"Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."Much the same could be said about a Democratic politician using the Scripture in any way.
Case in point, Barack Obama.
Obama is trying hard to become the Presidential nominee of a party which has publicly scorned, and virulently opposes, every distinctively Biblical-Christian presence in public life. If Democratic leadership had its way, there would be no distinctively Christian presence in the public square.
So anyone who's trying to claim to be any kind of Christian AND in touch with the Dem party of today has a tall order.
Here's how B. Hussein Obama tried to do it:
"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.... 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."I... what?! Read the article's attempt to make any kind of sense out of Obama's burblings.
Perhaps "obscure" is a synonym for "uncongenial" or "inconvenient" in Obamaspeak.
Then Obama further delivered himself of this:
"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," Obama said about abortion. "Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don't think it makes me less Christian. Okay."Let's tweak that just a little, with my changes in bold red and bracketed.
"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," Obama said about [killing two-year-olds who have become inconvenient or imperfect]. "Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don't think it makes me less Christian. Okay."One more time:
"I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think [men], 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," Obama said about [men beating the very life out of women who irritate them]. "Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don't think it makes me less Christian. Okay."One wonders what would make him "less Christian," if being more pro-abort than Hillary Clinton doesn't do the job — if, in other words, being in favor of the "right" to butcher our most innocent and most helpless doesn't reflect on where Jesus Christ is, in his moral and intellectual universe.
Yikes. Well, let's let Mr. Obama say what it means to him to be a Christian:
I am a Christian. I am a 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.Okay, ah... well, on that, two Biblical quotations. The first is from the Bible that this "Jesus" who Mr. Obama mentions affirmed as the inerrant Word of God:
If one turns away his ear from hearing the law [the torah, the Word of God],The next is from that same Jesus, Himself:
even his prayer is an abomination
(Proverbs 29:8)
"Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do what I tell you?" (Luke 6:46)A claim is just a claim, until it's tested.
Again, read the article, which is well-documented.
Posts
19 comments:
It's my general impression that the Sermon on the Mount is the sole part of Scripture that is revered by liberals. The virgin birth and physical resurrection? Fabrications. Jesus' teachings on the last days and Christological self-references? Later apostolic accretions.
In the most extreme cases, everything else in Scripture—the rest of the New Testament and all of the Old Testament—are considered manmade fabrications, from which we can pick and choose what we like.
That's certainly the belief I walked away with after reading Friedman and Joseph Campbell (for the OT) and Spong and the Jesus Seminar (for the NT). I was a drowning sinner who'd rejected the life preserver God had provided.
Of course, once you reject everything except the Sermon on the Mount, you have a pluralistic, secular humanist worldview that is conveniently adatable to whatever the contemporary moral fashion is.
Ironically, though, even within the Sermon on the Mount, there are hints of God's righteousness that cannot be ignored. Mt 5:18-20 (no doubt regarded by libs as an interpolation); Mt 5:28 (a weak point for any straight male with a pulse); Mt 6:2-4 (a stumbling block for celebrity philanthropists); Mt 7:1 (pertinent to those who "tolerate" anyone who is pluralistic, but intolerant to those who actually take Scripture seriously); Mt 7:13-14 (if the gate is narrow and the way is hard and few find it, why are there so many people out there who are sure they understand it and are walking in it at no cost to themselves? (Applies also to some evangelicals, of course)); Mt 7:19 (ouch!); Mt 7:23 (but libs think it applies to us conservative evangelicals).
Anyhow, wasn't there an article recently in which Obama proudly proclaimed that he's "evangelical" but not "born-again"? I guess that since John 3 is not part of the Sermon on the Mount, it's one of those take-it-or-leave-it optional extras. (The whole Gospel according to John is suspect to liberals anyhow, what with all its refined Christology.)
Well, I just had to get this off my chest.
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So,every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. Matthew 7:15-20
It pains me the kind of scripture twisting that Senator Obama uses to justify his positions. An obscure passage in Romans? Give me a break. He must have missed this verse:
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16, 17
All scripture, not just the parts that make me feel happy and O.K. with where I am at, all of it. There are many that have been blinded by this man, myself included. Thankfully, I had Christian brothers that were willing to show me my error, so I did not continuing following the wolf in sheeps clothing. However, there are so many blindly following this man. We have a man who may very well be our next President, yet sits in direct opposition to the faith he professes to have.
We shall know them by their fruit, indeed.
Hillary!'s starting to look better, no?
My answers all probably stress most people's notions of Christian civility.
Including mine.
So I'll just go with "No."
It's not a shock. I read his statement on abortion some time ago and thanks for updating me on his positions on homosexual marriage. Anyway, it's pretty shameful. What is even more shameful is other evangelicals thinking he is a Christian. I'm glad some are starting to see the light of who Senator Obama really is.
I would agree with Dan, that Sen. Clinton doesn't look better but I have to admit, after looking at some of the debates, Sen. Obama is so far to the loon left, he would be a lot worse than Sen. Clinton. Sen. Clinton, wants power, just like her husband, and probably would sacrifice her own principles to be re-elected. But Obama is so far to the kook fringe left, his Presidency probably would take us done a worst path more quicker than Sen. Clinton.
He has told you, O man, what is good and what does the Lord requires of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
---Micah 6:8 (ESV)
Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
---Matthew 7:3 (ESV)
For iI was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, jyou did not do it to me.’
---Matt. 25:42-45
It saddens me to see these vicious and wicked attacks coming from the mouths of professing Christians. Are we not commanded to keep our speech clean and sober? By perpetuating lies, playing on fear, and stooping to the level of Satan himself it provides the enemy with comfort.
I am reminded of a song written several years back by the sinner George Michael. The song lamented the state of the world, the hypocrisy of professing Christians, and ended by pondering whether the reason Jesus has not returned is because He has no children to come back for.
We are to speak the truth in love, not hate.
SDG
Rob
Is that meant to be some sort of defense of Obama? If so, let me get this straight: what matters isn't his perversion of Scripture, it isn't that the criticisms of him are accurate, central and on-target.
What matters is that you judge the hearts of the writers (pace Matthew 7:1).
So, is Obama (for instance) a pro-abort extremist? No big, to you.
Oh, but the people who point that out aren't nice enough. Right.
That's sad.
Like I've said, take it somewhere else.
Rob,
I am not sure what lies you speak of. Everything that Dan put out was documented from the mouth of Senator Obama himself. He acknowledges that he is pro-abortion and pro-homosexual unions. The article Dan referenced is him twisting scripture so that he can justify his positions. The point is that he can't justify being a Christian and supporting abortion and homosexual unions. It is not possible. The Bible clearly speaks against those things, and therefore as Christians we can not support them. So again I ask what lies Dan, myself, or any other commenters have put out? Or is it simply, as Dan said, we are just not being nice by pointing it out?
In Christ,
Ricky
Recently, A UCLA law student, an advisor for some pro-life advocate of a student publication called the Ohio Planned Parenthood office posing as a donor with racist motives who wanted his donation directly targeted towards minority woman. He told the office he wanted to underwrite an abortion for a minority woman since there are "way too many black people in Ohio", he said. Planned parenthood responded that for whatever reason, they would accept his money. The Ohio office confirmed that the call took place and their CEO said it was an "upsetting violation of policy."
Another call was made to the Idaho office and he told the office he wanted to give money for a "black baby because he has problem with affirmative action and the less black babies here, the better." The office answered, "Understandable, understandable."
Don't look for this to hit the liberal mainstream media. I wondered if Sen. Obama ("who prays to Jesus everyday" has considered the racism of abortion.)
By the way, DGM has a link to a video of abortion rights activists admitting that abortion is the death of fetus. I find it amazing that unregenerate people can recognize this, but rather, someone who "prays to Jesus everyday" doesn't understand that as an elected official who is running for President, he is suppose to do what is right in defending life and not leaving the "difficult decision to the mother and pastor."
No, it is not a defense of Sen. Obama or his errant positions or misunderstanding of Scripture. It IS a call for us as Christians to rise above the level of our common enemy (the devil) and adhere to biblical principles in the discussion of such issues. But for the grace of God, there goes us all.
We are no better than Sen. Obama. We all sin and we all have errantly interpreted Scripture.
No matter how we feel about Democrats or Republicans some of them are our brothers and sisters in Christ, even if they are wrong on some issues. If the measure of a Christian is to have all their theological ducks in a row, well, none of us will be seeing Jesus in heaven except to be told to depart from Him.
As for taking it elsewhere, I respectfully decline. You can ban my postings and remove them like you did that other guy if you wish. Until then I will urge you as a brother in Christ to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God.
SDG
Rob
Right; we'll continue to do that.
We'll also continue to point out that advocating infanticide and validating soul-killing perversion (as Obama does) is not morally equivalent to the opposite, that Scripture doesn't mean anything that just anyone wants it to mean, and that embracing a party opposed to Christian citizenship (i.e. the Democratic party) is not good Christian stewardship.
that Scripture doesn't mean anything that just anyone wants it to mean
I've never argued that it does. But do keep in mind that you and I are not the final arbiters of what Scripture means and just because we think we're right doesn't mean we are. After all, you disagree with some of the best Christian minds ever to ponder the Scriptures, as do I.
embracing a party opposed to Christian citizenship (i.e. the Democratic party) is not good Christian stewardship.
I won't debate whether this falsely characterizes an entire party or not. Suffice it to say there are many Christian brothers and sisters who are Democrats (I'm NOT one of them). Being a member of a political party does not mean absolute agreement with every plank in the platform.
I would take your statement one step further and say that embracing ANY political party is not good Christian stewardship. When we as Christians begin to single out particular sins (such as abortion & homosexuality) while looking the other way when members of our preferred party accept bribes, carry on adulterous affairs, promote greed and lust, foster injustice, pander to fear, and engage in outright racism, we need to get down our knees and repent.
I need to comment on Rob's statement which suggests there is no difference between let's say a Sen. Obama and believers, e.g., who may differ on baptism, eschatology, etc. I want to comment on it, not just because this comparison is so wrong and false, but it could have terrible implications among tender ears (new babes in Christ) because they may be duped into thinking that, hey, everyone is not 100% right on the Bible, so, there is no big deal if I vote for Obama.
There is the $64K question which is, is believing in wrong doctrine sinful? The answer to that is of course yes. Since the Lord is characterized by absolute truth, any deviation from that truth would be sinful. But it is sinful in this respect, everything that we do, our prayers, our bible reading, our worship, is sinful. The best analogy I've heard is if you define sin as blue. So, everything I touch is blue. Blue smoke is coming out our nostrils. Blue stain is all over my keyboard. Everything that we do will be left with some kind of blue stain.
But, But, there is a very sharp distinction between that and the blatant and murderous beliefs let's say Sen. Obama adheres to like defending a woman's right to abortion or defending homosexuals right to marriage. People should not be misled into thinking that believing in wrong doctrine such as a certain kind of eschatology is at par with wrongly believing that government should not defend against murder or wrongly believing that government should take a back seat when it comes to homosexual marriage.
Anyway, I wanted to point that out since we've had some recent and radical changes in voting stewardship and I don't want anyone to be misled back into thinking it's okay for a believer to sharply disagree with Sen. Obama and believe a vote for him is okay since "we all sin and errantly interpret Scripture."
Interesting post. You opening quote would be something that would drive whoever runs this blog crazy.
Since Carlo felt the need to address my comments I feel compelled to respond:
suggests there is no difference between let's say a Sen. Obama and believers, e.g., who may differ on baptism, eschatology, etc.
I did not say there was no difference nor did I limit my concerns to doctrinal differences. My concern is with elevating some sins (abortion & homosexuality) to penultimate levels while ignoring other sins.
it could have terrible implications among tender ears (new babes in Christ) because they may be duped into thinking that, hey, everyone is not 100% right on the Bible, so, there is no big deal if I vote for Obama.
I have also never argued that one should or could vote for Sen. Obama. If the acceptance (I do not say approval) of some type of sin disqualifies a man from receiving the vote of a Christian then that standard ought to be applied across party lines. Abortion is not a "worse" sin in the eyes of God than, say, idolatry and the worship of a false God. Yet, many on this blog were all to willing to jump into bed with the devil's agent (Mitt Romney) because they agreed with his morals. All sin is an affront to God and as Christians we cannot, and must not, pick and choose between sins and quietly ignore some while vocally opposing others. We must remain true to the whole counsel of God.
The point of my posts has not been to argue for or against any particular candidate. Rather it has been that as Christians we must rise to a higher level than the world around us. We must not engage in demagoguery (which Dan does frequently), we must not distort what individuals believe by putting our own spin on their statements, and we must not elevate some sins above others. Jesus Christ bled and died for all manner of sins, not just the ones we disapprove of most.
Corrected from deleted post for errors.
The whole point of your posts has to been to argue Rob! You keep introducing these ad hominen arguments like we are "engaging in demagoguery", or that we are saying "abortion is worst sin than others" or that "we are elevating some sins over others."
For your information, Dan introduced a topic of a political elected official who is running for the highest political office in the nation. We grant you that some Christians tend to decry sins such as abortion and homosexuality and other sins of others over our own sins of anger, pride, jealousy etc. But that is not the subject at hand and frankly, I get sick and tired of the pride and arrogance of you people making the argument everything except about what it is about. I have a greater hatred for my own sins than the most defiled homosexual out there, but the hatred of my own sins doesn't mean when the government fails to restrain evil and maintain and uphold life and or property, then I can't speak out because I have a greater hatred for my own sins.
This is about an elected official who aims to continue about making abortion legal. The subject is NOT about abortion being a "greater" sin than others, but about a topic at hand about an elected official who will continue to make abortion legal.
And if you're going to continue to ad nausem make every single political blog raised by Dan against democrats an issue that we are elevating some sins over others, I agree with what has already been said, take those garbage caricatures somewhere else like at the Daily Kook or DNCTV or your own blog which no one reads.
I can agree with a fair bit of what you say, Rob, and it is a significant point in the GOP's favor.
I'm going to word this carefully, and please note the relatives and comparatives:
Of the two parties, moral impropriety is far likelier to be a career-killer to a GOP pol, and far likelier to be a resume-enhancer to a Dem. The GOP is far better at taking out its own garbage — or, as often as not, the garbage takes itself out, knowing that it's finished.
Contrast with the whole Bill Clinton situation, in which the entire party sold its soul to keep him in power. Were he a GOP pres, I am quite sure that his own party would have told him to resign.
And he'd have done it.
That's it for now, kids, we're moving on.
Post a Comment