Oh, Is That What They Mean By "Living Bible"?

Barack Obama reveals that the Bible can be a “living document” just like the Constitution. Next up, he’ll take a look at the rules of golf and the Denny’s breakfast menu. From CNSNews.com:

“I don’t think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state,” said Obama. “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.” St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans condemns homosexual acts as unnatural and sinful.

Well, golly. The Bible is just chock full of those inconvenient obscure passages, isn’t it?

I was going to break this down with a line reading of the Sermon on the Mount and all that, but the clue injections are being handled ably by other commenters. And listening to the interview in which Obama made this statement, he’s just full of gas. It’s just a throwaway line from a guy trying to silence opposition with some general reference to Biblical authority, hoping no one will check him on it.

In fact, I will go so far as to argue that this is a throwaway line from someone who has no idea what he’s talking about; he’s not only cavalier, he’s ignorant.

Typically, when people argue that Biblical teaching can be reconciled with homosexuality because some parts of the Bible are irrelevant, they confine their arguments to the Old Testament. They lump Old Testament prohibitions in with dietary laws and stuff like that and say, “You can’t possibly think that all that applies to these modern times.” (To that I say, ponder this particular part of the aforementioned Sermon.)

But now Obama has cluelessly advanced the argument that we can dismiss parts of the New Testament too. Which parts? Well, the obscure ones, of course. So I guess that means that the books of Ambiguations and 1st and 2nd Crypticossuans are right out.

“In terms of my faith, there has been so much confusion that has been deliberately perpetrated through emails and so forth, so here are the simple facts,” he [Obama] said. “I am a Christian. I am a devout Christian.”

One of the ways you can determine a Christian’s devotion is to look at how seriously he takes the scripture. A “devout” Christian is one who is unlikely to judge a passage “obscure” and just toss it away.

And while we’re here, can we take a look at the Senator’s comment on abortion?

“On the issue of abortion, that is always a tragic and painful issue,” he said. “I think it is always tragic, and we should prevent it as much as possible …. But I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington. That’s my view. Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don’t think it makes me less Christian. Okay.”

It’s his view that bureaucrats in Washington shouldn’t interfere in our personal decisions? Hey, great! Does that mean they won’t tell us where we can send our kids to school? Or what kind of guns or cars or light bulbs we can buy?

Somehow, I don’t think that’s what he meant.

One comment

Leave a Reply