OLAADEGBU:

Yes, and even if you are born in a garage does not automatically turn you into a car. The fact that your name is John, Matthew, Mark, Luke or Paul does not mean that you are a Christian.



The fact that Obama claimed to be a Christian doesn't even mean you are one especially if your works, policies and speeches are not congruent or consistent with your profession.



What you need is a new life in Christ and not just a label. You need to live the life, light and love of Christ as is revealed in the New Testament.

"Therefore if any man be in Christ he is a new creature, old things are passed away; behold all things are become new" (2 Cor. 5:17).

Pastor AIO:

Yet you would deny Obama this grace demanding that his status must be determined 'of himself'.

Pastor AIO:

I'm sorry I didn't get back to you, as you well know I got distracted with matters concerning the first amendment of the US constitution I don't quite understand what you mean by 'the thread of continuity in the Bible'.

Pastor AIO:

On the issue of Abortion: What should a christian doctor do in such a case, and this happens often enough, as that where a woman is undergoing a life threatening childbirth and the choice needs to be made between saving the life of the baby or saving the life of the mother?

dorox: @Olaadegbu: going by the broadest definition of a christian, Obama is as qualified as you are to be called a christian, but when we apply the very strict and narrow definition, it becomes very hard if not impossible for two or more group of people to agree on who can be called a christian due to the high degree of subjectivity involved in making such determination. E.g a member of the church of christ would not attend your church because he might not think you measure up to his standard. Similarly you would not attend jehovah's witness church because you don't think that they are christian since the do not accept the trinity doctrine that you hold so dear and the reverse applies to jw's as well. So too the 7th day adventist do not see you as a christian for your failure in observing the proper sabbath. I could go on and on but you get the point.
So next to you accuse someone of not being a christian know that some other people myself inclided do not think that you are a christian going by the very strict definition. You are an uncompasionate blood sucking tithe preaching pharisee.

Ptolomeus:
You and I are saying the same thing.
Being born in a garden does not mean being a pumpkin.
The president of Nigeria (and Uruguay), can be a very good president. It can also be a very bad president ...
BUT IS THE PRESIDENT.

A pastor can be excellent (I have pastor friends) or may be a pedop.hile, a thief and a scoundrel tithe, but a pastor!

Obama is not a good Christian.
Obama is a bad Christian.
But Obama is a Christian.
Although many do not like that.

My respects friend Olaa!

OLAADEGBU:

Being a Christian in short, means to be born again. There is nothing like a Christian thief or a Christian adulterer. You cannot say that no to Him and still have Him as your Lord. It should be yes, Lord. No and Lord are both mutually exclusive.

Ptolomeus:

Exactly.
If the condition of thief or adultere does not problem to be a Christian, his status as a torturer and murderer of innocent women and children, that does not prohibit to Obama being a Christian.
Obama, then, is Christian by conviction and because the Bible and accept it.

OLAADEGBU:

You have to be a Christian in order for you to know one, are you a Christian? If not why not?

Ptolomeus:

friend
To comment on Obama I must be Christian or Islamic or atheist?
I think you're going from the central theme. You're not answering my questions.
Obama may be a bad Christian, I agree with you.
But Obama is a Christian and nobody can deny!

OLAADEGBU:

James, the Lord's brother, said it all. "Even so faith, if it has not works, is dead, being alone" (James 2:17).

If Obama has not trusted in Jesus Christ enough to affect his policies and convictions which are contrary to the doctrines of Christ.



What I meant was that you should tell me what was the consistent theme that ran through the Bible, that is, from the OT through to the NT?

OLAADEGBU:

Anybody can comment on Obama, but to know who a Christian is you have to be one.

Separation of Church and State - The Metaphor and the Constitution

"Separation of church and state" is a common metaphor that is well recognized. Equally well recognized is the metaphorical meaning of the church staying out of the state's business and the state staying out of the church's business. Because of the very common usage of the "separation of church and state phrase," most people incorrectly think the phrase is in the constitution. The phrase "wall of separation between the church and the state" was originally coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business.

The constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion. No restrictions are placed on religions except perhaps that a religious denomination cannot become the state religion.

However, currently the implied common meaning and the use of the metaphor is strictly for the church staying out of the state's business. The opposite meaning essentially cannot be found in the media, the judiciary, or in public debate and is not any part of the agenda of the ACLU or the judiciary.

This, in conjunction with several other factors, makes the "separation of church and state" metaphor an icon for eliminating anything having to do with Christian theism, the religion of our heritage, in the public arena. One of these factors is the use of the metaphor in place of the actual words of the constitution in discourse and debate. This allows the true meaning of the words in the constitution to be effectively changed to the implied meaning of the metaphor and the effect of the "free exercise" clause to be obviated. Another factor facilitating the icon to censor all forms of Christian theism in the public arena is a complete misunderstanding of the "establishment" clause.

Separation of Church and State - The Establishment Clause in Context

In addition to the "Separation of Church and State" metaphor misrepresenting the words of the establishment clause, the true meaning of the establishment clause is also misrepresented. The "establishment" clause states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." Before these words can be put in context and the true meaning of the clause can be correctly identified, we need to examine the word "religion" and put it in America's historical context at the time the constitution was framed. In addition, we need to examine the previous European historical background of the founders of our country to identify what specifically motivated them to place the "establishment" clause in the constitution.

To accomplish this, we need to add more specificity to the word "religion" to clarify both the American and European historical backgrounds and put the word "religion" in proper context. We need to delineate between doctrinal and denominational religion. We also need to understand that the doctrinal religion being discussed is Christian Theism, which is defined by a belief in the Bible. We know what specific Christian denominational religions are.

Separation of Church and State - Constitution Framers Historical Context

The "Separation of Church and State" metaphor blurs the distinction between a doctrinal religion and a denominational religion. This places the doctrinal religion we have embraced in the same basket as an organized denominational religion with potential to merge with the state. The documentary evidence of the doctrinal Christian religion origin of this nation is voluminous. The Supreme Court thoroughly studied this issue, and in 1892 gave what is known as the Trinity Decision. In that decision the Supreme Court declared, "this is a Christian nation." John Quincy Adams said, "The highest glory of the American Revolution was, it connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." The founders were definitely Christian for the most part. At least 90 to 95 percentage of them were practicing, Trinitarian Christians. This and the additional supporting evidence below show conclusively that the concern that motivated the framers to include the establishment clause in the constitution was definitely not fear of the doctrinal religion of Christian Theism. It was understood that Christian Theism was the default state doctrinal religion. As opposed to being something to fear, it was something believed to be vital to the success of our government. Consequently, the framers feared a state denominational religion not a state doctrinal religion! Some additional evidences that indicate Christian Theism was the national doctrinal religion are listed below:

Emblazoned over the Speaker of the House in the US Capitol are the words "In God We Trust."

The Supreme Court building built in the 1930's has carvings of Moses and the Ten Commandments.

God is mentioned in stone all over Washington D.C., on its monuments and buildings.

As a nation, we have celebrated Christmas to commemorate the Savior's birth for centuries.

Oaths in courtrooms have invoked God from the beginning.

The founding fathers often quoted the Bible in their writings.

Every president that has given an inaugural address has mentioned God in that speech.

Prayers have been said at the swearing in of each president.

Each president was sworn in on the Bible, saying the words, "So help me God."

Our national anthem mentions God.

The liberty bell has a Bible verse engraved on it.

The original constitution of all 50 states mentions God.

Chaplains have been in the public payroll from the very beginning.

Our nations birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence, mentions God four times.

The Bible was used as a textbook in the schools.

Use by the U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court highlighted the phrase “wall of separation” in 1878 by declaring in Reynolds v. U.S. “that it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment.” Since that time, the phrase has become common in American jurisprudence.


Controversy over use

The use of the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” has been controversial, even among members of the Supreme Court. In 1962, Justice Potter Stewart wrote that jurisprudence is not "aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the 'wall of separation,' a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution." In 1985, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist called Jefferson’s phrase misleading, stating "unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years." Many Americans believe that relying on a vague metaphor penned by a partisan politician who was not present when the Constitution was written, rather than the words of the Constitution as drafted in compromise by people of varying political views and ratified by the states, is grossly inappropriate and allows the courts to declare unconstitutional many practices which are not actually unconstitutional.

Enigma: ^^^ Just go and learn the meaning of "legal requirement" - even as another poster pointed out indirectly and, by the way, whose point you promptly misunderstood naturally.

Enigma: ^^^ You see now why I keep making reference to your ignorance and poor comprehension (unless of course your problem is dishonesty and/denial)?

OK try again and read the following earlier posts of mine and see if you can honestly repeat the nonsense above.

https://www.nairaland.com/934799/reasons-why-obama-not-christian/8#10922083

https://www.nairaland.com/934799/reasons-why-obama-not-christian/8#10922192

https://www.nairaland.com/934799/reasons-why-obama-not-christian/9#10922334

Pastor AIO:

acts 11:26 does not specify who exactly coined the term christians for the disciples. Was it christians who called themselves so? Or was it non christians who recognised them and coined the term for them?

Pastor AIO:

In that case, by some readings of the bible and christianity, anybody that is involved with any of the world's governments cannot be a christian. By other readings there is absolutely no one who is actually a christian. By yet another reading, telling people to pray at home is perfectly in keeping with Christ's teachings.

Pastor AIO:

Many a consistent theme can be found running through the bible. The intended consistent theme that inspired the Catholic Orthodox churches to compile the bible is not the same theme that the Lutherans read in it, or other people.

thehomer:

Your posts say nothing actually relevant. They all sidestep the issue. I have asked you directly several times yet in your dishonesty or confusion, you give irrelevant responses. Let me try again.

Is the phrase "so help me God" a legal requirement for taking an official government position in the U.S? Yes or no?
Note that saying something along the lines of "it is a legal requirement except when the person just doesn't want to say it" shows that you do not understand what a legal requirement is. Please go back to school or look it up online.
I'm tired of dealing with such poor language comprehension. When you've finally figured out what a legal requirement is, you can come back for some more instruction.

Ptolomeus:

Excuse me you.
Not so. To review pumpkins do not need us to be a pumpkin, but be informed.
You yourself think about atheism ... and I think that's fine.
You consider yourself more Catholic than Obama? On what parameters?
Just as you doubt that Obama is a Christian, I can doubt that you are a Christian ... then you could not review this issue.
Obama claims to be Christian, the church accepts it with joy ...
Olaadegbu, dear friend ... leave you to mourn with this issue, accept that fellow Obama worships the same god, accept that a Christian is president of the most powerful country which pursues the Islamists, the killing and torture, bombing civilian neighborhoods, killing children and women having a university of torture in Guantanamo, Cuba and Africa starves.
Accept it and stop whining you ... be more positive for you ...
I tell you because I appreciate.

Enigma: One decent and concise perspective on the issue of "separation of church and state" at these two links.

http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm

http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state-in-the-constitution-faq.htm

During the presidential campaign of 1800, Jefferson had suffered in silence the relentless and deeply offensive Federalist charges that he was an atheist. Now he decided to strike back, using the most serviceable weapon at hand, the address of the Danbury Baptists.

Jefferson's counterattack is contained in the circled section of his draft and in the inked-out lines. . . .

The unedited draft of the Danbury Baptist letter makes it clear why Jefferson drafted it: He wanted his political partisans to know that he opposed proclaiming fasts and thanksgivings, not because he was irreligious, but because he refused to continue a British practice that was an offense to republicanism. To emphasize his resolve in this matter, Jefferson inserted two phrases with a clenched-teeth, defiant ring: "wall of eternal separation between church and state" and "the duties of my station, which are merely temporal." These last words -- "merely temporal" -- revealed Jefferson's preoccupation with British practice. Temporal, a strong word meaning secular, was a British appellation for the lay members of the House of Lords, the Lords Temporal, as opposed to the ecclesiastical members, the Lords Spiritual. "Eternal separation" and "merely temporal" -- here was language as plain as Jefferson could make it to assure the Republican faithful that their "religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine."

One of the nation's best known advocates of religious liberty, Leland had accepted an invitation to preach in the House of Representatives on Sunday, Jan. 3, and Jefferson evidently concluded that, if Leland found nothing objectionable about officiating at worship on public property, he could not be criticized for attending a service at which his friend was preaching. Consequently, "contrary to all former practice," Jefferson appeared at church services in the House on Sunday, Jan. 3, two days after recommending in his reply to the Danbury Baptists "a wall of separation between church and state"; during the remainder of his two administrations he attended these services "constantly."

Jefferson's participation in House church services and his granting of permission to various denominations to worship in executive office buildings, where four-hour communion services were held, cannot be discussed here; these activities are fully illustrated in the forthcoming exhibition. What can be said is that going to church solved Jefferson's public relations problems, for he correctly anticipated that his participation in public worship would be reported in newspapers throughout the country. A Philadelphia newspaper, for example, informed its readers on Jan. 23, 1802, that "Mr. Jefferson has been seen at church, and has assisted in singing the hundredth psalm." In presenting Jefferson to the nation as a churchgoer, this publicity offset whatever negative impressions might be created by his refusal to proclaim thanksgiving and fasts and prevented the erosion of his political base in God-fearing areas like New England.

Jefferson's public support for religion appears, however, to have been more than a cynical political gesture. Scholars have recently argued that in the 1790s Jefferson developed a more favorable view of Christianity that led him to endorse the position of his fellow Founders that religion was necessary for the welfare of a republican government, that it was, as Washington proclaimed in his Farewell Address, indispensable for the happiness and prosperity of the people. Jefferson had, in fact, said as much in his First Inaugural Address. His attendance at church services in the House was, then, his way of offering symbolic support for religious faith and for its beneficent role in republican government.

It seems likely that in modifying the draft of the Danbury Baptist letter by eliminating words like "eternal" and "merely temporal," which sounded so uncompromisingly secular, Jefferson was motivated not merely by political considerations but by a realization that these words, written in haste to make a political statement, did not accurately reflect the conviction he had reached by the beginning of 1802 on the role of government in religion. Jefferson would never compromise his views that there were things government could not do in the religious sphere -- legally establish one creed as official truth and support it with its full financial and coercive powers. But by 1802, he seems to have come around to something close to the views of New England Baptist leaders such as Isaac Backus and Caleb Blood, who believed that, provided the state kept within its well-appointed limits, it could provide "friendly aids" to the churches, including putting at their disposal public property that even a stickler like John Leland was comfortable using.

Enigma: I should add the following paragraph because of the references to deletions from an earlier draft of Jefferson's letter.

Enigma:



I think so help YOU God indeed!

If you cannot understand a simple thing like a statutory prescription i.e. a legal prescription i.e. a legal requirement --- albeit subject to the possibility of an exception allowing an alternative then indeed so help YOU God.

I have tried oh! I even linked to the statute i.e. the specific law that prescribes the legal requirement --- I would have thought that would be helpful for most ordinarily thick people - but well . . . !

OLAADEGBU:

Thanks for the info. As you can see that the intention of the Secular humanists, championed by the ACLU is that Christianity be separated from the State and be replaced with the religion of atheism (humanism). The link below says it as it is.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/au/separation-of-christianity-and-state

The unedited draft of the Danbury Baptist letter makes it clear why Jefferson drafted it: He wanted his political partisans to know that he opposed proclaiming fasts and thanksgivings, not because he was irreligious, but because he refused to continue a British practice that was an offense to republicanism. To emphasize his resolve in this matter, Jefferson inserted two phrases with a clenched-teeth, defiant ring: "wall of eternal separation between church and state" and "the duties of my station, which are merely temporal." These last words -- "merely temporal" -- revealed Jefferson's preoccupation with British practice. Temporal, a strong word meaning secular, was a British appellation for the lay members of the House of Lords, the Lords Temporal, as opposed to the ecclesiastical members, the Lords Spiritual. "Eternal separation" and "merely temporal" -- here was language as plain as Jefferson could make it to assure the Republican faithful that their "religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine."

Pastor AIO:

Does Temporal really mean Secular? Plus, I'm sure that it's use is wider than just a term for certain members of the House of Lords. I understand it to mean having to do with the Realm of Time. On the other hand I understand Secular to mean having nothing to do with religion. So religion can have concerns of Eternity and Temporality (indeed the pope is considered to also exercise temporal power). In other words some temporal things will not be secular.

furthermore his use of the word 'eternal' in describing the separation of Church and state . . . Is he using it in the common, but wrong, usage for something that has a long duration (in time) or is he using it to mean something that is beyond the realm of Time completely.

A reference to an 'eternal separation of Church and State' would suggest that these two are separate in TRUTH and regardless of what time or era one is considering them.

I think that to say that Jefferson was hinting at british practice is stretching things a bit. People talk about temporal powers all the time, not just in british politics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_power
I understand it as meaning just a non spiritual power.

If US government is to be based on Religion then which religion should it be based on. Is it Baptist christianity? Mormonism? Catholicism? Islam? My point is that if Government is not to interfere with religion yet religion can impinge on government then is there a preference for any particular religion? Would Olaadegbu's concern remain if Obama was a staunch Roman Catholic? Hmmm . . . as I wrote that I recall reading somewhere a very long time ago that people in America were concerned with JF Kennedy's religion because they felt that a Catholic would be more loyal to the Pope than he would be to his Country. I wish I could remember where I read that.