9 Responses to “Obama mocks our Christian heritage”

1. Fuzzi Andrea Says:
   September 3rd, 2008 at 2:41 am

   Our Mavericks’ stories mustn’t look childish in comparison to Obama’s hard life solutions

2. HannahJ Says:
   September 3rd, 2008 at 10:22 am

   “No longer available.” *shakes fist at YouTube*

3. Andrew Says:
   September 3rd, 2008 at 3:09 pm

   Well, the Bible does say these things, doesn’t it? He is clearly alluding to Deut 21:18 Deut 22 also forbids wearing clothing woven of both linen and wool, planting more than one type of seed in a single field, it tells that we must have tassles on the four corners of cloaks. Deut 22 tells us that if a man sleeps with a another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must die. If this were taken as a legal document, our country would be a very different place.

   While I think he made his point rather clumsily, I don’t see that Obama is mocking Christianity, or it’s roots in American culture. What he is pointing out is that religion is separate from government for good reasons. If we take Duet or Lev as a legal document, he would be right, it would advocate those things and we would be like the fundamentalist Islamic governments that advocate Sharia law. But, as Christians, who heed the words of our Saviour and “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” and “unto God what is God’s” as well as our founding fathers who, having come to this country in search of religious freedom, enshrined this concept in our Constitution, we read the Bible with our knowledge and personal faith in our Saviour, we pray on it and let it guide us.

4. Cao Says:
   September 3rd, 2008 at 4:25 pm

   He is no Christian. Christians don’t mock the bible; they try to live by it. Leviticus is also where we got the ten commandments. He is so out of touch with normal people and the religious gun toting citizen - it’s appalling.

   the fact that he’s being portrayed as some kind of government-appointed SAVIOR is disturbing to me.

   And he’s too dumb, i guess, to even realize how off beat his views are from normal Americans.

5. Albert Says:
   September 4th, 2008 at 12:46 am

   How do we know which parts of the Bible to follow, Cao? With the economy the way it is, I’d love to make a few extra bucks by selling my daughter into slavery. What do you think?

6. Cao Says:
   September 4th, 2008 at 4:01 am

   You’d be better suited to follow Islam; the koran promotes slavery; Arabs historically have traded slaves; including Obama’s arab relatives. Socailists and communists believe in inequality, too, which is why communist China has slave labor. In Islam it’s acceptable to beat your wife, and under sharia, men who kill women family members for honor are not punished.

   Of course both of those fit in with Obama’s ideology…Islam and communism; he’s a marxist with scores of Islamic terrorism-related fans who’ve given to his campaign.

   Wealthy New Yorker jailed for keeping slaves

   Child Bride

   In Islam, they arrange marriages between older men and their younger daughtesr, and the older men give “gifts” to the family…so that’s a recognized way to sell your daughter…or you could just give her away to an older man in marriage, like this one was in Afghanistan:

   “When I was three years old my father died, and after a year my mother married again, but her second husband didn’t want me,” says Gulsoma. “So my mother gave me away in a promise of marriage to our neighbor’s oldest son, who was thirty.”

   “They had a ceremony in which I was placed on a horse [which is traditional in Afghanistan] and given to the man.”

   Because she was still a child, the marriage was not expected to be sexually consummated. But within a year, Gulsoma learned that so much else would be required of her that she would become a virtual slave in the household.

   At the age of five, she was forced to take care of not only her “husband” but also his parents and all 12 of their other children as well.

   Though nearly the entire family participated in the abuse, her father-in-law, she says, was the cruelest.

   “My father-in-law asked me to do everything — laundry, the household chores — and the only time I was able to sleep in the house was when they had guests over,” she says. “Other than that I would have to sleep outside on a piece of carpet without even any blankets. In the summer it was okay. But in the winter a neighbor would come over and give me a blanket, and sometimes some food.”

   When she couldn’t keep up with the workload, Gulsoma says, she was beaten constantly.

   Imagine if Obama and Michelle decided to do this; then they wouldn’t be ‘burdened’ or “punished” anymore with those girls. Wasn’t it Obama who said that he wouldn’t want his girls to suffer with a child if they “made a mistake”? He’s in support of killing live babies who make it through an abortion attempt, as he voted against the born alive infant protection act.

   Obama is descended from Arab slave traders

   Christ’s teachings don’t promoted slavery or murdering babies; the old testament was the law which simply pointed out our sinful nature, and paved the way for accepting Christ as our saviour.

   Most of what’s in the old testament (such as what to eat and what not to eat, blood sacrifice, etc.) was replaced when Christ sacrificed for our sins. His teachings show us what to follow and what is no longer relevant from the Old Testament. Even the Jews, who reject Christ as messiah, don’t follow much of those rules today, so they acknowledge that He fulfilled prophesy.

   Rightly dividing the word of God can only happen with the guidance of the holy spirit.

   Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).

   Hypocrites who mock the bible, and mock Christians for their faith - obviously don’t care about what’s in the Bible and don’t have the ability to rightly divide scripture.

7. Albert Says:
   September 4th, 2008 at 8:27 pm

   Well there are passages in the New Testament that promote slavery. How do you deal with those?

8. Cao Says:
   September 5th, 2008 at 3:39 am

   You may remember the famous story of Moses parting the Red Sea. Do you know what really was happening in that story (if you know your Bible at all)? God had called on Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt and out of slavery. If the Bible (or God) condones slavery, then this would never have happened.

   When the Pharoah heard the Lord’s message, ‘Let my people go!’ he treated the Israelite slaves even more cruelly - so badly in fact that they blamed Moses.

   Moses asked God a new series of questions:

   Why have you brought trouble upon this people?

   Is this why you sent me?

   God answered Moses again:

   I will bring you out

   I will free you

   I will redeem you

   I will give you the land I swore to give to Abraham

   Moses needed to hear these promises from God for he had to go back to speak to Pharaoh again and again. In fact ten times he went to tell the Pharaoh, ‘Let God’s people go!’

   So does the Bible condone slavery? (this vacuous argument always cracks me up.) God says “I will free you”, but fascist libs say the Bible condones slavery because they are unbelieving hateful hypocritical thought police who-although they don’t believe- try to tell Christians what is in their holy book, what to think and how to behave.

   Christ said you must free your slave after he’d served you for 7 years. Does that sound as though He condones slavery?

   Please don’t make blanket statements without references in my comments section; always remember to CITE source material so that I can effectively respond to precisely what you’re talking about. Sweeping generalizations don’t make it here.

   But I think i can answer in some detail, so here goes:

   People who lived in The Roman Empire owned slaves, but as you recall, they were not “Christians”; Christians were persecuted then - and the Romans were responsible for crucifying Christ for having the nerve to claim he was the King of Kings.

   You have to take it all in context, of course. In those times, like it or not, slavery existed. The Bible accepts slavery as a fact of life, because at the time, it was; but it was very different than the modern day concept of it. For example, slaves could own slaves (and those slaves could own slaves), they had legal recourse through the courts, they could represent their masters on legal contracts, they could partner with their masters in business, they could lodge legal complaints against their masters, they could CHANGE masters, some enjoyed an advanced social standing, they were allowed to be advanced to a status greater than the master’s heirs, etc.

   • Does the slavery of the NT-period Roman Empire resemble New World slavery enough for the objection to have its customary force?
   • Given the actual character of NT ’slavery’, what SHOULD HAVE BEEN a Christian response to it in the first century AD
   • What actual response do we find in the writings of the NT–esp. Paul?
   • To what extent could this be considered “condoning slavery”, as voiced in a typical objection?
   • What theoretical/theological concepts (e.g. example of Jesus, equality in Christ) and historical situations (e.g., church size and political visibility in 1st century AD) might have informed this response?
   • What evidence do we have about the early church’s actions in this area?

   See the answers to these questions, here.

   But of course you’re asking for a simple answer to a question that doesn’t really have a simplistic answer when you’re comparing apples to oranges. The New World Slave trade, which you’re talking about, wasn’t in existence during Biblical times, and is a completely different thing as compared to the Hebrew “slavery” in the Old Testament, or “household slavery” in the New Testament.

   The NT data doesn’t “sanction” it, but strongly encourages the church to move away from it, and explicitly condemns those elements of it that were clearly wrong (e.g., slavetrading, deprivation, malice, anti-community social views of it)–the very elements in New World slavery that are problematic. We have seen already how a blanket emancipation would have been inappropriate (given the type of slave-system it was), and as an institution it was too ambiguous and too flexible to deserve a judgement of ‘holy’ (sanctioned) or ‘evil’ (condemned).

   Finally, we shall see later that the data we have about the early church showed that they believed the institution was not evil in itself, since they could use it to free others or provide relief money for others. In the earliest non-biblical accounts we have (late 1st century), we can see this:

   “We know many among ourselves who have given themselves up to slavery, in order that they could ransom others. Many others have surrendered themselves to slavery, so that with the price that they received for themselves, they might provide food for others.” [Clement of Rome, c.96, 1.70]

   An institution that was flexible enough as this could not be considered evil per se–it could be used evilly by participants in that institution (e.g., abusive masters, bribe-requiring slaves, etc.)

   Accordingly, I find it difficult to agree that the NT “condones slavery” in any meaningful (from a modern standpoint) sense. (See: Does God condone slavery in the Bible?)

   In these passages, we see that as far as salvation goes, we are equal:

   Corinthians 12:13: “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”

   Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

   Colossians 3:11: “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.”

   These passages show that slaves are to be considered equal to others in the eyes of God.

   Modern people have a hard time understanding the Bible’s treatment of slavery and often tend to confuse morality with political values.

   The modern tendency is to politicize everything, including even the Christian gospel. Moral philosophy or ethics has become so politicized that it seems to be almost a sub-department of political science now, which is why we have seen the rise of an elaborate political correctness in our public life. “Racism,” “sexism,” “homophobia,” and so on, are the really serious sins under this new morality. The egalitarian ideology of our time is considered to be of such overriding importance that any slight affront to it is considered sinful, while the principles of ordinary old-fashioned morality are downplayed and even denied. (Michael Marlowe)

   Christians should be able to recognize the difference, particularly that the marxist social gospel that replaces biblical doctrine is false.

9. Cao Says:
   September 11th, 2008 at 4:55 am

   Hannah, I just played it. It’s still there.

Leave a Reply