Political Punch

Leslie McFall has an interesting way to deal with the so-called exception clause in Matthew 19:9 that appears to allow for divorce and remarriage for marriage unfaithfulness.
He has written a 43 page paper that reviews the changes in the Greek made by Erasmus that effect the way Matthew 19:9 has been translated. I reviewed McFall's paper at
I would love to hear some feedback on this position.

I am getting tired of listening to Christian Women who say they are Christian but yet are also Pro-Choice. They say that no one has the right to tell them how to use T H E I R bodies. Remember, women, Y O U R 'so called' bodies aren't yours, they're G O D S!!!

I watched last nite as Pastor Warren made things difficult for Obama and had given the questions to McCain as it was obvious as he was answering before they were asked. And another thing. I thought we went to church to learn not to discriminate but I was wrong as it is obvious by Pastors question regards the governement monies if he wanted to hire his own people>>> I thought that was discriminating Am I wrong???I don't think so. McCain acted like a little chiild that had to rush to say something for fear he'd get into trouble and what I find amusing is the majority of the people went for the fist pounding yelling when the man didn't even know what he was talking about. He came in with the same dumb stories and all else a quick answwer that showed being well rehersed. Shame on You Pastor Warren. You don't belong behind the pulpit.

All of your comments are so interesting to me.
I really never thought to hold Warren to his comment about adultery. Not my style. I only found myself hoping that conservative Americans might be willing to listen with an open mind to Obama. Somehow it felt as if the deck was stacked against him in the interview....as the crowd and Pastor Rick Warren laughed seemed so automatically receptive to McCain. I do think there is real decency in Obama and a personality about which we might all be proud. I am otherwise very concerned about our status in the world. I wish conservative America could imagine extending their decency and acceptance to Obama.

So... I guess he's saying he can't vote for John McCain, right?

Posted:


Obama supports Israel. Period.

Barack Obama's big speech on Israel is now over, and as expected, the candidate made no secret of his support and dedication to the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel. "My view is that the United States' special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction," were Obama's words to Haaretz last week. Today, he sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period.

For all you folks talking about John McCain's past...I would like to remind you of David and how sinned, was forgiven and loved and served God until his death.

Obama does not have a heart for Israel as he called them 'an inflexiable people'. Please remember where we are because of our love for Israel and McCain said he would always protect this country. Obama has given them very little mention but has given favorable remarks to the Palistinians and Hamas.

How about asking McCain if he cheated on both of his wifes, not just the first one. The scuttlebutt here in Arizona is that he “steps out” on Cindy too (or once did before he got too old), hence her battle with drug addiction. I would like to see the interview that Sam Donaldson did with the New Times reporter that he never aired because it put McCain in a bad light. Or, the interview that 60 minutes did that again wasn’t aired because it would be seen as negative to McCain. See, the media addresses what they want to cover, not what is truthful.

Isn't it a sad state of affairs that we have no one to vote for this fall, and not because they did or didn't cheat on their wives? We want to be altruistic but we don't want to give our country away. We want to defend out country but we don't want to send our young men to war because we think we know how their country should be run. Please note that we have not been attacked since 9/11. Are we doing something right? The economy is in deplorable shape. Which of our candidates is going to improve that? I would hope those in government are smarter that I, but am becoming more doubtful by the hour. If someone had a good idea, rather than rooting for the candidate of their party and tearing down the other, I would be more interested in reading these comments.

Warren did not say he could not vote for McCain because of his adultery.

Warren said:

"I think people first need to ask forgiveness and then earn trust back over time. Can trust be re-earned? Absolutely but it takes time."

McCain has said he was wrong for committing adultery. I think Warren would be far more concerned about McCain's non-stop lies in his Obama attack ads. The ads reflect McCain's current character.

Jesus forgave people that committed adultery and every other sin. McCain sins every time he lies, which is in the attack ads and every Town Hall meeting where he lies and distorts his and Obama's tax plan.

In thinking about Rick Warren's comments I am saddened. His comments suggest a legalistic view of the Christian walk. The Bible says that no sin is greater than another sin. Sin is sin. So how does Rick Warren view a man or woman who is divorced and remarried or a man or woman who engages in pornography when the lights are out? Within his comments, where is the Grace that Jesus lived and spoke of?

It is my personal viewpoint that the person who has been tested and has risen above the test is one to be respected. We are all tested by life in different areas of our lives. It is what we do with the test and after we are tested that is valuable for use in service to others.

It would be far more insightful for others if Rick Warren would talk about his personal failings, what he learned from them, how his key learnings helped prepare him for leadership and how those key learnings are sustaining him in leadership. If he has never failed as a human being, then he has no voice with which to speak to others. Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have a voice for me because they were tested in the public eye both as individuals, as a married couple and as a family. They have remained committed to public life including daughter Chelsea. They demonstrate that Human failing even in a moral sense can be redeemed and used for the public good.

We know of McCain's personal marriage history because it has been exposed to the public. We know of his POW experiences. Does his personal experience set him apart from the "business as usual" Republican Party history of experience? Barak Obama is a man untested in the public eye. We do not know of Obama's personal failings because we do not know Obama. How will he react to pressure that he has not known before? What will he do when he has to compromise with Congress ,the Senate and other political leaders who wield tremendous power both visible and invisible to the public eye? How will he handle the expectations of the minority communities as the first African American President of the United States?

I do not endorse either candidate. I have not made a decision regarding my vote, but those questions concern me, not the marriage history of the candidates or past candidates. It also concerns me that we have one more religious leader who is seeking a personal platform on a national level. I do not know Rick Warren's motivations, but I question anyone who has not fallen or who does not have some failing in their walk with God.

This blog is a wonderful exchange. I appreciate the opportunity to share my views.

Will Rick Warren be asking John McCain about his adultery at Saturday's forum? Will he make it very direct like "Senator McCain, did you cheat on your first wife?"?

A serial adulterer like John McCain admitted to being doesn't just all of a sudden stop.

Infidelity may be "personal", but if a Presidential candidate's spouse was the victim of his/her lies and sneaking, what makes anyone believe without any personal evidence that said candidate, upon becoming President, wouldn't also victimize the American people?

Of course cheaters in the public spotlight want to browbeat others about "privacy". A reason has been brought to light that they are not trustworthy stewards of serious, solemn commitments that call them to think of other people besides themselves.

Meanwhile, most folks I have met or talked with who support cheaters yet have their own "personal" problems with a cheater tell *anyone* who will listen about what an untrustworthy, lying, mean, heartless, selfish rat the cheater is without any regard to their own "private, personal" issues that really should be "no-one else's business".

These people unfortunately are quite hypocritical in that they are selective about whose warts they feel should be publicized and discussed.

This is not about a normal evangelic man who can only think around earning the bread and sharing it. The person in question 'President of USA' has some minimum standards to maintain in their lives and the standards set by Evagelics are high and only who get closer to those standards can win their trust and respect to lead the country, period.

Since we Americans seem to be inordinately interested in the sex lives of politicians rather than, say, their actual record on governance--especially Americans who make a point of touting their Christianity (weird, huh?)--maybe we should try to look at this from a historical perspective. There is a long, inglorious history of sexual misconduct in American politics and it bridges parties equally: For every John Edwards (D) there is a David Vitter (R), for every Mark Foley (R) there is a Bill Clinton (D), for every Gary Hart (D) there is a Larry Craig (R), for every John McCain (R) there is John Kennedy (D),etc., etc. Neither side can claim to have the market cornered on morality and it is hypocritical in the extreme for all these "morally outraged" conservatives to try to do so in response to the John Edwards revelations. "Rafters in your own eyes" and all that, folks.

I distrust the judgment of educated, accomplished men and women, regardless of party affiliation, who seem to be unable to provide leadership for their own hormones, much less the country and who apparently have "consequence understanding disorder" and can't figure out that, as public figures, there WILL be consequences to their philandering. That is why I would not vote for an adulterer--not because of their morality. That is between them, their spouse and their maker. But because you can safely assume that if they lack judgment in one major area of life, they lack it in others, as well. Living in Arizona, as I do, I won't vote for McCain--. He won't get my vote because he displays lack of judgment in other even more important areas. He honestly does not seem to recognize (or care) that his own state consistently ranks among the lowest in education and healthcare in the US and, despite having enormous wealth (all in private hands, naturally, the state is broke because they refuse to collect even moderate income tax--I paid $16 last year), lags embarrassingly in salaries and benefits for average Arizonan's. I hear him sincerely brag about Arizona's medical system, which is without a doubt one of the worst debacles I have run across in 20 years working in the industry and despair that this is his "vision" for America--a land of a small wealthy elite class as oblivious as he appears to be to the realities of normal people, supported by an under-educated and unhealthy majority. I think he is sincere and that is exactly the problem. He doesn't know what he doesn't know. He has been too long in DC and too long insulated from the real world by his wife's enormous wealth. I used to really like the guy, but he demonstrated his willingness to be "just a politician" like the rest of them when he groveled to the current administration--an administration that had spread ugly lies and rumors about him and his famiy--to curry political favor. His own daughter told him that she had "never been more ashamed of him" than when he endorsed GWB, the man whose campaign had smeared his adopted daughter by false allegations that she was a secret love child. That is not the stance of a "maverick" or a man of integrity. That is the behavior of a typical sleazeball politician more interested in winning elections than in public service.

I'm not suggesting Obama is above all the ugliness. We simply haven't heard all there is to hear about him yet, but I have no doubt there are some ugly skeletons in that closet, too. For me, at least right now, it comes down to a choice between someone with demonstrated bad judgment (McCain) and someone whose judgment is really an unknown quantity (Obama). I'm not overly comfortable with either choice, but can't in good conscience vote for McCain after observing his less than stellar governance of the fair state of Arizona for the last three decades.

John Edwards is a non-entity in this election. His political career was pretty much in the toilet prior to this story. Why all the brouhaha?

Doug: You wrote,"Mary: your right, being a POW doesn't justify cheating. But doesn't it justify the man's love for his country?" Answer: No it does not. It isn't like McCain volunteered to be a POW.

Those Christians always looking for perfection knowing it doesn't exist.

"He makes a good point and that's why I don't like Michelle Obama. She lost my trust with those hate filled comments and has done absolutely nothing to earn back my trust." Susan

Come on Susan. You never liked Michelle Obama to begin with. Her remarks have nothing to do with your so called trust issues. Be honest!

Lonestarkaty,

My God, what a GREAT country we would have if it could be filled with more clear thinking, honest voters like you.

The saddest thing about this election is how many people are lying to themselves about themselves and justifying the stupidist rationales for voting or not voting for someone. If it had been Obama who had cheated on his wife 15 years ago I can just hear the chorus who would use it as just one more false justification.