Comments

Sounds like you've got your candidate in Huckabee. Creationist, bible thumper that he is. Quit trying to write Obama content just to get interest in your post, when your point is without merit. The bible is a moral story, written, rewritten and written again over thousands of years and interpreted differently by many. It is not a hard fact. At least Obama's honest in his interpretation than most right-wing Christians, who avoid being honest because then they'd be cast as racists, fascists.

Judge not lest ye be judged. I wonder what you've done in your life that God wouldn't approve.

Why would you assume that "When Jesus spoke of marriage, of course, he assumed it is a heterosexual institution?" Jesus didn't condemn slavery either...as the pro-slavery apologists were quick to point out. The racial abolitionist movement has made all assumptions about the "other," morally and intellectually suspect.

The Sermon on the Mount and the Golden Rule trump your assumptions. Jesus may have assumed marriage as a heterosexual institution, but then, you also have to assumed that Jesus assumed that slavery was condoned by God. There are, after all, endless Bible verses, including two of the Ten Commandments, that suggest just that.

What I should assume, I think, is that justice, mercy, charity, good will, the Golden Rule, as we can imagine it for our times, and our places, is what God condones. Kindness instead of animal sacrifices and biblio-idolatry.

However, Obama's support for civil unions is nevertheless wrong. America already has had extensive experience with separate but equal delusions. He should rethink his position and support equality in marriage, period.

After all, the last vestige of separate but equal, marriage between people of different "races." (even though race is a social construct), was only tossed out by a very tardy Supreme Court while I, and many other Baby Boomers, were in High School and college. Some of us have good memories.

You're right that we're not voting in an Theologian in Chief, and that is good because I too disagree with Obama's interpretation of the scriptures. Still, I get the feeling from this post we're trying to attack the man's Christian character by attacking his doctrine. We Christians can have a principled discussion about pitting Jesus vs. Paul (I think of Fleming Rutledge's latest work as a powerful defense of their congruence and coherence), but this does feel like we're stretching a Biblical exegetical debate for the opportunity to take a shot at a political candidate.

I find it interesting if a conservative republican is elected and messes up in office, we pray for him because people are not perfect, but a democratic candidate must be perfect or he is not a Christian. Why can't Christians pray for a flawed democrate. God is able to work miracles and his power is displayed more with the unsaved than with the pompous righteous person who has it all together. Let God be manifest in a public sphere to bring others to Christ.

Regarding this rant by Stan Guthrie on Liveblog

I think it is worth noting here to other readers that I think Stan Guthrie writes opinion columns for Christianity Today called "Foolish Things." (I'm not kidding). He links to one of them above entitled: "When Red Is Blue: Why I am not a Red-Letter Christian." (That is clearly an opinion piece as you can tell from the sub-title). In other words, he is not a reporter. His post here reflects that. There was a reporter's post earlier this week about Obama's quote on LiveBlog called "Obama Cites Sermon on the Mount for his Support of Civil Unions" which informatively told us about the quote. I wonder if there is a bit of confusion among the writers at Christianity Today about the purpose of LiveBlog because the content tends to vary dramatically between posts like this which are opinion pieces and informative posts about news events. I wonder if Stan Guthrie should have his own personal blog for his opinion pieces like Mark Galli does. http://www.markgalli.com/galliblog/
I am glad for Guthrie to rant - putting out somewhat raw opinions in order to influence the conversation is part of the prophetic good of blogging but I don't think these kind of rants belong here at Liveblog. Many readers could have ranted after reading the Obama quote in a similar way. It does not seem fair for Stan Guthrie to have this space to just give an opinion about something.

I hope this wasn't a rant. That's just my two cents.

Stan, http://wordpress.com/ offers free blogs and most people I know who are starting to blog now are using it.

Grace and peace,
Andy Rowell
Th.D. Student
Duke Divinity School
Blog: Church Leadership Conversations

Ok, Christianity Today, how about show us that evangelicals should be concerned about the presidential candidates views on other issues besides homosexuality?

Pehaps a few articles about the candidates views on ending the occupation of Iraq or the growing income inequality in our country?

Or an article about John Hagee's endorsement of McCain. Should christians vote for a man who actively seeks the endorsement of an extreme christian zionist preacher who calls for pre-emptive miltary strikes from his pulpit?

How on earth could you vote for a person like Huckabee? A man who is supposed to be a Baptist minister who says that God is pro the death penalty because Jesus went to the Cross???? The so-called "evangelicals" on the right have false teachings which are just as bad as Obama's comment that Romans is "obscure".

Most of us christians over here wonder why it is you guys get sucked in by these posers. When are the real evangelicals going to stand up and call it as it is?

Kudos to your article! When I see people rallying behind Obama I think of the anti-christ (& NO I do not think Obama is the anti-christ!!). It reminds me that Scripture says many people will be mislead & many will fall away. Evil sometimes comes in the form as an angel of light. I think that is exactly what Obama is--A nice man who should terrify Christians. Doesn't matter how nicely you package up false doctrine in the end it is an insidious evil that permeates & compromises our witness.

I applaud your post as it shows the looseness with which many Christians and especially many politicians handle the Word of God. Pitting one Scripture against another undermines its authority-as if God inspired Matthew 5-7 more than He did Romans.

Further, these comparisons of homosexuality and slavery need to be put to rest. Jesus did not merely speak of marriage without any reference to the sex of those entering into wedlock. In His discussion of marriage he returns to the Genesis account, speaking of how "from the beginning of creation god made them male and female" (Mark 10:6). From this created, complementary difference between man and woman, Jesus says therefore they are joined together in marriage. So Christ does not merely speak of marriage with the unspoken assumption that it is between a man and a woman, but explicitly defends heterosexual unions as the plan and intent of God.

This is a far cry from silence breeding some sort of wrongful approbation some in this thread seek regarding slavery and homosexuality. Jesus never said, "and God created them slave and free." Marriage is created as between men and women by God as a picture of Christ and the Church, one where the male/female divide is crucial.

For those that haven't read the Sermon on the Mount (and it appears from the posts by irishspacemonk, Ryan, and Greg they probably haven't) Jesus had quite a bit to say about the "least" of these commands. And Jesus constantly assserted the authority of the OT which has quite a bit to say about homosexuality! Stan Guthrie is right on. Obama comes from one of the most liberal churches in America and has a radical pastor. Do you think that doesn't affect is mindset and values??? I'm not voting against Obama because of his religious views however. I'm voting against him because his solution is the same as the Great Society under Johnson. It didn't work then, and it isn't going to work now. Remember there is nothing new under the sun even though Obama thinks there is. His "change" is the politics of the 60's rebound wtih a new book cover.

"The OT which has quite a bit to say about homosexuality" seems rather an exaggeration, particulary in comparison to what it says about the poor, the unsupported, the widow and orphan. Yet for some, as yet, unclear reason the issue of same gender relations appears to trump any other concern. Why is that? I'll take the question of homosexuality seriously when I witness those who fasten so fiercely on it dealing in a biblical manner with poverty, the helpless and marginalized folks.

It sounds as if Obama is the vanguard of the Emerging Politics, a political manifestation of the Emerging Church. The 60's weren't all that great. Both the emerging political and ecclesiastical viewpoints are a sort of "since we are disenchanted, let's go back to a wonderful time when we all got along" kind of fantasy. Camelot did not end well.

Obama's comments about the obscurity of Romans 1 and his support of civil unions show his strength as a politician and rhetorician, and a weakness as a brother. To be wholly Christian and still be a strong polical candidate in any arena would prove difficult, if not impossible due to the demands and temptations of the ungodly world. To stand fast as a bible believing Christian in public office would not prove successful in today's world of "do as you like as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights." As for judging Mr Obama, it's clear, as he has commented, that he chooses to interpret the Bible loosely. Now he is not alone in this as all of us will faulter somewhere in our interpretation and application, but as a leader, and a proclaiming Christian one at that, he IS held to a higher standard. He will therefore be judged, as shall we each and every one. Mr Obama's comments seemingly run in accordance with the tolerant and worldly acceptance of behaviors clearly rebuked by God. None of us can choose to overtly follow or reject any of the scriptures and proclaim holiness. That being said, we should pray for ALL persons who claim Christ as Savior and selectively ignore or reinterpret scriptures for personal agenda, fear of rejection or persecution of any kind. Let's pray for Mr Obama not cut him down. "Let no unwholesome word proceed from [our] mouth[s], but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear." -Eph 4:29. Let each one choose a candidate according to his or her best judgement, according to Godly wisdom. No one candidate is "IT," but let us seek the Lord's wisdom in prayer and leave the rest to Him.

Barak Obama is a person who is trying to convince everyone that he is a Christian. He may be a Christian, but in name only. He belongs to a church with strong ties to Islam, i.e., Louis Farrakhan and others. He is more Islamic than Christian. He talks a good line, but obviously hasn't really read the Bible or just doesn't care what it says. He is a dangerous person, I feel, because of his ability to twist things to his own purpose. The church has become powerless, because most people, in church today, don't know the Scrptures either. Mr.Obama is a dangerous man, because he has that charisma to motivate people to his way. Like a chameleon, he can change his tune for whatever purpose he wants. When you boot God out of a country, then God says He will boot you out of his care and concern. In the last days, it will be like the days of Noah, everyone doing what is right in their own eyes; sound familiar? If we forsake God, God will forsake us. We had best wake up before it's too late, or is it too late already?

It seems as though Sen. Obama has brought this controversy on himself. He is reported to seek the Evangelical vote yet he puts down the book of Romans as obscure (the book in which the concept of Justification by faith is paramount). He just needs to go a little more circumspectly around Evangelicals and realize that he is getting into a mine field when he tries to make Romans obscure.

Obama did the basic politican's dodge by not quoting or citing a specific passage in the Sermon on the Mount. The three whole chapters have a lot to say, but none of it addressing homosexuality per se, and certainly nothing that says "marriage of a man to a man is OK by me." Certainly Christ's call for tolerance of others was not a call to abandon standards of sexual morality, which he emphasized right there in the Sermon.

The point we should remember is that Obama is asking us to give him tremendous coercive power over us for four years. As president, he could order the armed forces to treat gay "marriages" as valid and give gay partners married family housing on military bases and medical benefits. The net result will be for Christians who do not want their children to be misled that homosexuality is a valid action to get out of the military, and parents of young men and women will also nto approve them enlisting. Obama will harm the military directly by making it hard to recruit people. And telling chaplains that they cannot preach from Romans about homosexual sin.

All the things that Bill Clinton tried to do in the first month of his presidency about gays in the military would come to pass under Obama.

Yes, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. He also didn't say whether he liked his pork barbecue sliced or pulled.

Right on Stan! The issue you are raising is based on Obama's own hermeneutic of the Scriptures--not his character or his political affiliation. On what basis does he make his assertion that the Gospels are more central than the Pauline writings? Unfortunately, he chooses a questionable hermeneutic to substantiate his claim about human sexuality.

Nothing new here. Once again we see those who believe the Bible and those who believe what they want to in the Bible.

If you do not believe all of it that is fine. Just be honest about it.

If Obama thinks what Paul says in Romans 1 about homosexuality is obsure" (meaning not easily understood) I am quite certain he does not have the intellectual capacity to be President. The passage in Romans may have issues for some - but being unclear is certainly not one of them.

Mark

Why should he not do so? Many Christians for centuries have been seizing upon single verses in letters of Paul upon which to build entire doctrinal edifices about men and women. Given a choice between Jesus's words and Paul's, I'd take the former as more authoritative any time. Of course, Jesus did not tell us what he thought about "civil unions" or the treatment of homosexuals generally, did he? He did tell us that he came to fulfil the Law, with all of its draconian requirements, so, perhaps, he favored stoning gay persons; but, then, he exonerated the woman found guilty of adultery, if John's Gospel is to be believed.

I enjoyed your thoughtful piece about Barak Obama. I believe it was in CTDirect that I first heard Obama articulate that he was a “very strong Christian,” and I wondered what that meant in his economy. It’s nice to give someone the benefit of the doubt, and we don’t want to deny a person’s belief – but we also need to know “the rest of the story.” Thanks for presenting it so succinctly.

I voted for Senator Obama in the primary in Virgina - my first vote for a Democrat. I'm a very conservative evangelical, but believe the need for change is so acute that I was willing to vote for him, despite his stance on social issues.

I knew about his stance on civil unions, but to hear the Scriptures twisted so badly to support the view did really rankle me.

I wanted to ask him, "where exactly does the Sermon on the Mount support this?" Knowing the Sermon and its context well, I know there isn't an answer to this question that can be taken seriously. And I seriously doubt that he'd even have an answer. In other words, it came across as a ploy, a gimmick to take in the uninformed.

My other reaction was, "Since when is anything in Romans obscure?"
Knowing that Romans is a key book that exposits the gospel, Obama's comment is very revealing about his striking lack of Biblical understanding.

And then of course, pitting Jesus against Paul is a tired old favorite trick used by those who don't really accept the Bible as the Word of God -- enough already!

I realize he's not running to be a church leader or theologian. I've also come to believe quite strongly that a President can be right on the moral issues and still be a lousy President in lots of other respects. How much of a President's day-to-day work is related to those issues anyway? Not to say they're unimportant! But there's a lot more to good governance than those issues.

It did make me reconsider whether I'd vote for him in the general election, if it comes to that. (Haven't decided - for other reasons as well.)

In short, if he holds those views, I wish he would at least stop being a Scripture-twister to do it. If he was trying to appeal to evangelicals with that comment (no idea if he was) it really back-fired with this one.

Everyone knows Jesus preferred pulled. In such matters of profound import we must not err.

The fact is JJ Bodine, you will never take the issue of the sin of homosexuality seriously. Because if you did, you already would be doing so. You are just using a straw horse to avoid dealing with the issue. There are hundreds and thousands, if not tens of thousands of Christian organizations and churches all over this world defending and helping the least of these already. So now is the time Bodine to deal with this issue of homosexuality. Is it or is it not a sin? If not, what is your justification? If it is, then what is your justification?

Basically that speech was this, he compared what Paul said in Romans to what Jesus said in Matthew. He was saying that what Paul said specifically about homosexuality is not near as important at what Jesus said about judging.

Romans 1
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Vs. this
Matthew 7

Do Not Judge
1 "Judge not, that you be not judged. 2For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. 3And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?
4Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
6"Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.

This is true. I actually agree with him that they shouldn’t be judged by their sin, we can’t judge their sin, only the fruit that their lives produce. But I do believe that sin is sin and just because we don’t judge people, doesn’t mean that we call what they do right or ok.
This is the same with anything. We don’t judge people who lie, but it’s still a sin and not ok. This is a principle that even most non-religious people can agree on.

My biggest problem is that I feel Obama, Hillary and McCain are all wolves in sheep’s clothing. They proclaim a form of godliness, but their hearts are far from Him. As God says, he would rather they be hot or cold. He spits the lukewarm from His mouth. I would feel so much better if none of them claimed that they were Christians or tried to use religion or the bible as a leg to stand on. They are all hypocrites. I don’t feel right about supporting someone that claims to love God, but will disregard most of what He says to use the ‘nice’ stuff to suck up to stupid ‘Christians’

Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality
For many practicing Christians, the inability to compromise may apply to gay marriage. I find such a position troublesome, particularly in a society in which Christian men and women have been known to engage in adultery or other violations of their faith without civil penalty. I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture.

I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights no such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simlpy because the people they love are of the same sex--nor am I willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.
The heightened focus on marriage is a distraction from other, attainable measures to prevent discrimination and gays and lesbians.

Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.222-3 Oct 1, 2006

Paul didn't say anything specific about homosexuality that I see, despite some 20th Century interpretations that use the word "homosexual."

Paul was generally condemning idolatry, what idolators do and the appearances of idolatry. He incorrectly seemed to think that same-sex sexual activity was motivated by idolatry. It may have been for some back then, or at least that may have been their rationalization, but...not today.

Instead, we should ponder what the idolatry of our present day. What is idolatry today?

By the way, the actual Pauline letters probably closer to Jesus' time than the Gospels. The pseudo-Pauline letters, however...?

It appears that the presentation by Romney as a "Christian" fell flat by the limited support he received. This group he represents have in no way shown they are part of the Christian community, not backing Billy Graham nor working with any Christian group of educators, publlshers, humaniatarian aid, etc. My wife and I managed Christian bookstores in L.America and Spain for over 40 years and not once did a Mormon enter to purchase any materials that are in such growing use by the Christian community. They did come to our door and were surprised to find English speaking americans who would not take there literature. I suggested that the parts of the Book of Mormon that copied portions of KJ Bible did not give credit to its source and that was plagarism and discredited their book. They had no answer to that observation.

Barak Obama isn't unlike any other American president or candidate for president. He doesn't have a perfect relationship with Jesus Christ. But niether does president Bush. He just gives us good sound bites of "God bless America." We as Christians must personally trust in God although men in our secular government may not. This country is held together through our prayers. We may not agree with all that Obama says he believes. But, Bush has made false statements to Americans. His policies have put forth agendas that have saught to set African Americans back eons. Hate isn't godly.
The bottom line; Let's pray to God for the answers instead of making prejudice and superficial observations about Barak Obama.

I should have checked more thoroughly before writing my comment above that the author of this post, Stan Guthrie, needs to get a blog to air rants like this post.

Stan Guthrie has a blog!

http://www.stanguthrie.com/
and http://www.stanguthrie.com/thought/index.html

And here is the link to his columns at Christianity Today:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/features/opinion/columns/stanguthrie/
Foolish Things: Stan Guthrie

Stan Guthrie, author of Missions in the Third Millennium: 21 Key Trends for the 21st Century (Paternoster, 2nd edition 2005) is the senior associate editor for Christianity Today. A regular commentator on Moody Radio, Stan blogs at www.stanguthrie.com.

Where do all these interpretations of the Old Testament, New Testament, and Book of Mormon come from anyway? Do people have the same mindset today that the Good Christians of the Pro Slavery Missouri Teritory did so long ago?
The Missourians tried to force the territory of Kansas to accept Slavery before statehood would be conferred by establishing their own Territorial Capital between what is now Manhattan, Kansas and Junction City, Kansas.
The building still exists and is a museum. Have any of you visited it, ever?

Not all Christians are all that good, bad, or unholy in the eyes of God, right?
Did He not say he gave His only begotten Son to redeem the people? Or something along that line of thought according to what you accept as your Biblical interpretation.

If you want to jump on someone who is from a certain religion, whatever it may be, at least have the common sense and courtesy to read that religions literature and talk with them about their religion before taking the word of someone else (a 3rd party who usually is prejudiced and/or hateful in an effort to proclaim themselves as the only holder of the truth) who claims to know all there is to know about that religion.
OKAY?

I just graduated from a Christian College last Summer. I did not know what religions were considered Evangelical religions nor that many Christian Groups are considered Cults yet today, many of which number among the Main Stream churches!

I don't see that ANY church is fully following Jesus or God's truth! If just one church was, do you really believe that we would be having these discussions or these battles amongst the people of the world today, still??

I'll pause for everyone to ponder these thoughts.

Paul would never consider his epistle to the Romans to be a source of sound doctrine equal to the teaching of Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 1: 10-11). Senator Obama is more right than you think!

Gregory Peterson:
A prudent man is reluctant to display his knowledge, but the heart of [self-confident] fools proclaims their folly. (Proverbs 12:23 Amplified)

The penchant a lot of us have is to bend the Word of God to meet our political or social morays Obama would be better to bend his politcal will to the Word of God. Question with Whom did Abraham barter to try and save Sodom for just 10 Godly men. blessings in Him James Reid Ross

I forgot to add I wouldn't use the word assume when refering to what our Lord spoke. Assumptions are pitfalls when refering to God. In Him James Reid Ross

Dirk

"It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way." Proverbs 19:2

“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” attributed to Martin Luther King Jr.

Gregory

I couldn't have put it better myself. Notwithstanding your twisting of the Romans passage, homosexuality is idolatry, to this day...

I am looking for a Bible that has all red letters. After all, Jesus didn't come into existence with His birth in Bethlehem. He has been around from the before time and is speaking to us just as much in the Old Testament and the rest of the New Testament as He is in the Gospels.

Does any know where I could find a Bible that has all red letters?

I can't really tell from your article whether you worship Christ or Paul? Paul was a man after all, and men make mistakes and write down their weird ideas and self-serving opinions - just like you, and just like Paul. Only Jesus was divine. Why would you assume a mere mortal's words are of equal value? Maybe it's because they help you reinforce your prejudices and give you justification for judging others and promoting intolerance and hatred. You can't manage that with Jesus' words so you declare that Paul's words are just as important. Hardly surprising. You're just a man, weak, the same as Paul. I'll stick by the words of God thanks, not the words of someone with ulterior motives like yours.

Red letter belivers go WAY beyond the demogogary that the political candidates use.

Red Letter beleivers seek to follow the words of Christ -- and cherry pick just the social-gospel favorites.

This blog really is a great starting point for those who are trying to live an a-political Red letter existence:

www.redletterbelievers.blogspot.com

During a campaign event in North Carolina Obama suggested that JESUS CHRIST is not the only way to Heaven!!! There is a article in the Christian Post. Home page go to Social, then Politics and is at bottom of the page. He can not be a Christian because JESUS is the only way!!!

Obama says he believes in the Bible, yet he deliberately goes against its very essence. This alone speaks volumes about his character. I would rather have a scumbag, who doesn't pretend, than someone who says he believes, yet really doesn't. You either believe everything the bible says, or you don't! There are no in-betweens. And if there is, then you are double minded, and that is not the type of President we need. Please give me a break with all the hype about Obama. If your a Christian how could you vote for someone like him. It's absolutely ridiculous! Abortion, Gays, what next? Don't be deceived by a type of Anti-Christ that the Truth talks about. I'm not saying he is. I'm just saying he's a type, and that is dangerous. I think America really needs to think about it before they vote for a double minded, two faced Christian. Whether your Jew, Catholic, Christian, or Atheist. I'm just not for someone who can't make up their mind on what they are.

"Posted by Stan Guthrie on March 4, 2008 2:39PM
Comments
Sounds like you've got your candidate in Huckabee. Creationist, bible thumper that he is. Quit trying to write Obama content just to get interest in your post, when your point is without merit. The bible is a moral story, written, rewritten and written again over thousands of years and interpreted differently by many. It is not a hard fact. At least Obama's honest in his interpretation than most right-wing Christians, who avoid being honest because then they'd be cast as racists, fascists."

MY RESPONSE:
STAN GUTHRIE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO WRITE ABOUT THE TOPICS WHICH CONCERN HIS FAITH, AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T READ ARTICLES LIKE THESE RELATED TO POLITICS AND FAITH. OBAMA IS NOT A 'RED LETTER CHRISTIAN' AND THE BIBLE IS THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD, AND WHEN IT COMES TO HEAVEN, HE HAS SAID THAT HE DOESN'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT HE IS GOING UP OR DOWN!! IF YOU CALL 20 YEARS UNDER THE PASTORAL LEADERSHIP OF REV. WRIGHT AN HONEST INTERPRETATION OF RIGHT WING CHRISTIANS, YOU ARE SORELY MISTAKEN, AS EVIDENCED FROM THE REMARKS OF REV. WRIGHT, HE IS THE ONE WHO IS RACIST. SO I AM NATIVE AMERICAN AND NOT WHITE, AND I HAVE NO TROUBLE EXPRESSING MY OPINIONS AND STATING THE FACTS.

Reality! These days it is too hard to tell the difference between secular persons and the professing Christians . Genuine Born Again Evangelical Christians are total abstainers from smoking, drugs, alcohol, cheating, lying, stealing, tax evasions, pornography, or rather all personal vices, Impairments http://thefocusonthefamily.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/abstainers/

The major undeniable weakness, weakness, discrepancies, shortfall in the soft underbelly of the personal life of Barrack Obama and even Canada's prime Minister Stephen Harper is clear, and is that already proven too, that there is a wide discrepancy between what he verbally says he is and who he really is now and and what he in fact still next does. Even now starting clearly with his profession of being a real practicing Christian. Barack Obama for continuity he is not a real practicing Christian and he undeniably has violated God laws continually, and there is no excuse for it.. While it is often a thorny issue, discussion in the Christian faith, amongst the protestants and evangelicals whether Christians drinking wine is tolerate now, the Bible in both the old and new testament clearly and undeniably still says that anyone in a leadership position cannot consume wine, alcohol or get drunk. This is not even subject even to any debate now as well. Both Obama and Bilden do undeniably drink alcohol now.. and what about McCain and Palin now too?

Again ““Dr. Daniel Akin, President of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary has written an article in favor of the famous Resolution #5 (Resolution calling for total opposition to alcohol). Alcohol is the number one drug problem among teenagers. (1 Cor. 8:13; 9:19-22; 10:32-33). Because I am an example to others, I will make certain no one ever walks the road of sorrow called alcoholism because they saw me take a drink and assumed, “if it is alright for him it is alright for me.” No, I will choose to set an uncompromising example of abstinence because I love them. I will seek my joy and filling in the Spirit not in alcohol. I love the Phillips translation of Ephesians 5:18 which reads, “Don’t get your stimulus from wine (for there is always the danger of excessive drinking), but let the Spirit stimulate your souls.” Psalm 4:7-8 adds, “You [O Lord] have put more joy in my heart than they have when their grain and wine abound. In peace I will both lie down and sleep; for you alone, O Lord, make me dwell in safety.” There is no record that Jesus drank strong drink, As a pastor or church leader, would I demand abstinence for leadership? Absolutely! The principle of Proverbs 31:4-5 is appropriately applied here, “It is not for Kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine, or for rulers to take strong drink, lest they drink and forget what has been decreed and pervert the rights of all the afflicted.” “

(1 Cor 11:28 KJV) But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

(Prov 3:33 KJV) The curse of the LORD is in the house of the wicked: but he blesseth the habitation of the just.

Jesus himself had said that professing to be a Christian is not enough,

Matt 3:8 Bring forth fruit that is consistent with repentance [let your lives prove your change of heart];

Gal 5:23 Gentleness (meekness, humility), self-control (self-restraint, continence). Against such things there is no law [that can bring a charge].

Matt 7:16 You will fully recognize them by their fruits. Do people pick grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?17 Even so, every healthy (sound) tree bears good fruit [worthy of admiration], but the sickly (decaying, worthless) tree bears bad (worthless) fruit. 18 A good (healthy) tree cannot bear bad (worthless) fruit, nor can a bad (diseased) tree bear excellent fruit [worthy of admiration]. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire. 20 Therefore, you will fully know them by their fruits.

The Bible’s suggestions on electing rulers.. good managers

(Deu 1:13 KJV) Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you.
(Deu 1:14 KJV) And ye answered me, and said, The thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do.
(Deu 1:15 KJV) So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes.
(Deu 1:16 KJV) And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.
(Deu 1:17 KJV) Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.
(Deu 1:18 KJV) And I commanded you at that time all the things which ye should do.

(1 Tim 3:1 KJV) This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
(1 Tim 3:2 KJV) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
(1 Tim 3:3 KJV) Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
(1 Tim 3:4 KJV) One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
(1 Tim 3:5 KJV) (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
(1 Tim 3:6 KJV) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
(1 Tim 3:7 KJV) Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

1 Tim 3:2 Now a bishop (superintendent, overseer) must give no grounds for accusation {but} must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, circumspect {and} temperate {and} self-controlled ( Sober) ; [he must be] sensible {and} well behaved {and} dignified and lead an orderly (disciplined) life; [he must be] hospitable [showing love for and being a friend to the believers, especially strangers or foreigners, and be] a capable {and} qualified teacher,
Alcoholics, wine drinkers, smokers, drug users too they all tend to have evidentially lost their self control..

Undeniably whether you are also a leader or not getting drunk is still an unacceptable sin as well. And all true Christians consider this still a sinful act

Obama amongst some others reiterated his support for civil unions for homosexuals. No surprise there. Some Christians do indeed allow for the conferring of some legal rights, short of marital status, on gays as a simple matter of fairness. We cannot legislate or enforce morality. Nevertheless all true Christians consider this a sinful act But I suspect his rationale raised some hackles. "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". Barrack Obama. Since when did Romans 1 become obscure? I thought pitting the words of Jesus against those of Paul was a tactic of Red Letter Christians, not something a serious candidate for the Oval Office would engage in.There is no refererence to gay civil unions in the Sermon on the Mount (unless you stretch the Golden Rule beyond all recognition). Perhaps Obama mixed up his Bible references Is Barack Obama a Red Letter Christian? http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2008/03/is_barack_obama.html

Many conservative pundits today are trying desperately to warn their fellow Americans that Barack Obama has been linked to various far-left organizations, but it still is in reality it is really unfair to the Bible, Christianity, to try to link all socialists as communists, unbiblical, for unlike most evangelicals these days and their churches denominations who wrongfully do not care about any others, only themselves it seems Jesus, the Apostles, Apostle James included, and deacons care about both the good physical and spiritual welfare of the flock, of all persons, the poor and needy. sick persons persons too.. they were Both Conservatives and liberal- socialist sas well.. not basically republicans. Judas was clearly the sole republican..

The Gospel is not a message of 'social-welfare.' It is a message of salvation and transformation. Jesus cared about the downtrodden and those who needed the "Good Doctor." Many people do wonderful things for the poor, and the sick, but they have not accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior. They are 'good' people. But that isn't enough. You cannot do acts of goodness to win the heart of God. You cannot earn your way into Heaven, nor earn His love. If it weren't for the love of so many Christians, love which was planted in their hearts by the Holy Spirit, many poor, sick and oppressed people in the world would not have a meal to eat, clothes to wear, or any hope. If I had to make a choice to either feed/clothe a man, or share the Gospel with him, the Gospel would prevail. Eternity is a great deal longer than life here on Earth. Jesus was neither conservative nor liberal-socialist. He was the Son of God. Unique!

The entire Bible is God's word. Studying "Red Letter" verses are great, too. I don't pit Paul against Jesus because God was speaking for the both of them. For those who call the Bible a myth, put some glasses on and read how History continues to prove the truth of the Bible.

As to marriage, in the beginning, when God created His perfect earth, he had Adam and Eve, woman made from man and the world WAS PERFECT. When both partook of the fruit, SIN ENTERED the world. So in God's perfect world, as I read it, has man and woman made for each other.

It as Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Were I to describe Stan Guthrie as a Theological Idiot I would be insulting, besmirching a world filled with Theological Idiots. Stan Guthrie may well be striving to become the Rush Limbaugh of theological insanity-- in short, "don't confuse me with either the Spirit or the Words of Jesus". "Do not interfere with my intent to appeal to the basest forms of ignorance, bias, and prejudice."

My uncle was a gifted high baritone who loved to share Heinrich Schutz: "The Pharisee And The Publican". However my late Uncle, a Presbyterian often jokingly paraphrased it "The Pharisee And The RePublican"-- as if there were a difference! Jesus is very specific in his Parable in Luke 18:

18:9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

18:10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men [are], extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

18:12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

18:13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as [his] eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

18:14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified [rather] than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

G-d Bless Barack Obama for his humility. As for Stan Guthrie G-d forgive his blasphemy.

I've found too many conflicting and offensive anecdotes and rules to put excessive reliance on the supposed "word of god", However, I was blessed with a working cerebrum and I try very hard to emulate Yashua (aka Jesus) and attempt to follow his lead, Like most humans, I often fail but try to do better. Yashua was a liberal who targetted corrupt institutions rather than individuals.
Nobody follows the Bible literally because it's impossible.