If Barack Obama is Christian, then...

[ydoaPs]

However, I'm still waiting for an answer on what you called "homosexual love" and how it differs from generic, platonic love.

 

The same way romantic love differs from platonic love. Is it really this hard to understand?

[ewmon]

The [homosexual] qualifier only comes into play when there are bigots getting in the way.

Okay, now I understand. The words "comes into play" sounded like consequences to me; it sounded like something would happen "when there are bigots getting in the way".

[John Cuthber]

I'm not a big bible scholar.

I know that Leviticus had stuff to say about homosexuality but as far as I know Obama didn't ever say he was a "Leviticusian."

 

What does the bible say that Christ actually said on the issue?

[ewmon]

I've read the Bible a few times, and although I don't remember him explicitly saying anything about homosexuality, Christ was a Jew who adhered to the Jewish scriptures (what's called the Old Testament) which explicitly prohibit homosexuality. So, unless Christ said that the Old Testament was wrong about homosexuality or that it had been misinterpreted one way and should be interpreted another way, the Old Testament stands as is. It's not as though Christ came along and rewrote the Jewish scriptures, or trashed them and started fresh.

[doG]

Christ was a Jew who adhered to the Jewish scriptures...

Can you prove that? without any hearsay I might add...

[padren]

Well, with regards to the OP I want to add that if Obama is not Christian because he supports gay marriage, then by that logic if (potential future US President) Romney doesn't give 10% of the US Federal Budget to the Mormon Church, he's "not really a Mormon."

 

John F. Kennedy didn't take marching orders from the Pope but he was able to be both Catholic and a US President. The President is like a guy you pay to house sit for you and water the plants - he's not supposed to turn your pad into the church of his preference.

 

I also have to object to the simplistic definition of "Christian" - how effectively we define the term ourselves individually will help us understand people we meet that happen to call themselves "Christians" but it's still nothing specific and absolute. Lots of people call themselves Christian, many of whom are not considered Christian by other Christians which may or may not be reciprocal. This rather minor point of language literally led to that whole burning people alive business. I know the people who did the burning called themselves Christians, as did those being burned - but which ones were the real Christians? Can Christians burn each other at stakes and still be called Christians? Is communication aided in any way by arbitrarily changing who you acknowledge has the right to call themselves Christian?

 

The idea that it's even possible to determine if Obama is a "Christian" because of some perspective on some social issue is ridiculous - what would it give you? You get an entirely useless definition of "Christian" since it won't help you communicate anything to anyone. You really have two choices: you can either decide that Obama is a different kind of Christian than your used to because he supports gay marriage, or you can decide you and some mob have the definitive authority (who bestows that, Websters?) to bar all dictionaries from putting Obama's face next to the definition for Christian.

 

 

I don't mean to be snarky, but there's so many "tags" (Christian, Progressive, Patriot, Conservative, Moderate, Liberal, etc) placed on people (especially politicians) they just get buried under labels. The idea of debating whether or not a label is fitting for a politician is kinda maddening. The idea of saying "well he's not a Christian then" is no less a dead-end than saying "well he's not a patriot then" about George W. because he failed to send his daughters to Iraq. We get a bunch of fanfic definitions for common words and absolutely nothing about the actual people or issues discussed.

Edited May 22, 2012 by padren

[doG]

Lots of people call themselves Christian, many of whom are not considered Christian by other Christians which may or may not be reciprocal.

As an example I refer to myself sometimes as a Jeffersonian Christian, one that believes in the Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, without believing Jesus was any kind of god. I find his moral advocation to align well with my own humanist views. Most Christians denounce this though and refer to me as a heathen

[Xittenn]

I don't mean to be snarky, but there's so many "tags" (Christian, Progressive, Patriot, Conservative, Moderate, Liberal, etc) placed on people (especially politicians) they just get buried under labels. The idea of debating whether or not a label is fitting for a politician is kinda maddening. The idea of saying "well he's not a Christian then" is no less a dead-end than saying "well he's not a patriot then" about George W. because he failed to send his daughters to Iraq. We get a bunch of fanfic definitions for common words and absolutely nothing about the actual people or issues discussed.

 

A lot of people don't want to see LGT marriages, few people want to send women to Iraq. The consequence of this is we hear comments that could affect Obama's position and not Bush's. Do people really care about Obama's religious disposition? Probably not as much as they care about ensuring that LGT persons live out their lives feeling like outcasts to society . . . . shame . . .

 

I just have to randomly post this in the in the most as relevant as possible place:

 

 

I'm sure everyone has seen this before, but I had only just recently!

[ewmon]

Christ was a Jew who adhered to the Jewish scriptures

Can you prove that? without any hearsay I might add...

The gospels are recorded testimony that describe Christ as Jewish and mostly don't describe him as violating the Jewish laws, although such an opinion is subjective. According to the gospels, some people, such as the Pharisees, accused him of violating a few of the laws, such as working on the Sabbath (the Jewish holy day of rest) because he had healed someone (which they considered as work) on the Sabbath. It was those kinds of accusations, and more, that led to him being crucified. Christ responded that, if one of their animals had fallen into a pit on the Sabbath, they would have happily pulled it out (which was considered "work"), so how much more important was it that a disabled person be healed?

[John Cuthber]

I've read the Bible a few times, and although I don't remember him explicitly saying anything about homosexuality, Christ was a Jew who adhered to the Jewish scriptures (what's called the Old Testament) which explicitly prohibit homosexuality. So, unless Christ said that the Old Testament was wrong about homosexuality or that it had been misinterpreted one way and should be interpreted another way, the Old Testament stands as is. It's not as though Christ came along and rewrote the Jewish scriptures, or trashed them and started fresh.

So the "Christian" objections to homosexuality are essentially the same as the objections to eating shellfish.

 

It looks like there's a presidential precedent.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2510&dat=20070703&id=hVU1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=gCUMAAAAIBAJ&pg=2953,1126787

[ewmon]

So the "Christian" objections to homosexuality are essentially the same as the objections to eating shellfish.

Actually, Christ negated that dietary law. He said that it's not what goes into your mouth that makes you unclean, it's what comes out of your mouth that shows you're unclean.

[ydoaPs]

Actually, Christ negated that dietary law. He said that it's not what goes into your mouth that makes you unclean, it's what comes out of your mouth that shows you're unclean.

 

Actually, he didn't. You're thinking of the other guy. Jesus said the whole Law is in place until the end of the world.

[padren]

I like how this thread opened with a question about whether or not Obama is a Christian, and has now spiraled into a side debate on what Christ was actually about - which I think highlights why these sorts of "investigative reasonings" about label application tend to be so fruitless.

 

Most of the time, the conversation devolves into debating the definition of the label (ie, what is a Christian, and the citing of "evidence" based on "historical" documentation of Christ's actions and teachings) to determine whether it can be applied to the person in question, and the actual action/statement the person did to trigger the whole conversation becomes secondary.

 

 

Honestly, I feel like debating "who Christ was" based on surviving written works is like trying to debate "what a Vampire is" based on the written works of Twilight through Dracula - you are creating a selective definition in a discussion which will only be valid for the participants of that discussion. If you try to enlarge the discussion circle, you'll immediately run into people that took no part in forming that definition and vehemently disagree with it.

 

Whether that is someone insisting that "it is possible to be both Christian and coexist in a tolerant, diverse society" or insisting that "it's simply wrong to call anything that sparkles a vampire" boils down to context... but the end result is yet another discussion about definitions. The fact that Obama spoke up on an important and controversial social issue and the implications of that event are notably absent from this thread.

 

Even a question like "Will most American Christians view Obama as a Christian after his statement on same sex marriage?" can create a productive debate, because it's anchored in a real sociological context. You can at least use the same definition for Christian as the Federal Government does then, which is basically anyone "referring to themselves as a Christian." Assertions can then be backed up with polls and other data, and the subtler issues of whether anyone can be Christian and still be okay with homosexual love / sex / lamp / etc can be retired unless there is enough interest for a separate thread.

[Xittenn]

Just to directly answer the question, I don't believe that Obama can be pro LG marriage and still be 'Christian.' It's like the people who call themselves Christian but choose to ignore many sections of their religious text. Can Obama believe in God and still be pro LG marriage? Absolutely! I wish someone would replace the old text with something a little less absurd in its formulation, that more closely reflects what a greater majority believes--some might say that more closely represents what God is speaking into their hearts. I am pretty sure that Christians will refrain from denouncing Obama as Christian as most have the same revised book in their heads, and most choose to acknowledge its existence, and choose to not worry about the fact that it hasn't been written out in plain English at this present moment.

 

side note appeal to Christians . . .. please fix your religion, failure to do so will probably result in either war or a replacement thereof . . . IMO!

[doG]

The gospels are recorded testimony that describe Christ as Jewish and mostly don't describe him as violating the Jewish laws, although such an opinion is subjective. According to the gospels, some people, such as the Pharisees, accused him of violating a few of the laws, such as working on the Sabbath (the Jewish holy day of rest) because he had healed someone (which they considered as work) on the Sabbath. It was those kinds of accusations, and more, that led to him being crucified. Christ responded that, if one of their animals had fallen into a pit on the Sabbath, they would have happily pulled it out (which was considered "work"), so how much more important was it that a disabled person be healed?

The gospels are nothing more than he said, "he said" which is hearsay by definition. It's not like any of those writers of those books sat down under oath at some kind of inquisition to testify so I don't buy the claim at all of it being testimony. The authors of the four canonical Christian gospels were nothing more than four evangelists. That does not make their writings testimony.

 

Just to directly answer the question, I don't believe that Obama can be pro LG marriage and still be 'Christian.'

Why? I'm pro LG marriage and I'm a Jeffersonian Christian. Are you saying I'm in error here? That I can't be any kind of Christian if I support gay marriage?

[zapatos]

Just to directly answer the question, I don't believe that Obama can be pro LG marriage and still be 'Christian.' It's like the people who call themselves Christian but choose to ignore many sections of their religious text.

Depends on how you define Christian. For you it seems to be that you have to support everything in the bible to consider yourself Christian. For me not so much.

 

Do you support all the rules, laws, culture, etc. of Canada? Do you still consider yourself Canadian? If so, why is it different when defining Christians?

[padren]

Just to directly answer the question, I don't believe that Obama can be pro LG marriage and still be 'Christian.'

 

....

 

side note appeal to Christians . . .. please fix your religion, failure to do so will probably result in either war or a replacement thereof . . . IMO!

Out of curiosity, if being pro LG marriage (ie, fixing the religion) makes you automatically not a Christian, just how would you spot a Christian who was fixing their religion?

 

It's like you are defining a group based on whether they contain an attribute that bothers you, while being bothered that everyone in that group has that attribute. There are openly gay and lesbian clergy in Christian churches - they still have religious tax exempt status and still get to call themselves Christian Churches as protected under the Constitution, so really I don't understand the distinction here.

Edited May 23, 2012 by padren

[John Cuthber]

It's easy to spot Christians who try to fix religion. Ask Galileo.

[Xittenn]

Why? I'm pro LG marriage and I'm a Jeffersonian Christian. Are you saying I'm in error here? That I can't be any kind of Christian if I support gay marriage?

 

Depends on how you define Christian. For you it seems to be that you have to support everything in the bible to consider yourself Christian. For me not so much.

 

Do you support all the rules, laws, culture, etc. of Canada? Do you still consider yourself Canadian? If so, why is it different when defining Christians?

 

Out of curiosity, if being pro LG marriage (ie, fixing the religion) makes you automatically not a Christian, just how would you spot a Christian who was fixing their religion?

 

It's like you are defining a group based on whether they contain an attribute that bothers you, while being bothered that everyone in that group has that attribute. There are openly gay and lesbian clergy in Christian churches - they still have religious tax exempt status and still get to call themselves Christian Churches as protected under the Constitution, so really I don't understand the distinction here.

 

 

I think the Christian religion was pretty well laid out and accepted for much longer than this notion of picking and choosing concepts within it. The bible is very clearly not pro LGBT in any shape or form. If Christians wish to adopt these new positions, and by this I mean picking and choosing concepts from the teachings that they appreciate and understand while discarding others, I will be the last person to stop them. But, if this is in fact the case, then I feel that to appropriate these positions properly either amendments need to be made across the board, or amendments need to be made by the respective denominations such that their position lacks uncertainty. Until it is clear what the position is then I am forced to take all information at face value. As it stands Obama's position is a modified form of Christianity that has no literary representation, and because I can't specify his position I would say that he is not Christian, and yes essentially none of you are as well.

 

I do appreciate everyone's position and I know for fact there are great number of you who practice accordingly. But here is the problem, it is good and fine to not hate on LGBT persons because God says to love all and let him do the judging, but maintaining a text that mars these persons intentionally, and mixed with a harboring of these thoughts that clearly position LGBT individuals as outside of God's plan is very hurtful to these individuals. Now I know that these 'Jeffersonian Christian' types do not feel like this, that they are not disrespectful in any way, and that many are open and caring to people such as the LGBT community that were misrepresented in the bible. But, the maintaining of these passages as the word of God is ensuring a continued persecution of LGBT people--however subtle ewmon would like to make that--for many generations to come. If the bible was written with passages interspersed with reflections on the history and what not, this might be different, but it's not, and there are still many who take the word at face value. Granted according to God we are all sinners and so even an LGBT person who asks for forgiveness . . . . wait no he also says those who continue to defy his laws intentionally are not really asking for his forgiveness so we can't swing that way either. . . .

 

I thank the air that I breath and the rocks that have formed beneath me that I am Canadian. As it stands I will be able to marry who I want, should I ever find someone whom I love and wish to cherish, and who feels the same about me. Unlike the bible the laws of Canada are formed by people and were created with good intentions, but are also scrutinized and revised as necessary. We don't have to like all the laws of Canada to be Canadian, I don't believe the bible holds the same position. Christianity in common practice is much more about making a loving community than it is about the proper means to save your mortal soul, and from my perspective I see a lot of followers of God who like to have a name for themselves, and they adopt the title Christian. The Christian religion however has proven itself to be a dangerous and hurtful tool that uplifts a very specific embodiment of what it means to be a human and I will personally not let people who continue to uphold it's truths to let this fact go. Either the religion is modified, or the religion maintains its position, there really isn't a middle ground on this one.

 

Please forward this to the Vatican!

 

BekaD: Pincess of Qi <3

 

Why not? The president takes an oath to defend the Constitution, not the Bible.

 

According to the bible the opposite is true, being a Christian means upholding Christian values above all else, especially with respect to all facets of your life. Obviously there are those who are weak, as they are sheep, and some do not meet this expectation.

[swansont]

Just to directly answer the question, I don't believe that Obama can be pro LG marriage and still be 'Christian.' It's like the people who call themselves Christian but choose to ignore many sections of their religious text.

 

If that's the criterion then none of the candidates are Christian, but that makes for really uninteresting debate. However, in this context then any candidate who puts being Christian above being president, shouldn't be president.

 

This also raises the question: saying or doing something that isn't Christian makes you not a Christian? That doesn't sound right.

 

The bible is very clearly not pro LGBT in any shape or form.

 

"Not pro" is not the same as "anti". The Bible isn't pro-firearm, either.

[imatfaal]

The gospels are nothing more than he said, "he said" which is hearsay by definition. It's not like any of those writers of those books sat down under oath at some kind of inquisition to testify so I don't buy the claim at all of it being testimony. The authors of the four canonical Christian gospels were nothing more than four evangelists. That does not make their writings testimony.

 

 

Hearsay is not quite that simple.

 

<I find a cup of coffee on my desk and ask who made it for me. My colleague John tells me "Your secretary left that at the same time as she dropped off the papers to sign". She does make good coffee.>

 

The only part of the above which is hearsay and would not be allowed is in providing evidence as to who made the coffee and how it got there. Only John's direct testimony would be acceptable in that case, and only to the fact that the secretary left it there. It is perfect evidence (if I am trustworthy) for what my colleague said - but not the veracity of the content of what he said. I can also correctly provide my estimation of coffee-making abilities of my secretary.

 

The main problem with the NT writing about Christ is that it is pretends to be eye-witness whereas most of the time it is not. It is not testimony because the majority of the sections which purport to be first person witness testimony were written tens if not hundreds of years after the event by groups of people. It's just false.

[doG]

Hearsay is not quite that simple.

 

<I find a cup of coffee on my desk and ask who made it for me. My colleague John tells me "Your secretary left that at the same time as she dropped off the papers to sign". She does make good coffee.>

 

The only part of the above which is hearsay and would not be allowed is in providing evidence as to who made the coffee and how it got there....

You seem to have a misunderstanding on what hearsay is. It is not hearsay for John to tell you who made the coffee. OTOH, if someone else were to ask you who made the coffee and you said that John said that your secretary did it then that would be hearsay, i.e. you said John said. If Matthew, Mark, Luke or John says that, "Jesus said..." then their statement of what they heard him say is hearsay, i.e. hear-say.

[imatfaal]

You seem to have a misunderstanding on what hearsay is. It is not hearsay for John to tell you who made the coffee. OTOH, if someone else were to ask you who made the coffee and you said that John said that your secretary did it then that would be hearsay, i.e. you said John said. If Matthew, Mark, Luke or John says that, "Jesus said..." then their statement of what they heard him say is hearsay, i.e. hear-say.

 

 

The misunderstanding is yours - I wrote a few lines of text, of that text much would be correct evidence and testimony of a series of events. As I said in my post "The only part of the above which is hearsay and would not be allowed is in providing evidence as to who made the coffee and how it got there. Only John's direct testimony would be acceptable in that case"

 

If Matthew, Mark, Luke or John says that, "Jesus said..." then their statement of what they heard him say is hearsay, i.e. hear-say.

This is a very common and incorrect understanding of the evidential term. MMl&J's evidence of what Jesus said is completely acceptable as evidence of what Jesus said - it is first party eyewitness testimony of an event; I saw Jesus fall downstairs, light a cigarette, and say "Blessed are the weak" . A court would accept (iff they believe you to be a truthful witness - another question entirely) that Jesus fell downstairs, lit a cigarette, and said "Blessed are the weak" - what they would not accept is that the weak are blessed or that Jesus believed that to be the case; that is hearsay.

[ydoaPs]

it is first party eyewitness testimony of an event

 

That is actually entirely wrong.

[imatfaal]

That is actually entirely wrong.

 

The question was on whether it was hearsay or not.

 

I did include this line in the message you replied to

(iff they believe you to be a truthful witness - another question entirely)

and this in my previous

The main problem with the NT writing about Christ is that it is pretends to be eye-witness whereas most of the time it is not. It is not testimony because the majority of the sections which purport to be first person witness testimony were written tens if not hundreds of years after the event by groups of people. It's just false.

 

I think it is quite clear that I think the whole thing is false and a work of fiction. However, to dismiss the NT descriptions of Jesus as Hearsay is dangerous - because it is clearly not hearsay; and once people realise that the criticism is incorrect it adds a undeserved veneer of truth to the work.