Why are Americans confused about Obama's religion?
Fresh from a controversy over his views on evolution, Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker is now involved in a controversy over his views, or lack of them, on President Obama's religion. On Saturday, two Washington Post reporters asked Walker, in the nation's capital for a governor's meeting, whether Obama is a Christian. Walker said he didn't know.
But when it comes to confusion, or wrong information, about Obama's religion, Scott Walker is far from alone. Polls have long shown many Americans know little about the president's faith.
In June, 2012, Gallup asked, "Do you happen to know the religious faith of Barack Obama?" Forty-four percent said they did not know, while 36 percent said he is a Christian, 11 percent said he is a Muslim, and eight percent said he has no religion. The "don't know" group included 36 percent of Democrats. (A larger number of Republicans, 47 percent, said they...
Mike wrote: We have no king. Be that as it may, I hope you read v14 again. It's the verse in this context that lays out precisely what authority the king, and his governors have from God.
Mike you neatly but surgically removed the words "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake:"
You believe that 1. You are sinless? NOPE 2. God elects you because you are sinless? NOPE 3. Atonement is unlimited so everybody gets saved? NOPE 4. Grace is irrelevant because you resist it anyway? NOPE 5. You do not need any help from God? NOPE
NB wrote: Thanks Frank! I see where you are coming from. I would also venture to say that someone "running" for elder or deacon at 99% of our "churches" on that platform would also get "booed" off of the stage. Lol... Funny but not funny too...?? the fundamental worldview of most Christ-claiming westerners falls quite short of being biblical. The older I get, the more aware I become of just how "narrow" the narrow road is. (And BTW, I think far differently than most of my contemporaries too.??)
Such a nice lady and I'm glad you are not afraid to think differently. I always say God knows our hearts anyway, so the only ones we are fooling is ourselves or our peer groups. I agree with everything you said here.
I remember years ago reading a really neat article explaining why the apostle Paul would not be allowed to be a deacon or elder today. An ex-convict; divisive and disruptive, etc. I tried to find it, but not in google that I could find.
Anyway, if my fictituous politician ran on the platform I layed out; they would get your vote and mine, but they wouldn't be in office.
Thanks Frank! I see where you are coming from. I would also venture to say that someone "running" for elder or deacon at 99% of our "churches" on that platform would also get "booed" off of the stage. Lol... Funny but not funny too...?? the fundamental worldview of most Christ-claiming westerners falls quite short of being biblical. The older I get, the more aware I become of just how "narrow" the narrow road is. (And BTW, I think far differently than most of my contemporaries too.??)
Christian Obedience wrote: God commands ~ 1Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. 15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: 16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. 17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. No Excuses!!
We have no king. Be that as it may, I hope you read v14 again. It's the verse in this context that lays out precisely what authority the king, and his governors have from God. Contrariwise, they have no authority from God that calls for punishment of them that do well, and praise for evildoers.
Hosea 8:4 "They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off."
Good to see you posting. I understand the dillema you are presenting with taking oaths. My thoughts regarding the presidential oath and other executive level oaths was not meant to extend into other areas of society; like marriage, etc. But, my guess is taking a marriage vow is okay according to God's laws.
What I am saying is this: All executive level politicians must take an oath to disobey the Lord. I don't see how anyone can argue that. Now if they can justify that somehow, then that is on their consciences, but they have to spin what they are actually doing. I think you are saying there is room for them to do this and not really mean what the oath is saying? They must swear to defend and support laws that are contrary to God's laws and they will say, "so help me God". The only argument they can make is the greater good concept which I am against. Or perhaps some inner thought to change laws.
There are "no strong" executive level Christian politicians IMO,according to my below thoughts.
Can anyone, and I mean anyone imagine someone "successfully" running for office and telling the voters that abortion is murder, homosexuality is an abomination, greed is idolatry and feminism in all its forms are evil and still be elected.
tb wrote: This TULIP's got no petals. I'm a zero-out-of-five point Calvinist. And I have nothing and I can do nothing apart from Jesus. PTL, He is good and His mercy endures forever.
tb is a really nasty disease.
You believe that 1. You are sinless? 2. God elects you because you are sinless? 3. Atonement is unlimited so everybody gets saved? 4. Grace is irrelevant because you resist it anyway? 5. You do not need any help from God?
I'm just going to throw this out there... because Frank's comments about governmental office oaths have caused me some thought. I do think that their are some (not many) strong christians in government positions. I think that the "checks and balances" nature of our heirarchy allows for one with a christian conscience to have some freedom to oppose something that is in disagreement to his christian conscience. As for the 'taking of the oath"... I don't know. When you get married, aren't you really entering into an oath with another person? Or when you sign a contract to buy a house or perform a job, isn't that (in effect) an oath... just less public than our national offices? Didn't the spies swear to protect Rahab? What about the Genesis account of Abraham "grabbing the thigh"? I'm not trying to be disagreeable, please don't take it as such. I'm just trying to think through this. I'm wondering if the command meant something a bit deeper: maybe that the content of your character is such that your yes really means yes and vice versa to the extent that you really don't need a legal document to prove your trustworthiness??? ...Just a few humble thoughts and questions that have crossed my mind on this topic...
Z Pike I kind of like your post about those who idolize government (different story for any idolizing Calvin, the TULIP of Dordt, the WCF)
As to the potentially volatile subject of "free will" on one hand some people make it out like man has no will/choice whatsoever (a heresy) while on the other some forget God is completely sovereign in salvation (getting into a different heresy for those who deny He is) God Himself choosing those He will do His own supernatural work (using means) to save, He Himself choosing both the when and the how of it
Some even woefully denying their part (which God has for them to do, walk in and live out) in prayer, intercession, witness, teaching, preaching, serving, being a friend to sinners, in the lives of the lost that God's will would be done in them
Imho things uneregenerate Calvinists and others don't get And likewise things in which I have so much learning and growing to do, still trusting Jesus our Lord is more than worth it, for us to be faithful and pleasing to Him (not men pleasers)
Z. Pike wrote: These Michael, are deluded idolaters who worship the world and its sinful insidious ways.
Michael Hranek wrote: there are those indeed who idolize and worhip the government (state) to their own hurt and that of others
These Michael, are deluded idolaters who worship the world and its sinful insidious ways. They are reprobates whom God has justly sent on the path to hell and damnation. False witnesses and false churches are a part of this fallen world institution and their contribution to the blindness of the worldly is to diminish and impoverish the Word of God. Thus do they deceive the gullible and play into the hands of Satan and his servants. Their deceit is to demote God and promote the sinner to a level of "election and salvation by self" ideology. In the sin of vanity and arrogance they lead sinners to believe they are not all that sinful. Their most important deceit is to delude others into thinking they have free will. This brings gullible people to even believe they are Christians who can coerce God to save them.
This is the reason why many blind and deceived people believe that Obama is a Christian. The true Christian can see he is plainly not. But the worldly wise think that he represents Christianity. To them all religion is just a matter of self conviction by human faith.
Ya, even Officer Elmer has some faults. Just yesterday I was asked if my children have had any "immunizations" and I said no and left it at that. I should have clarified that they have not had any vaccinations which is not the same as "immunizations", and then explained to the ignorant person that they are not the same. So by not saying anything I silently admitted that my children have not been given any shots to "protect them from disease" thus making me a "bad father" in her view.
Forgive me. Pray for Elmer to be truthful next time and to help the lost.
Michael Hranek wrote: able Please do not be unkind to O Elmer despite his faults Because honesty demands we face the reality that there are those indeed who idolize and worhip the government (state) to their own hurt and that of others
able wrote: Don't worry. Bible doctrines laws and precepts only apply to those who are providentially ordained to obey. The fact that you see part of the Bible (Romans 13) as a cult precludes you.
able Please do not be unkind to O Elmer despite his faults
Because honesty demands we face the reality that there are those indeed who idolize and worhip the government (state) to their own hurt and that of others
Officer Elmer wrote: Christians in the Romans 13 Cult give homage and allegiance to a false god. Believers in Jesus give homage and allegiance to Jesus alone, for he alone is God, a jealous God!
Don't worry. Bible doctrines laws and precepts only apply to those who are providentially ordained to obey.
The fact that you see part of the Bible (Romans 13) as a cult precludes you.
GSTexas wrote: John Yurich writes: If the official Republican platform is against abortion and homosexuality then what makes you think that the Republican Party is not the party of Jesus. All kinds of wicked organizations and religions are against sodomy and abortion so that doesnt prove anything. Stop lumping Christ in with a weak willed, insipid political party.
GS, I really enjoyed your comment. Jesus was not a politician and didn't align Himself with any party when He walked this earth, nor did He desire to start a political party. He said His kingdom was not of this world. The only party He will ever honor is a theocracy that will not occur until he returns and He will be in charge of it, since He is God. JohnY's comments are really silly, but they are the same as his comments regarding the RCC.
Jesus was not left wing, middle, or right wing; He was God in the flesh.
Anyway, I really enjoyed your comment and I hope your electricity outage was short lived.
John Yurich writes: If the official Republican platform is against abortion and homosexuality then what makes you think that the Republican Party is not the party of Jesus.
All kinds of wicked organizations and religions are against sodomy and abortion so that doesnt prove anything.
Stop lumping Christ in with a weak willed, insipid political party.
COMMENTS 
locked 
System Notice
