This is really for anyone who would like to help me with this. I have several questions about Obama, Democrats, and Christianity from their perspective.
1. How does Obama reconcile Abortion with the Bible. He states that he is a Christian, but that he believes in pro-choice. I realize you might not know how he reconciles it but what of others? How do they reconcile their Christians beliefs with abortion?
2. Obama at one point was in support of Partial Birth Abortion. How can Christians reconcile these two positions.
3. Obama said he doesnt support Gay marriage, but others on the left who say that they are Christians do. How do they reconcile this?
Lets just start there.
On my part this is not an attempt to flame Obama or any others who support or believe such things, nor is it an attempt to start a fight. I really do want to know how they reconcile these things.
Abortion is a tense issue. I don't know anyone who cheers abortion, but many of us feel that this is the ultimate privacy issue--where to give the state access to this decision is to give the state access into all privacy issues. Not only that, but outlawing abortion will not eradicate it, but push it underground.
As for the Christian faith, I would point out that in Exodus during the famous "eye for an eye" section, if a pregnant woman is killed it is "eye for eye," but if the violence just causes a miscarriage, it is a property issue to be decided by the husband.
Finally, on gay marriage, this is a debate I am not sure you want to enter. No doubt a literal reading of the Bible is hard to justify with that (though not, oddly enough, abortion), but many of us believe that our definition of homosexuality is completely different than those discussions in the bible.
Finally, I am not sure that Obama was in any more support for PBA than anyone else. Those who defend that, as far as I have seen, have done so only in the case where the procedure was required to save the life of the mother.
And ultimately, I don't see how either of these issues should dominate our political discussion. We have actual national security, economic, and our basic democratic institutions at stake in this next election. Voting for a mythical attack on abortion, or to pretend that gay rights can be denied--ultimately means that stopping my gay friends down the street is more important than stopping the next war.
And electing McCain will mean many more wars, I am afraid. Unless he is not nearly as reckless as he appears.
Streak, I totally agree that this should not dominate our political discussions.
Next, I understand your disdain for Mccain, but ultimately I am asking about how democrats/liberals/ and even conservatives reconcile in their minds these issues with the Bible.
Also this is purely a discussion for those who claim to have a Christian faith. Not those who do not have a professed faith in Jesus.
Now, could you provide me with the reference to your Exodus passage?
If as you suggest PBA would only be used to save the life of the mother why not just have a c-section?
So what definition could you give that makes you think it is different than the Bibles view on the subject?
Once again I am looking to see how people reconcile the Bible with their personal views not a political discussion of why Obama or Mccain is better than the other.
22 "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. NASU
Streak, if she gives birth prematurely but no injury he owes money. If it kills the child his life is demanded.
I see no need ro reconcile public policy matters with the Bible. Certainly Christians should use Biblical precepts to guide their lives, their households, etc., but that's where it ends. It's important to remember that although we live in a nation where the majority of the people are Christian, this is not "a Christian nation." Public policy needs to reflect the views and needs of all people, regardless of their religious or spiritual path.
Ubub, that is not the point of this particular conversation. The point is how do political figures who say they are Christians condone, accept, and support issues that the Bible speaks against.
The salient point is that they are political figures who shape public policy. Therefore, there is no need for them to reconcile with the Bible. That's between them and their understanding of God, not between them and me as a voter.
Perhaps you are imposing a false choice, this either/or, and are thus unable to recognize the help you say you seek when it is offered.
ubub, I think you are the one missing the point. I am not talking about making policy. Regardless of what you think our entire legal system was and is made up from the Bible so it does make a difference.
No, Ubub is exactly right. This entire Saddleback forum is predicated on a false assumption--that these political leaders need to somehow prove their understanding of the Bible to lead.
Our legal system is not made up from the Bible. Do you think we are the only cultures that ban murder, and theft?
But back to the abortion, that passage also says in version I read, that the premature birth could be translated as miscarriage. The "no injury" part therefore would not apply to the fetus, unless we are somehow assuming that miscarriage in the ancient world (or even a premature birth) meant no injury to the child.
It doesn't mean that I am suggesting abortion has no moral questions attached. But I don't think a literal or inerrant reading of the Bible can be used to prohibit it.
As for the gay marriage, my understanding is that the writers of the New (and Old) testaments would have had no concept of an adult, monogamous, and free gay relationship. They would have only known those of prostitution, pedophilia, or rape.
You are right. I have missed the point. You are insightful and the issues you raise are relevant, cogently expressed, and reflect a desire for developing shared understandings. Regardless of what I think . . .
Streak that was not the point of this forum. As I have listened to the news and spokespeople from both Obama and Mccain they are "soliciting" the evangelical vote. This means if they want that category of people to vote for them they must clearly define their beliefs and how it applies to that groups understanding of the world around them. This means if they want those votes they must clearly explain what they think about key issues to those people.
Streak, you are way more educated than that. You know as well as everyone else our entire legal system is Judeo-Christian. Hell at the supreme court the 10 commandments are a part of the building.
Once again this is not what I am trying to ask and you and Ubub are detracting from the issue. This has nothing to do with whether or not they should, have to, or need to explain their positions to be elected.
I am simply asking how does one such as Obama say that he is a Christian and support such things as abortion?
Glad you get to define the forum parameters on my blog.
I have never denied that our system is essentially Judeo Christian in context, but that is a far cry from saying that our entire legal system comes from the Bible.
But that is a largely irrelevant issue. I answered how Obama and many liberal Christians can support abortion rights and gay marriage.
Streak, 30 of the 55 signers of the Declaration of Independence were preachers, Seminary professors, or Bible Translators.
The first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was a Warden in his church. More than a few of the Cheif Justices were more than Christians. They were seminary graduates, and preachers.
To say that the current legal system isnt formed from the Bible is a stretch at the very least.
Now I agree that it wasnt the only thing used in the formation of our system but the Bible was the biggest influence on our entire system.
Please don't lecture me on American history. Not to pull rank, but I have read more on American history than you can consider. You throw little factoids out there and suggest that explains such complex context as the forming of our Government?
Do you want to talk about abortion and gay rights? Or should I just close the comments and move on?
Not sure why you are in a pissy mood. I have been polite and not discussing anything but an attempt to understand the thought process of Obama and those like him.
I didn't say the pissy mood was your fault. Though when amateurs lecture me on American history, it grates just a little. You might actually acknowledge that instead of just glossing over it.
As for abortion, I have no doubt that there are traditions in numerous places that have been opposed to it. Cultures have responded to this issue in complex ways. Some refused to extend names to infants because their chance of making to the first year was so slim.
The passage I am talking about is the same one you noted. One footnote said "miscarriage" as a possible alternative to "premature birth." But even the premature birth had to have a high likelihood of not turning out well.
And the point is not to use that passage as justification either way. My point was not that abortion should be considered a property issue, nor that the Bible endorses abortion, but merely that it is reasonable to question some literal or inerrant approach to the Bible.
My point, and many others, is that we have always had to supplement the Bible or other wisdom texts with a broader cultural understanding of morality. If we relied just on the Bible for our morality, we could easily still have slavery. We could still have women as second-class citizens. We could have a death penalty system that functioned as a bloodbath for every conceivable offense.
I thought I explained that. How about simply that while I know of no one who cheers abortion or thinks it is a good thing, they think that has to be left to the woman to figure out?
I honestly thought I said that. I think it is not unreasonable for liberal Christians to personally oppose abortion, but also oppose the state's imposition on a woman's body. I am sure we will disagree on that issue, but I don't think there is anything in that that is inherently incompatible with being a Christian.
I agree that no one champions "abortion" but the right of a woman to decide what takes place with her own body.
What about the life of the baby? Should a woman have the choice over the rights of the life of the baby? This to me this is where the problem is. How does one who confesses to be a Christian choose a woman's right to choose over the life of a baby?
For example we all have rights. But our rights stop at the violation of others. Right?
Streak actually we would agree on that. I could concede that some are personally against abortion but are also against the states right to prohibit a womans choice over her own body.
So the issue would really be...at what point does a baby have rights...am I understanding that correctly?
Re: abortion, in our system of justice, the government can't compel a person to provide life with their own body to another adult--we don't force people to donate organs or provide bone marrow, even though people die because we don't. I'm not sure why it would be different for a fetus.
I would echo Leighton's points, but also just simply add that we will continue to disagree on this. But the question you posed here is not that we change each other's mind, but your suggestion that it is incompatible for a Christian to support abortion rights or gay marriage. Isn't that what you are asking? Can someone claim to be a Christian still actually be a Christian if they support abortion rights?
This seems to be one of those places were 'worlds collide'. Like the Samaritan woman Jesus meets at the well, we often focus on the issues that divide us.
FP brings up abortion and same gender marriage, asking how a person can 'claim' to be a Christian and reconcile those issues. (FP, I think that word might be how some view your comments as rude, though not certain).
Maybe I would ask how can a person dilly dally with these two issues when clearly the Scriptures are massively over weighted with justice for the poor, freedom to the captive, and healing to the sick?
For me it is hard to understand how can our culture be so cruel to people that are 'left behind' by economic prosperity and yet two issues that are completely overwhelmed by other verses, as to be a speck in the totality become our major points of contention? How does being on the 'right' or correct side of those issues changing the lives of people struggling just to feed there children?
It reminds me so much of Jesus' day when everyone was so concerned about the purity of what they ate and who they ate it with, how it affected their relationship with God, yet Jesus sought out the lowest of society and ministered to them.
Leighton, the point was not that you could or couldnt comment if you werent a Christian. This is a question I have based out of the forum at Saddleback with Obama and Mccain. NOWHERE did I intend that you couldnt comment. It is that Obama confesses to be a Christian but supports abortion and PBA and I was asking how he and other liberal Christians reconcile that in their own mind and faith. I do not believe that non-Christians are subject to the same line of questioning, but Obama opened himself for this line of questioning.
Next, Streak as you know because this has been brought up before. You know good and well that in my mind Obama can be a Christian even if he believes in abortion. I would think he is wrong, but that wouldnt negate his confession of faith in and of itself.
Monk in training...I totally agree with you. It doesnt need to be an either/or situation.
I think we should be concerned with abortion as well as poverty and other forms of evil. Though I believe that is the role of the church not the government.
The phrasing has been problematic. Asking us to reconcile being liberal with being Christian still has that suggestion that, for example, Obama may not really be a Christian.
The frustration I (and I think others have) is that this kind of question ("how can you reconcile being a Christian with x") seems to be limited to abortion and homosexuality. However we get it done, couldn't the same question be asked about caring for the poor? And if we continue to not take care of the poor, what does that say about those who wear their Christianity most on their sleeves?
And it doesn't stop there. What about the death penalty? DNA evidence proved a lot of death row inmates as innocent, yet calls to reform the death penalty system sure as hell don't come from the religious conservatives. Just as they have been shockingly silent on torture, and preemptive war, they have been shockingly silent standing up for those others.
Conservatives never seem to see those as "incompatible" with their faith.
Streak, I have clearly explained that I am not calling into question anyones "Christianity." You and I have had this conversation quite sometime ago.
As far as taking care of the poor...ABSOLUTELY. I have story after story of "conservative christians" refusing to do the Gospel. I understand why they dont do that. It is greed or selfishness.
Death Penalty...The Bible very clearly teaches that the death penalty hasnt been done away with for murder so I dont think we will agree there. I do understand though that there are people who are wrongly imprisoned and then put to death. That is unfortunate, but I have yet to see you or anyone else give a solution for it.
I am a "Conservative Christian" and once you proved to me the case with waterboarding I immediately switched. Just recently was talking with some peers in the Military community talking about that very issue.
Since torture thing came up did you see the amusement park that is doing waterboarding?
I think it's time to bring this up again (sorry in advance for such a long post):
When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle,for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16).Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
You're just not drawing up your H-1 contracts tightly enough. Let's talk.
Kind of the same point I was making along the lines of how the OT is used in a lot of moral discussions as if it says one thing.
Anglican, I am pretty sure we can own Canadians.
FP, I know you acknowledged waterboarding and I appreciate that. I also realize that you care deeply about a lot of these issues. My point was not to debate the death penalty or war or even the issues with poverty, but to point out that for many conservatives Christianity is proven by one's stance on a couple of issues. Those issues are never war and torture, but more along the lines of abortion and homosexuality. That isn't a shot at you, but a shot at conservative evangelicals and those who have politicized this process.
Rick Warren just said after this forum that pro-choicers like Obama (and myself) are holocaust deniers, and he can never support one. Never mind that he previously said he could never support an adulterer, but of course that was in reference to John Edwards, not John McCain. For Warren and others, better to go to war more, torture, give tax cuts to Haliburton, but never, never vote for someone who supports choice, even if the pro-lifers can't eliminate abortion.
Oh, and thanks for the heads up on the waterboarding at the amusement park. Turns out it is a protest against waterboarding at Coney Island. That is pretty cool.
You know I was tempted not to respond simply because I am asking honest questions and trying to understand the liberal perspective. Then I thought…you know even though you are being sarcastic, someone else may learn about how to read the Bible. They might learn how to understand it in its context. So here it goes...
Every single one of these passages you site are rules and regulations governing the way that the Nation of Israel should live, not how Gentiles should live. Next, since you brought up slavery I noticed you purposefully left out any passage that dealt with the slavery in the light that it was understood from that time. For example that after 7 years all slaves were to be released, that slaves were typically people who owed massive amounts of money and so they volunteered to “work” off their debt by indentured servitude, and finally as POW’s which were required to be treated way better than any slave in America was treated. There are also purity laws. These laws were used in order to cut down on disease, sickness, and the spread of plagues and the like. It is also apparent that you purposefully misrepresent certain passages (the requirement for beards) to say that the OT requires everything to be dealt with in the exact same manner. As with all criminal or justice systems there are levels in the punishments based on the severity of the crime. Trimming your beard is not quite the same as raping a girl. Finally, both the OT and NT condemn homosexuality as readily as they do premarital or extra marital sex.
Not sure how this really deals with my attempt to understand how people who confess to be Christians think that these two things are ok though Streak did give a pretty good response earlier...
And aren't you essentially saying that all of those verses in the OT have to be read in a broader cultural context? Which, of course, was Anglican's point.
yep!!! But understanding the Bible or verses in their greater culture context does not mean that we through them away and that now it is ok to cheat on our wives, have sex before we are married, or live a gay lifestyle...etc
You know I would really really be disappointed with Rick Warren if he said that.
I think that ship has sailed. Not "if he said that" but "oh wow, he said that."
To be honest, I had softened on Warren. I thought his book sounded simplistic to a fault and much of his theology followed suit. But then he actually took a stance on AIDS in Africa and was moving on climate change.
I guess all those things just pale next to abortion. I mean, we can actually change them, but better to tilt at the abortion windmill. That has worked out so very well over the last 8 years.
I realize that even if Obama/Mccain and the entire congress were to agree that abortion is wrong that we would have hellish issues in how to properly manage it. Much like the oil debate right now.
Fighting Preacher: You are a good man, and my hat is off to you for continuing to post here.
As for the list of things I posted, I should point out first that I didn't create that list; it's something that's gone around for a long time. And clearly it is presented with a little sarcasm. But I think the point is clear.
And actually, I agree with you on more than you might think. This is a theological question that has preoccupied the Church from the beginning, and something Paul had to deal with time and again: Are we (as Christians) subject to the law or not? Well?
The answer usually comes back, "No." Then a pause. Then, "but you know . . ." fill in the blank.
My larger point was just to emphasize how all Christians pick and choose their answer to that question according to the subject at hand. What's clear to one Christian is not to another, and good people can disagree. Enter interpretation, and enter all the various versions of Christianity that have emerged since anno domini. Some of us, sadly, can't live with each other in our disagreement, and some of us become quite unChristian in the way we go about it.
I think none of us has a monopoly on the grace and love of Christ--it's there for all of us.
All.
Of.
Us.
But I know full well that even my saying that puts me out of sorts with some Christians. So be it.
Fighting Preacher. I do commend your continued hanging 'in there'. It is very difficult to have a reasonable dialog via comments on even so esteemed a blog as Streak's.
I would like to make two comments, if I may.
When you ask "how can you be a Christian if you accept XYZ" it immediately creates an adversarial attitude. Perhaps another way to ask the question is needed, along the lines of "could you explain how you see that", rather than semi-accusing them of heresy. (You do NOT appear to really want to do that).
Liberal Christians love Jesus too! We are not trying to destroy anything, nor are we trying to throw the Bible out of anything. I think you might be just beginning to understand that, and I think it is a pretty great thing.
Anglican, thank you very much…don’t come by many compliments here :)
We are probably in agreement…we are not subject to the law period. I agree with you that most are what I called Salad Bar Christianity…pick and choose what you want to put on your plate. I totally agree with you on the agreement and living in disagreement and I love your no monopoly on grace.
Anglican I would love to engage you in conversation more.
Monk, thank you as well for the encouragement. I know it is. Often times in email/blogs much of what I am attempting to say seems to be misconstrued…though often I am a hard man, if you were to meet me I think even Tony would get along with me. To my knowledge I never asked the question “how can you be a Christian if you accept.” I did ask “how do those that confess to be Christians reconcile xyz.” I don’t believe (man I am going to get flamed for this) that DOCTRINE DOESN’T SAVE ANYONE! I believe a relationship with Jesus Christ is all that ultimately matters and when we “arrive” He can fix our doctrine. I agree that Liberal Christian love Jesus which is why I asked Streak to open this particular forum. Cause I would like to honestly know how does one who confesses to be Christian not think that abortion is wrong, or that it is ok to be a homosexual, or to have pre-martial sex, or to be an adulterer. I further think that Streak and some of the others on this particular board are spot on that the conservative right has forgotten about the poor and disenfranchised! Jesus has a “soft” spot for the poor and anything that doesn’t include them in your plans is not likely in line with God’s plan. Theologically the message of the Kingdom of God is that there is an inversion of the world order and system. The poor, not the rich are to be sought for. The weak, not the strong should be honored. Children, not businessmen are true riches! So with the perspective of the Kingdom of God I don’t see how someone who confesses to be Christian could stomach that killing babies is ok. So my attempt is not to judge their faith, but to understand the thought process…because to be quite honest I don’t get it. Yes I have a regular blog…STREAKS :)
50 comments:
Streak, thank you very much.
This is really for anyone who would like to help me with this. I have several questions about Obama, Democrats, and Christianity from their perspective.
1. How does Obama reconcile Abortion with the Bible. He states that he is a Christian, but that he believes in pro-choice. I realize you might not know how he reconciles it but what of others? How do they reconcile their Christians beliefs with abortion?
2. Obama at one point was in support of Partial Birth Abortion. How can Christians reconcile these two positions.
3. Obama said he doesnt support Gay marriage, but others on the left who say that they are Christians do. How do they reconcile this?
Lets just start there.
On my part this is not an attempt to flame Obama or any others who support or believe such things, nor is it an attempt to start a fight. I really do want to know how they reconcile these things.
We will see how this goes.
Abortion is a tense issue. I don't know anyone who cheers abortion, but many of us feel that this is the ultimate privacy issue--where to give the state access to this decision is to give the state access into all privacy issues. Not only that, but outlawing abortion will not eradicate it, but push it underground.
As for the Christian faith, I would point out that in Exodus during the famous "eye for an eye" section, if a pregnant woman is killed it is "eye for eye," but if the violence just causes a miscarriage, it is a property issue to be decided by the husband.
Finally, on gay marriage, this is a debate I am not sure you want to enter. No doubt a literal reading of the Bible is hard to justify with that (though not, oddly enough, abortion), but many of us believe that our definition of homosexuality is completely different than those discussions in the bible.
Finally, I am not sure that Obama was in any more support for PBA than anyone else. Those who defend that, as far as I have seen, have done so only in the case where the procedure was required to save the life of the mother.
And ultimately, I don't see how either of these issues should dominate our political discussion. We have actual national security, economic, and our basic democratic institutions at stake in this next election. Voting for a mythical attack on abortion, or to pretend that gay rights can be denied--ultimately means that stopping my gay friends down the street is more important than stopping the next war.
And electing McCain will mean many more wars, I am afraid. Unless he is not nearly as reckless as he appears.
Streak, I totally agree that this should not dominate our political discussions.
Next, I understand your disdain for Mccain, but ultimately I am asking about how democrats/liberals/ and even conservatives reconcile in their minds these issues with the Bible.
Also this is purely a discussion for those who claim to have a Christian faith. Not those who do not have a professed faith in Jesus.
Now, could you provide me with the reference to your Exodus passage?
If as you suggest PBA would only be used to save the life of the mother why not just have a c-section?
So what definition could you give that makes you think it is different than the Bibles view on the subject?
Once again I am looking to see how people reconcile the Bible with their personal views not a political discussion of why Obama or Mccain is better than the other.
Ex 21:22-25
22 "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
NASU
Streak, if she gives birth prematurely but no injury he owes money. If it kills the child his life is demanded.
So I think that this is not a property issue.
I see no need ro reconcile public policy matters with the Bible. Certainly Christians should use Biblical precepts to guide their lives, their households, etc., but that's where it ends. It's important to remember that although we live in a nation where the majority of the people are Christian, this is not "a Christian nation." Public policy needs to reflect the views and needs of all people, regardless of their religious or spiritual path.
Ubub, that is not the point of this particular conversation. The point is how do political figures who say they are Christians condone, accept, and support issues that the Bible speaks against.
The salient point is that they are political figures who shape public policy. Therefore, there is no need for them to reconcile with the Bible. That's between them and their understanding of God, not between them and me as a voter.
Perhaps you are imposing a false choice, this either/or, and are thus unable to recognize the help you say you seek when it is offered.
ubub, I think you are the one missing the point. I am not talking about making policy. Regardless of what you think our entire legal system was and is made up from the Bible so it does make a difference.
Dont lie, steal, cheat, murder, etc
No, Ubub is exactly right. This entire Saddleback forum is predicated on a false assumption--that these political leaders need to somehow prove their understanding of the Bible to lead.
Our legal system is not made up from the Bible. Do you think we are the only cultures that ban murder, and theft?
But back to the abortion, that passage also says in version I read, that the premature birth could be translated as miscarriage. The "no injury" part therefore would not apply to the fetus, unless we are somehow assuming that miscarriage in the ancient world (or even a premature birth) meant no injury to the child.
It doesn't mean that I am suggesting abortion has no moral questions attached. But I don't think a literal or inerrant reading of the Bible can be used to prohibit it.
As for the gay marriage, my understanding is that the writers of the New (and Old) testaments would have had no concept of an adult, monogamous, and free gay relationship. They would have only known those of prostitution, pedophilia, or rape.
You are right. I have missed the point. You are insightful and the issues you raise are relevant, cogently expressed, and reflect a desire for developing shared understandings. Regardless of what I think . . .
Streak that was not the point of this forum. As I have listened to the news and spokespeople from both Obama and Mccain they are "soliciting" the evangelical vote. This means if they want that category of people to vote for them they must clearly define their beliefs and how it applies to that groups understanding of the world around them. This means if they want those votes they must clearly explain what they think about key issues to those people.
Streak, you are way more educated than that. You know as well as everyone else our entire legal system is Judeo-Christian. Hell at the supreme court the 10 commandments are a part of the building.
Once again this is not what I am trying to ask and you and Ubub are detracting from the issue. This has nothing to do with whether or not they should, have to, or need to explain their positions to be elected.
I am simply asking how does one such as Obama say that he is a Christian and support such things as abortion?
Glad you get to define the forum parameters on my blog.
I have never denied that our system is essentially Judeo Christian in context, but that is a far cry from saying that our entire legal system comes from the Bible.
But that is a largely irrelevant issue. I answered how Obama and many liberal Christians can support abortion rights and gay marriage.
Streak, this forum was the saddleback forum not your blog.
Ok.
How about we just return to the issues? I answered your questions on abortion and gay marriage.
Streak, 30 of the 55 signers of the Declaration of Independence were preachers, Seminary professors, or Bible Translators.
The first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was a Warden in his church. More than a few of the Cheif Justices were more than Christians. They were seminary graduates, and preachers.
To say that the current legal system isnt formed from the Bible is a stretch at the very least.
Now I agree that it wasnt the only thing used in the formation of our system but the Bible was the biggest influence on our entire system.
Please don't lecture me on American history. Not to pull rank, but I have read more on American history than you can consider. You throw little factoids out there and suggest that explains such complex context as the forming of our Government?
Do you want to talk about abortion and gay rights? Or should I just close the comments and move on?
Yeah, that is right, I am in a pissy mood.
Ok great.
So going back and reading your explanation of Exodus.
Could you please post the version and its rending of the verse in question?
We have early writings that specifically speak out against abortion. As early as the first century. It isnt a property issue as you assume.
So how does a Christian such as Obama explain in the context of his faith or you for that matter that there is nothing wrong with abortion?
Not sure why you are in a pissy mood. I have been polite and not discussing anything but an attempt to understand the thought process of Obama and those like him.
For Streak and anyone who is reading.
I am asking this in the context of their faith, not their ability or inability to run for office or even to be voted for.
I have been polite and not discussing anything but an attempt to understand the thought process of Obama and those like him.
FP, if you think you've been polite in this thread, there is a larger communication gap here than I think you realize.
I didn't say the pissy mood was your fault. Though when amateurs lecture me on American history, it grates just a little. You might actually acknowledge that instead of just glossing over it.
As for abortion, I have no doubt that there are traditions in numerous places that have been opposed to it. Cultures have responded to this issue in complex ways. Some refused to extend names to infants because their chance of making to the first year was so slim.
The passage I am talking about is the same one you noted. One footnote said "miscarriage" as a possible alternative to "premature birth." But even the premature birth had to have a high likelihood of not turning out well.
And the point is not to use that passage as justification either way. My point was not that abortion should be considered a property issue, nor that the Bible endorses abortion, but merely that it is reasonable to question some literal or inerrant approach to the Bible.
My point, and many others, is that we have always had to supplement the Bible or other wisdom texts with a broader cultural understanding of morality. If we relied just on the Bible for our morality, we could easily still have slavery. We could still have women as second-class citizens. We could have a death penalty system that functioned as a bloodbath for every conceivable offense.
We don't do it that way, and never have.
leighton maybe there is. Please explain to me where you see me being rude?
Streak, I totally agree that it is acceptable and healthy to question passages and their application to our culture and situation.
But how does that explain the choice of Obama or others as Christians to think it is ok for abortions?
I thought I explained that. How about simply that while I know of no one who cheers abortion or thinks it is a good thing, they think that has to be left to the woman to figure out?
I honestly thought I said that. I think it is not unreasonable for liberal Christians to personally oppose abortion, but also oppose the state's imposition on a woman's body. I am sure we will disagree on that issue, but I don't think there is anything in that that is inherently incompatible with being a Christian.
I agree that no one champions "abortion" but the right of a woman to decide what takes place with her own body.
What about the life of the baby? Should a woman have the choice over the rights of the life of the baby? This to me this is where the problem is. How does one who confesses to be a Christian choose a woman's right to choose over the life of a baby?
For example we all have rights. But our rights stop at the violation of others. Right?
Streak actually we would agree on that. I could concede that some are personally against abortion but are also against the states right to prohibit a womans choice over her own body.
So the issue would really be...at what point does a baby have rights...am I understanding that correctly?
FP,
Here are some examples. From thread post #3:
Also this is purely a discussion for those who claim to have a Christian faith. Not those who do not have a professed faith in Jesus.
I read this as "I don't want to hear from anyone in this thread who isn't a Christian," which is a request I'm breaking in order to speak with you.
Comment 4 was the Exodus quote along with your interpretation. Most working "Help me understand" scripts go as follows (paraphrasing for tone):
1) Hey, help me understand why you say X.
2) Okay, it's because of Y.
3) Oh, that's interesting. Y seems to conflict with Z, which I care about. How do you reconcile that, or do you understand Z differently than I do?
4) ...etc.
But the script you seem to be using goes like this:
1) Hey, help me understand why you say X.
2) Okay, it's because of Y.
3) No, Y is wrong.
4) [nothing left to say]
The tone is less "Please help me understand" and much more "Justify yourself to me, if you can."
Re: abortion, in our system of justice, the government can't compel a person to provide life with their own body to another adult--we don't force people to donate organs or provide bone marrow, even though people die because we don't. I'm not sure why it would be different for a fetus.
I would echo Leighton's points, but also just simply add that we will continue to disagree on this. But the question you posed here is not that we change each other's mind, but your suggestion that it is incompatible for a Christian to support abortion rights or gay marriage. Isn't that what you are asking? Can someone claim to be a Christian still actually be a Christian if they support abortion rights?
This seems to be one of those places were 'worlds collide'. Like the Samaritan woman Jesus meets at the well, we often focus on the issues that divide us.
FP brings up abortion and same gender marriage, asking how a person can 'claim' to be a Christian and reconcile those issues. (FP, I think that word might be how some view your comments as rude, though not certain).
Maybe I would ask how can a person dilly dally with these two issues when clearly the Scriptures are massively over weighted with justice for the poor, freedom to the captive, and healing to the sick?
For me it is hard to understand how can our culture be so cruel to people that are 'left behind' by economic prosperity and yet two issues that are completely overwhelmed by other verses, as to be a speck in the totality become our major points of contention? How does being on the 'right' or correct side of those issues changing the lives of people struggling just to feed there children?
It reminds me so much of Jesus' day when everyone was so concerned about the purity of what they ate and who they ate it with, how it affected their relationship with God, yet Jesus sought out the lowest of society and ministered to them.
Leighton, the point was not that you could or couldnt comment if you werent a Christian. This is a question I have based out of the forum at Saddleback with Obama and Mccain. NOWHERE did I intend that you couldnt comment. It is that Obama confesses to be a Christian but supports abortion and PBA and I was asking how he and other liberal Christians reconcile that in their own mind and faith. I do not believe that non-Christians are subject to the same line of questioning, but Obama opened himself for this line of questioning.
Next, Streak as you know because this has been brought up before. You know good and well that in my mind Obama can be a Christian even if he believes in abortion. I would think he is wrong, but that wouldnt negate his confession of faith in and of itself.
Monk in training...I totally agree with you. It doesnt need to be an either/or situation.
I think we should be concerned with abortion as well as poverty and other forms of evil. Though I believe that is the role of the church not the government.
The phrasing has been problematic. Asking us to reconcile being liberal with being Christian still has that suggestion that, for example, Obama may not really be a Christian.
The frustration I (and I think others have) is that this kind of question ("how can you reconcile being a Christian with x") seems to be limited to abortion and homosexuality. However we get it done, couldn't the same question be asked about caring for the poor? And if we continue to not take care of the poor, what does that say about those who wear their Christianity most on their sleeves?
And it doesn't stop there. What about the death penalty? DNA evidence proved a lot of death row inmates as innocent, yet calls to reform the death penalty system sure as hell don't come from the religious conservatives. Just as they have been shockingly silent on torture, and preemptive war, they have been shockingly silent standing up for those others.
Conservatives never seem to see those as "incompatible" with their faith.
Streak, I have clearly explained that I am not calling into question anyones "Christianity." You and I have had this conversation quite sometime ago.
As far as taking care of the poor...ABSOLUTELY. I have story after story of "conservative christians" refusing to do the Gospel. I understand why they dont do that. It is greed or selfishness.
Death Penalty...The Bible very clearly teaches that the death penalty hasnt been done away with for murder so I dont think we will agree there. I do understand though that there are people who are wrongly imprisoned and then put to death. That is unfortunate, but I have yet to see you or anyone else give a solution for it.
I am a "Conservative Christian" and once you proved to me the case with waterboarding I immediately switched. Just recently was talking with some peers in the Military community talking about that very issue.
Since torture thing came up did you see the amusement park that is doing waterboarding?
I think it's time to bring this up again (sorry in advance for such a long post):
When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle,for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16).Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Do you really want me to respond?
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
You're just not drawing up your H-1 contracts tightly enough. Let's talk.
Kind of the same point I was making along the lines of how the OT is used in a lot of moral discussions as if it says one thing.
Anglican, I am pretty sure we can own Canadians.
FP, I know you acknowledged waterboarding and I appreciate that. I also realize that you care deeply about a lot of these issues. My point was not to debate the death penalty or war or even the issues with poverty, but to point out that for many conservatives Christianity is proven by one's stance on a couple of issues. Those issues are never war and torture, but more along the lines of abortion and homosexuality. That isn't a shot at you, but a shot at conservative evangelicals and those who have politicized this process.
Rick Warren just said after this forum that pro-choicers like Obama (and myself) are holocaust deniers, and he can never support one. Never mind that he previously said he could never support an adulterer, but of course that was in reference to John Edwards, not John McCain. For Warren and others, better to go to war more, torture, give tax cuts to Haliburton, but never, never vote for someone who supports choice, even if the pro-lifers can't eliminate abortion.
Oh, and thanks for the heads up on the waterboarding at the amusement park. Turns out it is a protest against waterboarding at Coney Island. That is pretty cool.
You know I was tempted not to respond simply because I am asking honest questions and trying to understand the liberal perspective. Then I thought…you know even though you are being sarcastic, someone else may learn about how to read the Bible. They might learn how to understand it in its context. So here it goes...
Every single one of these passages you site are rules and regulations governing the way that the Nation of Israel should live, not how Gentiles should live. Next, since you brought up slavery I noticed you purposefully left out any passage that dealt with the slavery in the light that it was understood from that time. For example that after 7 years all slaves were to be released, that slaves were typically people who owed massive amounts of money and so they volunteered to “work” off their debt by indentured servitude, and finally as POW’s which were required to be treated way better than any slave in America was treated. There are also purity laws. These laws were used in order to cut down on disease, sickness, and the spread of plagues and the like. It is also apparent that you purposefully misrepresent certain passages (the requirement for beards) to say that the OT requires everything to be dealt with in the exact same manner. As with all criminal or justice systems there are levels in the punishments based on the severity of the crime. Trimming your beard is not quite the same as raping a girl. Finally, both the OT and NT condemn homosexuality as readily as they do premarital or extra marital sex.
Not sure how this really deals with my attempt to understand how people who confess to be Christians think that these two things are ok though Streak did give a pretty good response earlier...
Streak, could you give me where Rick Warren says that about denying the holocaust?
Dang man I will have to stop hanging out here...I am in agreement with Streak again...I think we could own the Canadians.
It is in my next post.
And aren't you essentially saying that all of those verses in the OT have to be read in a broader cultural context? Which, of course, was Anglican's point.
yep!!! But understanding the Bible or verses in their greater culture context does not mean that we through them away and that now it is ok to cheat on our wives, have sex before we are married, or live a gay lifestyle...etc
You know I would really really be disappointed with Rick Warren if he said that. It is unfortunate when those things are said.
You know I would really really be disappointed with Rick Warren if he said that.
I think that ship has sailed. Not "if he said that" but "oh wow, he said that."
To be honest, I had softened on Warren. I thought his book sounded simplistic to a fault and much of his theology followed suit. But then he actually took a stance on AIDS in Africa and was moving on climate change.
I guess all those things just pale next to abortion. I mean, we can actually change them, but better to tilt at the abortion windmill. That has worked out so very well over the last 8 years.
Damn man stop it...I hate to agree with you.
I realize that even if Obama/Mccain and the entire congress were to agree that abortion is wrong that we would have hellish issues in how to properly manage it. Much like the oil debate right now.
Streak stop you are making sense.
Could you please provide me with where he said these things?
Thanks
Just click on the main page for the blog and check out my next post. It is buried in there.
Fighting Preacher: You are a good man, and my hat is off to you for continuing to post here.
As for the list of things I posted, I should point out first that I didn't create that list; it's something that's gone around for a long time. And clearly it is presented with a little sarcasm. But I think the point is clear.
And actually, I agree with you on more than you might think. This is a theological question that has preoccupied the Church from the beginning, and something Paul had to deal with time and again: Are we (as Christians) subject to the law or not? Well?
The answer usually comes back, "No." Then a pause. Then, "but you know . . ." fill in the blank.
My larger point was just to emphasize how all Christians pick and choose their answer to that question according to the subject at hand. What's clear to one Christian is not to another, and good people can disagree. Enter interpretation, and enter all the various versions of Christianity that have emerged since anno domini. Some of us, sadly, can't live with each other in our disagreement, and some of us become quite unChristian in the way we go about it.
I think none of us has a monopoly on the grace and love of Christ--it's there for all of us.
All.
Of.
Us.
But I know full well that even my saying that puts me out of sorts with some Christians. So be it.
Love,
Anglican.
Fighting Preacher.
I do commend your continued hanging 'in there'. It is very difficult to have a reasonable dialog via comments on even so esteemed a blog as Streak's.
I would like to make two comments, if I may.
When you ask "how can you be a Christian if you accept XYZ" it immediately creates an adversarial attitude. Perhaps another way to ask the question is needed, along the lines of "could you explain how you see that", rather than semi-accusing them of heresy. (You do NOT appear to really want to do that).
Liberal Christians love Jesus too! We are not trying to destroy anything, nor are we trying to throw the Bible out of anything. I think you might be just beginning to understand that, and I think it is a pretty great thing.
Do you have a regular blog you post on?
Anglican, thank you very much…don’t come by many compliments here :)
We are probably in agreement…we are not subject to the law period. I agree with you that most are what I called Salad Bar Christianity…pick and choose what you want to put on your plate. I totally agree with you on the agreement and living in disagreement and I love your no monopoly on grace.
Anglican I would love to engage you in conversation more.
Monk, thank you as well for the encouragement. I know it is. Often times in email/blogs much of what I am attempting to say seems to be misconstrued…though often I am a hard man, if you were to meet me I think even Tony would get along with me.
To my knowledge I never asked the question “how can you be a Christian if you accept.” I did ask “how do those that confess to be Christians reconcile xyz.” I don’t believe (man I am going to get flamed for this) that DOCTRINE DOESN’T SAVE ANYONE! I believe a relationship with Jesus Christ is all that ultimately matters and when we “arrive” He can fix our doctrine.
I agree that Liberal Christian love Jesus which is why I asked Streak to open this particular forum. Cause I would like to honestly know how does one who confesses to be Christian not think that abortion is wrong, or that it is ok to be a homosexual, or to have pre-martial sex, or to be an adulterer.
I further think that Streak and some of the others on this particular board are spot on that the conservative right has forgotten about the poor and disenfranchised! Jesus has a “soft” spot for the poor and anything that doesn’t include them in your plans is not likely in line with God’s plan. Theologically the message of the Kingdom of God is that there is an inversion of the world order and system. The poor, not the rich are to be sought for. The weak, not the strong should be honored. Children, not businessmen are true riches! So with the perspective of the Kingdom of God I don’t see how someone who confesses to be Christian could stomach that killing babies is ok. So my attempt is not to judge their faith, but to understand the thought process…because to be quite honest I don’t get it.
Yes I have a regular blog…STREAKS :)
Post a Comment