Listening to Hugh Hewitt's show tonight, I heard about Barak Obama's rather warped reading of the New Testament.
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."
The Sermon on the Mount discussed same sex marriage? Wow, I must have missed that passage. And calling Romans 1 "an obscure passage" is a bit like calling Paul "just one of the apostles."
For the record, Paul's Letter to the Romans isn't just a letter. It is the place where the clearest case for Christianity--and the inclusion of Gentiles--is laid out anywhere in the New Testament. For Gentiles, Romans is the book, their book. Paul explains in detail why God's love and grace are not just for Jews but for the rest of us as well. But before explaining the glory of God's grace, Paul talks about the sinful nature of man. That gets us to the "obscure passage in Romans" that Obama artlessly discussed.
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
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.
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.--Romans 1:18-32
It's hardly an obscure passage, and basically every person can fit into one or another of those sins. But what of the Sermon on the Mount? What on earth was Obama pointing to? "Judge not lest ye be judged"? Perhaps. But even that passage doesn't mean what post-modern non-Christians want it to mean. In fact, we are expected to make judgments, such as between good and evil (James 4:11-12). That's not a very liberal view of humanity at all, and it makes one wonder why Obama willingly stepped into this quagmire at all.
I'm surprised Obama even discussed the same sex marriage vs. civil union thing at all. Homosexual supporters can't be happy with his view point and coming out for civil unions doesn't win him any points from more conservative voters anyway. And showing such a lack of understanding of the Bible can't help him with religious voters. What was the point?
Michelle Malkin has a nice analysis of this event.
|