According to a report on Yahoo, here are the statements by Barak Obama to which Dr. James Dobson, M.D., objects to:

""Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if w expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?" Obama said. "Would we go with James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's?" referring to the civil rights leader.

Dobson took aim at examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy — chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application."

"Folks haven't been reading their Bibles," Obama said.

So, which passages of the Bible are normative for Christian ethics: Leviticus, or Matthew and Luke?

The New Testament commands disciples, in James 5:16, "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much."  Catholics do this to a priest, and priests confess their sins to other priests, but Protestants believe that all Christians are saints and priests.

In Matthew 18:15, Jesus commands us what to do: "If your brother sins against you,[a] go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.
Footnote [a]: Some manuscripts do not have against you.

Our administrator, Donald Baker, has pointed out that most 'demands for apologies' are vengeful in nature, trying to publicly retaliate and force a confession in order to 'get even,' and I agree that's often the case.

Years ago, Bill Gaither taught in Basic Youth Conflicts that there is a proper way to confess one's sin against another person.  Without mentioning anything wrong that the other person did, you just go to them, admit your own sin by naming the offense, and beg for forgiveness, not even expecting to receive forgiveness.  Good advice.

Humans are terrible at confessions.  Sometimes the most that a politician will admit, when he's been caught red-handed with his hand in the cookie jar, is little more than "Mistakes were made," or his spokesperson will admit, "Some prior statements are now inoperative." 

Is there something about internet forums where we think the Scriptural commands to love our brothers and our enemies, to confess our sins, and to treat other humanoids with respect, have been suspended?  I think not, but I'm often wrong.  And surely, I'm guilty of violating those commands on this forum, and I apologize.

 

Donald Baker has quoted this Scripture several times: "12 "Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"....which is part of I Corinthians 6:12, which then concludes, "—but I will not be mastered by anything."

What does that mean?  The NIV translation, above, puts certain critical phrases in quotations, with this footnote: "Paul is quoting some in the Corinthian congregation who boasted that they had a right to do anything they pleased (see verse 13, and I Cor 7:1 and I Cor 10:23).  The apoostle counters by observing that such 'freedom' of action may not benefit the Christian...."

For example, let's say there's something in New Testament Scripture that is clearly commanded.  Of course, my favorites would include "Love your enemies" and "Live at peace with all men" "peace....against such, there is no law."  Therefore, not everything is permissible, is it? 

Consider the context, which is I Corinthians 6, about sexual immorality.  Yes, I know that chapter includes some strange condemnation against raping slaves, or something else unclear (don't rape slaves, however!).   Surely Paul is not telling the Corinthians (who lived in one of the most immoral cities of that age) that it's permissible to commit all kinds of sexual sins.

What is Paul permitting?  Donald, I have never understood how you apply this verse, especially when you think it's okay to not be a pacifist, and that I am 'unequally yoked' to extreme pacifism when you are unyoked to a gunslinging mindset...

I don't know what you mean by your use of this snippet from I Corinthians 6, Donald.  Can you interpret that passage, preferably using the conservative Southern Baptist methods of literal interpretation?  Thanks.  Just kidding about gunslinging.... . 

Only today have I read this article that I truly consider to be heretical and abominable, as well as ignorant. 

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36859

First, Falwell starts with an Old Testament Scripture and applies it wrongly, doesn't even see the simplest literal difference within the text (and I think the late Jerry Falwell always claimed to be a literalist).  Note that while verses 2 to 8a use verb forms (to be born, to die, to plant, to refrain, etc.), verse 8b switches to a prepositional phrase: a time OF war and a time OF peace.  Did Falwell, with his honorary doctorate and his exalted position at a Christian uni or seminary, notice it?  No, I'll bet he never noticed it. That method of exegesis is not of Jesus.

Further, it's likely that Falwell was a dispensationalist, or at least that like most of us, he believed that these 'time..times...times..' can refer to different eras, epochs, or dispensations in history, when the rules and circumstances change drastically.

Further, you can see that Falwell is confused about nation and faith, as if the USA is a Christian fundamentalist theocracy.  As another responder to this article pointed out, was God pro-war during the War of the Spanish Succession, or the Boer War, or the War of the Roses?  Which argument of Falwell's here would have been used by the chaplains of Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh?

Here's a pivotal point in Falwell's essay where he takes a leap of ignorance: "However, if one depends on the Bible as a guidepost for living, it is readily apparent that war is sometimes a necessary option."  Well, yes, sometimes when Israel was a theocracy, before Saul was king, before the Judges couldn't control the warring tribes - yes, then God was the leading general of genocide, and faithful Israelites were supposed to kill every man that pisseth against the wall (literal translation by King James Version). However, the religion of shalom went on to a 2,500 period of almost perfect pacifism in practice!  That was not a violent religion, that Jewish religion, until about 1900 AD, when they got greedy for real estate again.   

As he goes on, Falwell makes the common error of not even knowing what our job is.  Christians are not commanded to do all of God's work, such as vengeance/revenge.  We are not supposed to wield any metal sword since Jesus told Peter as the first example, "Basta!  Put that sword away!"  I am using the Spanish basta in the sense of "too much already; no more!"

Falwell erroneously applies the fact that Jesus comes back in both Revelation 1 and 19, and out of the mouth of Jesus comes a sharp two edged sword with which Jesus smites the earth/heathen.  The Word of God (which Jesus is) is sharper than any two edged sword.  If Jesus wishes to make a genocide of heathen that makes the Nazi Holocaust look like a picnic, that's His job, not yours and mine.  His command "occupy till I come" did not mean "kill till I come."    Note that Falwell, like most Christian warmongers, starts by mentioning that peace is a divine imperative, and then spends the rest of the sermon telling us that here and now, we have to kill those cursed enemies.  Contradictory!

One paragraph merely states what Falwell considers to be the obvious: "It is apparent that our God-authored freedoms must be defended."  Who is he addressing: Muslims in the Sudan, Christians in Rwanda, Christians in Iraq, Germans in Nazi Germany?  Of course, this deceased American preacher was addressing patriotic American Christians in the USA, and it was apparent to him then (January 2004) that 'we' had to go kill Muslims in Iraq in order to defend...what, the Bible?  No, for His sake we are slaughtered all the day long.  To defend what, American capitalism and imperialism and oil control?  Oh, our freedoms, that must be what we defend..........but guess what - the Bill of Rights is secular, not sacred!  We don't live in a theocracy for which God commands us to kill.

Sorry for the diatribe here, but Jesus does not currently command His disciples to go murder or kill for the USA or for Nazi Germany or Rwanda.  God commands us to teach all Christians to obey all things whatsoever....JESUS commanded us to do.  Those are our 'marching orders,' so to speak, and I hope you understand that the only true Gospel is.........the gospel of peace.  Blessed upon the mountain are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace.  To which we might add, "cursed in the gutter be the feet of those who preach a false gospel of war."  Now, if you think I'm preaching a false gospel, please prove it by showing that the true gospel commands us to kill and murder.  Thank you, God bless you, etc. 

Today's sermon and lectionary reading were from Luke 15, about the prodigal son.  When preaching it, the pastor always has to decide who the bad guy is (and not enough, in my opinion, about who the good guy is).

We know the Pharisees thought the tax collectors and Jesus' other dinner guests were the bad guys.  Sometimes we accuse the Pharisees of being the bad guys, although in some respects, we are the Pharisees, today.  Of course, the prodigal son was very bad.  Was his father a bad father?

Of course, it seems everybody wants to beat up on the elder son, who stayed at home and was obedient.  However, I found another place where Jesus says a servant should not be overly praised for merely doing his job (obedience).

Was the prodigal son finally good to repent, and did he truly repent?  Was the father good/righteous to forgive, and to love his younger son?  Was the elder son good to be obedient, and not out of line to say, "Hey Dad, what do I get for being a good boy?"

We've already covered a couple of topics, so let me throw a few more subjects out, for us to consider, if we wish:

Sex outside of marriage
Euthaniasia (mercy killing)
The wickedness of the tongue; gossip; slander; libel
Collateral damage in warfare
Social justice issues: economic inequalities; treatment of the poor by Christians
Prejudice: racial, social, religious, economic
Masturbation, adultery in the heart
Christian involvement in politics
Little white lies
Hateful thoughts toward other people

We've joked about 'stirring the pot' with issues, and we don't want these discussions to injure our fellowship.  On which of these would you like to start a topic?