Obama, Bill Ayres, Praying for Authorities and Luther's Explanation of the 8th

Started by anonymous, November 14, 2008, 10:22:20 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

jrubyaz


Please. I did not equate anyone with Jesus, including the PE. My point is that instead of condemning sinners Jesus ate with them and shared the presence of God with them.

Jeff Ruby   

Quote from: Rev. Matthew J. Uttenreither on November 15, 2008, 01:59:07 PM
Quote from: swbohler on November 15, 2008, 12:53:56 PM
"He (Jesus) partied at the homes of tax collectors and sinners."  I am more than a little put off by the thought of Jesus as a "party guy".

Agreed,  Jesus sat and ate with sinners in need of his saving presence.  To equate Obama with Jesus which Richard and Jeff are doing is laughable.  Obama sits and eats with unrepentant terrorists, anti-semites, and a guy who bought him a house and property at a low, low price who was later thrown in jail.

jrubyaz

Not a "party guy", but the wedding at Cana was probably a six or seven day event, as well as numerous other banquets he attended. Why is it offensive that "Jesus partied?". I think our Lord had a sense of humor, probably much more of one than his followers often have.

As was said of Calvin Coolidge, many Christians act as if their personalities were so sour they  were weaned on a sour pickle.  Jesus went to parties, laughed, cried,  probably drank wine within limits (besides passover),  and had a  good time. So should we.   ;)

Jeff Ruby   

Quote from: swbohler on November 15, 2008, 12:53:56 PM
"He (Jesus) partied at the homes of tax collectors and sinners."  I am more than a little put off by the thought of Jesus as a "party guy".

swbohler

The text cited (Mark 2:16) does not say that Jesus "partied".  It says He ate and drank with sinners. I have no problem with the idea of Jesus laughing and having a good time.  But, in my experience (which is perhaps not the same as the author of the above post), to "party" implies more. 

Richard Johnson

Quote from: swbohler on November 15, 2008, 07:23:13 PM
But, in my experience (which is perhaps not the same as the author of the above post), to "party" implies more. 

Is that a confession?  :o
The Rev. Richard O. Johnson, STS

jrubyaz

Well, I still stand on my use of the word, from the Dictionary, two definitions:

"A social gathering especially for pleasure or amusement".

"A group of people who have gathered to participate in an activity."

Seems like both may apply?   ???

But I can see the negative connotation. It could be a matter of semantics.

And I don't want to be anti-semantic.  ;)

Jeff Ruby

Quote from: swbohler on November 15, 2008, 07:23:13 PM
The text cited (Mark 2:16) does not say that Jesus "partied".  It says He ate and drank with sinners. I have no problem with the idea of Jesus laughing and having a good time.  But, in my experience (which is perhaps not the same as the author of the above post), to "party" implies more. 

grabau14

Please!!!!!

Jeff and Richard equated Christ who ate (had table fellowship) with sinners in need of him with Obama who assoicates with men who wouldn't allow him (Obama) to pass a background check.  Pr. Johnson can pull the Mark card all he wants but it still doesn't validate his vote (and yours Jeff) for a man who sets the pro-life movement back decades.

Obama sat and ate with men who hate Jews as well as men who wish that they could have killed more police officers.  He makes Clinton look like the model President.

You voted for a man who on four occassions stated that it was OK to withhold medical care for children born of botched abortions. 

Reasonable Christian people can disagree concerning war and Gitmo; we shouldn't concerning abortion and infanticide.

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Rev. Matthew J. Uttenreither on November 15, 2008, 08:59:01 PM
Reasonable Christian people can disagree concerning war and Gitmo; we shouldn't concerning abortion and infanticide.
But we do.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

jrubyaz

Matthew,

My point was not equating the President-elect with Christ, it was saying we can either ignore sinners and cast stones at them or engage them with the Good News .  It means associating with sinners is what Christ did, and what would we should do, without condoning their behavior.iI also have made the point at numerous times that Christians should not be engaging in "guilt by association". In addition to bearing false witness, it is not putting on a charitable construction, which scripture calls us to do in all things.  Do we condemn a person by the company they keep? What if they are sharing the Good News? Being an evangelist? Answering a question a sinner has?

As stated much more eloquently by Dr. Root, there were many issues at hand in this election. I am not going to rehash them all here.

And didn't Martin Luther say that "I would rather be ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian? " Of course, the PE is a Christian, false witness to the contrary, but even if he wasn't, and was voted in, wouldn't that cause you some pause with your litmus test for President?  Gen Colin Powell, which most Americans deeply respect, said he changed his mind when the fearmongers were saying Sen Obama was a Muslim. He had just read a story about a young AMERICAN who was Muslim who died for his country in Iraq. His point, in countering the extreme right, was "So what if Sen Obama was Muslim? Or Jewish? This is AMERICA

It also seems MANY more "reasonable people", some Christian and some not, voted on the basis of a number of issues, not one. I respect your right to have voted on one issue. Please respect mine to have looked at a number of issues, and don't put words in my mouth.

Jeff Ruby


Quote from: Rev. Matthew J. Uttenreither on November 15, 2008, 08:59:01 PM
Please!!!!!

Jeff and Richard equated Christ who ate (had table fellowship) with sinners in need of him with Obama who assoicates with men who wouldn't allow him (Obama) to pass a background check.  Pr. Johnson can pull the Mark card all he wants but it still doesn't validate his vote (and yours Jeff) for a man who sets the pro-life movement back decades.

Obama sat and ate with men who hate Jews as well as men who wish that they could have killed more police officers.  He makes Clinton look like the model President.

You voted for a man who on four occassions stated that it was OK to withhold medical care for children born of botched abortions. 

Reasonable Christian people can disagree concerning war and Gitmo; we shouldn't concerning abortion and infanticide.

Richard Johnson

Quote from: jrubyaz on November 15, 2008, 11:31:24 PM


And didn't Martin Luther say that "I would rather be ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian? "
Jeff Ruby

Actually, probably not.
At least no one seems to be able to cite where he might have said it.
The Rev. Richard O. Johnson, STS

Richard Johnson

Quote from: Rev. Matthew J. Uttenreither on November 15, 2008, 08:59:01 PM
Please!!!!!

Jeff and Richard equated Christ who ate (had table fellowship) with sinners in need of him with Obama who assoicates with men who wouldn't allow him (Obama) to pass a background check.  Pr. Johnson can pull the Mark card all he wants but it still doesn't validate his vote (and yours Jeff) for a man who sets the pro-life movement back decades.


Please!!!!! yourself. I did not do any such thing, as I have already pointed out. My playing the Mark card (which, of course, could equally have been the Matthew or Luke card, since this idea of Jesus associating with sinners seems to be pretty much across the synoptic board) was not in the context of President-elect Obama, but in the context of my friendship with a convicted murderer. I'm astonished at your inability to go back and read the post for yourself. Well, maybe not.
The Rev. Richard O. Johnson, STS

Lutheran_Lay_Leader

Quote from: jrubyaz on November 15, 2008, 11:31:24 PM
My point was not equating the President-elect with Christ, it was saying we can either ignore sinners and cast stones at them or engage them with the Good News .  It means associating with sinners is what Christ did, and what would we should do, without condoning their behavior.iI also have made the point at numerous times that Christians should not be engaging in "guilt by association". In addition to bearing false witness, it is not putting on a charitable construction, which scripture calls us to do in all things.  Do we condemn a person by the company they keep? What if they are sharing the Good News? Being an evangelist? Answering a question a sinner has?

Is there any evidence to suggest that Obama was associating with Ayres for the purpose of encouraging Ayres to turn from his radical ways? The concept of "guilt by association" refers not to just spending time with someone, but the nature of activities conducted during that time spent together. It is one thing to spend time in the same room at a public gathering with someone. It is another thing to work together on mutual projects. It is another to associate with someone in an attempt to assist the other in learning the Good News. It is another to associate with another to learn from the other as a student.

So, to answer your question, we do not condemn a person by the company they keep. But we can (and should) evaluate their fitness for service in a specific job using the nature of their interaction with others as one valid point of consideration.

I think many people need to be more mindful of the difference between "judging", in the Biblical sense, and "evaluating suitability" in an employment interview sense. When a congregation deliberates on whether or not a candidate to become their pastor is suitable or not, is that "judging" the candidate? Or is that simply "evaluating" their fitness for a specific office?

When I was a delegate at the Synod Assembly where we selected a new Bishop, was I "judging" the candidates in the sense of "judge not lest I be judged"? Or was I simply evaluating which candidate's qualifications were a better match for the position?

pterandon

Quote from: Rev. Matthew J. Uttenreither on November 15, 2008, 08:59:01 PMYou voted for a man who on four occassions stated that it was OK to withhold medical care for children born of botched abortions. 

Reasonable Christian people can disagree concerning war and Gitmo; we shouldn't concerning abortion and infanticide.

In the debate, Obama stated that children born of botched abortions were already protected by the law.   8th.

To take two great outrages against the dignity of the human person (torture and abortion) and posit just one of them as something that perfectly reasonable people can disagree on, is, in itself, an analysis distorted by political partisanship. 



jrubyaz


I don't disagree there are different ways to spend time together. The hermeneutic of suspicion places the friendship of Ayers and the President-elect as plotting against America or being terrorists.  I reject that. It is not charitable. It is also bearing false witness.

I don't believe in a hermeneutic of suspicion, and that is not how we should live as Christians.

Second, the American people already decided that any concern about this was minor next to the larger issues of who is fit to lead and carry our nation forward.

Third, it seems Jesus spent more time with sinners than the religious folk . Maybe we should do likewise.

Last, no ONE has ever answered my comment about McCain. If we are going to keep bringing up the mud about Ayers, what about Keating? Is Sen McCain a criminal?  Evaluate that.


Jeff Ruby     

Quote from: G. Erdner, a Layman on November 16, 2008, 07:16:26 AM
Quote from: jrubyaz on November 15, 2008, 11:31:24 PM


My point was not equating the President-elect with Christ, it was saying we can either ignore sinners and cast stones at them or engage them with the Good News .  It means associating with sinners is what Christ did, and what would we should do, without condoning their behavior.iI also have made the point at numerous times that Christians should not be engaging in "guilt by association". In addition to bearing false witness, it is not putting on a charitable construction, which scripture calls us to do in all things.  Do we condemn a person by the company they keep? What if they are sharing the Good News? Being an evangelist? Answering a question a sinner has?

Is there any evidence to suggest that Obama was associating with Ayres for the purpose of encouraging Ayres to turn from his radical ways? The concept of "guilt by association" refers not to just spending time with someone, but the nature of activities conducted during that time spent together. It is one thing to spend time in the same room at a public gathering with someone. It is another thing to work together on mutual projects. It is another to associate with someone in an attempt to assist the other in learning the Good News. It is another to associate with another to learn from the other as a student.

So, to answer your question, we do not condemn a person by the company they keep. But we can (and should) evaluate their fitness for service in a specific job using the nature of their interaction with others as one valid point of consideration.

I think many people need to be more mindful of the difference between "judging", in the Biblical sense, and "evaluating suitability" in an employment interview sense. When a congregation deliberates on whether or not a candidate to become their pastor is suitable or not, is that "judging" the candidate? Or is that simply "evaluating" their fitness for a specific office?

When I was a delegate at the Synod Assembly where we selected a new Bishop, was I "judging" the candidates in the sense of "judge not lest I be judged"? Or was I simply evaluating which candidate's qualifications were a better match for the position?


Dadoo

Quote from: jrubyaz on November 16, 2008, 08:24:02 AM

I don't disagree there are different ways to spend time together. The hermeneutic of suspicion places the friendship of Ayers and the President-elect as plotting against America or being terrorists.  I reject that. It is not charitable. It is also bearing false witness.

I don't believe in a hermeneutic of suspicion, and that is not how we should live as Christians.

Second, the American people already decided that any concern about this was minor next to the larger issues of who is fit to lead and carry our nation forward.

Third, it seems Jesus spent more time with sinners than the religious folk . Maybe we should do likewise.

Last, no ONE has ever answered my comment about McCain. If we are going to keep bringing up the mud about Ayers, what about Keating? Is Sen McCain a criminal?  Evaluate that.


Jeff Ruby     


Properly speaking, a Hermeneutic of Suspicion poses that all speech, interpretation of scripture and time, in short all intellectual activity is done by individuals and classes in order to gain or maintain power.  Just about all that any candidate says during a campaign should therefore fall under suspicion.  That would include both Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama.  As far as his associations with Ayers are concerned.   I care little that he had felonious friends.  But if Ayers was truly a friend then Sen. Obama's subsequent description of their relationship was dishonest.  A similar argument can be made concerning Sen. McCain's dealings with Keating. 
Peter Kruse

Diversity and tolerance are very complex concepts. Rigid conformity is needed to ensure their full realization. - Mike Adams

Gary Schnitkey

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on November 15, 2008, 11:20:00 PM
Quote from: Rev. Matthew J. Uttenreither on November 15, 2008, 08:59:01 PM
Reasonable Christian people can disagree concerning war and Gitmo; we shouldn't concerning abortion and infanticide.
But we do.

I don't know of any "Christian" argument that supports unlimited abortion.  I also note that a wide range of Christian church bodies from the Roman Catholics to evangelical Christian to fundamentalist Christian oppose unlimited abortion.  About the only ones that support abortion are the old-line liberal protestant organizations, but in these cases it seems to be because majorities of their voters support it rather than because of underlying Christian principles.

If you can make an argument for allowing unlimited abortion from a Christian perspective, I would like to hear it (I mean that sincerely.) 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk