Obama: Sermon on Mount Justifies Same-Sex Unions

Another politician who needs to leave the heavy theological lifting to those who can handle it.

 

If Senator Obama were running for national pastor instead of for president of these United States I would be concerned about some of his theology. However, since he is running for secular office and not an office in the church his theology is not an issue with me. I regard people who post on this board as being fellow Christians even though I disagree with them thoroughly on some major theological issues, e.g., eschatology, drinking alcholic beverages in moderation, gambling in moderation.

 

I agree, but look at who his Pastor is... Enough said!

 

It's really no different than listening to Christians here at BB justify their support of candidates that support same sex marriage.

All of them, like Obama, have to twist scripture or move the focus off the issue.

They all have to put their Christianity in a box at times.

 

I knew a Christian lawyer one time that defended homosexual couples wanting to adopt...

He would state clearly in church that homosexuality was a sin... but then on Monday go out and defend their agenda....

His reasoning...

His job was a secular job... and his Christian religion was to be practiced on Sunday, at the church building, not pushed on everyone else that week.

Of course, his mother, Aunt and Uncle are very outspoken environmentalists.... and they actually jumped me one time because I preached against the sin of abortion....

They said I should not have preached that unless I was willing to preach against the sin of big oil companies -- greed and pollution... which they said was as bad as abortion.

His uncle also told me on 9/11 when we met for prayer that evening that he felt that we shouldn't retaliate against whoever was behind 9/11... but he was sure we would because the republicans were warmongers....



Needless to say, I didn't stay there that long!

 

Don't look for those questions to be asked any time soon.

 

The Gospels were written long after Romans. If Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John wanted to confirm Pauline theology they had ample opportunity and passed it by.

 

Apparently it is an issue for him. He brought it up.

 

"Pauline theology" ?

How about "Matthew theology" or "Mark theology" or Luke theology" or "John theology" ?

Have you decided that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are speaking on behalf of Christ in their letters but Paul is not?

If so, why?

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

What are you claiming here? That the scriptures are completely disjointed, and each book represents nothing but the personal doctirnes of the writer? or that the NT writers were the Jack Chicks of their time? If that's so, there is no need to read them at all.

 

To quote Bill Buckley:
"I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you believe what you just said!"

 

He asked them already... Why would we ask them again? :thumbs:

 

One question to our current president. Why do you believe that Christians and Muslims worship the same god and why did you announce that Muslims would go to heaven but by a different way than Christians.

 

Christians should not rationalize that a politician can lend support to the legal recognition of homosexual unions because it is only from a "secular" perspective. Friends, this is God's world - not ours - and Christ desires that we follow Him at all times, in all places, and in all things. Our basis of law, although neutral towards any particular religion, had better be founded on God's law else all we have in law is worthless.Obama thinks more weight should be given to one part of scripture - in a general context - than to another - in specific context - and this is attempting to use scripture - Christian scripture - to justify an act which is completely wrong and greatly displeases our Lord. This is selective reading! Obama is attempting to use the weight of scripture for an argument that homosexual unions should be recognized by the state because the participants have a right to such.He says this because it is politically neutral in sound and appealing to those who advocate it and, perhpas, convincing to those who would be inclined to believe it might not be so bad to tolerate it. We must never give such recognition! When our "secular" leaders don't have a Christian foundation in their beliefs we're headed for very serious trouble.

 

If I thought that such a person was the best person running for that office, yes, I would be willing to vote for him/her.

 

:laugh:

Hardly.

 

Bill Maher pointed out that Obama has been talking more about "Jesus" lately in an attempt to try to reach out to some folks that he's losing. May be correct. Pander bears (to borrow Paul Tsongas's term from 92) are always in great supply and apparently in even greater demand.