Obama's views on religion

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Fern

And even if we did have only Christians within our borders, who?s Christianity would we teach in the schools? James Dobson?s, or Al Sharpton?s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Levitacus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?

He's either cluseless or pandering.

If you're a Christian it means you accept the New Testiment (unlike the Jewish). The Point of Jesus and the New Testiment is to render the old (Testiment) laws mute or irrelevant. They've been superceded. Levitacus and Deuteronomy are Old Testiment, thus it's ignorant or disingenous to "invent" such a dilema as he does above.

Fern

No, b/c if you're Christian and believe in the Holy Trinity, then those laws set forth by God in the Old Testament are also those set forth by Jesus. Being the Father and the Son (with a little Spirit on the side), the word of God, at any point, is also the word of Jesus. He is God in the flesh, and is also the Son of God (I'm thinking a West Virginia lineage? 😛).

Aren't the 10 Commandments from the Old Testament? I thought I remembered reading on ATOT or P&N that someone quoted a line from the New Testament (might be Paul) where it tells Christians to continue following the Old Testament. I'm just curious where it says that as Christians, you only follow the New Testament.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Fern

And even if we did have only Christians within our borders, who?s Christianity would we teach in the schools? James Dobson?s, or Al Sharpton?s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Levitacus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?

-snip-

Fern

-snip-

Aren't the 10 Commandments from the Old Testament? I thought I remembered reading on ATOT or P&N that someone quoted a line from the New Testament (might be Paul) where it tells Christians to continue following the Old Testament. I'm just curious where it says that as Christians, you only follow the New Testament.

A number of the books in the Old Testament laid down God's laws, such as the dietary laws, stoning people for whatever, and making the animal (lamb) sacrifices. The only way you had to get into Heaven was follow the laws etc.

In short, after Jesus the only way to get into Heaven is believe/rely upon him. Following the laws as laid down in the Old Testament is basically useless, as they have been superceded.

That's why Christians eat pork, shellfish, don't stone people or make animal sacrifices as was required in the Old Testament. Christians will study the Old Testament to "see what God said", but do not believe the "laws" apply (unlike Jews who still adhere to the dietary laws, for example). I am unaware of any of the 10 Commandments being in conflict with the teachings of Jesus, nor do they contain any "stoning rules' or dietary rules etc.

So, for Obama to talk about Christians and then bring up "stoning" and dietary laws from the Old Testament is a fallacious & irrelevant argument.

Notwithstanding any cults that may be out there, I am unaware of any Christian denomination differing in this regard (dropping adherence to stoning/dietary laws of Old testament). They certainly do have some differences (e.g., Baptists believe you gotta go completely underwater for baptism etc), but are not what Obama describes at all.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

No, b/c if you're Christian and believe in the Holy Trinity, then those laws set forth by God in the Old Testament are also those set forth by Jesus. Being the Father and the Son (with a little Spirit on the side), the word of God, at any point, is also the word of Jesus. He is God in the flesh, and is also the Son of God (I'm thinking a West Virginia lineage? 😛).

If I understand you, then you're saying Christians must still adhere to the dietary laws, stoning laws and animal sacrifices to be in obeyence with God's word and get to Heaven?

Nope. Either Jusus would be irrelevant, or just one more thing on the list to conform to in order to get to Heaven.

Fern

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Fern
A number of the books in the Old Testament laid down God's laws, such as the dietary laws, stoning people for whatever, and making the animal (lamb) sacrifices. The only way you had to get into Heaven was follow the laws etc.

In short, after Jesus the only way to get into Heaven is believe/rely upon him. Following the laws as laid down in the Old Testament is basically useless, as they have been superceded.

That's why Christians eat pork, shellfish, don't stone people or make animal sacrifices as was required in the Old Testament. Christians will study the Old Testament to "see what God said", but do not believe the "laws" apply (unlike Jews who still adhere to the dietary laws, for example). I am unaware of any of the 10 Commandments being in conflict with the teachings of Jesus, nor do they contain any "stoning rules' or dietary rules etc.

So, for Obama to talk about Christians and then bring up "stoning" and dietary laws from the Old Testament is a fallacious & irrelevant argument.

Notwithstanding any cults that may be out there, I am unaware of any Christian denomination differing in this regard (dropping adherence to stoning/dietary laws of Old testament). They certainly do have some differences (e.g., Baptists believe you gotta go completely underwater for baptism etc), but are not what Obama describes at all.

Fern

Don't a significant amount of Christians justify their anti-homosexual stance based on Leviticus? Are they just nit picking portions of the Bible to support their stance?

 

[piasabird]

This just proves that politicians should never discuss religion.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Fern

Don't a significant amount of Christians justify their anti-homosexual stance based on Leviticus? Are they just nit picking portions of the Bible to support their stance?

Yes, that and the 10 Commandments. But they don't call for any "stoning" as required in the OT. They don't wish to "codify" it (approve it) because of God's (Old Testament) statements strongly disapproving of it.

Generally, "sin" is bad for two reasons (1) it's bad for you (in the individual & colective sense. (Individual - pork/tricinosis & shellfish/hepatitis, collective - murder, robbery, covetness etc not good for building a society etc), and (2) God doesn't like it. You'll hear them say both things about homosexualtity, no kids, and HIV etc. So, they're against it, but again no stoning (every heard them say, we hate the sin, but love the person when speaking of homosexuality? OT dislike of the "sin" overlaid with the NT message of love, etc.)

But this illustrates the use of the OT by Christians in indentifying what God considers sin. However, the NT identifies another/additional all-important sin - not "believing" in jesus. It's the only one that, according to the NT, cannot be forgiven and will keep you out of Heaven. Thus superceding the OT rules.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Don't a significant amount of Christians justify their anti-homosexual stance based on Leviticus? Are they just nit picking portions of the Bible to support their stance?

Of course they are. Do you realize how insane the world would be if people actually followed the word and letter of the bible?

An even more important question would be: These are people who believe in a sky-beardo who bases eternal damnation (and dress codes) for humanity off of apple eating. Are you seriously going to accuse them of not being rational in the choice of passages that they choose to follow from their book that tells them this?

I don't see people picking and choosing parts out of the bible as being substantially more irrational then believing in it to begin with... and either way it's not like you can change anyone's mind on the subject.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Fern

And even if we did have only Christians within our borders, who?s Christianity would we teach in the schools? James Dobson?s, or Al Sharpton?s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Levitacus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?

He's either cluseless or pandering.

If you're a Christian it means you accept the New Testiment (unlike the Jewish). The Point of Jesus and the New Testiment is to render the old (Testiment) laws mute or irrelevant. They've been superceded. Levitacus and Deuteronomy are Old Testiment, thus it's ignorant or disingenous to "invent" such a dilema as he does above.

Fern

I've never met ANY pastor/priest(whether Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, or otherwise) say I'm only going to read and quote bible passages from Matthew through Revelations.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Don't a significant amount of Christians justify their anti-homosexual stance based on Leviticus? Are they just nit picking portions of the Bible to support their stance?

Of course they are. Do you realize how insane the world would be if people actually followed the word and letter of the bible?

An even more important question would be: These are people who believe in a sky-beardo who bases eternal damnation (and dress codes) for humanity off of apple eating. Are you seriously going to accuse them of not being rational in the choice of passages that they choose to follow from their book that tells them this?

I don't see people picking and choosing parts out of the bible as being substantially more irrational then believing in it to begin with... and either way it's not like you can change anyone's mind on the subject.

I wholeheartedly agree. You cannot discuss religion in a rational manner with someone who is religious. Most Christians in America are hypocritical to say the least. They pick and choose what they want to believe in from the Bible. This is the fundamental problem with the Bible, people use it to justify their actions in some instances and then go ahead and call it outdated and irrelevant in others. You can't have it both ways, either the damn book is the absolute word of God or it's not.

Obama is essentially saying you cannot use your religious beliefs as a justification for making laws. This isn't ground-breaking by any means, but it is refreshing to hear SOMEBODY say this in Washington. These are the principles that our country was founded upon and it's a damn joke the way religion has been whored out by the religious right to justify intolerance and bigotry.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Fern

And even if we did have only Christians within our borders, who?s Christianity would we teach in the schools? James Dobson?s, or Al Sharpton?s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Levitacus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?

He's either cluseless or pandering.

If you're a Christian it means you accept the New Testiment (unlike the Jewish). The Point of Jesus and the New Testiment is to render the old (Testiment) laws mute or irrelevant. They've been superceded. Levitacus and Deuteronomy are Old Testiment, thus it's ignorant or disingenous to "invent" such a dilema as he does above.

Fern

I've never met ANY pastor/priest(whether Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, or otherwise) say I'm only going to read and quote bible passages from Matthew through Revelations.

And who is Fern to speak for all Christians?

 

[Orignal Earl]

Not eating meat on Fridays would be a dietary law, no?

 

[spittledip]

If you really want to know you need to start from the beginning:

Everyone knows about Adam and Eve and them eating of the fruit from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. From the time of that Fall, God demanded a sacrifice to atone for the sin that the people committed- and animal sacrifice. Why did he require a sacrifice? B/C God is Holy and something needed to take the punishment He required for sin. Of course, what is holiness? Holiness is the absence of sin/perfection. In order for God to commune/relate/ have a relationship with men, God needed holiness b/c He hates sin so much. However, the sacrifices were merely temporary as they were limited in time/space- finite- and also the creatures sacrificed were not capable of being a holy sacrifice as they were just animals. However, God immediately made plans to eliminate the temporary sacrifice.

The Old Testament laws and commandments(take note that there are hundreds of them) were representative of the holiness of God and were meant to keep the Israelites as a separate people as a means to emphasize God's holiness. Hence the incredibly strict rituals the priests and especially high priests had to perform as the temple was the actual dwelling place of the Spirit of God (although not noted as such in the Old Testament but revealed to be such later in the New Testament) and was, of course, very holy. So, in other words, some of the laws and commandments were merely ritualistic to emphasize the holiness of God and the separateness of the Israelites.

When Christ came, he fulfilled the law as the Son of God and God Himself by becoming a sacrifice for the sins of all b/c He is perfect and Holy/sinless and is infinite. Accepting the sacrifice of Christ for one's sins (of course that means one acknowledges that one is sinful before God) is the means to re-instate a relationship with God, i.e. get "saved." Christ's sacrifice nullified all the rituals and sacrifices and commandments of the old Testament that are representative of the Holiness of God b/c He fulfilled what God required for the atonement of sin, i.e. the punishment that God requires for beings with sin.

Now, obviously, people can still sin, i.e. go against how God created things to be and/or what He wants. The laws and commandments that were merely ritualistic and meant to represent the Holiness of God and separate the Israelites from the gentiles are nullified by the sacrifice of Christ, but the commandments that are actually sin (again, going against how God wants things) are still valid in terms of "committing sin" b/c the things that are not what God intended in the Old Testament are the same things that God did not intend today (murder, stealing, lying, fornication, etc etc) As Fern said before, avoiding sin is not how one "gets to heaven" or reinstates a relationship with God- it is only though accepting the sacrifice of Christ as one's atonement for their sin that can save. After salvation, however, one can still sin (obviously) and displease God.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ebaycj
Exactly. Morality is a PERSONAL thing and should not be legislated.

In my opinion, universalizable ethics, however, should be. In the end, however, people disagree on what constitutes 'ethics,' and those who want to disallow certain things due to ethical considerations are usually demonized as religious zealots, even if religion was never used in their arguments.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Fern
A number of the books in the Old Testament laid down God's laws, such as the dietary laws, stoning people for whatever, and making the animal (lamb) sacrifices. The only way you had to get into Heaven was follow the laws etc.

In short, after Jesus the only way to get into Heaven is believe/rely upon him. Following the laws as laid down in the Old Testament is basically useless, as they have been superceded.

That's why Christians eat pork, shellfish, don't stone people or make animal sacrifices as was required in the Old Testament. Christians will study the Old Testament to "see what God said", but do not believe the "laws" apply (unlike Jews who still adhere to the dietary laws, for example). I am unaware of any of the 10 Commandments being in conflict with the teachings of Jesus, nor do they contain any "stoning rules' or dietary rules etc.

So, for Obama to talk about Christians and then bring up "stoning" and dietary laws from the Old Testament is a fallacious & irrelevant argument.

Notwithstanding any cults that may be out there, I am unaware of any Christian denomination differing in this regard (dropping adherence to stoning/dietary laws of Old testament). They certainly do have some differences (e.g., Baptists believe you gotta go completely underwater for baptism etc), but are not what Obama describes at all.

Fern

There are TONS of Christian denominations that pick and choose whether they will use OT or NT laws. For example, nowhere in the NT will you find anything in support of capital punishment, yet many Christians support it. I can easily find NT quotes opposing capital punishment, but these are generally disregarded as necessary to fulfill the 'kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out' philosophy of many fundamentalists.

As for God condemning someone for eating an apple, I suggest asking a Jew (or a Catholic 😛) what Genesis 1 and 2 are really talking about. Fundamentalists tend to ignore the millenia of scripture scholarship that the Jews (who actually wrote the OT) have at their disposal. They are *stories* that the Jews wrote down in an effort to explain creation. In fact, they are two clearly distinct stories not all that dissimilar to those found in other creation myths from other cultures. Scholarship shows that they weren't even written down until around the time of King David, who was around a long while after Moses (who many fundamentalists claim physically wrote the first five books of the OT). The two stories are intended to show God as both aloof and all-powerful (Genesis 1), yet personal and intimate (Genesis 2), the two ways that we experience God in our lives. This dichotomy is echoed throughout the entire Bible, including the NT.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
gee, a politician saying in public that was rehearsed how many times to make himself look fair and balanced, what will the suckers fall for next?

Go and vote for George W. Bush? Oh, wait.

 

[judasmachine]

OMG, Obama is going to HE!!

 

[piasabird]

Jesus was constantly quoting the old testament.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
As for God condemning someone for eating an apple, I suggest asking a Jew (or a Catholic 😛) what Genesis 1 and 2 are really talking about. Fundamentalists tend to ignore the millenia of scripture scholarship that the Jews (who actually wrote the OT) have at their disposal. They are *stories* that the Jews wrote down in an effort to explain creation. In fact, they are two clearly distinct stories not all that dissimilar to those found in other creation myths from other cultures. Scholarship shows that they weren't even written down until around the time of King David, who was around a long while after Moses (who many fundamentalists claim physically wrote the first five books of the OT). The two stories are intended to show God as both aloof and all-powerful (Genesis 1), yet personal and intimate (Genesis 2), the two ways that we experience God in our lives. This dichotomy is echoed throughout the entire Bible, including the NT.

It depends on the Jew you talk to. To suggest that all Jews or most believe in a figurative Creation account is misleading as many believe in a literal account. Also to suggest that all or most Jews don't believe that the Torah was written around the time of Moses or by Moses is also misleading, as many do believe that. It is misleading to suggest that scholarship only suggests that the Torah was not written during the time of Moses as some scholars believe that, and some do not.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: zinfamous

No, b/c if you're Christian and believe in the Holy Trinity, then those laws set forth by God in the Old Testament are also those set forth by Jesus. Being the Father and the Son (with a little Spirit on the side), the word of God, at any point, is also the word of Jesus. He is God in the flesh, and is also the Son of God (I'm thinking a West Virginia lineage? 😛).

If I understand you, then you're saying Christians must still adhere to the dietary laws, stoning laws and animal sacrifices to be in obeyence with God's word and get to Heaven?

Nope. Either Jusus would be irrelevant, or just one more thing on the list to conform to in order to get to Heaven.

Fern

It's an argument I hear from certain Christians, but it does make logical sense if you think about it. If Jesus is God, and his law is the rule, then the laws set forth in the OT are the laws of Jesus. While it's true that the new way into heaven became faith in Jesus, and that Christians rejected the majority of OT laws, this represents a pretty large contradiction in the Holy Trinity. The earliest Christians didn't reject the Sabbath laws, including Peter, until they convened a meeting setting forth regulations for the new faith. This was after Jesus.

Now, if you argue that God became flesh in the form of Jesus (The Trinity), and proclaimed that the OT laws are irrelevent towards getting into heaven, then you have to accept that God is fallible, no?

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: zinfamous

No, b/c if you're Christian and believe in the Holy Trinity, then those laws set forth by God in the Old Testament are also those set forth by Jesus. Being the Father and the Son (with a little Spirit on the side), the word of God, at any point, is also the word of Jesus. He is God in the flesh, and is also the Son of God (I'm thinking a West Virginia lineage? 😛).

If I understand you, then you're saying Christians must still adhere to the dietary laws, stoning laws and animal sacrifices to be in obeyence with God's word and get to Heaven?

Nope. Either Jusus would be irrelevant, or just one more thing on the list to conform to in order to get to Heaven.

Fern

It's an argument I hear from certain Christians, but it does make logical sense if you think about it. If Jesus is God, and his law is the rule, then the laws set forth in the OT are the laws of Jesus. While it's true that the new way into heaven became faith in Jesus, and that Christians rejected the majority of OT laws, this represents a pretty large contradiction in the Holy Trinity. The earliest Christians didn't reject the Sabbath laws, including Peter, until they convened a meeting setting forth regulations for the new faith. This was after Jesus.

Now, if you argue that God became flesh in the form of Jesus (The Trinity), and proclaimed that the OT laws are irrelevent towards getting into heaven, then you have to accept that God is fallible, no?

I guess no one read my post. Maybe it was too long winded. I will quote the last paragraph so it is not so much to read and then explain again:

Now, obviously, people can still sin, i.e. go against how God created things to be and/or what He wants. The laws and commandments that were merely ritualistic and meant to represent the Holiness of God and separate the Israelites from the gentiles are nullified by the sacrifice of Christ, but the commandments that are actually sin (again, going against how God wants things) are still valid in terms of "committing sin" b/c the things that are not what God intended in the Old Testament are the same things that God did not intend today (murder, stealing, lying, fornication, etc etc) As Fern said before, avoiding sin is not how one "gets to heaven" or reinstates a relationship with God- it is only though accepting the sacrifice of Christ as one's atonement for their sin that can save. After salvation, however, one can still sin (obviously) and displease God.

God gave hundreds of laws and commandments in the OT (the Torah specifically). These can be generally broken down into a few groups:

1. Laws. like some of the ten commandments that are universal sin
2.Laws like dietary ones that were only for Israel as a means to set them apart from the Gentile nations (these are not sins for gentiles)
3. Laws regarding celebrations/festivals
4. Laws for the priests to follow regarding temple rituals and garb, decoration, sacrifices, etc

Christ's sacrifice was the fulfillment of all the above. To explain:
2.There is no need for Jews to be separate by ritual anymore as accepting Christ's sacrifice is what sanctifies now.
3. Festivals and celebrations are historical events that pertain only to the Jews and their history.
4. Those who accept Christ's sacrifice are now the temple of the Holy Spirit rather than a man-made structure.
1.The punishment for sin (i.e. breaking the commandments as well as the general fallen state of man) was taken by Christ as the ultimate sacrifice being perfect and infinite.

As stated in the quoted paragraph above, there is still the possibility of sinning, but not by way of types 2, 3 and 4.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl
Not eating meat on Fridays would be a dietary law, no?

That's a Catholic thing, if I understand what you're speaking about. I don't think that tradition has it's roots in the OT though. Someone here who is a catholic could tell you more.

Fern

 

[SeminoleMarine]

Originally posted by: wb182

My sentiments exactly....

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: spittledip
It depends on the Jew you talk to. To suggest that all Jews or most believe in a figurative Creation account is misleading as many believe in a literal account. Also to suggest that all or most Jews don't believe that the Torah was written around the time of Moses or by Moses is also misleading, as many do believe that. It is misleading to suggest that scholarship only suggests that the Torah was not written during the time of Moses as some scholars believe that, and some do not.

I've never met a Jew that thinks the creation accounts should be taken literally, nor one that says Moses himself rwote the first five books. Then again, I've only been at WashU for 3 years now, so there might still be a few Jews I haven't had the pleasure to meet. 😛

There is still some debate regarding the time it was written, but it was certainly not written by Moses. Here's a book preview which specifically states that "It has long been recognized that the traditional view -- not stated in the Pentateuch itself, but already assumed elsewhere in the Old Testament -- that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch cannot be correct..."

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl
Not eating meat on Fridays would be a dietary law, no?

That's a Catholic thing, if I understand what you're speaking about. I don't think that tradition has it's roots in the OT though. Someone here who is a catholic could tell you more.

Fern

Abstaining from meat is not really a law - it's a suggested form of penance. Basically, meat for early Christians would have been a luxury item. Not eating it was just a small sacrifice that they could make, similar to fasting. This is, in my opinion, also why the Catholic Church says it's ok to eat fish on these days, because fish would not have been a luxury item, but a staple food. I'm not too sure about the historical accuracy of this, but it makes sense to me.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

sometimes i feel like people get so caught up in the rituals and minutia of religion that they completely miss the point of them in the first place.