Obama on Homosexuality
I hadn't even heard about this one, but Parableman does an excellent job of both explaining the issue and dissecting Obama's argument.
Generally arguing about how the Bible should be interpreted is the wrong way to win people who believe the Bible to your side. This is not because the Bible-believers are not open to multiple interpretations, but rather because, after 2000 years, there are very few new interpretations. The argument that the Sermon on the Mount is more important than Paul's letters is one I've heard before, especially when the argument is that the most central part, the lens through which the entire Bible should be read, is through the two greatest commandments, loving God and loving your neighbor. This then, especially the loving your neighbor commandment, is seen as justification for letting your neighbor do whatever he wants. Oddly, the loving God part gets left by the wayside, ignoring the fact that it means listening to his word and obeying it, not tossing it out as if loving God is merely having positive feelings towards him. Even though I agree that all commandments should be interpreted in light of the two greatest, it's still not a convincing argument, as love has always required correction.
A lot of people are discussing Barack Obama's recent off-the-cuff remarks about the Bible and same-sex civil unions. I want to delve a little bit into the contrast he draws between the Sermon on the Mount and Romans 1. The gist of his statement is (1) the Sermon on the Mount is more central to Christian faith than an "obscure" passage in Romans, and (2) the Sermon on the Mount should influence our attitudes toward civil unions in some positive way.
Generally arguing about how the Bible should be interpreted is the wrong way to win people who believe the Bible to your side. This is not because the Bible-believers are not open to multiple interpretations, but rather because, after 2000 years, there are very few new interpretations. The argument that the Sermon on the Mount is more important than Paul's letters is one I've heard before, especially when the argument is that the most central part, the lens through which the entire Bible should be read, is through the two greatest commandments, loving God and loving your neighbor. This then, especially the loving your neighbor commandment, is seen as justification for letting your neighbor do whatever he wants. Oddly, the loving God part gets left by the wayside, ignoring the fact that it means listening to his word and obeying it, not tossing it out as if loving God is merely having positive feelings towards him. Even though I agree that all commandments should be interpreted in light of the two greatest, it's still not a convincing argument, as love has always required correction.
