Posted on 03/05/2008 12:33:48 PM PST by kiriath_jearim
In a stump speech at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, on Sunday, Sen. Barack Obama said his support for same-sex unions is rooted in the New Testament's Sermon on the Mount, as reported by Cybercast News Service.
But theologians and other experts don't agree on what Obama's biblical reference meant.
"If he's finding support for same-sex marriage from the Sermon on the Mount, he's reading a different Bible than I've ever read," Tom Minnery, senior vice president of government and public policy with the Christian Focus on the Family, told Cybercast News Service.
"I think Obama needs to grapple with the words of Jesus on the meaning of marriage," Minnery said.
"Hasn't he ever read Matthew 19:4 that the creator made the male and female? In other words, you cannot believe what Jesus said in Matthew and that Jesus endorsed same-sex marriage. It's inconsistent," Minnery said.
Rev. Jesse Peterson, founder and president of the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny (BOND), told Cybercast News Service that it may be more a case of politics than theology that inspired Obama's comments.
"When I first heard Obama comment on the Sermon on the Mount and homosexuality I couldn't grasp any relationship between the two," Peterson said.
"There is no correlation at all. The Sermon on the Mount is for the saints, and it explains their suffering and their reward as a result of suffering for what is right for Christ's sake. It doesn't give blessings or approval to homosexual unions," he said.
"I think maybe Senator Obama came up with the wrong passage," Peterson said. "Unless he is just trying to deceive the people. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he could be so desperate to win he'll just say anything."
But Tony Campolo - professor emeritus at Eastern University in Pennsylvania, ordained minister, spiritual adviser to Bill Clinton, and founder of the liberal Christian group, Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education - told Cybercast News Service that he thinks Obama's reference to the Sermon on the Mount was meant to highlight the core message of the Christian faith.
"He's saying, very carefully, that I personally believe that gay marriage is contrary to the teaching of Scripture," said Campolo. "He's very clear about that.
"He takes Paul (Romans 1:27) seriously, but he is saying 'in my own ideology,' Jesus is speaking to the needs of the poor, standing up against violence, opposing war, standing up against capital punishment. These are values that are pervasive in the Sermon on the Mount and in my politics, this is what I want to emphasize," he said.
Minnery said he is familiar with Campolo and his Red Letter Christians, who put more stock in Christ's teaching than the other teachings in the Bible, but biblical interpretation can only go so far, he said.
"I think (Obama) is taking one aspect of the Christian faith and going to ridiculous ends with it," Minnery said. "Plainly, Jesus evoked one man and one woman as the meaning of marriage, and Tony Campolo and Barack Obama are trying to have it both ways.
"For example, Barack Obama says he's for traditional marriage and yet he stands against the very thing that will preserve it, which is the Defense of Marriage Act," said Minnery.
Kiera McCaffrey, director of communications for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said it is a mistake for Obama to look to the Bible as a playbook for his political aspirations.
"It seems pretty bogus using (the Bible) to justify civil unions," McCaffrey told Cybercast News Service. "He should be using secular reasons to back it up.
"He can search the whole Bible and not find anything that justifies gay marriage or same-sex unions," she said.
I love that cartoon. As Jesse Peterson mentioned, how did he mix up the beatitudes and homosexuality. I am afraid this mothers son is confused.
“And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.”
There is no conflict...the first verse clearly stated that God created the animals...the second reaffirmed the creation and then added the naming of animals.
Ok...now for the other 499.
I love the cartoon too, but—apologies to the artist—the sign should read simply “abortion.”
The first two verses indicate that animals came first, then Adam.
The second set indicates that Adam came first, then God formed the animals and brought them to Adam for naming.
Let’s try this one: the sins of the father.
Isaiah 14:21 - Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities. (IOW, kids get punished for Dad’s sin.)
DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (IOW, kids don’t get punished for Dad’s sin.)
“The second set indicates that Adam came first, then God formed the animals and brought them to Adam for naming.”
An incorrect reading...the second verse mentions AGAIN that God had created the animals and sought help mates for Adam, so he gave to Adam the animals...but Adam did not find fellowship with the animals, and so God created Eve.
The verses in Isiah and Deut are not speaking of the same thing. Isaiah is speaking of the subsequent generation not possessing the promised land due to the sins of the fathers...the slaughter spoken of here was their defeats at the hands of their enemies. Sin does have a ripple effect....the children of Germany did not take part in what the Nazi’s did, but ALL Germans paid a price (Not the best example...just top of my head).
The second verse you offer deals with the ultimate truth that each individual will be judged and punished according to their OWN sin...so one was prophecy informing that due to the sins of the fathers, the next generation would not be allowed to posses the land, etc.
The second informed that EACH is accountable for their own sins and will be judged accordingly.
But speaking of Isaiah, this book contains more than 80 specific prophecies concerning Christ...his birth, his life, even the method of execution between two criminals ( a method of execution that was unknown at the time of the writing of the book). Mathematicians inform that the odds of this many specific detail hundreds of years prior and incalculable.
Ok..498 please.
Obama prefers the Ultra-New Hip Re-revised Standard Version of the Bible.
The Church of What’s Happening Now!
Not true. We are all God's creations but only believers in Christ are children of God.
Jesus even calls some of the religious leaders who opposed him children of Satan.
Christians are capable of committing these sins or being deceived on theological issues just like anyone else.
That's why there are so many warning against falling into these sin in the New Testament direct at the early Church of believers.
We can forgive the first century Corinthians readily enough, but what do we make of those who call themselves Christians but won’t take a lesson from the Corinthians, or when confronted with the plain text, dismiss Romans out of hand?
We must, at some point, conclude they’re not really interested in being part of the same Body.
Stuff like this is why he would be a MUCH easier candidate to beat than Hillary.
Who are you preaching to? Not necessary to me. Give me a break.
The "gay christian" apologists come up with all kinds of absurd arguments to dismiss scripture.
The most common one I've heard for Romans is;
"Paul is refering to heterosexuals who are violating their own nature by engaging in homosexual behavior. God "gave them up" indicates that God made them commit acts which were against their own "natural" orientation. None of this applies to genuine homosexuals since homosexuality is their "natural" orientation, not heterosexuality."
There are a million ways to call “Good evil and evil good.”
They are all lies and property of the father of lies.
Nowhere does Paul claim his message is for only one segment of the community—it’s not the “Letter to the Straight Romans.”
Are there teachings which only apply to the left-handed, as well? It would be great to have those marked out as well.
Real Christians don’t believe that it’s OK to kill babies before they are born. Real Muslims don’t, either.
Here's the response I posted to "gay Christians" on a message board;
There are several problems with the gay argument;
1. The passage does not say "THEIR natural function", but rather "THE natural function".
It is not refering to what "feels natural", or an individual "orientation" but rather to the "natural function" defined by design and God's created intent for sexuality.
This is an indication of the Bible's stand from begining to end..that the only "natural" sexual relationships are heterosexual, and that all homosexual relations are "unnatural".
2. Paul makes no distintion between genuine homosexuals as opposed to heterosexuals who just happen to be engaging in homosexual acts. The Greek terms Paul uses for men and women refer very specifically as to gender and biological function.
Paul is telling us that homosexuality is BIOLOGICALLY unnatural for ANYBODY.
3. Men who "burned in their lust one toward another" hardly sounds like a description of "heterosexuals".
4. And it is highly unlikely the Bible would refer to something which was perfectly "natural" and acceptable in God's eyes for SOME people as "VILE AFFECTIONS"...much less say that God had turned them over to such behavior as a consequense for their having turned their backs on Him.
5. Nowhere in the Bible does God calls something a sin just because it is contrary to a person's "personal orientation", and that the same conduct is not sin for a person naturally oriented towards it.
So here we have "gay Christians" making up *a concept of sin* which is completely foreign to the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible tell us that having a natural orientation toward any sin makes us exceptions to His laws.
6. What about the other behaviors described in vs. 29 and 30?
Would backbiting, murder, fornication, deceit etc. also be OK for persons to whom they come naturally? No serious reader of the scripture could accept such a premise.
7. The gay argument that "gave them up" indicates God "made" these people do "unnatural" and "vile" acts is incorrect.
Romans 1:24 tells us God "gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves".
Note it says the "lusts of their own hearts." The passage is quite clear as to where those "feelings" originated.
I’ve met Tom Minnery on two occasions and heard him preach once. He is very good man. I met Compolo once and he is a first class jerk.
yeah, he’s confused but I don’t think he knows it. I believe both he and Hillary are so left wing and full of big government answers that just continue the depend class, that McCain will be quite a contrast...even with his weaknesses.
Ya think?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.