Reply With Quote
he has a point. romans=paul, sermon on the mount=christ.
For all of you Romney bashers, ol Mitt ain't got nuthin' on Obama!
Obama: Sermon on Mount OKs Same-Sex Unions
Monday, March 3, 2008 8:04 AM
By: Terence P. Jeffrey
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told a crowd at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, Sunday that he believes the Sermon on the Mount justifies his support for legal recognition of same-sex unions. He also told the crowd that his position in favor of legalized abortion does not make him "less Christian."
"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." (See video here) St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans condemns sexual acts as unnatural and sinful.
Obama's mention of the Sermon on the Mount in justifying legal recognition of same-sex unions may have been a reference to the Golden Rule: "Do to others what you would have them do to you." Or it may have been a reference to another famous line: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."
The Sermon, recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, includes the Lord's Prayer, the Bea udes, an endorsement of scriptural moral commandments ("anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven"), and condemnations of murder, divorce and adultery. It also includes a warning: "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves."
The passage from St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, which Obama dismissed as "obscure," discusses people who knew God but turned against him.
"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised," wrote St. Paul. "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." <--yep, sure sounds like God give the ol' thumbs up to civil unions
On the topic of abortion, Obama said his support for keeping it legal does not trespass on his Christian faith. <---Then your knowledge of God and scripture is superficial, twisted and one of convenience.
"I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington <----Yeah, forget about the fact that they're aborting their Creators means of bringing new life into this world. That's my view," Obama said about abortion. "Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don't think it makes me less Christian. Okay." <---No, it's not!
Obama opened his town-hall-type meeting at the college with a short speech and then provided lengthy answers to a handful of questions. One questioner, Leon Forte, a Protestant clergyman, asked Obama about evangelical Christians who were concerned about his position on issues that conservatives consider "litmus tests."
In that letter, Obama said he favored same-sex unions that were equal to marriage--including adoption rights--and that he was open to states codifying same-sex marriages.
"As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws," Obama said in the letter. "I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples--whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage."
In Ohio on Sunday, before mentioning the Sermon on the Mount, Obama insisted he was against "gay marriage" and did not mention his support for allowing same-sex couples to adopt children and have the same "family" status as heterosexual couples.
"I will tell you that I don't believe in gay marriage, but I do think that people who are gay and lesbian should be treated with dignity and respect and that the state should not discriminate against them," said Obama on Sunday. "So, I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other. I don't think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. 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. That's my view."
Obscure only to those who want to torture and twist the Bible beyond recognition to suit there political or personal agendas. Does he even know what "obscure" means? the Scriptures in Romans are no more obscure that the Sermon On The Mount is in Matthew! Does Obama find the Scriptures in Genesis regarding God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah for their immorality/ sexuality, equally obscure?
Obama also has been more aggressive in framing his pro-abortion position previously than he was on Sunday. When he was in the Illinois Senate, for example, he repeatedly opposed a bill that would have defined as a "person" a baby who had survived an induced-labor abortion and was born alive.
In a 2001 Illinois Senate floor speech about that bill, he argued that to call a baby who survived an abortion a "person" would give it equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment and would give credibility to the argument that the same child inside its mother's womb was also a "person" and thus could not be aborted. And he "prays nightly to Jesus"? What's he praying for, carte blanche to contort beyond recognition, the Scripture? Taking morality out of the Scripture? Add Blasphemer to Heretic!
When the Illinois Senate bill was amended to make it identical to a federal law that included language to protect Roe v. Wade--and that the U.S. Senate voted unanimously to pass--Obama still opposed the bill, voting it down in the Illinois Senate committee he chaired.
Yet, in Ohio on Sunday, Obama depicted abortion as a tragedy to be avoided, while being kept legal. Okay, add hypocrite too. He doesn't know what the heck he believes, that's so liberal politician of him.
"On the issue of abortion, that is always a tragic and painful issue <unless, of course, you've talked to your family, pastor, etc., first>," he said. "I think it is always tragic, and we should prevent it as much as possible ....(enter the disclaimer to what he just said) But I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington. That's my view. Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don't think it makes me less Christian. Okay."
Before discussing his views on same-sex unions and abortion, Obama told the crowd he was a "devout Christian." Okay, good thing I haven't eaten breakfast, because I don't think it would stay down.
"In terms of my faith, there has been so much confusion that has been deliberately perpetrated through emails and so forth, so here are the simple facts," he said. "I am a Christian. I am a devout Christian. <albiet, an immoral devout Christian...> I have been a member of the same church for 20 years, pray to Jesus every night, and try to go to church as much as I can when they are not working me. Used to go quite often.
"These days, we haven't been at the home church--I haven't been home on Sunday--for several months now. So, my faith is important to me. It is not something that I try to push on other people. But it is something that helps to guide my life and my values."
John 11:36 - Jesus Wept.
[urlhttp://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Obama_same_sex/2008/03/03/77289.html[/url]
Disappointment, but not surprise. He's a perfect fit with the liberal left fringe marxist, socialist, democrats. For the Christian Democrats on this board, I'd be interested in hearing your defense of this mess.
he has a point. romans=paul, sermon on the mount=christ.
I didn't think it could happen, but conservative Christians made themselves irrelevant.
Impressive.
Obama has no point, and neither do you.
1. Romans and the writings of Paul are not obscure, nor are they in contradiction to anythng Jesus Christ said.
2. There is absolutely nothing in Christ's "Sermon on the Mount" that even remotely suggests that Civil-Unions, aka sexuality, is to be condoned.
He's clueless and ignorant, but he can get away with his nonsensical heresy, in part, because a majority of his audience, including those in the news mediums, are ignorant regarding Scripture. That along with an overall indifference to morality.
There is a reason why religion and state were separated.
Last edited by Kriz-Maxima; 03-05-2008 at 07:36 PM.
Why didn't you think it could happen?
I'd bet the house that McCain doesn't think conservative Christians are irrelevant. And since they'll be voting against the ultra-liberal Clinton or Obama, possibly tipping the scale in McCains favor, they wouldn't see them as irrelevant either.
How can people say he is less Christian? Who gave them the authority to judge him? God or their own ego?
Why should a presidential candidate for any Western democracy in the 21st century make his decisions on a 2000 year-old book full of metaphors that were written for that specific period in time?
Even more, should it matter what religious belief does the candidate has? Or if he hasn't got any at all?
That was standard liberal-apostate Christianity. Nothing he said was a surprise. If you go into any of the mainline Protestant churches, odds are better than half that the pastor will agree with the stuff Obama said.
And that is why I reject mainline churches.
I'm saying Obama's a heretic, and it's not a matter of judgement, but a matter of fact.
Roughly 2 out of 3 Americans believe the Bible is literally true (4 of 5 Black Americans), and that it is the Word of God. With that in mind, what else would you expect?
p.s. That means those same percentages of Americans believe that your characterization of the Bible as a "book full of metaphors for a specific time period" is absurd.
Is it? Just because an awful lot of people believe in it does it make it a book that fits these times? If a lot of people read "The Da Vinci Code" does that make it historical and relevant to this day? Millions worldwide have watched the six Star Wars movies, and there's even a Jedi Church in some countries. Are we about to enter a new era in which all of us will speak backwards just because a lot of people watched those movies?
Religion has no word on the State or its politics, or at least, shouldn't have it. Religion is a personal choice affair, much as sexual orientation, drug consumption, colour of your knickers or how much salt you put on your steak.
Religion is a personal choice of an ethical code. The state and politics are based or reason and logic (in theory, many politicians do their best to rebuttal this). To pretend to erase the line that divides the State from religion is a step backwards in human evolution.
We do have freedom of religion in this country, no?
You cannot derive a form of government from reason and logic alone. You have to have some set on principles from which you use reason and logic to derive your form of government.
For example, if one nation relies upon the principle that the wealth and comfort of the despot, his family, and his close companions is the only matter of importance, this, through the application of reason and logic, will result in a very different form of government from that of another nation which relies upon the principle that all people are created equal and have certain inalienable rights.
So what is the distinction between those two sets of principles? If you prefer one over the other, why?
He can get away with what he says because that is more or less the official teaching of his denomination. I doubt the clergy in the UCC are ignorant regarding Scripture; rather, it is more likely they know it quite well, but find it less important than their own human wisdom.
They seemed to have their act together. They just got arrogant and ridiculous like a lot of other moverments.
So Republicans can count on them no matter what their actual positions are like the Democrats counted on the black vote.I'd bet the house that McCain doesn't think conservative Christians are irrelevant. And since they'll be voting against the ultra-liberal Clinton or Obama, possibly tipping the scale in McCains favor, they wouldn't see them as irrelevant either.
It's that kind of relevance? Ok.
"Render unto Caesar..."
I think I'm going to need a link on that one. If there are many more than 90-100 million actual Christians in the United States, then I'm the King of Scotland.
I know, but I looked it up and sure enough a 2005 Rasmussen poll says exactly that.
It's an anti extreme-left-wing liberalism voting bloc. There is a philosophical chasm that exists on moral issues that is beyond reconciliation for a "Conservative" Christian.
It's not a matter of relevance, but one of conviction and principle. The idea is to please God, not politicians, so they align themselves, at times reluctantly so, with the Party whose platform most closely identifies with those principles and convictions.It's that kind of relevance? Ok.
So they can be taken for granted.
Thanks for reiterating that.
God is pleased.
Any movement that is represented by John Hagee needs to die.
So then we should vote for Obama.
Nothing's been reiterated. If McCain made no overtures to them, or shrugged them off, that would be construed as taking them for granted, and there would probably be a significant number of them not voting at all.
He has made overtures, recently restating that he's "always been a conservative" (talk is cheap, so he'll have to further define his conservatism), and he'll more than likely select a conservative running mate to further illustrate that he's not taking them for granted.
Now, with those things being true, a reasonable person would not continue to insist that they can be taken for granted.
So they have been made content with simple lip service.
That's relevant.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
