are really married. Will those who refuse to lie be discriminated against?
Perhaps it is like the Sabbath. The state has declared Sunday to be the Sabbath many times in the last 2000 years. But we cannot say it is the Sabbath when God has said it isn't. Now since God is the one who created marriage and sexuality to begin with, I do not see how we can say, "What God has never ever once joined together, let no man put asunder."
But perhaps it would be a good idea to attend some of the mockery weddings that may take place. Then when the apostate preacher asks if anyone knows any reason why the two cannot wed, an attendee can state that the Bible forbids the mock union.
-
Maybe not in this particular decision as it squeezes into a justifiable gainsay and truth injected, but the rest of decisions are far from freedom in many other avenues. Soon we all shall feel and see it to be the worst ever as our freedom to choose for our own lifestyles of normality's to live in forced government realms of their so called normality which is entirely not normal - is really what is happening.
Gay marriage a go now is for their vote and other motives not mentioned as sin covers the Sodom and Gomorrah of today as a lifestyle presented as normal and they force our lifestyle to chance in the schools, work places, and whatever you do as they take over as many offices as they can to spread their abnormalities to normality's.
It can only stand for so long as the fire destroyed before and will again.
they will be in the sifting too and Obama just helping them along a little more for his benefit although you are right in their freedom of choice.
One motive could very well be in him doing that is this... He knows the evangelicals will now not vote at all for him and is he looking for away out of what soon may be discovered??? or proven??
-
Here you find a recent statement by the British Union
and the official statement of the SDA Church:
http://www.adventistinfo.org.uk/about/reference/Statement%20on%20same-sex%20marriage.pdf
-
Here you find a recent statement by the British Union
and the official statement of the SDA Church:
http://www.adventistinfo.org.uk/about/reference/Statement%20on%20same-sex%20marriage.pdf
You know topics like this one also bring up the overall stance of Christianity when dealing with sin in general. It would seem that the slid down the slippery slop just got slippery. The fact that we have so many divorces which are not biblical has lead to a full out assault on the institution of marriage. The church has turned a blind eye to the scriptures and in so doing has weekend the community too. Obama's stance on gay marriage, though framed as only his opinion gives license to those who would want to flaunt their deviance's. Sodomy is a very nasty thing and serves no purpose but to destroy the physical and mental being. I wonder if what Obama said was put in straight talk like Tinka often says she talks. I Obama agree with putting your stick in the brown hole of nasty should be sanctioned by the country for the cause of freedom. The country would be horrified and the nature of the beast would not be sanitised by the institution of marriage.
-
Now that is straight talk and very true as I have known several people that lifestyle is of this and all seem to be very "mentally hurt" and it got worse as years went by- meaning their "mental coping" or until nothing is left of normal sense. Only way out is to not think that God condones this "lifestyle" as most have convinced their self that God made them that way. and our medical society likes to help them believe this too.
Tough battle but not impossible. Jesus can help! But some are now where conscience has left and their whole attitude of it is now what they want.
-
Many years ago Dr. Kellogg wanted to establish clinics for women who wanted to get away from prostitution. It was a surprice to me to discover that Ellen White stopped him. She told him we did not have the right competence for this work, but the Salvation Army were much better at that. So we should leave that work to the Salvation Army.
I got this information from a book I borrowed from my mother (she died 2002) on the life of Dr. Kellogg.
Is there any lesson in this for us today?
-
A lot of people like to make their own documentaries of what they percieve, not sure I would put any thought too much on what Kellog wrote. Maybe it was true and maybe it was'nt, some pretty bad stories came out of there at the clinic for a while. Some was good reports and some were bad.
did you realize the movie of Sybil was made on a story that came from fanatical SDA family and documentary was made that my daughter watched that was horrific and very embarrassed to watch. I have not seen it my self but it was on some of the same lines of activity. So there may be more reasons then one that EGW suggested to get help elsewhere.
-
Ok so I deliberately stayed away from here after the President's interview, because even though I know Jesus, I still only have so much patience for racism and/or willful ignorace. Pray for me I just don't do well with stupidity.......but in the words of the old James Cleveland song, "Please be patient with me, God is not through with me yet".
Thank you Barrington, for being the bright spot in this. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY WHAT I AM GOING TO SAY BEFORE YOU TYPE A RESPONSE.
What Barrington stated is right, but there is more. We, as Adventist, believe that at sometime in the very near future(especially with current world affairs) that there will come a time when the wrold will persecute those who believe as we do, mainly in the 7th day Sabbath. This will be almost wholly due to the break down of the separation between church and state. This will not only include the locking of our churches, but even forcing us to run to the mountains from our homes and our ability to buy, sell, etc. SOLELY on our religious beliefs. At this point, in the USA and most of the civilized world, this is not legal, but we believe that will change.
To deny homsexuals civil rights based soley on what occurs in their home and their personal sexual preferences, is not only the government reaching beyond what happens in public buildings such as our churches and what is now guaranteed freedom for religious beliefs, but it reaches not just into someone's home, but their bedroom. Now, while all the right wingers are talking about government inference and nanny government, this ought to give you serious concern. but it doesn't because...........in this instance you wouldn't mind just a little mixing of church and state, by having civil laws changed and/or enforced according to religious beliefs. You can't have it both ways, and Adventists it will come back to bite us. You support this and Sunday Blue Laws don't even have to be enforced. They will have already tested it on the portion of the population that has difference sexual preferences and been successful with our help, how long do you think it will take to get to those with different religious beliefs(actually, that has already started with our help also...think Muslim). Our civil laws were designed to protect those who are "different". The POTUS has no choice but to enforce and support civil rights of all citizens. As Barrington said, He was not talking about his own personal beliefs, but his job as POTUS. He is the head of our civil government that believes in the separation of church and state, he cannot deny any citizens their civil rights based on his nor anyone else's religious beliefs. While I believe that active homosexuality is a sin, it is not against the law. Those of us which are African American would do well to remember that slave owners thought they also were biblically supported to keep us as and consider us less than animals, deserving of not even the basic right of respect as a person let alone civil rights under the governement. At this point, it makes no difference if you believe they choose to sin or were born that way[as with African Americans without question], no ones civil rights can be denied because they sin. We don't even dney those who break the laws that are both biblical and civil. Even though prosecuted, they still maintain a good portion of their civil rights(like voting)......they are definitely not denied the right to marriage.
Now, that said, I truly believe that the church ought to go on opposing this sin just as it does all the others, or maybe I should say to begin to oppose this one as they do all others(I will come back to this in a bit). As a board member, if a gay couple came to ask to be married in our church, I would be the first to say no, and explain that the church could not support that which it believes to be a sin, and guide them to the local court house as a civil[non-religious] union is really their only option, but they would not be marching down the isles of the church.......nope.We are more likely to allow an unfaithful spouse not just attend in good and regular standing, but hold office. In fact, the only ones we don't allow to hold office is pregnant teens and homosexuals. We are not consistent and we should be. There are no levels of sin where God is concerned, and we actually got that from Dante, not the Bible. Please don't tell me about what God hates or is an abomination, hHe hates and believe those who "sow discord" among the bretheren, and we don't bother to disfellowship mess starters in the church, and they abound much more freely and frequently than homosexuals or pregnant teens.
As I said, Ihope you will all read carefully all that I have said here and consider it prayerfully, and not because you hate anything Obama says, or you see homosexuals as personified sin.
These are just my thoughts............. :dunno:
It no problem with me about Obama's decision. His decision does not mean that he thinks it is morally right. He is dealing with the civil rights of individuals. Adventists believe that we should have total freedom of choice. People are free to believe whatever they want--even it is wrong.
-
Ok, Princess, you make a very good point. Although I am not at all aligned with the Democrats on most issues, I find them far less frightening than the Republican hard-liners who claim that as this country was founded on Christian morals and values, we should have a government that enforces a fundamentalist version of Christianity. Obama has created a backlash that is driving the fundamentalist movement into a more mainstream norm. At this point I fear that he has awakened a sleeping monster that cannot be put back into somnolent bliss. Another specter he has seemed to raise is that of racial aggression. The Trayvon issue, ands so many other factors have awakened something that I am afraid will create a war on the black race that will not end well. Blacks are a very small minority in every part of the the world other than Africa. There is no animosity toward the black race that equals that of the Hispanics. Between white and hispanic issues with the recent surge of black violent crime in various metro areas, the black population of the Americas and Europe is facing something potentially very damaging on a regionally existential level. And within the Arab world, the blacks are known as al abid, or "the slaves."
Obama was looked forward to as the great uniter, but there has probably never been a more divisive president in the history of the US, other than Abraham Lincoln. My fear is that his extremism has validated the opposite extreme, and I believe that the other side is far larger and more powerful.
-
You are touching an explosive issue. Many Seventh-day Adventist might have a similar problem. Although a great part of white SDA have traditionally been in agreement with Republican ideals, some are waking up to fear the growth of this fundamentalist lack of tolerance of Christians not adhering to such basic doctrines as keeping the Sunday holy. Southern Baptists and Catholics seem likely to unite in condemning any ordination that does not fit into their liking.
So this is explosive!
-
Di,
It has been long established, and forgotten, that civil-and-relgious-freedom-founder Roger Williams believed, and Seventh-day Adventism believes, that the government can enforce the second table of the 10 Commandments as it pertains to outward actions. For this reason, the government can prohibit the human sacrifice of a consenting adult, or polygamy between consenting adults.
I am therefore curious as to why you believe that prohibiting homosexual behavior would be an unconstitutional mixing of church and state.
-
. . . the government can enforce the second table of the 10 Commandments as it pertains to outward actions.
You are partially correct. There are limitations on the ability of the government to enforce those.
Most knowledgeable people would say that the limitations are few. I would not argue that. But, there are limitations.
On the side of your statement, your reference to the decision on polygamy supports your view.
However, there is a decision of the Court that involved race that established privacy rights to bedrooms, to put it bluntly. Therefore, I will lsuggest that Di has some grounds that support her position.
-
Loving v. Virginia (1967) is the seminal case on this issue. In that case, police officers burst into the bedroom of a married couple hoping to find them engaged in sexual intercourse. They failed. However, they did find a marriage certificate on the wall of their bedroom. As a result they were arrested and convicted of a crime against Virginia law. All such laws were declared unconstitutional, primarily on the basis of race, by the 1967 Supreme court ruling. However, aspects of that ruling granted a Constitiutional right to marry and of bedroom privacy. Due to that, some believe that such may apply to the right of homosexuals to marry.
In the August 4, 2010 federal district court decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which overturned California's Proposition 8 (which restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples), Judge Vaughn Walker cited Loving v. Virginia to conclude that "the [constitutional] right to marry protects an individual's choice of marital partner regardless of gender".[14] On more narrow grounds, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.[15][16]
The above is one legal ruling that speaks to this issue.
-
Talking about the Trayvon case- if any has opinion on first news cast, it would be most interesting to hear what first opinions of it was.
Here is mine, I could be totally wrong and will be anxious to see outcome of case.
When I first heard it- my first instinct was this "awful guy is calling 911 and setting himself up for a "murder get away". The info he was giving certainly was all a kind of details (pre thought)so he could get away with it. I thought that because he was far away from him and his story was I thought leading into something and he seemed to be stalking Trayvon
Why do I not believe what this guy is telling that he did in self defense. Why did he not stop his aggression to watch Trayvon and just go away. He first said he was at great distance from Trayvon at first.
To me the descriptions and accounting of every move of Trayvon was being told to 911. Too much going on there as it seems he was purposely giving account for an excuse to do what he intended. How would 911 know he was telling truth and not fictional it might have been set up to call 911 so he could claim self defense when he was out to do exactly what happened. This is a hard one for me but that was my first impression. anybody else have ideas or thoughts of first impressions?
Had to make corrections to make a little more sense to what I meant. Was in great hurry.
-
. . . the government can enforce the second table of the 10 Commandments as it pertains to outward actions.
You are partially correct. There are limitations on the ability of the government to enforce those.
Most knowledgeable people would say that the limitations are few. I would not argue that. But, there are limitations.
On the side of your statement, your reference to the decision on polygamy supports your view.
However, there is a decision of the Court that involved race that established privacy rights to bedrooms, to put it bluntly. Therefore, I will lsuggest that Di has some grounds that support her position.
When speaking of the Adventist view of religious liberty, it is appropriate to appeal to scriptural arguments. Therefore it should be pointed out that an earthly court's decision on marriage can never overturn or alter what God says an earthly government can or cannot enforce. An earthly court may overturn or alter what an earthly legislature says, but not what God says.
Therefore, regardless of what6 the U.S. Supreme Court thinks, God has declared that earthly governments can regulate the 7th commandment, which can include the prohibition of homosexual behavior.
But we aren't talking about privacy rights in bedrooms anymore, are we? With all the people who have come out of the closet and have admitted to committing crimes, no cops need to burst into bedrooms at all these days. But none of these folks are prosecuted, even though prosecution need not intrude into any so-called privacy rights, since the perpetrators have already publicly confessed. Why no prosecution? Because these crimes have been "legalized," even if the courts have never called such crimes "legal"?
-
.. .God has declared that earthly governments can regulate the 7th commandment, which can include the prohibition of homosexual behavior.
Based upon what you say above, God allows earthly courts to regulate homosexual behavior by saying that such is not illegal if it takes place between consenting, competent adults, but it is criminal when it takes place between people who are not consenting, competent adults.
That is regulation, Bob.
-
You know, I agree with you, to a point and not for the same reasons.
The race problem started the moment he was elected and hadn't done one thing. In fact, there had to be several "letters" written in teh Adventist Review to call for tolerance and cooperation among caucasian Adventist in the US. Then we just aren't going to say anything about the Republicans who determined to counter anything he had to say, even if he was agreeing with them. There has been also a boldness to the racism with whites feeling free to disrespect the POTUS with images of apes, facist leaders, etc. So, whatever came after he was actually elected may or may not have added to the issues, but the problem started election night, when many, many white(and white racist) citizens of the USA realize with horror that they were goin to have a African American president. You are right,t he republicans are so scary that their candidate is shameless in his racism and elitism.
About Trayvon, only one thing need be said....if it were reverse there is no way the shooter would have walked free all that time, and we all know this. All the crazies on both sides notwithsatanding his family is only asking for due process, not even a promise of a guilty verdict just that the right and legal process be followed. i am with them on that.
And even with all that said, he has to do his job as our civil leader, not our religious leader. Ok, Princess, you make a very good point. Although I am not at all aligned with the Democrats on most issues, I find them far less frightening than the Republican hard-liners who claim that as this country was founded on Christian morals and values, we should have a government that enforces a fundamentalist version of Christianity. Obama has created a backlash that is driving the fundamentalist movement into a more mainstream norm. At this point I fear that he has awakened a sleeping monster that cannot be put back into somnolent bliss. Another specter he has seemed to raise is that of racial aggression. The Trayvon issue, ands so many other factors have awakened something that I am afraid will create a war on the black race that will not end well. Blacks are a very small minority in every part of the the world other than Africa. There is no animosity toward the black race that equals that of the Hispanics. Between white and hispanic issues with the recent surge of black violent crime in various metro areas, the black population of the Americas and Europe is facing something potentially very damaging on a regionally existential level. And within the Arab world, the blacks are known as al abid, or "the slaves."
Obama was looked forward to as the great uniter, but there has probably never been a more divisive president in the history of the US, other than Abraham Lincoln. My fear is that his extremism has validated the opposite extreme, and I believe that the other side is far larger and more powerful.
-
Why thank you Gregory! That is even better than my argument that most people are against homosexuality[for others] because they believe it to be a sin, which is religious. In this country where we are supposed to be practicing the separation of church and state, state cannot make or enforce laws based on religion. I was leaning toward the religious aspect, because of my point about encouraging this type of legislation based on religion, would again come back to bite us with decisions about us....based on religion. However, add a lawful aspect to it makes the argument even stronger. Also, once you start basing civil law on religion, ALL freedom of religion goes out the door.
Once again, I will say, if anyone approached my church to host their same sex marriage, I would again open my big mouth and lead the board in a big fat no...but then guide them to the nearest courthouse where they actually have a right to a civil union.
Tinka, I am proud of you..........you done good. Even though for reason stated in my first post today, it is not a difficult call for me, I do like your reasoning.
Loving v. Virginia (1967) is the seminal case on this issue. In that case, police officers burst into the bedroom of a married couple hoping to find them engaged in sexual intercourse. They failed. However, they did find a marriage certificate on the wall of their bedroom. As a result they were arrested and convicted of a crime against Virginia law. All such laws were declared unconstitutional, primarily on the basis of race, by the 1967 Supreme court ruling. However, aspects of that ruling granted a Constitiutional right to marry and of bedroom privacy. Due to that, some believe that such may apply to the right of homosexuals to marry.
In the August 4, 2010 federal district court decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which overturned California's Proposition 8 (which restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples), Judge Vaughn Walker cited Loving v. Virginia to conclude that "the [constitutional] right to marry protects an individual's choice of marital partner regardless of gender".[14] On more narrow grounds, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.[15][16]
The above is one legal ruling that speaks to this issue.
-
.. .God has declared that earthly governments can regulate the 7th commandment, which can include the prohibition of homosexual behavior.
Based upon what you say above, God allows earthly courts to regulate homosexual behavior by saying that such is not illegal if it takes place between consenting, competent adults, but it is criminal when it takes place between people who are not consenting, competent adults.
That is regulation, Bob.
Rom. 13 indicates that God expects civil governments to punish wickedness, not simply decide that certain abominations aren't really wicked after all, and thus don't need to be punished.
Consider GC 270-271:
"And the historian presents together the atheism and the licentiousness of France, as given in the prophecy: 'Intimately connected with these laws affecting religion, was that which reduced the union of marriage--the most sacred engagement which human beings can form, and the permanence of which leads most strongly to the consolidation of society--to the state of a mere civil contract of a transitory character, which any two persons might engage in and cast loose at pleasure. . . . If fiends had set themselves to work to discover a mode of most effectually destroying whatever is venerable, graceful, or permanent in domestic life, and of obtaining at the same time an assurance that the mischief which it was their object to create should be perpetuated from one generation to another, they could not have invented a more effectual plan than the degradation of marriage. . . . Sophie Arnoult, an actress famous for the witty things she said, described the republican marriage as "the sacrament of adultery."'--Scott, vol. 1, ch. 17."
Thus, when the state reduces the sacred union of marriage to a mere civil contract of a transitory nature, it errs, and it fails in doing its God-given duty.
Consider also the description of the philosophy of history in Ed 173-175. Each nation, each government, is being tested as to whether it will fulfill God's purpose, uphold righteousness, and protect and upbuild the nation. Each nation and government that fails to do this will eventually be overcome.
-
and that determines my sediments as the handwriting is on the wall and can tell where certain posters are coming from in their views. Religious or Political. Its been hard to take notice and not post warning about it and watch progression on all things....therefore let it roll! I see you have same feeling of "warning" to wrong beliefs. I heard Jack Colone last night and he addressed how many will be lost because of their own thinking is the right way. Humbleness is following the The Word, The SP. and let it lead you and not you to lead an organization, committee into other directions. How foolish this has all been when we are so close to the end. Wasn't sure about what that list was for but watching a little closer now and appreciate what you did post on it.
-
Tinka, I am so glad to know that you have determined your "sediments." :) :)
Well, we all make mistakes, includidng me. :)
-
Tinka, I am so glad to know that you have determined your "sediments." :) :)
Well, we all make mistakes, includidng me. :)
Just to make it a little more clear about the "sediments" is what Bob posted that convinces me even more. I read but not able to be as quick to post like Bob, when I changed computers my White Estate did not load properly and have a hard time with it. Had it when it first came out with great expense and now don't have disks to reload including the Bible part.
A few names on the list that I noticed where the leadership of a conference is the worst in NAD. Also I want to mention a few more that their leadership has become a little flaky and causes me wonderment of their changes. That's about all I'm going to say without getting downright rank. Like I say the list in interesting. I hate it but know its coming.
I admit that my knowledge is simply my friend (the books) and my Bible that lies on a pillow beside me on my bed for my comfort that I can open on any sleepless moments. I do not follow all the high level committees, or all their voting or offices it does not matter other then I now see what is happening according to the SP. My knowledge is zilch. I've never tried to seek office or wanted it as my witnessing comes as a doer of work that is on the agenda to help in anyway to support what ever is needed. That's all that was important to me is get the job done and be able to determine what the needs were in the best way, now that is harder for me to do until something changes.
The list is scary knowing what they are voting. But the names of some are not surprising in fact stepped up to their "determines" in black and white fearless of the outcome that has been in progression since way back. Who else will support that list??? I think a lot of members might be like me and really do not know what goes on in top level committees as the foundation under their beliefs slip away. Same Ditto for America! that Bob Posted.
-
Bob and Tinka, you can feel the way you want,but until you work to change our laws of this country, the order of the day is a separation between church and state, and we know historically that was born out of a merging of church and state over in the European countries that caused all kinds of trouble. It is why the pilgrims came(only to practice their own form of government based on religion for a while), but it was the ideal. In England they could not worship the way they wanted because the state being ruled by the church. And then you are going to want them to stop intefering in church when it comes to the Sabbath? You know you can't have it both ways, right?
You all who are Republicans and Tea Party members talk about big government, and nanny goverment, but right now because of your religilous beliefs you want the government to interfere in the affairs of individual households. Who is going to place limits on this? Are you saying that you want them to intefere when it's homosexual relations, but it's none of their business when it is the relations of heterosexuals in their bedrooms. You can support what you want, but can you at least see where that is a slippery slope?
-
Di,
1) Prohibiting homosexual practices and the separation of church and state are two different topics. The First Amendment is what separation of church and state is based upon, and the First Amendment does not prevent the government from prohibiting homosexual practices.
Can you point to any court cases which ruled that an anti-sodomy law was unconstitutional based on the First Amendment's free exercise of establishment clauses? As Gregory pointed out, what the courts have relied on when dealing with these kind of laws is the alleged right to privacy, not the First Amendment.
2) If the courts and society remember their roots, if they remember that Roger Williams (when he got religious and civil liberty started in this country) taught that the government can only enforce the 2nd table of the 10 Commandments as it pertains to outward actions, but is forbidden by God to enforce the 1st table, there won't be any problem whatsoever when it comes to the Sabbath.
The real problem is that too many today don't remember their roots, and thus don't remember why they can't pass and enforce Sunday laws.
Remember that Ellen White multiple times called the U.S. government a "Protestant government." Some Adventists who take the concept of separation of church and state to extremes would be so audacious as to say that Ellen White was wrong when she wrote that. But the fact of the matter is that it is because the U.S. government is a Protestant government that we have liberty of conscience and separation of church and state.
If liberty of conscience and separation of church and state must solely be based on human reasoning and never upon Scripture, then it can be tossed out of the window at some point by society. But if it is also based on Scripture, it can't be tossed out of the window by a Protestant government without constituting apostasy and inviting divine wrath.
3) Roger Williams was neither a Republican nor a Tea party member. Neither was the apostle Paul, Ezekiel, and Matthew, who wrote the Bible texts that A. T. Jones used in his 1889 booklet National Sunday Law when explaining why the government can only enforce the 2nd table, never the 1st table of the 10 Commandments.
4) "Are you saying that you want them to intefere when it's homosexual relations, but it's none of their business when it is the relations of heterosexuals in their bedrooms." The government already interferes. The government prohibits polygamy and incest, even when the adults involved are all consenting. Is that wrong? No, not according to Paul, Ezekiel, and Matthew.
5) The real slippery slope is abandoning and rejecting the historical and biblical basis for freedom of conscience and separation of church and state.
-
Protestant government: Maryland was Roman Catholic in its formation.
Franklin, Jefferson and Paine all appear to hold the beliefs of a Deist, which is hardly Protestant.
Washington, never claimed to be Christian and appointed John Murray, who was a Universalist to becom an Army Chaplain.
Ethan Allen denied the diety of Jesus Christ, stated that he was not a Christian and did not argue with those who said he was a Deist.
The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate stated: "The government of the United States is not in any way founded on the Christian religion. The Senate vote was unanimous--the third time in our history.
Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 32 were Episcopalian/Anglican. Whether or not these were Protestant can be debated. Five were Quaker, Unitarian, Universalist and Roman Catholic--none of which were Protestant. Twenty-five were clearly Protestant.
There were 48 signers of the Articles of Confederation, of which 14 were Epicopalian/Angllican.
There were 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, of which 39 signed the Constitution of the U.S. Of these 55, 31 were Episcopalian/Anglican.
In one list of 204 Founding Fathers, 32 were Episcopalian/Anglican.
-
Protestant government: Maryland was Roman Catholic in its formation.
Franklin, Jefferson and Paine all appear to hold the beliefs of a Deist, which is hardly Protestant.
Washington, never claimed to be Christian and appointed John Murray, who was a Universalist to becom an Army Chaplain.
Ethan Allen denied the diety of Jesus Christ, stated that he was not a Christian and did not argue with those who said he was a Deist.
The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate stated: "The government of the United States is not in any way founded on the Christian religion. The Senate vote was unanimous--the third time in our history.
Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 32 were Episcopalian/Anglican. Whether or not these were Protestant can be debated. Five were Quaker, Unitarian, Universalist and Roman Catholic--none of which were Protestant. Twenty-five were clearly Protestant.
There were 48 signers of the Articles of Confederation, of which 14 were Epicopalian/Angllican.
There were 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, of which 39 signed the Constitution of the U.S. Of these 55, 31 were Episcopalian/Anglican.
In one list of 204 Founding Fathers, 32 were Episcopalian/Anglican.
I would say that religion is a lot different back with the forefathers then it is today as "progression as filtrated with anti Christ has not shown it's betterment in "glory".
I would not venture to try and disclose how God picked and chose the right men for His new country to show "freedom" for a while until his Commandments or 3rd angels message could be proclaimed throughout the world by His plans and not our ignorant surmising of how men thought and were back then. America knows that men were definitely inspired and picked by God to write as they did. Was it to last ..no it was a cry from the Son pleading the blood until all "was restored to truth" so Jesus could return.
-
Gregory,
Do you agree with me that the following statements from the pen of inspiration are more authoritative than the Treaty of Tripoli? Also, please take a look at http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html and explain what significance you see in the great majority of the 204 listed founding fathers of the U.S.A. being Protestant.
"They do not see that if a Protestant government sacrifices the principles that have made them a free, independent nation, and through legislation brings into the Constitution, principles that will propagate papal falsehood and papal delusion, they are plunging into the Roman horrors of the Dark Ages" (RH 12-11-88).
"If, in our land of boasted freedom, a Protestant government should sacrifice every principle which enters into its Constitution, and propagate papal falsehood and delusion, well may be plead, 'It is time for thee, Lord, to work, for they have made void thy law'" (RH 12-18-88).
"The Protestant government will reach a strange pass" (TSA 53). (If this one is referring to another country other than the U.S., I would be interested in suggestions as to what other country it is referring to.)
"And the lamb-like horns, emblems of innocence and gentleness, well represent the character of our government, as expressed in its two fundamental principles, Republicanism and Protestantism" (4SP 277).
"When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near" (5T 451).
"When our nation shall so abjure the principles of its government as to enact a Sunday law, Protestantism will in this act join hands with popery; it will be nothing else than giving life to the tyranny which has long been eagerly watching its opportunity to spring again into active despotism" (5T 711).
"The 'two horns like a lamb' well represent the character of the United States Government, as expressed in its two fundamental principles, Republicanism and Protestantism" (ST 11-01-99).
And there are others.
In order for a Seventh-day Adventist to repudiate the idea that the U.S. government is a Protestant government, he or she would have to (a) reject the Spirit of Prophecy, and (b) revise Adventist beliefs about the two horns on the head of the second beast of Revelation 13.
-
Bob, read carefully what I said, what EGW wrote and what you stated.
1) If you read what EGW stated in context, it is clear that she believed the U.S. was a Protestant government due to the Constitution being based upon Protestant principles. That is the reason that she gives multiple times and in several of your citations.
NOTE: EGW also mkes such statements in relation to Sunday laws, which I did not address.
2) You will note that I never once spoke to that aspect of the issue--the Constitution, or Sunday laws.
3) I did two things: I referenced the State of Maryland which was clearly founded on Roman Catholic principles and I referenced the religious beliefs of various people who could be called "founding fathers." Your sole reference to a founding father was to Roger Williams.
4) Bob, you and I were talking about two different things. We were neither agreeing nor disagreeing with each other.
5) Let us look closely again at what I said. You will note that what I said gave substantial support for the idea that the majority of the founding fathers were Protestant. I fully expected you to point that out, as you did, but not as strongly as I had expected you to do.
6) However, I also pointed out, without taking a personal position on it, that one could take the data that I presented and argue that to state that the founding fathers (which you did not state) were mainly Protestant, could be debated.
In summary Bob:
I spoke to the issue of the religious beliefs of the founding fathers and pointed out that there were several ways of defineing who these might be.
EGW in references to the U.S. as a Protestant government defined it in the context of our Constitution aqnd Sunday laws, which I did not address.
One could argue that from the basis of the religious beleifs of the founding fathers our government was not Protestant and not reject what EGW said in regard to our Constitution.
Bob, why did I post what I said? I simply, as I have been recently doing, posted historical data related to your comment. People could use that data in part to formulate their personal belief. Frankly, I expected that the majority would use it to agree with you while acknowledglilng that it was not 100% clear--Maryland and the Deists.
-
(Protestant government: Maryland was Roman Catholic in its formation.
(are you declaring or intentionally disproving protestant gov ?)
Franklin, Jefferson and Paine all appear to hold the beliefs of a Deist, which is hardly Protestant.
This is intentional statement to disprove or give "superior documentation" against the mystery of God's intentions. Who are we to do this to give opposite effects.
Washington, never claimed to be Christian (Is this your direct statement of fact?? to mislead) and appointed John Murray, who was a Universalist to becom an Army Chaplain.
History books rather do not claim all details other then the writers version.
Ethan Allen denied the diety of Jesus Christ, stated that he was not a Christian and did not argue with those who said he was a Deist.
But was he used of God???
The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate stated: "The government of the United States is not in any way founded on the Christian religion. The Senate vote was unanimous--the third time in our history.
Does this super seed what God prepared???
Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 32 were Episcopalian/Anglican. Whether or not these were Protestant can be debated. Now that is a statement right up front of intentional attempts to disguise or question what God has done, A superior always wants debate man made loop holes to disprove what acts God chose or men to do his History. Five were Quaker, Unitarian, Universalist and Roman Catholic--none of which were Protestant. Twenty-five were clearly Protestant. So how do you know or give opinions of debate that the 25 gave great influence to those who were not. Why not debate that?>?
There were 48 signers of the Articles of Confederation, of which 14 were Epicopalian/Angllican.
There were 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, of which 39 signed the Constitution of the U.S. Of these 55, 31 were Episcopalian/Anglican.
In one list of 204 Founding Fathers, 32 were Episcopalian/Anglican.
Be careful for debating truth as the wisdom of Satan "is the great debater" as he knows how to use truth against truth. (It is written)
There was no need for these circles to intentionally present doubt for a lay person. and there is no doubt why it was presented then justified in a different sense as Bob and or I or anyone got the first drift of intentional remarks. I cannot imagine spending time to find materials to debate SP unless a "superior" looks for superiority.
-
I cannot imagine spending time to find materials to debate SP unless a "superior" looks for superiority.
Tinka, I clearly stated that IL was not speaking to the issue that EGW raised.
I was not debating EGW at all. I am not superior to EGW.
As I said, EGW stated that the U.S. Constitution made the United Stated a Protestant governlment.
I spoke to the relilgious backgrounds of our so-called founding fathers. Ellen White and I were not speaking to the same subject.
-
Gregory,
I think that a predominately Catholic country can have a Protestant government if that government is based on Protestant principles. Thus, any government that promotes freedom of conscience would be Protestant at least in that area, regardless of what faith the majority of the citizens profess to adhere to.
Secondly, since one of the main points of Protestantism is the Bible being the ultimate authority, I wonder how that figures into the type of government the U.S. has or had.
-
I think that a predominately Catholic country can have a Protestant government . . . .
I agree with the above.
-
Why would it make any difference whether our government was protestant or Catholic? Governments based on either side of that coin have an equally appalling history of oppression and violence against their own people. Claiming to have a government founded on Christianity is nothing to brag about, it is something to be ashamed of.
-
Churches Tread Lightly On Politics in 2012 Election
http://www.adventistreview.org/article/5394/archives/issue-2012-1515/15rns-churches-tread-lightly-on-politics-in-2012-election
-
Why would it make any difference whether our government was protestant or Catholic? Governments based on either side of that coin have an equally appalling history of oppression and violence against their own people. Claiming to have a government founded on Christianity is nothing to brag about, it is something to be ashamed of.
My big thought and question was why it ever was up for debate other then for one reason. Because it pertained to something that EGW wrote???so did it prove her wrong??? All I know is that this government was at first formed by higher power then our simple efforts to "disprove". no matter what history we read. It was based on the word "freedom" and justice for all, but Miss Liberty does not have long life span as all things pass by the progression of human changes, disregard of spiritual truth, foothold of evil and, greedy vanity disease.
-
Dear Friend, I have no problem voting for Obama. There is no law against adultery. Why are we not raising cain about that. I am not a "supporter" of same-sex marriage, but from a civil right perspective, let them have it. It is legal to have children out of wedlock, so why not make this okay. We cannot legistlate morals. Remember, as an Adventist we would not support a government law to close stores on Sabbath. In fact we will vote for a law to keep them open on Saturday and Sunday.
Recently, Obama came out in support of the right of Gay couples to marry. In an interview he sited many of the reasons his evolving opinion brought him to that point. First, that he believed after having talk to many gay couples, that despite his religious beliefs, that in keeping with "doing unto others what you would have them do unto you" it was the right thing to do. Secondly, it should lay to rest the contention that he is a Muslim, since I can tell you Muslim's absolutely hate Homosexuals. But in the truth of the Bible homosexuality and all its deviance is definitely a sin. Obviously the man is being attacked by demons and needs our prayers. Now I am left with a deli- ma, can't vote for Romney and can't vote for Obama, so who will I vote for?
[/quote]
-
I believe Christians can vote for Obama because we believe is freedom of conscience and civil rights --completely. Yes! Completely. For everyone. Even the adulterer--who has a legal right to have sex outside of marriage. ARe we rasing cain about that? Certainly not.
-
Dear Friend, I have no problem voting for Obama. There is no law against adultery. Why are we not raising cain about that. I am not a "supporter" of same-sex marriage, but from a civil right perspective, let them have it. It is legal to have children out of wedlock, so why not make this okay. We cannot legistlate morals. Remember, as an Adventist we would not support a government law to close stores on Sabbath. In fact we will vote for a law to keep them open on Saturday and Sunday.
Recently, Obama came out in support of the right of Gay couples to marry. In an interview he sited many of the reasons his evolving opinion brought him to that point. First, that he believed after having talk to many gay couples, that despite his religious beliefs, that in keeping with "doing unto others what you would have them do unto you" it was the right thing to do. Secondly, it should lay to rest the contention that he is a Muslim, since I can tell you Muslim's absolutely hate Homosexuals. But in the truth of the Bible homosexuality and all its deviance is definitely a sin. Obviously the man is being attacked by demons and needs our prayers. Now I am left with a deli- ma, can't vote for Romney and can't vote for Obama, so who will I vote for?
[/quote]
:ROFL: :ROFL:
Well now Barrington, as simply as I know to ask,
Can you please answer what all that was about in Biblical history where God gave a few commands in the writing of Ordinances Of Moses for the people on how the morals needed to be dealt with if they dare do those immoral s?? We are not to mess either with the production organs of man or woman unless out of dire necessity. and what is the issue now that divides a nation. Am I missing something here that "changed"??? Now you got murdering full term babies. It's okay thought that is "freedom of choice." Just disregard this little human it don't know any better!! That is freedom of "evil".
Did you read anything about the destruction of Sodom or Gomorrah because people would not obey the morals that God so made very plain for cities or nations to live by that were in the category we are now in?
No you cannot force people's will but you sure can have laws against the immoral (as we do now, or slowly disintegrating) to protect innocent from the deeds of immoral people.
and....do unto others as you would have them do unto you. How About one of the louses messing up a child for life that will taste or be immoral slavery minded? No laws uh? No laws, no nation!! There's a difference or a really big gap in this manner of thinking.
What you really want is what the majority wants - a licence to do the immoral and Satan laughing in his horns to take as many as he can through these washing of Pilots hands --to take no responsibility or care what people's morals are when we should be trying to vote and do everything we can to help save souls or help them not to go that route with gov okays voted in under the cloak of overboard and far far reaching of what it really means "church and state from the pressure of the majority immoral views and their votes. They sure got fooled last time.
When a nation is built from respect of knowledge of God and then re routes you get just what is posted here.
Freedom of individuals come from the laws provided as a nation as instructed from long ago. What changed this scenario????
The devils Frosting on the cake is Obama doing everything he can against what ever we had from beginning. As a nation we must have moral laws.
A vote for Obama is surly a vote for this new ally or road of "deceptive freedom" while our nation goes down as the pattern of immoral progression and belief now of Obama "change " when God does not change. True in the end the "power of using truth" will be the power that leads to the fate as told. either way ends. but for now "this power" that Mercilago talks about will buy a little time to bring in more souls while it can.
Obama has done many things to prove he is not Muslim so much that I believe he is tops in his abilities of conning. He also ate a dog, a pig and makes very obvious of what he is not--that's why I don't believe him and the worse is he used racism for his own race to get the vote that he actually does not have them in mind. He deceives the poor with his "charismatic character". I notice he does one thing that gives him away every time and he is not conscious that he does it. That makes me believe he has been or is Muslim from the very beginning that I started watching and listening. It is habit that I detect. He is Muslim and has it in his gut or has been.
No one can force what people do as sneaks or in the dark room but force or laws should be done when the "disease " is spread to innocent. Somebody has to stand like the one thief on the cross, someone has to believe what evil is.
Did you not hear that we are free from the law when we don't break it.. Funny how this means the same both in God's law or civil laws are.
All I know is before the end all will appear right that is wrong --and all wrong will appear right so this is not surprising views.
So before voting think of the damage it will do to someone else cause it is evident the only care of this attitude is self and let the freedom of evil take its toll for slavery and death ..... Can we worry only of our own salvation and enter the gates?? NO!!! Then vote for the sake of morals that give real "freedom" of choice to all as a nation that God prepared under his laws. The decision of voting should be very simple--you vote against "freedom of evils" that are made law of the land to protect the innocent. Roby v. Wade was one example. It is now "freedom of killing" and not one single liberal can do a thing about changing this fact of "killing". Satan has destroyed the very sense of "Thou shalt not kill to those who love "freedom of evil" to have killing on their mind for their immoral behavior and no choice for the little defenseless human.
Man not only sought to change God's Law of the Sabbath but now is quite evident Man is changing them all. Especially marriage, birth, only thing not accomplished yet is ----the main religion of one by force!!! and that will be the opposite power that hands that over in the end.
In case you don't know it but there is a law against adultery...You can now get divorced because of it... Wonder why that is???
-
In case you don't know it but there is a law against adultery...You can now get divorced because of it... Wonder why that is???
In the United States, one can get divorced from many reasons that are not against the law.
Yes, adultry is against the law in some places and it others it is not against the law.
-
In case you don't know it but there is a law against adultery...You can now get divorced because of it... Wonder why that is???
In the United States, one can get divorced from many reasons that are not against the law.
Yes, adultry is against the law in some places and it others it is not against the law.
Exactly my whole point- We are now abiding by man's laws and God's thrown out. Some places just haven't succumbed yet. and also the same example seen with in SDA church now going on for the sifting under many issues.
-
Why would it make any difference whether our government was protestant or Catholic? Governments based on either side of that coin have an equally appalling history of oppression and violence against their own people. Claiming to have a government founded on Christianity is nothing to brag about, it is something to be ashamed of.
Good question. The fact of the matter is that a Protestant government that doesn't allow liberty of conscience isn't really any longer a Protestant government. If the Bible forbids the civil enforcement of the 1st table of the Decalog, then no Protestant government can enforce the 1st table and remain Protestant, since Protestantism holds the Bible as being the supreme authority.
-
I believe Christians can vote for Obama because we believe is freedom of conscience and civil rights --completely. Yes! Completely. For everyone. Even the adulterer--who has a legal right to have sex outside of marriage. ARe we rasing cain about that? Certainly not.
I don't think you have provided a rational or logical or biblical basis for your position. "Completely"? So should we have civil rights for drug dealers? Since when is gay marriage on a par with freedom of conscience? Can you name me one sodomite whose conscience tells him that he must engage in the unnatural crime of sodomy?
"Even the adulterer--who has a legal right to have sex outside of marriage." Your statement is false. God is the ultimate ruler of this world, and He has said that adultery is illegal. Whether man's governments want to pretend it's legal or not does not change the fact that it remains illegal.
"Intemperate men should not by vote of the people be placed in positions of trust" (Te 47).
If Obama drinks and/or smokes, then Te 47 says we should not vote for him.
-
So, should we vote for Obama if it is true that he has conquered teh cigerate habit, or if he is attempting to do so, but not quite made it yet?
-
I suspect that everyone reading these posts has been injured through living in a world of sin. We lack inate knowledge of God and God's interactions with us. We all started down the wrong path. My trust is in the words of Christ who told us that the Holy Sirit would replace Him and becoue our spiritual guide. As humans, it is not likely that any of us could take being given a full knowledge of what God would like to say to us. The Holy Spirit has to lead us step by step. Case in point: Let us say, as Bob has suggested, that God would not want us to vote for any person who uses tobacco or drinks alcoholic beverages. O.K. Saying so does not mean that such is the message of the Holy Spirit to everyone reading these posts. It jsut might be that the Holy Spirit has larger concerns for some of us and therefore will not convict us that God does not want us to vote for a President who smokes a cigarette. If so, that might come later, but not now? [NOTE: I am not making the claim tha Bob made.]
However, if any of you reading this feel convicted to vote only for someone who neilther used tobacco or alcoholic beverages, I give you permission to vote for me as a "write-in" candidate for the President of the United States. NOTE: I plan to vote in the up-comming electionand to vote for a candidate for President. As my vote is private, I do not disclose whom I might vote for. Perhaps, I will vote for myself. I do not use either tobacco or alcoholic beverages.
:) :) :) :)
-
I believe Christians can vote for Obama because we believe is freedom of conscience and civil rights --completely. Yes! Completely. For everyone. Even the adulterer--who has a legal right to have sex outside of marriage. ARe we rasing cain about that? Certainly not.
I don't think you have provided a rational or logical or biblical basis for your position. "Completely"? So should we have civil rights for drug dealers? Since when is gay marriage on a par with freedom of conscience? Can you name me one sodomite whose conscience tells him that he must engage in the unnatural crime of sodomy?
"Even the adulterer--who has a legal right to have sex outside of marriage." Your statement is false. God is the ultimate ruler of this world, and He has said that adultery is illegal. Whether man's governments want to pretend it's legal or not does not change the fact that it remains illegal.
"Intemperate men should not by vote of the people be placed in positions of trust" (Te 47).
If Obama drinks and/or smokes, then Te 47 says we should not vote for him.
Interesting position, then who should we vote for then? From the historical account of the previous presidents, all of them are intemperate in some measure. And history will tell you that the vast majority of them lied to the American public too. ----You will notice from my post that I stated I can vote for neither Obama or Romney, both of the individuals have positions that I am extremely opposed to. I have to use a slidding scale when deciding who to vote for based on my own limits. Personally I have set limits that may not be the same limits as others have. Whereas I understand that Obama made no law making legal marriage between two men or two women, there is something inherently wrong with trying to justify obvious deviant behavior. On the otherhand Romeys "corporation's are people too" is an obvious sign that he will have no compassion for the poor and helpless masses. I am not blind to the fact that some here have others issues with Obama which have manifested itself in their attacks on the Presidents wife and family. I have never been obliged to vote for or against someone based on the amount of skin color or lack thereof. There is obvious scriptural council against the base act of sodomy in the bible. I am also aware that adultery, fornication, divorce and many other like things are spoken against in the bible with equal consequences. The reason God died on the cross of calvary was to ransom us from these sins. However, certain sins do cause greater harm to the good of humanity than others. Sin must remain sin and be seen as thus otherwise we commit the unpardonable sin in that we except the sin as righteousness. I am aware of many a divorce person who understands his sin and goes to the lord of heaven for forgiveness. God does forgive and restore, but to make the marriage institution a haven for the nasty stick is deplorable to the extreme. Or to give license to two women to share their breast together under the institution of marriage is an abomination.
-
I sure do agree with all that. We are in a shivering time. Sure will be hard for me to vote too. Before always had my husband to go over all the fine details of each as we always thought that if you live in this country and enjoy what freedoms --you have duty to be part of it. Then to cast a vote to the best you can with what knowledge you can gather for the best of the people according to God's plan.
Never would I have picked Romney and don't like anything about it. If I could have picked now by myself without my husbands views and following as much as I can, my first instincts better then Romney and could be all wrong with it was Gingrich, Palin and even ol Trump. I will tell you why. Gingrich with marital background and his acknowledgment of remorse and forgiveness seemed to know the ropes of the most intelligent in political views to counteract much to be turned around but still had reservations and could accomplish what he said he could. Palin I like although liberals hate her. So that tells me as bad as she was attacked that he must stand well in biblical rights so that drew my attention. She is smarter then you think. But now trump as arrogant as he is I truly believe can handle evil for evil lol lol and that is for sure. He has great sense of all working the game of propriety lol. I would not be afraid with him as president for the short time we must have left. I think Romney holds surprises. but not bigger then Obama's surprises to his own race and the biggie coming if reelected to our amazement and before Obama I knew his background as we looked at him when he was really young long years ago. At first we fell for his speech and other things did not hold up and now my husband was right as we now can see. It's a very hard thing for me to do now without him. So it appears we do not have much choice this time around. I hope our next choice will be the King of all our hearts and this all will be gone. But now we wait and watch and act the best we can and do vote against the evil as much as we can.
It does take intelligence and respect of God's will to know that smoking and drinking is weakness signs in ones character. among other things as well. so if that is all there is guess Romney is on the ballet. But over him I would have voted for Trump to battle evil for evil. lol lol and that would have definitely kept Satan busy (laugh) laugh). What a situation we have. I don't think that Trump smokes or drinks, unless a little wine not sure. lol
The only thing left we have is Our great people of this nation, and the people of God's army of all races in unity to fight until the end with our minds in the highest frame possible.
-
Let us say, as Bob has suggested, that God would not want us to vote for any person who uses tobacco or drinks alcoholic beverages. O.K. Saying so does not mean that such is the message of the Holy Spirit to everyone reading these posts.
But Gregory, it was the Holy Spirit, not me, that inspired Ellen White to write Te 47. I wasn't even born until nearly 50 years after she died!
Does Obama drink?
-
Bob:
I assume that neither your nor I are fully informed as to what God has to say to usl. I assume that both you and Ihave more to learn. If so, as I understand the words of Christ, it is the Holy irit that will lead us to the point of conviction. In that process, I believe that the Holy Spirit will lead you and I step by step and probably with the most important first.
-
Intemperate men should not by vote of the people be placed in positions of trust. Their influence corrupts others, and grave responsibilities are involved. With brain and nerve narcotized by tobacco and stimulus they make a law of their nature, and when the immediate influence is gone there is a collapse. Frequently human life is hanging in the balance; on the decision of men in these positions of trust depends life and liberty, or bondage and despair. How necessary that all who take part in these transactions should be men proved, men of self-culture, men of honesty and truth, of stanch integrity, who will spurn a bribe, who will not allow their judgment or convictions of right to be swerved by partiality or prejudice. Thus saith the Lord, "Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause. Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked. And thou shalt take no gift: for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous."--Signs of the Times, July 8, 1880. {Te 47.2}
Only men of strict temperance and integrity should be admitted to our legislative halls and chosen to preside in our courts of justice.
I believe that the above is the passage that Bob references.
-
Many years ago I served as the Director of Temperance in my Conference and as such I was obliged to attend the general assemblies of the National Temperance Association of which we were members.
It was often with great suffering I almost suffocated in the smoke-filled halls where the delegates of other temperance societies where puffing their pipes, cigars, or cigarettes. We felt we had a mission there, and we assisted each other in the "temperance" work of fighting alcohol and alcohol legislation.
Ellen G White attended and spoke frequently at the gatherings of other temperance people. I do not recall her mentioning the use of tobacco by some people at these gatherings, although she definitely spoke forcefully against the use of tobacco.
-
Many years ago I served as the Director of Temperance in my Conference and as such I was obliged to attend the general assemblies of the National Temperance Association of which we were members.
It was often with great suffering I almost suffocated in the smoke-filled halls where the delegates of other temperance societies where puffing their pipes, cigars, or cigarettes. We felt we had a mission there, and we assisted each other in the "temperance" work of fighting alcohol and alcohol legislation.
Ellen G White attended and spoke frequently at the gatherings of other temperance people. I do not recall her mentioning the use of tobacco by some people at these gatherings, although she definitely spoke forcefully against the use of tobacco.
I believe that Obama's support of Gay marriage will be a blight on his Presidency. I also believe that if Romney gets into office that this country will suffer much worse than it currently is. I have this one comfort and that is that that Bible says and this Gospel will be preached unto all the world and then shall the end come. I want to make my position very clear I have no hatred for people that engage in deviant behavior, I do have sympathy for them too. Just like I don't believe the bible condons divorce or premarital sex, I believe God can and does forgive. But one of my pet peeves is when we try and make wrong right. If a man is divorced remarried and repents to God, I believe God forgives.