religious war for the presidency has begun.

Evangelist accuses Obama of 'distorting' Bible

CNN) -- A top U.S. evangelical leader is accusing Sen. Barack Obama of deliberately distorting the Bible and taking a "fruitcake interpretation" of the U.S. Constitution.

comments to be aired on his radio show Tuesday, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson criticizes the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee for comments he made in a June 2006 speech to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal.

In the speech, Obama suggests it would be impractical to govern based solely on the word of the Bible, noting some passages suggest slavery is permissible and eating shellfish is disgraceful.

"Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?" Obama asks in the speech. "Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?

"So before we get carried away, let's read our Bible now," Obama also said to cheers. "Folks haven't been reading their Bible."

He also calls Jesus' Sermon on the Mount "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application."

In the comments to be aired later Tuesday, Dobson said Obama should not be referencing antiquated dietary codes and passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament. - end snip

Full Story Here

-

You have to ask, why are those "antiquated dietaty codes" which no longer reflect the New Testament arbitrarily kept or done away with. E.g. If stoning your daughter and slavery are no longer to be taken as God's commands, why is homosexuality still taken?

Originally posted by Robtard
You have to ask, why are those "antiquated dietaty codes" which no longer reflect the New Testament arbitrarily kept or done away with. E.g. If stoning your daughter and slavery are no longer to be taken as God's commands, why is homosexuality still taken?

Because people aren't made homophobes by Christianity, they use Christianity to rationalize homophobia. Internal consistency of their beliefs be damned.

I wonder if the bible really even says homosexuality is a sin, or if that's just the way someone traslated it for Western culture.

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
I wonder if the bible really even says homosexuality is a sin, or if that's just the way someone traslated it for Western culture.

Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

That would be one helluva typo.

However that is the only line I know of that is against homosexuality in the Bible. Better yet it apparently comes from the set of Kosher guidelines that Rabbis are supposed to follow, meaning if you kill someone for being gay you also have to beat the shit out of anyone that makes a cheeseburger.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because people aren't made homophobes by Christianity, they use Christianity to rationalize homophobia. Internal consistency of their beliefs be damned.

Huh?

Leviticus is used as a reason why homosexuality is a sin and therefore wrong.

Yet those same people who use Leviticus as a crutch in regards for damning homosexuality, will do away with Leviticus' accounts of stoning people for crimes because apparently the New Testament did away with the old teachings.

So why is one Leviticus teaching held onto while another is not?

Originally posted by Robtard
Huh?

Leviticus is used as a reason why homosexuality is a sin and therefore wrong.

Yet those same people who use Leviticus as a crutch in regards for damning homosexuality, will do away with Leviticus' accounts of stoning people for crimes because apparently the New Testament did away with the old teachings.

So why is one Leviticus teaching held onto while another is not?

Exactly. That one passage is held onto because of homophobia that is separate from the rest of the faith. The others are thrown out because people see them as outdated or inconvenient.

Well, there's more than just one scripture about homosexuality in the bible.

Genesis 19:5-7

Leviticus 18:22

Deuteronomy 23:17

Isaiah 3:9

And one really harsh one from Romans 1:27

Corinthians 6:9

Timothy 1:10

Jude 1:7

As you can see, homosexuality was taught against even after the Law of Moses was fulfilled through Christ: "No homosexuality" carried over into the new law of Christ as well.

But isn't this tangential?

The bible should not be used in governing in this country.

Also, is this thread in the wrong forum?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

That would be one helluva typo.

However that is the only line I know of that is against homosexuality in the Bible. Better yet it apparently comes from the set of Kosher guidelines that Rabbis are supposed to follow, meaning if you kill someone for being gay you also have to beat the shit out of anyone that makes a cheeseburger.

I'm not talking about typos, I'm talking about translating a Bible that was not written in English to favor some personal vendetta.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Genesis 19:5-7

That's about raping angels.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Leviticus 18:22

I gave you that one.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Deuteronomy 23:17

Does not mention homosexuality.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Isaiah 3:9

Does not mention homosexuality or call for action against the people in question.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And one really harsh one from Romans 1:27

Doesn't mention killing them. That's pretty bad though.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Corinthians 6:9

Okay that's a nasty line.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Timothy 1:10

Mentions perverts not homosexuals.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Jude 1:7

No mention of homosexuality, simply sexual immorality which cover a lot of different things.

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
I'm not talking about typos, I'm talking about translating a Bible that was not written in English to favor some personal vendetta.

It's been translated by probably thousands of people from different times, different agendas and different feelings about being gay. That would be an impressive conspiracy.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The bible should not be used in governing in this country.

Morals, which are often derived from many different sources including the bible or other religious texts, should be used to govern the state. However, those morals used to govern decisions should not cross the barrier of "separation of church and state". That is why I whole heatredly believe in equal rights for homosexuals to marry. To me, it is in violation of "separation of church and state" to infringe my religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sin. Ironically enough, it is also in violation of my religious beliefs to judge sinners. LOL! So if I was against homosexuality, it would be a win-lose-lose. I would only win because I stood up for what I believed to be right...but in doing so, I have caused suppression of a people and also caused myself to come under condemnation for judging others harshly.

If I DON'T fight against homosexuality, it is a win-win-win. I am still able to enfore the "rules" of my church within my church because it is a religious organization and this allows me to keep a separation of church and state. I am not causing suppression of another via the state and only enfore the "no homosexuality" rule within the "walls" of my religion. I do not have to judge them unless I am called to do so. If it is my calling to deny membership of homosexuals to my church, then it isn't judging incorrectly or against the teachings...it would be my job to do it.

Because there is a difference between the Old Testament "Mosaic (as in Moses) covenant and the New Testament covenant (that Jesus brought). You would have to study into Christianity to see and understand some of the differences.

Although I am a Christian and it would be easy to jump all over Barrack Obama, he does have a perfectly valid point on his statements here. There are definitely different perspectives in the same Bible.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Morals, which are often derived from many different sources including the bible or other religious texts, should be used to govern the state. However, those morals used to govern decisions should not cross the barrier of "separation of church and state". That is why I whole heatredly believe in equal rights for homosexuals to marry. To me, it is in violation of "separation of church and state" to infringe my religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sin. Ironically enough, it is also in violation of my religious beliefs to judge sinners. LOL! So if I was against homosexuality, it would be a win-lose-lose. I would only win because I stood up for what I believed to be right...but in doing so, I have caused suppression of a people and also caused myself to come under condemnation for judging others harshly.

If I DON'T fight against homosexuality, it is a win-win-win. I am still able to enfore the "rules" of my church within my church because it is a religious organization and this allows me to keep a separation of church and state. I am not causing suppression of another via the state and only enfore the "no homosexuality" rule within the "walls" of my religion. I do not have to judge them unless I am called to do so. If it is my calling to deny membership of homosexuals to my church, then it isn't judging incorrectly or against the teachings...it would be my job to do it.

That sounds great and all, but please define "those morals". We end up picking and choosing from the bible, and everybody picks differently. We should, imho, not use any religious text to govern, but we should use law.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That sounds great and all, but please define "those morals". We end up picking and choosing from the bible, and everybody picks differently. We should, imho, not use any religious text to govern, but we should use law.

You can't use law to decide law, if you did it would never change. (of course the religious text are wholely innappropriate)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's been translated by probably thousands of people from different times, different agendas and different feelings about being gay. That would be an impressive conspiracy.

Why thank you! 😎

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You can't use law to decide law, if you did it would never change. (of course the religious text are wholely innappropriate)

The bible has as much bad as good in it, so having a politician use the bible could end up getting us in a war we can't get out of, and gas prices that are far too high. 😉

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's about raping angels.

Wrong. That's about sex with men.

5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I gave you that one.

I never said you didn't. I was listing it list it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Does not mention homosexuality.

Yes it does.

17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

Where do you think, in the English language, we get the word "sodomy"? The way of the sodomite is men who have anal intercoursex with men.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Does not mention homosexuality or call for action against the people in question.

9 The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.

See my previous point.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Doesn't mention killing them. That's pretty bad though.

I didn't mention killing, either. I don't know where this point about killing came form...😕

But yeah, if there was ever doubt about homosexuality not being taught in the New Testament, this should clear it up.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Okay that's a nasty line.

Indeed.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Mentions perverts not homosexuals.

10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Defiling yourself with manking, more specifically, the "defile" part, is referring to homosexuality.

N

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
o mention of homosexuality, simply sexual immorality which cover a lot of different things.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

In this one...

1. Giving yourself to strange flesh is referential to homosexuality. Some have argued that it is also inclusive of bestiality, however, Sodom and Gomorrha are not known for the bestiality...which brings us to point #2.

2. Sodom was known for the man on man action and from that verse, it looks like it spread like a flame(lol) to the adjacent cities.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That sounds great and all, but please define "those morals". We end up picking and choosing from the bible, and everybody picks differently. We should, imho, not use any religious text to govern, but we should use law.

I didn't list a bunch of examples because I simply don't of very many. I don't know any except the big ones like aboration and gay "rights".

Whether it's about ****ing angels or men is up to interpretation.

Also, sodomy refers to all kinds of "unnatural" sex. Only recently it is predominantly used to refer to male gay sex.

If you read that chapter, it is very clear they are talking about homosexual sex.

There is not anything to read into. It is what it is