Guest Butero Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 Disrespectful or threatening comments toward governmental institutions and/or world leaders will not be tolerated. (1 Pet. 2:13-17) And yet the Obama-bashing continues. The trash-talking, slander, etc. Unless this excludes the Democratic Party in general and Barack Obama in particular, you're all in violation of this rule. Just I was when I talked smack about George W. Bush. 1 Peter 2:13-17 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 cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. 17 Honour all men, Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. We are told to obey the law. I haven't seen anyone breaking the law. If you are going to challenge the fact that we have suggested that God's laws trump man's laws, there is all kinds of Biblical precident for that, both in the Old Testament and in the New. In the Old Testament, the book of Daniel comes to mind, and in the New Testament, read Acts. The only verse in this entire passage that remotely can be used to challenge things being said about Obama is verse 17, and it doesn't come close to saying what you claimed it does. Let's break it down, shall we? Honour all men. All this means is to place a valuation on, and to revere. Since mankind was created in the image of God, I can see how this makes sense. I wish Obama would have remembered to do this when he came out in favor of abortion and infanticide. Love the brotherhood. Fellow Christians are our family in the Lord, so certainly we should love them. Fear God. The Bible states that this is the beginning of wisdom. Honour the king. The word honour is the same word that was used with regard to men in general, so all it is saying is that we place value on and revere the king, just as we do mankind. That being said, I would like you to give specific examples of how this passage has been violated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted May 10, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted May 10, 2009 i agree that some people get carried away sometimes in what they say. and calling obama the ac is a bit over the top. but what i truly don't understand is why someone who is not even a citizen of this country feels it's ok to attack a former president of this country, but then gets upset when people say things about the sitting president--of this country. It's not okay for a noncitizen or an American to attack President Bush either; not on a personal basis. Ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 People compare Obama to Hitler, they say he is Antichrist. Attacks on his character and personhood. But since he's Obama, it's okay. Whatever. This is stupid and I don't care anymore. It's a waste of energy. Partisan politics at its most crass and immature. i'm sorry you feel that way gauntlet. but i must say that the things you've said about Bush weren't the most "mature" either. it's obama's actions that are in the spotlight, that's all. Well, he's got a point; no one has called the President names but the general discourse at Worthy is not respectful to the man or the office. It may not be against the TOS but it's not really right, no matter who is in the Oval Office. And, before anyone says it, I KNOW that the former President was also disrespected, even here. And that was wrong too. i agree that some people get carried away sometimes in what they say. and calling obama the ac is a bit over the top. but what i truly don't understand is why someone who is not even a citizen of this country feels it's ok to attack a former president of this country, but then gets upset when people say things about the sitting president--of this country. and butero, i think he was quoting the tos, not the verses. I think you are right. I went back to try to find out if that is what is written in the TOS, but have yet to locate it. Even if that is the case, those verses don't jive with that statement, and nobody was in violation regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 i agree that some people get carried away sometimes in what they say. and calling obama the ac is a bit over the top. but what i truly don't understand is why someone who is not even a citizen of this country feels it's ok to attack a former president of this country, but then gets upset when people say things about the sitting president--of this country. It's not okay for a noncitizen or an American to attack President Bush either; not on a personal basis. Ever. The only comments that were made were dealing with how Obama's positions are contrary to his supposed Christian faith. That is a valid point, and is not in violation of the passage of scripture he gave or the TOS. Even the reference to Hitler was not direct. It was an example of how someone claimed to be of the Christian faith, but their works didn't bear that out. I was not saying Obama and Hitler were equally bad. At the same time, Obama's position in favor of abortion and infanticide speak volumes about him. If Gauntlet doesn't like that being pointed out, that is his problem. And it was hypocritical for someone who attacked Bush to turn around and attack people for speaking out against Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted May 10, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted May 10, 2009 I don't think anything posted recently in this thread about Obama was disrespectful to the office. We were looking at Obama's positions and how they are contrary to the Christian faith he claims to hold to. In addition, what Gauntlet claimed was written in 1 Peter 2:13-17 wasn't even close to being correct. It was a total perversion. I posted the verses from the Bible and you can clearly see it doesn't say what he claims it does, and I would bet that whatever translation you use is completely differen't from what he posted as well. Bottom line, who cares if we are in violation of something that isn't even written in scripture? Oh! I missed the 'Scripture' you're talking about; I had to go back and read Gauntlet's post. This is NOT from the Bible, it's from the Worthy TOS! "Disrespectful or threatening comments toward governmental institutions and/or world leaders will not be tolerated. (1 Pet. 2:13-17)" What the ..... ? You should have bet money on that one, Butero; my Bible sure doesn't contain that passage! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 I don't think anything posted recently in this thread about Obama was disrespectful to the office. We were looking at Obama's positions and how they are contrary to the Christian faith he claims to hold to. In addition, what Gauntlet claimed was written in 1 Peter 2:13-17 wasn't even close to being correct. It was a total perversion. I posted the verses from the Bible and you can clearly see it doesn't say what he claims it does, and I would bet that whatever translation you use is completely differen't from what he posted as well. Bottom line, who cares if we are in violation of something that isn't even written in scripture? Oh! I missed the 'Scripture' you're talking about; I had to go back and read Gauntlet's post. This is NOT from the Bible, it's from the Worthy TOS! "Disrespectful or threatening comments toward governmental institutions and/or world leaders will not be tolerated. (1 Pet. 2:13-17)" What the ..... ? You should have bet money on that one, Butero; my Bible sure doesn't contain that passage! I went ahead and removed that post after realizing where it came from. If you look at the text, it clearly doesn't back up what Gauntlet was saying. In addition, there was no violation of the rules as far as I can tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauntlet Posted May 10, 2009 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 788 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/18/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/18/1979 Share Posted May 10, 2009 And if Worthy members use their cleverness circumvent the wording of the ToS verse in question, what good is it? What's the point of writing down the rules of Worthy Christian Forums if people just find ways around the langauge? You can slander all you want if the meaning of "slander" can be called into question, retreating endlessly into semantic games. Must you? Get rid of the ToS altogether if it's a hindrance to the members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted May 10, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted May 10, 2009 i agree that some people get carried away sometimes in what they say. and calling obama the ac is a bit over the top. but what i truly don't understand is why someone who is not even a citizen of this country feels it's ok to attack a former president of this country, but then gets upset when people say things about the sitting president--of this country. It's not okay for a noncitizen or an American to attack President Bush either; not on a personal basis. Ever. or obama. Yes, or President Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted May 10, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted May 10, 2009 And if Worthy members use their cleverness circumvent the wording of the ToS verse in question, what good is it? What's the point of writing down the rules of Worthy Christian Forums if people just find ways around the langauge? You can slander all you want if the meaning of "slander" can be called into question, retreating endlessly into semantic games. Must you? Get rid of the ToS altogether if it's a hindrance to the members. What does that even MEAN, Gauntlet? The TOS is pretty well followed here...always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 And if Worthy members use their cleverness circumvent the wording of the ToS verse in question, what good is it? What's the point of writing down the rules of Worthy Christian Forums if people just find ways around the langauge? You can slander all you want if the meaning of "slander" can be called into question, retreating endlessly into semantic games. Must you? Get rid of the ToS altogether if it's a hindrance to the members. Nobody violated the TOS. Try as you may to twist them to serve your own ends, it won't work. The TOS is there for a reason, and it is being enforced. You just don't like it because it isn't being interpreted the way you want it to, now that your candidate is in office. Obama supports abortion, infanticide and the homosexual agenda. That is a fact. In order for that to be slander under American law, it has to be a false accusation. That may not be the case in Canada, but that is how it is in this country. Perhaps that is the problem? In Canada I think you have a broader interpretation of slander than we do here. In the United States, simply speaking out against someone is not slander. It has to be a false accusation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts