More Active Posts
Front Page
Obama: Sermon on the Mount justifies same-sex unions
 |
 162 Comments |
Cybercast New Service is reporting Barack Obama’s curious exegesis of Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount: The Illinois Democrat told a crowd at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, yesterday that he believes the Sermon on the Mount justifies his support for legal recognition of same-sex unions.
“I don’t think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state,” said Obama. “If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.”
Not sure how the first chapter of Romans qualifies as “obscure,” unless that word means in Obama’s vernacular “something that conflicts with my policy positions.”
Meanwhile, Obama also told the Nelsonville crowd that his pro-abortion position does not make him “less Christian.”
Perhaps not, but it does make him less humane.
CNS points out that during his presidential dash, Obama has framed abortion as an issue between “a woman and her doctor.” But human life has been lost in his rhetorical shuffle: As an Illinois state senator, Obama voted against a bill that would’ve defined as a “person” any child that was born alive after an attempted abortion.
If a born baby is not a person, what is it?
 |
Topic: Campaign 2008, Featured, WorldMagBlog |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
“If a born baby is not a person, what is it?”
A choice!
An inconvenience.
A kid.
Yeah, that.
Oh boy.
Obama is simply using Joel Mark’s hermeneutic, which allows us to insist that the Bible says/teaches/means whatever we want it to say/teach/mean.
Joel says that slavery is a “obviously” a sin because of The Golden Rule, even though the Bible never calls slavery a sin, and Jehovah/Jesus in the Old Testament explicitly permitted his followers to own other slaves as property and pass them on to their children. But Joel says that going by what the Bible actually says is a “narrow micro-literalism”, and that the Golden Rule trumps all those embarrassing pro-slavery parts of the Bible.
I asked him what he would say to a gay person who said the Golden Rule prohibited Christians from opposing same sex marriage by making the same argument - if Joel Mark and fellow Christians wouldn’t want homosexuals telling them that they couldn’t marry the person they loved, then Christians shouldn’t do it to homosexuals.
Joel Mark never answered my question.
And, please, no whining about me “changing the subject” or being “off topic”, because I’m not. Not at all. As I said a few weeks ago, the Bible’s slavery problem and its homosexual problem are really the same problem - how should the church react when a clear Bible teaching becomes grossly offensive to modern sensibilities?
“Not sure how the first chapter of Romans qualifies as ‘obscure,’ unless that word means in Obama’s vernacular ’something that conflicts with my policy positions.’”
Lynn, that’s hilarious. Thanks for a good laugh.
“Perhaps not, but it does make him less humane.”
I have made that point many times myself. Even if they Bible did not teach the sanctitiy of life, I would hope that any human decency I have would tell me that it’s wrong to suction an unborn baby out of its mother’s womb.
Jesus’ words were twisted when he was still alive, so it is no surprised to find them still being twisted. More people who have never read the whole bible still insist they know what it says than any other book ever printed.
Romans is obscure? Arguably the most theologically defining book in the whole Bible Romans? You mean that Romans?
What’s the deal with these liberals anyway? Don’t they realize as soon as they open their mouth on the subject of the Bible they remove all doubt of their ignorance?
Night Train - You are once again confusing items narrative with normative.
Slavery is adressed in the Bible. Likely because it has been a feature of every civilazation (and Christian influenced Western culture is the only culture to eliminate it). The Bible never says it is a good thing, but addresses it as something that exists in this fallen world - and the Bible indicates that slaves (where they exist) should be well treated. It is more a matter of narrative handling rather than normative discussion. As to the limited number of times where - as a part of the take over of the Promised Land - God instucts the old nation of Israel (not a universal directive, mind you) to wipe out a people who have been thoroughly evil, and to take the women and children, such taking was needed to have the women and children provided for.
As to the issue of homosexuality, the Bible has number of passages very clearly setting out a one man/one woman structure for marriage, and a number of others condemning “porneia” (a term for sexual immorality that would include homosexual conduct). That is a normative matter.
And Night Train, Joel Mark is not the subject of this thread.
Back on topic, sometimes you have to push back from the rhetoric of an election, take a deep breath and think about an issue letting go of all the them/us, Dem/Pub baggage. Then you realize what some politicians are trying to say and how silly they come off. Next he’ll be saying the Book of Genesis is obscure.
It would appear Obama’s Church, is more concerned with Farrakhan as ‘man of the year’ then to bother with Scripture.
#3 The slavery problem and homosexual problem are not the same. As I wrote before, though the Bible gives laws regarding slavery, it is not the same as approval of slavery.
But when it comes down to homosexuality, God passes no laws regulating it at all, but denounces the practice as having no place among God’s people. Those who practice it will not inherit the kingdom of God.
The Sermon on the Mount cannot be used to condone what God has elsewhere (such as in omans) clearly condemned.
And I would refer Obama to the part of the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus took sexual sin and marriage so seriously that He said it would be better for you to cut off body parts that cause you to sin than to allow using them to take you to Hell. Maybe Obama never read it.
Romans can be “obscure” just as a living, breathing baby can be redefined not to be a “person.” What dictionary are you guys reading out of? Pick up that Democrat dictionary and get with the program. Just redefine the word.
And now he rewrites Scripture. This reminds me of when Jesus tells us to watch out for people who call evil good and good evil.
This guy can twist anything. He tells the people of Ohio one thing and has his economic guy call the Canadians to tell them something else. I feel safe, don’t you? I guess we’ll be redefining the word “racist” to mean anyone who tells the truth about Obama.
axlotl tanks
In Frank Herberts Dune series, for one race of humans, women were reduced to becoming “axlotl tanks” for the growth of babies. As soon as a woman became “fertile”, her mind was destroyed, and she was hooked up to various tubes with different chemicals that allowed her body to be used to grow, not just children, but all kinds of things.
If we start legislating women’s bodies, where does it end? Should we legislate women into becoming “axlotl tanks”? Where are her rights?
Lynn writes: “Meanwhile, Obama also told the Nelsonville crowd that his pro-abortion position does not make him “less Christian.”
Perhaps not, but it does make him less humane.”
Perhaps not? Yeah, I think it does - definitely.
What Christian, here on this blog, believes you can be a “committed Christian” and still support the butchering of unborn children?
I don’t buy it.
#7: setting out a one man/one woman structure for marriage
And where do “second” wives and concubines fit in? They are not “condemed” in the Bible. Far from it, they are celebrated.
#9: It would appear Obama’s Church, is more concerned with Farrakhan as ‘man of the year’ then to bother with Scripture.
Why would you say something so sleazy and untrue? What kind of person are
Lynn, RDean is picking on me again. Wah!
Night Train cannot speak well for himself. Apparently, he doubts that would get him far. So, he tries to mis-speak for me and distort my hermeneutic (#2).
So, I will speak for MYSELF and aver that Night Train’s comments about me are untrue. I know, because I am me.
Now, if Night Train can just speak for himself and not distort my words from a different context, the reader can judge his comments (about his own views) for themselves.
My view is that the “Golden Rule” posits a principle that ultimately undermines slavery in the Christian mind and the Christian system of morality.
Night Train OBVIOUSLY has no earthly idea how I think.
rdean - Set out the verse(s) (cite book, chapter and verse) where the Bible says multiple marriages are a good thing, or says that people generally ought to do such a thing.
Mind you now, I am not talking an instance where it occurred and the Bible refers to it in narrative fashion - but one where Scripture says it is a good thing, or that God wants such a thing generally done.
I am appalled at Barak Obama’s discriminatory bigotry!
Doesn’t the Sermon on the Mount also affirm equal rights for legal unions for adult polygamists and polyamorists? Why wouldn’t Obama stand up for their equal legal rights for civil unions? What about Polyamorists’s rights to visit spouses in the hospital?
How can Obama be so blatantly discriminatory?
And since the Sermon on the Mount apparently teaches that we must respect anything anyone wants to do that does not clearly effect others, what about legal civil unions between adult humans and robots? Who’s to say that is wrong? Why deny anyone’s claim to a new legal right? Why limit or extend the number of humans in a legal union to two? Why not seven? Why not just one? Who are we to say otherwise?
Let’s leave marriage for the church and look to the state to authorize legal civil unions between polygamists, polyamorists, human & robot couples and groups, same-sex sibling unions and so on!
VS writes:
Perhaps not? Yeah, I think it does - definitely. What Christian, here on this blog, believes you can be a “committed Christian” and still support the butchering of unborn children?
I respectfully disagree that Obama’s position on abortion necessarily makes him “less Christian.” I became a Christian in 1991, born again as an adult. But I did not become pro-life immediately after my conversion experience. I became pro-life some time later after seeing a tiny little pre-mature baby and going through a series of logical arguments with myself: At what point was it okay to kill that baby, who was born at 30 weeks?
When I realized that lots of Yellow Pages ads were offering to kill her at 24 weeks, that made me stop and think — did she, once passing that point, become human or somehow more worthy or deserving of life? Or, when she passed through the birth canal, did she somehow acquire a “soul injection” along the way, making her at that point somehow a more important being, worthy of birth and nurture instead of death?
The answers to these and similar questions caused me to adopt a pro-life position on abortion, a good while after I became a Christian.
Romans 10:9 gives us the criteria for salvation and it does not include having correct positions on social issues. Which is a good thing, otherwise the thief on the cross and people who confess Christ on their deathbeds would be in trouble!
It is not only possible but normal to be sincerely Christian and sincerely wrong across a range of issues.
I don’t believe for one moment that one can be a follower of Jesus Christ and then believe its perfectly right to KILL the UNBORN.
We are to KNOW Believers by their FRUIT. There is NO good fruit to be had from one who believes that killing a child is just fine.
What’s obscure about this passages from Romans, which certainly applies to the subject of marriage.
1:26-27: Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.
Obama himself is obscure as to what part of the Sermon on the Mount justifies homosexual marriage. Often when one examines Obama’s frothy rhetoric closely it turns to dust.
One needs to be reminded that Obama joined this Church almost twenty years ago….and he still believes abortion isn’t sinful, or that its just OK to kill the unborn.
Obama has heard every argument, I’m certain he has seen endless films of the unborn. He certainly has some idea of birth, etc., after the birth of two children.
Barak also said, “I don’t think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage.”
Wow, is he totally in the clutches of the religious right or what!?
On what moral basis does he blatantly deny the legal term “marriage” to homosexuals? He clearly thinks they should be taken as second class citizens since he refuses to support their alleged right to use that term. Why not? Doesn’t the Sermon on the Mount say that they should not be treated second class citizens (treatment includes the terms we use or don’t use for others)? If homosexuals want marriage, why won’t Obama recognize that?
Boy, the liberals on this blog are going to flee the Obama ship in droves now.
Smile.
Lynn writes: “It is not only possible but normal to be sincerely Christian and sincerely wrong across a range of issues.”
I think that’s true. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t need to keep reading the Word, we wouldn’t keep developing in our faith. We learn something new every day. My “fruit” today might be one orange, but tomorrow, my “fruit” might turn out to be a whole grove after I pray, read, etc. and learn something new and have a big “Oooohhhh!” moment. We become a new creature in Christ as we shed our old nature and take on more of Christ’s attributes, just as a child grows and learns.
LYNN: Perhaps not, but it does make him less humane.
Obama is humane enough.
A fetus pulled out alive during a botched abortion is a dead duck.
That’s disgusting, Scroopy.
Okay, Lynn, I can let God judge who is more or less a “Christian,” but I think we can say that willfully killing unborn humans who pose no health threats to the mother is an “unChristian” act and to protect that act and fund it is “unChristian” policy.
I will also agree with Victoria that abortion is not the fruit one should expect to see in a Christian. And I hasten to affirm that the grace of God can make Christians out of anyone who truly repents of their sins, even if that sin is an abortion. God resotres and heals.
I am reflecting on this. It may be that it does more harm than good to the church to just let candidates like Obama propogate blatantly unChristian acts and policies and still go around honoring his claim to be a “Christian.”
As it is, I plan to neither honor or dishonor his claim. But I will strongly criticize his inhumane AND unChristian policies (starting with abortion).
Joel Mark writes:
As it is, I plan to neither honor or dishonor his claim. But I will strongly criticize his inhumane AND unChristian policies (starting with abortion).
I think that’s perfectly reasonable. It is definitely within our realm of “knowing” that certain of Obama’s positions are unbiblical and therefore unChristian, whatever the position of his soul.
Here Paul is speaking to BELIEVERS, and he lists the sins…….and in verse 21 Paul says “I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Reading this, you can see this WAS NOT THE FIRST TIME that Paul had WARNED THEM.
They were Believers, and . . . . . THE REASON IS . . . . .., Paul was NOT telling them how to be SAVED, to obtain Salvation, BUT he was WARNING BELIEVERS what would happen if they went into sin. It was a WARNING, and its aa WARNING TODAY to all Believers. Just because someone says they are a Believer doesn’t give them a pass to sin. There is no excuse to continue sinning.
Looking at this, should we eliminate
murders?#28: Okay, Lynn, I can let God judge who is more or less a “Christian,”
I’m sure your “God” appreciates your willingness to grant him some authority. No, really.
#28: “unChristian” policy
Taking care of babies after they are born.
Health insurance for uninsured children.
Human rights for Americans who have committed no crime, but who are just born a little different.
Women’s rights over their own bodies.
Just to name a few.
Scroop Moth: I once went to hear one of those “botched abortions” speak. She was very interesting. One of her arms had been pulled off, I believe. She was pro-life, by the way.
#17 Joel Mark,
“Night Train OBVIOUSLY has no earthly idea how I think”
Perhaps you are right Joel, Night Train is not of this earth, perhaps he is ….. incarnate
Rdean - No one disputes a woman’s right over her own body, the dispute comes at the point that she decides to kill another person (i.e. the unborn person).
As to people “born a little different”, who might you be talking about. No one knows percisely how homosexuality comes to be (it is not soley genetic). If they are who you are referring to, no one wants to harm them - though many do not want to “affirm” them or say, contrary to what God has said, that what they do is right.
Christian families are adopting babies after they are born by the boatload, and doing nothing to harm them.
Insurance is another issue. No one wants anyone to go without adequate medical care - but there are legitimate differences of opinion as to how best to deal with the problem.
Whatever you say about Obama, just don’t use his middle name!
The main reason I am pro-life is not just because they are “against” abortion (which, like me, they are). I am pro-life also because all the pro-lifers I have known and worked with are fantasitc at reaching out to and supporting the mother and creating networks of support for mothers after having their baby. They also try to care for women hurting deep inside after making the mistake of aborting their child.
As far as the Christian stance on women’s rights over their own bodies (see #31), I will refer to the apostle Paul, who wrote:
“Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are NOT your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore, honor God with your body.” 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 (emphaisis mine).
This applies to men’s rights over their own bodies as well. Christians look more to their responsibilities with regard to their bodies.
#34: No one disputes a woman’s right over her own body,
Sorry, but that is the ENTIRE dispute.
#34: though many do not want to “affirm” them or say, contrary to what God has said
And if they don’t believe in mysticism, too bad? Christians will make sure they suffer anyway?
#34: Christian families are adopting babies after they are born by the boatload, and doing nothing to harm them
Unless they grow up into a woman with an uwanted prenancy or a gay.
#34: how best to deal with the problem
Uninsured children. That’s the problem.
It’s all a matter of perspective. Christians believe that the more they can mess with gays, they more moral they are. Christians believe that forcing a woman to have a baby she doesn’t want will teach her not to have sex. If Christians could convince those poor women that they would take care of the unwanted children, I suspect there would be fewer of them.
It’s all about perspective.
RDean:
Christians believe that the more they can mess with gays, they more moral they are. Christians believe that forcing a woman to have a baby she doesn’t want will teach her not to have sex.
I know of ZERO Christians who believe what you say Christians believe. You seem to be basing your conclusions on a media caricature of Christians. Probably most productive to stick to proclaiming your beliefs and let the Christians proclaim what they believe.
Lynn writes: Romans 10:9 gives us the criteria for salvation and it does not include having correct positions on social issues. Which is a good thing, otherwise the thief on the cross and people who confess Christ on their deathbeds would be in trouble!
It is not only possible but normal to be sincerely Christian and sincerely wrong across a range of issues.
Ok, Lynn, I will give you that.
However, ditto to Victoria’s # 23.
Who of us will argue that Obama isn’t fully educated on what an abortion is?
How is any human able to stand before GOD Almighty and say they didn’t know it was wrong to kill an unborn child?
We have gotten so used to the blithering left, and those who are liberal trying to re-write the Bible that we have lost a GRIP on the truth.
Born Again Believers have new natures, they don’t become Believers and then keep their old nature…. No one knows everything about the Word of God when they first Believe, but it doesn’t take long to learn.
For those who ‘claim’ to be Believers and still believe abortion is right, can’t possibly be Believers. The Bible is clear on who follows Christ and who doesn’t. Murder is a sin, its not negotiable with GOD.
Teaching, believing and agreeing to the abortion laws isn’t turning from sin, is AGREEING with it, its promoting SIN. Obama claims to be a bright guy, but he doesn’t understand murder, or killing an infant, and most of all he doesn’t think its wrong according to Scripture. How BRIGHT is HE?
Obama and other socialists on this blog do what all Socialists do. They define down the meaning of terms all by themselves and then claim these new meanings have been accepted by all clear thinking people.
What used to be clear sin is no longer clear sin at all - it is confused, vague or obscure to unbelievers. Clear meaningful definitions even a child could understand are no longer accepted by those that do not like what these words have always meant. So they make up new definitions claiming the old ones were obviously flawed, incorrect or just plain unbelievable. It is not different than the atheists stand on God. God can’t exist, at least not the one Christians believe in, so Christians are obviously wrong - as wrong as their belief that homosexuality is a sin - as example.
This is what they do with historical meanings and definitions that do not suit them - So nothing new here in the least. This is how babies became fetuses and no longer human enough to be murdered by their own mothers.
Rdean - the time for a woman to exercise choice over her own body is before there is another person within her who needs to be considered. If she doesn’t wish to take the risk of pregnancy, she shouldn’t be doing that which results in pregnancies.
I am a bit fuzzy on what harm Christians are alleged to wish to do to gays. We generally don’t wish to affirm their sinful conduct, but we aren’t doing anything to prevent them from doing anything. Our disapproval doesn’t stop them.
. . .an obscure passage in Romans.
Speaking of obscure passages, what’s that coming out of his mouth? Change? A change of what? Hope? Hope for what? Hope for a change? A change of hope? His rhetoric is vacuous, but his supporters eat it up like dog returning to its own vomit.
RDEAN-
You seem very good at setting up a straw man Christian and then demolishing it.
It’s not a question of how bright he is, Victoria. He’s a Harvard lawyer. They are taught to take words and turn them inside out. He’s using the power of persuasion to get people to come up with these insane ideas like “pro-abortion is pro-life” from the other thread It’s Orwellian doublespeak.
What does the Bible say about deliberately misleading?
Even though Obama has openly declared his pro-abortion position many times, and has a 100% pro-abortion voting record, the REAL reason you people are calling him pro-abortion is that he’s BLACK! Racism, racism, racism.
Victoria: are you saying that once someone becomes a Christian they never sin? Perhaps you should reread your bible. God used many people and they all sinned. Only Christ is perfect and it is on that basis that one is saved if one believes and is placed into Christ and has the Holy Spirit placed in them. It is God who declares us saved. I don’t see these perfect people even in the bible except for Christ.
I agree with you that abortion is sin in God’s eyes. But to declare that no one who believes differently on that or other issues cannot be a believer is going too far. Fortunately we have a God who does teach us when we are willing, but it seldom happens overnight.
NJL
Please, …. I know as well as everyone that Obama is a Harvard lawyer as is his wife Michelle. I also know that they are taught to tangle words, certainly that isn’t news. I hate to sound unkind, but you are talking down to me, and I don’t appreciate it. I don’t need a definition of how those in law school are taught to persuade anyone, as to how to change others minds. etc.
Most of us are educated on this blog, not to mention the professions which we represent. Most of us have had use for the services of a law firm in business and our personal lives. Many in my family are attorney’s.
Ki
I gave you my view based on what Paul said in Galatians 5. I didn’t say it, Paul did. Many like to think they can go straight back into sin after they become Believers, they believe they are saved when they willfully disobey God’s Word.
12 Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.
13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.
14 And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.
15 But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience. Luke 8
You cannot fall away from something that you didn’t have. If you aren’t a Believer then you couldn’t fall away, it would be impossible. Those spoken of in Luke 8:13 Believed for awhile, but the verse says they “FALL AWAY” you cannot fall away if you didn’t believe in the beginning.
This is proof that one can believe and ‘FALL AWAY’ ….. Jesus preached this. I’ve heard all the arguments which Calvinists use that “they were never really Believers in the first place”- that argument doesn’t work if you look at what Jesus said, they can believe and then ‘fall away’-
I am sure there are many who believe they are Christians, but are not.
ccc
The HOPE we have is that we will still have CHANGE in out pocket when he(Oboma)is finished.
Joel Mark, Jesus said to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Would you want homosexuals to deny you, your children, and other Christians the right to marry the person they love? If not, then how is it right to do it to them, given the Golden Rule?
If these things were as easy as you want to say, Victoria, there wouldn’t be volumes written on it. I’m not going to argue Calvinism with you.
Night Train asked; “Would you want homosexuals to deny you, your children, and other Christians the right to marry the person they love?”
If it requires changing or distorting the very definition of marriage itself just so I can marry the person I think I “love,” I should be stopped and not legally allowed to do it.
Night Train, your turn to answer a question.
Since you apparently think that people should be able to “marry the person they love,” what if you just totally “love” someone who is married to another person? What if you desperately “love” three people? What if you truly “love” your adult same-sex sibling? What if you passionately “love” two people of different sexes? What if you “love” another species (some think they do you know)? Does “love” justify anyone’s right to “marry” whomever they “love?”
Is Obama a Democrat or a theocrat?
He is blatantly using (or mis-using) biblical texts as grounds for his civic and political policy on a major social issue.
Where is the ACLU when we need them???
NightTrain, Jesus and Genesis both make it clear that the natural order of life is for a young man and woman to cleave from their parents and join together as one flesh. Had Jesus thought otherwise that men or woman should marry same-sex partners, he would have said so.
The Catholic Church Congregation of Faith has perhaps the most succinct statement of the matter:
Considering the matter from the biological and anthropological order the CDF says that homosexual unions are:
totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race…Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life….the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development (no. 7).
Your attempt to reduce homosexual marriage to a simple matter of human rights is sophistry. Jesus made it clear that he came to fulfill the Law
not to abrogate it.
Is Barak Obama taking lessons from the religious right?
Obama cites the Word of God to justify and advocate his political policies!
Obama wants to create a religious “kingdom on earth” (I’ll cite his theocratic quote from October, 2007, if you insist).
Obama thinks that ONLY heterosexuals are first class citizens in the USA. While he arrogantly thinks that he and other heterosexuals can use the term “marriage” to define their relationships, he blatantly and publically opposes any policy that would permit same-sex partners from using the term “marriage” (obviously considering them second class for some reason). Hasn’t he read the Sermon on the Mount???
Obama has completely ignored the equal legal rights of polyamorists and polygamists to form civil unions. COMPLETELY!
He is has far outrun the religious right in his theocratic intolerance!
#38: I know of ZERO Christians who believe what you say Christians believe.
I feel like John McEnroe. You can’t be serious. Ensuring that gays don’t have equal rights in this country IS messing with them.
Remember when Bush ran last time and all those states had proposals to ban gay marriage? Every one was found unconstitutional by ahem, activist judges.
Many of those “activist judges” were Republican. Why? If it had only been about gay marriage, there would have been no problem.
Instead, the Moral and Loving Christians attached all kinds of provisions. Gays can be fired. They can be evicted. They have to live so far from a school. They can’t teach. They can’t write wills. And on and on.
The Christians were drunk with power hating the gays. Many still are. Better to just say yea. We hate ‘em. Then the haters can get therapy and find out why.
Such a small minority are the gays. Considering the number of swingers and all the thousands of swingers clubs all over the US. One club alone has members in 38 states and 20 countries and has conventions every year in Florida and Las Vegas.
Probably more swingers and gays. No one is worried about the swingers. No one says take children away from swinger parents. When have you ever heard about it on the news? And yet, swingers and get married a dozen times.
Oh well, no one said life war fair. At least we can be moral enough to make it EQUAL!!!!
Just stop doing evil and pretending it’s good.
#40: How is any human able to stand before GOD Almighty
They aren’t. No such magical being. If there were, you would have a lot of ‘splainin’ to do.
#42: the time for a woman to exercise choice over her own body is before there is another person within her
You mean like before she is raped? Or gets pregnant because she a young kid who didn’t know any better? Or she’s mentally challenged and gets molested. Or has HIV? Or is afraid her Christian or Muslim parents will kill her? Or any number of reasons?
I want to join with Lynn and KI and affirm that it is my experience that saved believers don’t learn everything they need to know overnight. They’re still saved. Sanctification is a process.
BTW, Obama belongs to United Church of Christ, which is very liberal theologically. We could all spend forever guessing whether any of them are saved, and if so, which ones. I’m happy to leave the answer in God’s hands.
Rdean–
There may be some Christians who believe what you say they believe. I don’t personally know any of them.
Time I have spent making sure gays don’t have rights: ZERO
If you vote Republican, then it’s more than zero.
Rdean - Would you be willing to outlaw the 99% or so of abortions that aren’t rapes and such as you raised? Might we be making progress here with you?
By the way, you use a lot of reasoning that you (obnoxiously) reject when used against your positions.
I would think that if these women were counseled and taken care of and assured their children would have a loving home. Add that to comprehensive, “SMART” sex education, you probably don’t need to ban abortion at all.
During the last midterm, one of the Dakota’s had a plan to ban all abortions no matter the reason. It looked like the vote was going to be a landslide. The reason everyone was so excited was because the conservatives thought this vote would get abortion back to the Supreme Court, the one recently packed by George.
The message got out to those loving and moral people that if a bunch of children were born out of wedlock, it would be the people that lived in that state that would have to take care of them. Meaning higher taxes. Meaning they would have fewer resources for their own children. Yep, they knew they would get hit right where it hurt the most. The pocketbook. Why do you think Americans don’t want to insure children? It costs money. The think the trillion they are throwing away in Iraq will keep them save, but don’t want to spend a few billion here on American children. It’s one of those “conservative” things that don’t make sense to me.
Rdean - Are you saying all of your rapists could be educated out of it?
KRM: You asked RDean whether he’d be willing to outlaw the abortions that aren’t of pregnancies caused by rape.
He said that if the women had good sex education, good counseling and assurance that the babies would have good homes, you wouldn’t need to ban abortion. (Because almost no one would need to even consider it.)
Then you come back with a non-sequitur about educating rapists. Have you forgotten your own question already?
Since you apparently think that people should be able to “marry the person they love,” what if you just totally “love” someone who is married to another person?
Guess again, Joel. I’m against gay marriage, along with polygamy, easy divorce, etc.
I think you’ve gotten me mixed up with Peter Leavitt. He’s the one who’s fond of “alternative lifestyles”, not me.
Some people are like children’s scissors, cute, colorful, and not too sharp.
Ki - 52
I answered you in post 49. People “fall away” It’s in the Word of God,….. the LORD Jesus Christ talk’s plainly about those who fall away, in Luke. Not ONE PERSON can “fall away” from something unless they once believed it. How can you “fall away” from something you never had?
ANSWER, you can’t.
Paul wrote about it Galatians and Ephesians, many cannot accept that fact because it ruins their doctrine, but its right in the Bible.
What does Calvinism have to do with what I posted. I posted Scripture right out of the Bible, are YOU saying that Calvin is MORE CORRECT than the Word of God? Are you saying that Calvin knew more than the LORD Jesus Christ who spoke the words about the four seeds, or Paul who wrote Ephesians or Galatians in chapters five (5). Certainly John Calvin is not above God the SON or Paul?
There can be as you call it “volumes written on it” but if it doesn’t line up with Scripture its useless, and false. Just writing “volumes” on anything doesn’t make it correct or true. When it comes to the Word of God, it’s very serious to play with the truth.
I have been wondering what part of the Sermon on the Mount Obama had in mind, and after thinking about it all day and finally having time to look it up, my guess is Matt. 7:12 (commonly known as the Golden Rule), which he may see as summing up Jesus’ entire teaching, as it even says “for this is the Law and the Prophets.” He would perhaps say that since we would want to be allowed to marry the person we each choose, so we should allow that same choice to homosexuals.
Secondarily, he may also have Matt. 7:1-3 in mind, that we should not be focusing on what we see as the sin in homosexuals while ignoring our own (such as pride, self-righteousness). And perhaps passages in chapters 5 and 6 that criticize those who make a show of keeping the letter of the law while violating the spirit of it (e.g. not commiting adultery but harboring lust in the heart, or praying publicly but only to be seen doing it and not in an attitude of humility before God). My guess is that he would see conservatives’ denunciation of homosexual marriage as having to do with keeping the letter of the law (the prohibition on homosexual behavior in Leviticus) while failing to fulfill the spirit of it (showing love to homosexuals).
Please note that I am not trying to make these arguments myself, only speculating on what Obama may have had in mind in referring to the Sermon on the Mount. It has been a long time since I attended a church of the same denomination Obama belongs to, but I think those are the aspects of the Sermon on the Mount that were generally emphasized.
Pauline,
What difference does it make what part of the Sermon on the Mount Obama had in mind. The point is, Obama doesn’t understand it, any more than he understands that abortion is sin.
Sin is sin. What you seem to be doing is making a lukewarm sort of analogy of Obama’s so called ‘doctrine’. You can bring up all the sins in the Word of God, but that will not negate homosexuality, nor will it somehow make homosexual marriage right according to Scripture.
Keeping the letter of the law has not one thing to do with it. Read Romans 1, that isn’t the law,….. it’s a warning by Paul as to what will happen to anyone who has sex with the same sex, it’s plain, they will be given over to a REPROBATE MIND.
Playing with Scripture, and trying to sit on the fence, professing to see both sides when there is only God’s side and the the ‘other side’ isn’t going to do anyone much good if they listen to those who take a ‘lukewarm approach.’
Obama obviously hasn’t a clue as to what’s in the Bible, and if he does, he’s ignoring it, as it doesn’t mean a anything to him.
Have read more than a few blogs on this subject and it appears many people are offended when they read “some obscure passage”
Obscure is not necessarily a bad thing to say about a verse. It simply means
“shrouded or not clearly seen or easily distinguished”
…and there are certainly more than a few verses that could be considered obscure by many Christians.
But Romans 1:27?
Maybe you just have to label things stronger for some folks. I wonder if Mr. Obama or others consider this one to be obscure as well:
1Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
I hardly think that could be considered obscure. Now judge for yourself on the Romans passage:
Rom 1:25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
Rom 1:27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
Rom 1:29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,
Rom 1:30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;
Rom 1:32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
I cannot leave here without letting folks know the rest of the story. Many of us fell somewhere into the list described by 1 Corinthians 6:10, Many of you are still living in that list
But praise God! YOU DO NOT HAVE TO STAY ON THAT LIST!!
Read the very next verse…
1Corinthians 6:11 And such WERE some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
Stop believing the lie that you cannot change. Nothing is impossible with God. All things are possible to him who believes.
I will not assume all who read this page are believers, so I post. Please forgive me such a lengthy post if it violates any policy here.
Here’s another “obscure” passage from Romans:
Rom 10:9-13 if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES ON HIM WILL NOT BE PUT TO SHAME.”
Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.
Rom 10:13 For “WHOEVER CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD SHALL BE SAVED.”
The name of the Lord is Jesus. Confess=say. Say Jesus, you are MY Lord. Say Jesus save me. He will be rich to you.
Believe that God sent Jesus, His son to take your punishment for rebelling against Him. Believe that Jesus died and rose again by God’s power. Call Jesus to be your Lord and Savior (lord=master). Stop rebelling and turn to Him and receive eternal life.
Jesus died for you. Now you live for Him.
He said in John 14, if you love me, you will obey my commands. Obey Him, and He will make Himself known to you. He and the Father will make their home with you.
John Joh 14:21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”
Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.
Ask the Father to give you His Holy Spirit. Luke 11:13. Yes, you should ask, and expect Him to do it.
Act 5:32 And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.”
Jesus said on several occasions, Go and sin no more. Be sure to do it. You can do it with His Spirit.
I know of a couple of people of whom I have no reason to doubt their salvation, who have had abortions. It puzzled me how this can be. I think one can be saved and still rationalize how sin is not sin, or maybe how sin can be covered up.
Christian conservatives often make the point that recognizing gay marriage is affirming that lifestyle. I’d ask: would you ban smoking, then? Does the fact that I light up in my car without fear of criminal charge somehow make the government an aider and abettor in my despicable lifestyle choice?
You might counter: “Well, the gov’t doesn’t recognize you every time you light up”, but in fact, it does. I’m taxed for a pack of cigarettes. The gov’t is allowing the 7/11 to sell that pack to me and accruing revenue from it.
And yet how many of us would climb the highest hill and proclaim with loudest voice: “The US Government is promoting smoking!!!” The US government doesn’t promote smoking, it recognizes our right to smoke. Very different issues, and it’s sad that more conservatives, who display such alacrity of mind on other govt/lifestyle issues, are so tone deaf on this one.
Post 20
Lynn, I appreciate your post and it is the rare post on WMB that acknowledges that political positions are not in fact a part of the Christian creed.
CoyoteBlue,
One’s positions on abortion and marriage are not merely “political” positions. In fact, they are not even primarily “political” positions.
Pauline (#68),
After spending “all day” wondering what part of the Sermon on the Mount Obama had in mind (a fine Sermon to think about, BTW), I would respectfully suggest that equal time is merited thinking about what he had in mind in the book of Romans.
We can presume he had the first chapter in mind, a chapter that may lie at the foundation of the natural law philosophy in the Western moral tradition, and Augustine’s (and other’s) understanding of the human condition itself and the nature of sin. Romans One may well be the most influential and powerful passage of Scripture in the entire intellectual history of Christian or even Western thought. Without a grasp of the human condition and sin itself, the rest of the Bible (and the whole gospel of love and life ) makes little sense.
Pauline, I am speaking up for Romans One and not down to anything you wrote.
Joel Mark at #74: One’s positions on abortion and marriage are not merely “political” positions. In fact, they are not even primarily “political” positions.
You’re correct, if you’re talking about making decisions in how you conduct your own life.
The minute you start talking about making them public policy that would apply to everyone, they are political positions.
Joel Mark,
I was pretty sure what passage in Romans Obama had in mind, which is Romans 1:27 as pointed out above. He may well have had little thought about the rest of the chapter at all.
I have read arguments by those who think that what Paul is referring to is something other than a monogamous commitment between two people of the same sex. I am not convinced by those arguments, but many people are and Obama may be one. There have been plenty of arguments on this blog over that issue and I see no reason to rehash them here.
However I honestly was puzzled exactly what part of the Sermon on the Mount he was thinking of, and it sounded like others might be also. By “all day” I naturally did not mean I thought about nothing else, but that my thoughts returned to it over the course of the day to puzzle at it some more.
Since Obama’s reference to the Sermon on the Mount was the topic of this post I thought it worthwhile to mention my thoughts on it, especially as I grew up in the same denomination he is part of and might have more idea what they think than some others. I had hoped that it might lead to a discussion of how people look at those passages and why - since many voters in this country have probably been raised to see it much the same way I am guessing he does.
But I am certainly not interested in getting into arguments over it. Thank you for pointing out that you were not speaking down to what I wrote. If people find nothing worth discussing in my post, then I have no interest in pushing it.
CH (#72),
I fail to see the relavence of your questions regarding smoking since the main issue at hand for Christians is the wholesale redefinition of marriage itself by governing authorities (usually activist leftist judges) without the consent of the governed (in fact, often directly contrary to the voter’s will).
What we have here is governmemnt over-stepping its bounds in the realm of culture. Government should not be actively redefining marriage to include what certain interest groups demand it to be, in contradstinction to what it has been established to be for centuries. Judges must not create new laws and rights and definitions for the people. When they do that, more interest groups will be in line to redefine marriage further and we will have little left of our cultural integrity.
And cultural integrity dies matter.
Victoria: The only reason I brought up Calvinism was because you specifically mentioned it in your response at #49. No, I don’t think Calvin is more important than scripture. I don’t think Victoria is more important than scripture either and I don’t think every way you interpret it is correct. I was not brought up in Calvinism and I am not concerned with it at all. I assume you are, since you threw the term out. We obviously disagree and as I said, I am not going to argue with you.
Pauline,
What Obama was doing was simple to see. He was citing his own take on a selected passage of Christian Scripture to advocate and justify his political policy position on civic unions, and he was dismissing another passage of Scripture at the same time. It’s called “picking and choosing” for one’s self.
He was dead wrong in the way he claimed authority from any shred of the Sermon on the Mount to back up his stated political policy (which runs directly against Romans One).
Obama is the one who brought the Bible into the political picture here and he blatantly abused BOTH passages of Scipture in the process.
Funny, at least he could quote one. Bush was ask his favorite passage and he couldn’t name one.
Pauline have read arguments by those who think that what Paul is referring to is something other than a monogamous commitment between two people of the same sex. I am not convinced by those arguments, but many people are and Obama may be one.
If Obama were interpreting Romans as allowing for monogamous same-sex marriage, then why would he refer to “an obscure passage” in Romans? In fact Obama is up to his usual rope-a-dope in sounding smart but actually confusing a serious issue.
NJL has wisely warned us that Obama is a skilled, Harvard trained lawyer who can make the worse case seem better. With him, and for that matter McCain, we need to keep our critical faculty intact.