Posted on Thurs, July 19, 2012 at 12:06 p.m. (EST) and 9:36 p.m. (IST), JULY 2012 Edition
|
Home |Expressions
|Impressions
|Hotpressions |News|
Greek Life |Education
|Entertainment
|Multimedia |Sports |
Food
|CulturalLife
|Features|
Archives
|
Top 5 IMPRESSIONS 
Custom Search
|
|
“Obama Overtly Utilizing U.S. Constitution Crumbles Comparatively Concerning Christ's Commands!”
Ramesh C. Reddy
At the outset I wanted to mention that I
agree with you Ramesh that a high view of the authority of Scripture
would lead you to not
condone abortion and you would not equate a gay committed
relationship with a heterosexual marriage.
Pastor Sandeep, actually, I would not equate a homosexual
relationship whether it is same-sex union or gay marriage with a
heterosexual relationship. That said, I do believe that sexual
immorality whether it is among homosexuals or heterosexuals is a sin
and should not be promoted especially by a leader of a nation who
wants people to believe he is a Christian and professes to be a
Christian.
Obama's Opinion Of Marriage Menaces Candidly
Character
(May 14, 12, 3:54 p.m.) By
Ramesh C. Reddy
However, I also think there
is a difference between what the US Constitution holds as important
and what the Scripture holds as important.
There is definitely a difference between what the U.S. Constitution
holds as important and what the Scripture holds as important.
But, if Obama or his allies such as Judd Birdsall, etc, want us to
believe he could be an Evangelical Christian, it will reflect in the
fruit that is shown. Show me the fruit.
Obama espousing to be a follower of Christ but blatantly going
against the Word of God using the U.S. Constitution as an excuse is
a bunch of hogwash.
There were 43 presidents before President Obama and not one of them
used the U.S. Constitution as a basis for promoting gay marriage or
wanting the definition of marriage between a man and a woman to be
nullified. He is not the only lawyer who became president to think
he understands Constitutional Law better than his predecessors.
Obama wants to even repeal what the previous former Democratic
president, Bill Clinton signed into law regarding Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA) which defines marriage between a man and a
woman. DOMA gives states permission not to recognize gay marriages
in their own states when those marriages have been done in states
that have legalized it.
In all these years, since the presidency of Clinton, DOMA has not
been declared unconstitutional by any court of law. If anything more
amendments are being passed to support only marriage as defined
between a man and a woman.
For argument sake, if Obama wants to use the U.S. Constitution as
the basis to promote gay marriage, then why is he going against the
U.S. Constitution and violating the rights of Bible believing
Christians who do not want to be forced to provide insurance for
contraceptives, etc?
�Bible
Believing Organizations Opposing Obama, Ok!"� By
Ramesh C. Reddy (May 23, 12, 11:45
a.m.)
�Purge
PPACA's Baby
Body Deaths Outlawing Obama's Order!� By
Ramesh C. Reddy (May
29, 12, 7:19 p.m.) The bottom line is that Obama will do or say whatever is necessary for his reelection bid.
If Obama changed his stance on marriage basing it on polls then
what’s it to say that he is not using Christian jargon to woo
Evangelical Christians knowing his reelection could hinge on the
Evangelical Christian base?
"What does it mean to
remain in the V.I.N.E always?" By
Ramesh C. Reddy (July
18, 12, 10:13 a.m.)
Of course, we
know that Christ's standards are higher than the US constitution and
I believe there is no way we can make Christ's standard the same as
the US Constitution. In fact even if try we will be merely doing
what the Pharisees did. If Obama professes to be a Christian, then he would understand that Christ’s standards are higher than the U.S. Constitution. He has a choice whether to follow God’s Word with the policies he makes or follow after man’s own heart with the policies he makes. Following man’s own heart can be likened to the Pharisees who wanted tradition and their own laws to take paramount over God’s laws. Jesus was not for what the Pharisees did. “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.” And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.” (Mark 7:6b-13) Jesus would not want ‘rules taught by men’ to be put over the commands of God. Rules taught by men is like Obama putting the U.S. Constitution over commands of God which should put Christ and His teachings first.
“Even
their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In
the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and
were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts
with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their
perversion. Furthermore,
since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of
God, he gave them over to
a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.” (Romans 1:26-28)
“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of
God? Do
not be deceived: Neither
the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor
male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor
thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will
inherit the kingdom of God. And
that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you
were sanctified, you
were justified in
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
(1 Corinthians 6:9-11)
If Obama is serious about his faith, then his heart would ache and
break for the things of God instead of focusing on how to get rid of
the Defense of Marriage Act, how to promote gay marriage on a larger
scale, how to support the Pro-Choice movement, etc.
We as Christians hold to the
values of the Kingdom of God and these are values that come from a
transformed heart.
Pastor Sandeep, I totally agree with you that we as Christians hold
to the values of the Kingdom of God and these are values that come
from a transformed heart.
Is promoting gay marriage, abortion on demand, etc from Obama come
from a transformed heart?
That said, it really bothered me when you highly recommended Judd
Birdsall’s article regarding Obama, almost implicitly to say that it
is okay for pastors to support Obama.
It was also troubling for me in 2008 when certain pastors supported Obama
and it is still troubling now to hear pastors that support Obama
looking past issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc.
So we as Christians should be focusing
all of our energy on sharing the Gospel and making place for God to
transform hearts rather than take the easy way out to make the world
a better place by legislating morality.
Pastor Sandeep, would you say it would have
been okay for any Christian to stay silent without fighting for the
ban on Sati, the traditional Indian (Hindu) practice of a widow
immolating herself on her husband's funeral pyre?
Would it be justified to use the excuse that a Christian should not
use God’s Word to interfere with their ‘rules taught by men’ but
just preach the Gospel to them? Knowing you, you would say it is totally okay for a Christian to fight for the ban on Sati because God’s Word is against it, for it dehumanizes widows. You would have a problem with the Indian government or court system that acquitted those guilty of Sati. So, why don't you have a problem with Obama supporting abortion or gay marriage to endorse an article by Judd Birdsall?
Hundreds of years ago, Christians did not remain silent thinking to
themselves we cannot legislate morality in a Hindu culture, for it
has to come from transformed hearts when this practice of Sati was
widespread in India.
On the contrary, William Carey, a bishop
missionary to India, relentlessly fought against Sati.
Carey’s
relentless battle against Sati for 25 years led to the famous Edict
in 1829 banning widow burning.
Imagine what would have happened if missionaries like Carey thought
to themselves: ‘so
we as Christians should be focusing
all of our energy on sharing the Gospel and making place for God to
transform hearts rather than take the easy way out to make the world
a better place by legislating morality?’
Sati would have probably still continued on a larger scale. The
abolishing of Sati system is one of the greatest contributions of
Christian missionaries in India.
Yes, sharing the Gospel should be paramount but that does not mean
we as Christians should stay silent on issues of morality. Both
should be done! I believe that effort does not mean much in God's eyes because the story of the New Covenant is that the Old Covenant did not work and Christ had to do a new thing to make people internalize what was written externally on stone. Pastor Sandeep, I don’t think God would have been upset with William Carey for working 25 years to legislate morality especially in the case of Sati. Actually, God expects His children not to remain silent when there is injustice being done. "Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?" (Proverbs 24:11-12, NIV)
Legislating morality is important and that is why we have them in
law books to be followed otherwise there will be a penalty.
Why cannot you walk naked
on the streets?
Why is it illegal to show
pornography to children?
"Carnegie Library
corrupts the morals of a minor!" By Ramesh C. Reddy
(June 01, 2005)
"Why was DOMA passed in the
legislative branch and signed by former president Bill Clinton?
All these things
were legislated on moral grounds! These are just 3 examples.
I think as pastors
or layperson’s, we do a great injustice when we tell Christians it is
not our place to legislate morality but just sharing the Gospel.
It should be every
Christian’s responsibility to speak out against immorality and fight
for laws that legislate morality. Without morality being legislated,
there will be anarchy and lawlessness to a higher degree.
This is not to say
if morality is legislated, no one would commit immoral acts in those
specific areas where it has been legislated. But, we send the
message that there are moral laws for a reason and the ultimate
reason is because God wants those followed. When people realize that
they cannot follow those laws and there is a penalty for not
following them, they will come to realize that only through Christ’s
help can they follow moral laws by walking in the Spirit so they do
not fulfill the lust of the flesh.
Having said that if we are going to view the
qualification for being the President of the United States as having
a high view of the authority of
the Bible, we have to hold everybody to the same standard.
Obama is claiming to be a Christian so if he claims to be a
Christian then Evangelical voters should expect him to have a high
view of the authority of the Bible to give their vote to him. For
most Evangelical Christians, his actions do not match his faith. His
fruit does not match his faith.
Hence, they have every right to oppose him from being reelected
because he is not staying true to the Word of God especially in the
area of abortion and homosexuality which are also moral issues.
Do
not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it
says. Anyone
who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man
who looks at his face in a mirror and,
after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he
looks like. But
the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and
continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing
it—he will be blessed in what he does.
(James 1:22-25)
Obama had an awesome opportunity these past 4 years to show what a
presidency based on biblical principles looks like when he claimed
to be a Christian but he did not.
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good
fruit. Every
tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the
fire. Thus,
by their fruit you will recognize them.”
(Matthew 7:18-20)
I personally find it deeply unfair that Obama
is judged to have a low view of
Scripture because of his stand on abortion and gay marriage but
Romney gets a free pass when the fact is that as a Mormon bishop he
has a lower view of the Bible than Obama.
Regarding, ‘we have to hold everybody to the same standard’, Romney
never claimed to be a Christian nor did he decide to become a
Christian for the sake of political expediency. But, Obama
disregarded his own faith's teachings to promote gay marriage, going against what
he himself had stated and believed.
President Obama's initial reason for being against gay marriage was
because of his religious beliefs in what the Bible says regarding
marriage:
'But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be
united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are
no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined
together, let no one separate.' (Mark 10:6-9, NLT)
Prior to publicly supporting same-sex marriage, Obama officially
stated that he and his religion personally define marriage as
"between a man and a woman"
Mormons hold the Bible is flawed and has many mistakes
just as Muslims do and both Muslims and Mormons have their own
respective sacred scripture that they place above the Bible. I find
it deeply disturbing that many Republicans seem to be ignoring this
fact. Again, Romney never claimed to be a Christian as Obama has, so of course Obama will be held to a higher standard. Obama has tasted the truth and gone man’s way to promote gay marriage, etc. Obama has certainly fallen away from what he originally held as truth regarding marriage.
What do you think
Hebrews 6:4-6: "It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who
have tasted the heavenly gift, who
have shared in the Holy Spirit, who
have tasted the goodness of
the word of God and
the powers of the coming age, if
they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to
their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all
over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.”
would mean to Obama?
It was not Romney who claimed to be enlightened by the Truth but
Obama. I don’t see any issue with Republicans wanting to support a
Mormon bishop who is Pro-Life and Pro-Marriage for a presidential
candidate.
Obama claims to be a Christian and does not hold to Christian
principles while Romney never claimed to be a Christian and yet
holds to Christian principles of Pro-Life and Pro-Marriage. That is
why many Evangelical Christians are supporting Romney over Obama. Personally, as an Evangelical Christian, I am not a Romney fan but compared to Obama, I choose Romney. I am wholeheartedly a Rick Santorum fan and totally agree with Santorum that Romney needs to pick a Pro-Life VP candidate without any negotiations.
History of the Republican party would show that they are not just
comprised of Evangelical Christians but of Muslims, Jews, etc who
hold conservative values especially in the area of Pro-Life and
Pro-Marriage issues. Jesus said, I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.”(Luke 4:24-27)
So, I find it not troubling at all that Evangelical Christians and
Republicans would be willing to vote for Romney, a Mormon over
Obama, who claims to be a Christian but the fruit of his actions
especially in areas of being Pro-Life for the unborn and
Pro-Marriage show, he goes against Christian principles.
I also find it unfair that despite Obama's
many open very honest portrayals of his faith journey and even
starting a new tradition in the white House of having an Easter
Prayer breakfast many Christians and Republicans that I know off
continue to call him a Communist and a Muslim.
Something in me wants to speak out against
this unfairness even though I do not and will not endorse any
political party because I
believe that both parties do things that are totally against the
values of the Kingdom of God.
No candidate is perfect but as a registered independent, I choose to
vote for a candidate that is Pro-Life and Pro-Marriage. It troubles
me very much when people like Judd Birdsall want to portray Obama as
an Evangelical Christian to woo the Evangelical vote. They will not
fall for it as long as Romney’s views are in line with their views
of morality in areas such as abortion and homosexuality especially.
|
Reddy's Right Rhetoric: “Obama Offered Evangelical Entitlement Wrongly With Birdsall’s Blessing!” By Ramesh C. Reddy (June 25, 12, 10:02 a.m.) "Rainbow's Registered Trademark Trampled Promoting PrideFest’s Parade Promiscuously!” By Ramesh C. Reddy (June 14, 12, 11:51 a.m.) “Purge PPACA's Baby Body Deaths Outlawing Obama's Order!” By Ramesh C. Reddy (May 29, 12, 7:19 p.m.) “Bible Believing Organizations Opposing Obama, Ok!"” By Ramesh C. Reddy (May 23, 12, 11:45 a.m.) “Obama's Opinion Of Marriage Menaces Candidly Character!” (May 14, 12, 3:54 p.m.) By Ramesh C. Reddy
|
It is because marriage is defined as a sacred union between
man and woman.
Copyright 2012 Pittsburgh Standard
Reproduction or reuse for profit prohibited without written consent from
Pittsburgh Standard