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.
What Barry Hussein Osama is doing, is pandering to the extreme left of the RAT party. That is typical of all politicians, especially the dims.
I have some homework for you. How many contradictions can you find in a college text book on integral calculus?
I’m not that good at calculus. I am, however, stellar at reading.
I don’t have time to argue with you, nor do I have time to search out endless “context” for everything I read.
I just know how to comprehend what I do read, on a literal level.
Obama just confused it with the sermon on brokeback mount.
He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'
Yeah, I get it. I’m a Philistine.
I am not saying you are anything. But one can read the Bible looking for contradictions and find them or one can try to find harmony in the verses and obtain the deeper truth.
Obama needs to point to a homosexual couple in the Bible that’s approved by Jesus. Or a lone homosexual in ministry. There’s a reason there are none and lying or obfuscation won’t change that.
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
Isaiah 5:20,21
Proof-texting in English translations is a mug’s game anyway; all one winds up doing at most is demonstrating the fallability or limitations of translators. If one seriously wants to argue the inerrancy of Scripture one needs to bone up on one’s Hebrew and Koine.
But that’s too much like work for those most, who were just seeking a loophole to slip out of the fold anyway.
Your not that good at calculus but you’ve proclaimed yourself to be a great scholar on Bible contradictions.
Try these:
The Bible is full of contradictions
1) It contradicts sin with forgiveness.
2) It contradicts the counterfeit lies of the spirit of this world by proclaiming the truth.
3) It contradicts those who lack faith through encouragement and edification.
4) It contradicts fear uncertainty and doubt and replaces it with the spirit of power, love and a sound mind.
Whose report will you believe?
No, I haven’t “proclaimed” myself anything, and I dare you to show me the post wherein you think I did.
I just know how to read, remember what I read, and see if what I read next contradicts my past reading.
Your definition of “contradict” is different from mine. I think the word you’re looking for is “contrast.”
ok thanks
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.