So says the Rt. Rev. Barack Obama, in response to a Protestant clergyman who told him lots of Evangelicals were on board with his social agenda, but had trouble accepting some of aspects of his views.
What's interesting about this as a purely political matter is that unlike many, even most, national Democratic politicians, Obama doesn't shove his hands in his pockets, fumble with his speech and mumble whatever he needs to go get through the answer. He says what he believes flat-out -- because he's a convinced religious leftist.
Obviously I don't agree with him politically or theologically on some important issues, but if he becomes president, it will be interesting (probably in the "ancient Chinese curse" sense of "May you live in interesting times") to see what having a president who is a confident and believing religious progressive does to our public debates.
(H/T: Shea.)
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Jesus okay with same-sex unions, abortion- So says the Rt. Rev. Barack Obama, in response to a Protestant clergyman who told him lots of Evangelicals were on board with his social agenda, but had trouble accepting some of aspects of his views.
Terry Jeffrey's representation of the Romans 1 passage assumes its meaning to his reader rather than making a case for it. Obama's interpretation of the passage works and isn't actually refuted.
What's interesting about this as a purely political matter is that unlike many, even most, national Democratic politicians, Obama doesn't shove his hands in his pockets, fumble with his speech and mumble whatever he needs to go get through the answer. He says what he believes flat-out -- because he's a convinced religious leftist.
Actually, both issues were unsettled in 2004 and settled down politically in 2005/06. I don't credit his religious convictions so much. His stances amount to agreement with 'civil unions' and the current status quo on abortion law, which happen to be stances 55% of voters agree with or are to the left of now. It's not particularly hard to hold opinions in public that are majority, no longer in flux, and trend is favor. The Biblical justifications for the conservative stances aren't compelling.
Obviously I don't agree with him politically or theologically on some important issues, but if he becomes president, it will be interesting (probably in the "ancient Chinese curse" sense of "May you live in interesting times") to see what having a president who is a confident and believing religious progressive does to our public debates.
As a helpful suggestion, American politicians ought to wear neon lights that blink "Christian". Because otherwise people might have to judge them Christian or not according to their deeds and policies, which is an old way of doing it that evidently no longer works.
Jesus was very specific in the Sermon on the Mount: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
In other words, while we don't stone people anymore, "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman" (Lev. 18:22) still applies.
Now, homosexual activists argue that Jesus never specifically condemned homosexuality. Besides being irrelevant (there are no specific condemnations of child abuse in the New Testament, either, and it's unlikely that anyone takes that as divine permission to beat their kids senseless), it's wrong.
A Christian can't make this argument without suggesting that Jesus is not God or that the Mosaic Law was not divinely inspired.
Second, Jesus did, in fact, specifically define marriage as between one man and one woman (Mark 10:6-8).
I doubt he's going to chance his positions to fit the Bible, but Sen. Obama really should study up if he's going to use it to support his politics.
"You shall not lie with a man as with a woman" (Lev. 18:22) still applies.
In fact, it's not obvious anyone actually does.
Second, Jesus did, in fact, specifically define marriage as between one man and one woman (Mark 10:6-8).
It doesn't explain what to do when people are not "male" or "female", or the "twain in flesh" you say is proscribed is spiritually and psychologically unbearable. There are also problems for castrates and celibates.
Well, then again, maybe there is a solution-
Mark 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
What is wrong with you people!! If President Clinton could read Scripture to show Monica that her services weren't sex, future President Obama certainly can read Scripture to show that same-sex unions and abortion are OK for Christians.
It's a Democratic presidential thing.
What I know is God didnt make me to a feel for another man. No man. But with some women, yes. Am I normal?
Or I am also normal if I feel for both man and woman? Or maybe dogs, cats etc.
Why do I feel very strange when a man says he is interested in me?
Should I feel okay?
But I didnt, I felt like kicking him in the face!
What does that tells me? It is normal to feel horrified. Therefore what is normal for me to feel horrified must also be equally horrified at the thought that homosexual is normal.
It goes against the grain I am make.
That is all I have to say.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.