Obama Bases Same Sex Unions on Jesus' Sermon on Temple Mount

metamorfhosis

New Member
March 05, 2008
(CNSNews.com) - 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.




Does the Bible justify same sex unions?


Read below for the entire article:



Obama's Bible Defense of Same-Sex Unions Wrong, Experts Say*
By Penny Starr
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
March 05, 2008



(CNSNews.com) - 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.
 
I read about this on another site. But on that one it had Obama quoted as disregarding the scripture in Romans on homosexuality as "obscure." :nono:
 
Errraahhh...:look: Somebody is spending too much time with Oprah and her heaped up teachers who are preaching a false Christ because obviously Obama's little "j" jesus is NOT the same risen Savior of the Bible.:nono:

Well, that was the nail in his coffin, looks like Billary will win the nomination and McCain the Presidency:yep: I put five on it!:lachen:
 
I am not surprised. There is no way that a candidate can support marriage as only between a man and woman and still get the democratic nomination.

IMHO - In the last decade - abortion and gay rights seem to be the glue that holds that party together. Most just don't seem to be aware of this fact. Without those key issues, there is not much else to keep the party together... I am sure I will get blasted for this but oh well... that is my two cents.
 
"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.

quote]


This topic really caught my attention. As educated as Obama is, I think he would know better than that. But I know Sometimes people twist the things you say especially in the world of politics. Even the critics of Jesus tried to put a different spin on Jesus words too, trying to discredit him in front of a crowd... I really have to research this topic a little bit further because I just find this hard to swallow. Maybe he was just using the Sermon on the Mt. to state what he is mainly focused on as a potential president (violence, opposing war, standing up against capital punishment). You can have about as much knowledge as a third grader and know very well that Jesus' teachings don't promote/justify/approve same sex unions. So I really am going to try to find other sources on this particular speech before I shake my head at Obama. I just hope Im not disappointed.
 
I am not surprised. There is no way that a candidate can support marriage as only between a man and woman and still get the democratic nomination.

IMHO - In the last decade - abortion and gay rights seem to be the glue that holds that party together. Most just don't seem to be aware of this fact. Without those key issues, there is not much else to keep the party together... I am sure I will get blasted for this but oh well... that is my two cents.

Actually, he wouldn't get the REPUBLICAN nomination. Democrats are usually much more liberal on these issues...which is why my Democratic roots are in conflict with my Christian conservative/Black Church roots on the race issue and the moral sin issues....

I've heard the homosexual agenda and the Bible spun a few different ways but the BIBLE is CLEAR on the matter. The Lord calls it an ABOMINATION. The Bible defines marriage as union between ONE man and ONE woman.

Even if this media report is accurate, it's not gospel. So that's settled.
 
Actually, he wouldn't get the REPUBLICAN nomination. Democrats are usually much more liberal on these issues...which is why my Democratic roots are in conflict with my Christian conservative/Black Church roots on the race issue and the moral sin issues....

I've heard the homosexual agenda and the Bible spun a few different ways but the BIBLE is CLEAR on the matter. The Lord calls it an ABOMINATION. The Bible defines marriage as union between ONE man and ONE woman.

Even if this media report is accurate, it's not gospel. So that's settled.

Your whole post...:clapping: ^^^^^ Five ^^^^^
 
Here is another article:

Quote from Obama: "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." St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans condemns homosexual acts as unnatural and sinful.


CLICK HERE FOR ENTIRE ARTICLE: Creative Minority Report: More on Obama: Bible Justifies Same Sex Unions -
 
Actually, he wouldn't get the REPUBLICAN nomination. Democrats are usually much more liberal on these issues...which is why my Democratic roots are in conflict with my Christian conservative/Black Church roots on the race issue and the moral sin issues....

I've heard the homosexual agenda and the Bible spun a few different ways but the BIBLE is CLEAR on the matter. The Lord calls it an ABOMINATION. The Bible defines marriage as union between ONE man and ONE woman.

Even if this media report is accurate, it's not gospel. So that's settled.


Exactly. I am not sure how we disagree?
 
Back
Top