President Obama and the Daily Distribution

[N.T. Wright Fan]

As for the 1st century issues you posed, I am certain I must not be nearly as informed on that as yourself......or you would not have brought it up.....So...in deference to you my erudite friend, please enlighten we who are obviously not so well informed.

With all due respect, sir, that is a very immature response, coming from someone as lettered as yourself.

I simply pointed out that you were being inconsistent. On the one hand you stated, ex cathedra, that abortion and homosexual ("gay") rights were the only issues that should be considered by a Christian when they vote. Immediately thereafter, however, you rattled off a lengthy list of economic woes that will soon befall our nation under President-elect Obama -- as those they should matter one iota.

I happen to agree with you about the abhorrent practice of abortion. I believe it is murder, and I have done my time on the picket line. With respect to opposing homosexual rights, and defending the family, I've worked on those issues, too.

The Far Right Stuff
Anti-Sex Crusader
Christian Activists Finds Public Image Limited

But sir. To say that "we have celebrated the deaths of more of America's finest" is ridiculous.

Do you actually believe most of the people who voted for Barack Obama awoke this morning warmed at the grisly thought of more abortions? Or homosexual marriage? Is that what you think they are celebrating?

Finally, sir, with respect to the practice of exposure during the first century, I brought it up in light of your assertion that abortion -- and, secondarily, homosexual rights (or, as you put it, "gay rights") -- are the only bases upon which Christians should cast their vote.
For those unfamiliar with it, exposure was the practice of leaving an unwanted infant out in the street, or tossing them into a pit, leaving them to die. Infanticide, basically. The Greek author, Plutarch, tells us:

"[T]he father took his child and brought it to the elders of the tribe. They examined the child, and if it was well formed and strong, ordered it to be raised, but if the child was ill-born and maimed, they discarded it in the so-called Apothetae, a kind of pit, on the grounds that it was not worth the rearing."

"In Roman culture, the killing of defective newborn was common, even apparently required in the case of infants so grossly deformed or unusual as to appear to be portentia or monstrous births."

We know from the writings of Justin Martyr and other early church fathers that Christians often rescued these deserted infants:

But as for us, we have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest we should do any one an injury, and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution...now we see you rear children only for this shameful use; and for this pollution a multitude of females and hermaphrodites, and those who commit unmentionable iniquities, are found in every nation...there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy;

This general low view of the life of infants is also evident in Herod's Slaughter of The Innocents.

As common as this practice apparently was in Roman and Greek culture during the first century, however, it is not specifically addressed by Jesus, Paul or any of the other Apostles. (The sole possible exception may be James 1:27.)

They did, however, make numerous references to the responsibility of Christians to feed and clothe the poor (poor Christians, at least). And this, poverty, is an issue that is still with us today -- as Jesus assured us it would be.

Let me be clear. I don't believe Jesus supported abortion, infanticide or any such thing. Quite the contrary. What is evident, however, is that as horrific a practice as exposure was (and abortion, which was also practiced in the first century), Jesus' chose to focus on other things (often to the chagrin of his disciples, who were expecting a political solution).

I agree with you on the importance of the abortion and homosexuality in choosing a candidate. But neither you or I are in any position to accuse those who consider other factors (i.e., those who vote differently than we) as any less Christian or less civilized than ourselves.

Life just isn't that simple.

[Pastor Gary]

Do you actually believe most of the people who voted for Barack Obama awoke this morning warmed at the grisly thought of more abortions? Or homosexual marriage? Is that what you think they are celebrating?

Funny you should bring that up...
This afternoon on the local news at 6, they took cameras to the University of Hawaii campus and interviewed all the giddy students celebrating the Obama victory, and the two things they consistently mentioned were "Me and my friends made our decision because Obama is strong on reproductive rights. He is pro-abortion like us!" and "Obama is a friend of gays, so people like me can be ourselves now!"

Yes. SOME of the people who voted for Barack Obama awoke this morning warmed at the grisly thought of more abortions and homosexual marriage, by their own testimony. On TV. Today.

[one love]

If we vote based on two issues alone then we could become slaves to the party no matter what else they do.
Second McCain could not have ended Abortion, I am firmly against abortion and could not support a candidate that does support it, however McCain could have never ended abortion Just as Bush could not.

We always as Christians and AMERICANS must vote based on many things.

Abortion
Marriage between man and woman
Taxes
Hate speech bill (which could effect how we preach)
fairness doctrine
Health care
Gun rights
national defense...etc...

Remember we are Americans and Christians. We are Conservatives and Christians. We believe in a certain group of ideas, if we are based on just two we are slaves to whatever other agenda they approve of. What if the Democrats changed their position and were against abortion would you then vote for them? Not me. It is more then that. I disagree with Most of their policies just as they do with me.
I will pray for our new president and applaud him for decision I feel are good ones and voice my opposition to those that I feel are not right. Just as I did with Clinton.

God bless

[N.T. Wright Fan]

SOME of the people who voted for Barack Obama awoke this morning warmed at the grisly thought of more abortions and homosexual marriage, by their own testimony. On TV. Today.

Nothing funny about that. You ignored what I said.

You said "SOME."
I said "MOST."

SOME - being an undetermined or unspecified one
MOST - in the greatest quantity, a majority.

Pastor Gary - Do you believe the far-out, radical views of Planned Parenthood, NARAL, the abortion lobby, et al are the views of most (see above) of the people who voted for Barack Obama? Of most black Americans?

They do not.

[dolfan]

N.T. Wright Fan wrote :

Let me be clear. I don't believe Jesus supported abortion, infanticide or any such thing. Quite the contrary. What is evident, however, is that as horrific a practice as exposure was (and abortion, which was also practiced in the first century), Jesus' chose to focus on other things (often to the chagrin of his disciples, who were expecting a political solution).

I respectfully disagree. Jesus did focus on the well-being of children to the point that, in his only recorded direct condemnation that leads to rejection and even justifies the imposition of the death penalty, He said that anyone who harms little children should have a big rock tied around his neck and thrown into the East River (okay, not the East River, but you get the picture -- whack 'em). Tossed cavalierly into the deep with no more regard than a monstrous animal abuser would give to a sackful of unwanted puppies. While the gospels don't devote a lot of ink to the statement, its significance lies in its singularity.

[MacUser]

N.T. Wright Fan wrote :

Let me be clear. I don't believe Jesus supported abortion, infanticide or any such thing. Quite the contrary. What is evident, however, is that as horrific a practice as exposure was (and abortion, which was also practiced in the first century), Jesus' chose to focus on other things (often to the chagrin of his disciples, who were expecting a political solution).

I respectfully disagree. Jesus did focus on the well-being of children to the point that, in his only recorded direct condemnation that leads to rejection and even justifies the imposition of the death penalty, He said that anyone who harms little children should have a big rock tied around his neck and thrown into the East River (okay, not the East River, but you get the picture -- whack 'em). Tossed cavalierly into the deep with no more regard than a monstrous animal abuser would give to a sackful of unwanted puppies.

Well stated doflan,
These liberal justification guys can attempt to sooth they're own wicked consciences with intellectual psycho babble but when they spread that nonsense to real men and women of integrity.. it falls extremely short and is shown for the absolute garbage that is really is.

[Mike Vande]

Last I read God was very concern about the poor, sick, those in prison, those that were taken advantage of and those that were naked. Seems to me God would consider it important for us to think about these policies also.

If you think the government should be the agency that helps the poor, the sick, those in prison, those who've been taken advantage of and those that are naked, yeah, that would be the right view.

Where does the Bible say the church should abdicate it's responsibility to care for those people to the government, especially when the government won't tell them about Jesus?

[N.T. Wright Fan]

Jesus did focus on the well-being of children to the point that, in his only recorded direct condemnation...

So you're saying that Jesus was so focused on the well-being of children, that there is only one recorded instance of him addressing the issue.

Huh?

FOCUS: a central point, as of attraction, attention, or activity; A center of interest or activity;

Dolfan, I did not say Jesus was unconcerned about children; I said I don't think he focused on abortion, infanticide, and other similar atrocities. I believe Jesus loved children, and may well have wept bitterly over these kinds of things. However, there is little scriptural evidence to suggest that it was a focus of his ministry.

Do I believe abortion is murder? Yes. Do I think that should be the primary issue when voting for a candidate? Yes, I do. Do I believe anyone who takes other issues into consideration is evil or uncivilized? No, I do not.

Personally, I struggle with understanding how a Christian can vote for a candidate who supports abortion. Most of the people on this forum are very familiar with abortion, well-educated on the issue, and believe it is a tragedy. I believe that, too, and have spent no small part of my life working to stop abortion, actively campaigning for candidates who believe as I do, and lobbying for legislation that would reduce abortion.

Unfortunately, we live in an age when many people, for a variety of reasons, falsely believe that abortion is nothing but "the termination of a pregnancy," and that an growing, unborn child is nothing more than a collection of cells. That doesn't necessarily make them evil. Just uninformed.

[N.T. Wright Fan]

...but when they spread that nonsense to real men...

Real men? That's funny, coming from someone who uses a Mac.

[rough_rider]

...but when they spread that nonsense to real men...

Real men? That's funny, coming from someone who uses a Mac.

Now that was funny!

[dolfan]

Jesus did focus on the well-being of children to the point that, in his only recorded direct condemnation...

So you're saying that Jesus was so focused on the well-being of children, that there is only one recorded instance of him addressing the issue.

Huh?

FOCUS: a central point, as of attraction, attention, or activity; A center of interest or activity;

Dolfan, I did not say Jesus was unconcerned about children; I said I don't think he focused on abortion, infanticide, and other similar atrocities. I believe Jesus loved children, and may well have wept bitterly over these kinds of things. However, there is little scriptural evidence to suggest that it was a focus of his ministry.

Do I believe abortion is murder? Yes. Do I think that should be the primary issue when voting for a candidate? Yes, I do. Do I believe anyone who takes other issues into consideration is evil or uncivilized? No, I do not.

Personally, I struggle with understanding how a Christian can vote for a candidate who supports abortion. Most of the people on this forum are very familiar with abortion, well-educated on the issue, and believe it is a tragedy. I believe that, too, and have spent no small part of my life working to stop abortion, actively campaigning for candidates who believe as I do, and lobbying for legislation that would reduce abortion.

Unfortunately, we live in an age when many people, for a variety of reasons, falsely believe that abortion is nothing but "the termination of a pregnancy," and that an growing, unborn child is nothing more than a collection of cells. That doesn't necessarily make them evil. Just uninformed.

I said what I said. Jesus was focused on the well-being of children, as He must be since they are received by Him and He is their king. I do not think that the number of times the biblical record mentions His focus on them determines the importance or significance of that focus. The picture of little ones coming to Him, though not oft repeated in the gospels, is hugely significant because of His pronouncement of them that, "of such is the kingdom of Heaven." Child-likeness is, as Spurgeon wrote, "the tone and character of the kingdom." It is highly instructive, especially for a fan of N.T. Wright. This one instance where Jesus spoke of them, and issued harsh and, in terms of the biblical record, unique condemnation, is significant because of its singularity. It is not a gloss. It is not case being built by Him. It is a descriptive statement of fact about His kingdom. It is not necessary that the record contain fuller or even more nuanced statements of the matter. It is foundational to the nature and character of this kingdom to which we belong.

No, an argument cannot be rightly made, in my view, that His description of the kingdom in these terms must be taken and applied to political preferences. The politics of any party or nation to which we adhere are not Christian. They are secular, and this disconnect and our willingness to dwell in it are, again in my view, the greatest hindrance to our fulfilling what Jesus expects of us in this place. We are devoting our energies and resources to battling on foreign turf, turf where moth and rust corrupt. None of us, including and perhaps even especially Bishop Wright, offer an alternative, but seem rather content in a rather passive effort to co-opt the kingdoms of this world. However noble those ends may appear, they cannot succeed; they all lead to the same end, destruction. That failure, it seems to me, is the most frustrating aspect of Christian life. There is a better way, but none of us here are effectively jumping ship from the way that leads to destruction and truly ordering ourselves as the community of Jesus.

[N.T. Wright Fan]

I do not think that the number of times the biblical record mentions His focus on them determines the importance or significance of that focus. The picture of little ones coming to Him, though not oft repeated in the gospels, is hugely significant because of His pronouncement of them that, "of such is the kingdom of Heaven." Child-likeness is, as Spurgeon wrote, "the tone and character of the kingdom." It is highly instructive, especially for a fan of N.T. Wright. This one instance where Jesus spoke of them, and issued harsh and, in terms of the biblical record, unique condemnation, is significant because of its singularity. It is not a gloss. It is not case being built by Him. It is a descriptive statement of fact about His kingdom. It is not necessary that the record contain fuller or even more nuanced statements of the matter. It is foundational to the nature and character of this kingdom to which we belong.

No, an argument cannot be rightly made, in my view, that His description of the kingdom in these terms must be taken and applied to political preferences. The politics of any party or nation to which we adhere are not Christian. They are secular, and this disconnect and our willingness to dwell in it are, again in my view, the greatest hindrance to our fulfilling what Jesus expects of us in this place. We are devoting our energies and resources to battling on foreign turf, turf where moth and rust corrupt. None of us, including and perhaps even especially Bishop Wright, offer an alternative, but seem rather content in a rather passive effort to co-opt the kingdoms of this world. However noble those ends may appear, they cannot succeed; they all lead to the same end, destruction. That failure, it seems to me, is the most frustrating aspect of Christian life. There is a better way, but none of us here are effectively jumping ship from the way that leads to destruction and truly ordering ourselves as the community of Jesus.

I don't disagree with you, sir. We must become as little children. I am deeply moved by that wonderful portrait of Jesus calling those precious little ones to himself. I have five children myself (ages 9,7,5,3,2). As much as I love them, I am sure Jesus loves them infinitely more.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it is far too easy to demonize our "opponents," those with whom we disagree:

You voted for Obama? Well, that means you a) are uncivilized b) are a pagan c) want a handout d) want to kill babies e) support special rights for homosexuals, et cetera.

How far should we take this line of reasoning?

May we assume that anyone who uses a Macintosh computer is a proponent of homosexual rights, in light of the fact that Apple donated $100,000 to stop Proposition 8 (which banned homosexual marriage in California)? Or is it fair to say that those who have eaten a Big Mac during the last year favor homosexual adoption, because McDonalds was a member of the Gay/Lesbian Chamber of Commerce? What about those Christian music CDs we all listen to? Many of the companies who produce them are wholly-owned subsidiaries of larger media conglomerates who crank out some of the raunchiest, most vile movies and music imaginable.

Just for the record, I do believe in boycotts. And I am sometimes frustrated by those who don't participate in them. However, I am not going to judge the motives of those who have a different opinion.

[Pastor Gary]

...but when they spread that nonsense to real men...

Real men? That's funny, coming from someone who uses a Mac.

ALL real men use Macs.

[Russell Roberts]

...but when they spread that nonsense to real men...

Real men? That's funny, coming from someone who uses a Mac.

ALL real men use Macs.

I guess I'm a girly man.

[N.T. Wright Fan]

ALL real men use Macs.

I'm comfortable with my feminine side.