Sunday, November 08, 2009 Last Update:11:25 am ET

Society|Fri, Jan. 11 2008 11:05 AM EST

Pro-Family Groups Blast Obama as 'Extremely Liberal'

By Jennifer Riley|Christian Post Reporter

WASHINGTON – Two of the nation’s most prominent family values organizations lambasted rising Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama as “extremely” liberal and “no friend” to values voters during an analysis this week of the New Hampshire primary.

  • Obama
    (Photo: AP / Seth Wenig)
    Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., speaks at a rally in Jersey City, N.J., Wednesday, Jan. 9, 2008.

Obama, who won the Iowa caucuses and came in second in the primary, was denounced as a “fundamentalist left-winger” on social issues by Focus on the Family’s (FOTF) Tom Minnery.

Minnery, FOTF’s vice president of public policy, pointed out that Obama is against the federal marriage amendment that would define marriage as between a man and a woman; is against the abstinence program in sex education and for the distribution of condoms; supports a strong civil union law that would give all benefits to gay partners; supports embryonic stem cell research; and is in favor of permitting minors to cross state borders for abortion.

“This man is no friend to anything that we hold dear,” Minnery declared during the FOTF Citizenlink special.

“Without question,” chimed in Tony Perkins, president of the influential Washington-based Family Research Council.

Both Christian conservative leaders noted that Obama has built his campaign on the image of being the moderate voice and as the consensus candidate.

“He likes to say, ‘I bring people together across the aisle,’” Perkins said. “I don’t know what for, maybe for coffee or something, but it is certainly not for the past policies that are favorable for the family.”

Obama has only been in the U.S. Senate for three years, but his Illinois record is extremely liberal, according to Perkins, who was a former Louisiana state legislator. The FRC head further contended that the Illinois senator is so liberal that he challenges the establishment of the Democratic Party.

“He is to the left of Hillary Clinton, that is maybe why he isn’t talking about the issues,” Perkins noted.

Besides Obama and Clinton, the FOTF analysis also criticized New Hampshire Republican winner Sen. John McCain for being difficult to work with. Although McCain was praised for being “pretty good” on the pro-life issue, he was criticized for opposing President Bush’s policy that restricted embryonic stem cell research.

The family values leaders also did not like McCain’s stance on the federal marriage amendment, which they said has been their top issue for the past several years. McCain supports giving states the right to define marriage rather than a constitutional amendment that would set the definition of marriage as the union between a man and a woman in all 50 states.

Meanwhile, the pro-family leaders praised Republicans Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney for sharing the same social values.

During the broadcast, Minnery highlighted that Obama received a score of “absolutely zero” on a recent Family Research Council (FRC) Action/Focus on the Family (FOTF) Action voter’s guide that rated all congressional members on their voting record on pro-family legislations. Clinton also scored zero on the scorecard.

Still, Obama has resonated with many African American religious leaders who created a committee last month in support of the Democratic contender. Faith leaders of the committee believe that Obama is living out his faith and values in his public life.

“As a lifelong advocate for the less fortunate and the forgotten, Senator Obama lives his faith everyday. He continues to talk about a faith that works to unite and not divide people," African American Religious Committee Co-chair the Rev. Otis Moss, Jr., has said.

Unconvinced of Obama living out his faith, Perkins advised values voters to look at all the candidates’ records and past performance rather than allow 30-second commercials to “tug at your emotions, your heart strings.”

Evangelicals across America are tired of empty promises, he said. They are looking for a president that will take the values voters’ agenda to the president’s office and “get something done.”

“Even if they don’t succeed they are willing to fight for the values that you and I believe in,” the FRC president added. “That is the candidate that we are looking for.”

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2
  • Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:32 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    “Does your favorite candidate promote biblical values? Does the candidate endorse scriptural teachings on marriage, prayer, and the VALUE OF LIFE AT CONCEPTION— or deny the validity of the same? What does he or she say about Jesus? If a candidate does not believe JESUS IS THE ONLY WAY TO HEAVEN, he or she simply cannot be a Christian.
    A candidate can talk till blue in the face about his or her Christianity, but if that candidate doesn’t believe what the Bible says about our Savior, he or she is in essence an unbeliever. Candidates would be wise to learn about the Savior before claiming to be a member of the Body of Christ. Meanwhile, Christian voters would be wise to make sure they are supporting true believers.” From “Finding Soul Brothers” http://findingsoulbrothers.com

  • Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:07 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    SheQuon, I know for a fact that Focus on the Family does indeed consider a family headed by a single parent a 'real family', and they do minister to such families. I have heard and seen much evidence of this.

  • Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    SheQuon, does the Word of God define 'marriage' as a legal bind between people of the same sex, and does it define 'family' as a group of people with same-sex couples as 'parents'?

  • Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:21 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    "This man is no friend to anything that we hold dear," Minnery declared...

    That's Focus-on-the-Familyspeak for "This man is TOO MUCH of a friend to the people we hate!"

    Of course they only "focus" on traditional families, and not families that have a gay person in them or a single parent--it's all over for them.

  • Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:29 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "NO they wont work, why because they don't say slavery is good, they don't say beating a slave is good. "

    the NT doesn't imply the principle act of slavery as wrong either. In fact, the passages can be infered that if you're master to just treat your slave ethically b/c big brother is watching and not to abolish the act of slavery as it is an abomination on hummanity. that much can be seen and in this regard it condones slavery.

    "So if I am an atheist and I hate slavery, I can say, "I hate slavery" but if I am an atheist and I love slavery I can say, "I love slavery" "

    Well, the same can be said of all those christians in the south (and all those before them) that loved slavery as they were the masters. They had no reason to not like the act of slavery! Slavery seems ok from the masters perspective as they are in control, and treat their slaves like property, so it's not a theism/atheism issue.

  • Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:12 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Nowhere in the definition of illogical does it refer to over rationalizing, rather it is a statement that is not logically coherent"

    over rationalizing something is illogical as it means you'er disregarding all the contradictory evidence for why you believe a proposition. you make believe your wife loves you, but the evidence that she's cheating on you would say otherwise. only by over rationalizing this confounding evidence could you claim that she is faithfull.

    "you went from calling me illogical because I used Adam and Eve as an example of the way things are,"

    So i guess you literally belive in the account of adam and eve then? and their sin and the 6000 year old earth and universe then?

    Or, like most appologetics, do you view this creation story as one of symbolic and metaphorical meaning only? If you only view it as symbolic then your earlier statement of using adam and eve as the basis for your point against slavery is most certaintly illogical.

    I ask this b/c this is critical as it would determine if jesus' own sacrifice made sense at all as well. If adam and eve are just symbolic, then christ killed himself for no sin at all and your premise of god not creating slaves in the beginning is also moot if the creation account is one of symbolic and metaphorical meaning.

  • Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Will these work?

    Luke12:42-48 parable on slave beating
    Esphesians 6:5-6 slaves and masters, know your role if you're a slave
    Titus 2:9-10 Be submissive if you're slave. good article to refer to if you're the master.
    1 Peter 2:18-19 slaves, be subjugated by your masters."

    NO they wont work, why because they don't say slavery is good, they don't say beating a slave is good. They are addressing what to do if you are in that situation. They are speaking to Christians, and not to people in general. You have proved nothing, but keep trying, maybe eventually you will find the verse you are looking for.

  • Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    1 Corinthians 7:21-23

    "21Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. 23You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men."

    (Completely supports everything I said, this is not pro-slavery in anyway, rather it upholds the dignity of every human being, and says that slavery (to a human) is to be avoided if possible, if not then don’t let it consume you.)

    Ephesians 6:9

    “And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.”

    (This supports my view that God sees slave and master as equal. There is no favoritism. If you didn’t understand that, God does not see slave and master, He only sees humans.)

    1 Corinthians 12:13

    For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

    (This supports my view that God sees slave and master as equal.)

    1 Corinthians 9:19

    Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.

    (Here Paul is saying that even though he is “free” he still serves everyone, this is how a Christian is supposed to act.)

    Galatians 3:28

    There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    (We are all equal in God’s eyes.)

    Do you need more? Agentorange, I am not going to respond to anything you or others say about the OT, I have dealt with that already. There is nothing you can say that Christianity supports slavery, and that the Bible viewed from a Christian perspective is pro-slavery.

  • Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Agentorange, you said:

    "It’s quite clear that in your eyes, somehow atheism affirms that slavery is ok. When I asked for where it’s implied, you couldn’t muster a response."

    NO I AM NOT SAYING THAT. Can you read? I said it is nowhere implied. Why did you say this? do you like repeating? From now on I am only going to copy what I say if you make this position any longer. Atheism does not assert that slavery is good. But athesim cannot assert anything. So if I am an atheist and I hate slavery, I can say, "I hate slavery" but if I am an atheist and I love slavery I can say, "I love slavery" But in neither case is slavery good or bad, it is only what the atheist defines it to be for himself. Thus it is just a battle over who is stronger, not over which one is right. You then say that Christianity implies that slavery is "good"? or at the least "condoned" I think you are playing with words here just to try to say something. It is safe to say that you cannot make the case that the Bible views slavery as good. You could make the case that the Bible (specifically the OT) condones slavery, but the Bible condones many things that are not necessarily good, but are unavoidable due to the nature of humans and the way things have become.

    As far as the OT goes, this is the OT, the laws given there were setup for a covenant that was made with the Jewish people. The NT is how Christians live and interpret the OT and NT combined. I don't want to debate every single passage in the OT, rather I want to debate what a Christian perspective is. Slavery itself is not considered inherently "wrong" in the Bible, however neither is it considered inherently "right". You have failed to prove that.

  • Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Agentorange,

    Nowhere in the definition of illogical does it refer to over rationalizing, rather it is a statement that is not logically coherent. Over rationalizing is just that. But I don't think I am guilty of this so I don't see how it makes any difference.

    "Jesus also proclaimed that he was sent to confirm the prophets and uphold laws of the OT and not change them. So, in that respect much of the OT that affirms slavery is as valid as ever."

    Yes, that is true, but OT law requires many sacrifices each time of the year. We do not see any Christians doing this, ever since the start of Christianity. Jesus also said that He fulfilled the prophecies and laws of the OT. I doubt you can understand this (not because you are not smart enough to, but because you are irreconciabliy obstinate) but it means that when Christ died on the Cross He took upon Himself all of the hardness and sin that caused the laws to be necessary. What He left was freedom and a relationship with God.

    "Nope, I am certainly saying both you, the OT and NT with regards to slavery and not emphatically denouncing slavery are all equally illogical. You can deny it all you want, but it’s in your book for all to read it for themselves and draw their own conclusions of its horror. "

    You dodged the issue here, you went from calling me illogical because I used Adam and Eve as an example of the way things are, then (after I proved you to be utterly wrong) you imputed that statement to the general argument. This is just poor debating. It also goes without mentioning my entire argument that you don't seem to be dealing with.

  • Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine,

    What I am trying to get across is, why do Christians attack Christianity more than non-Christians? Christ Himself said that not all who called Him Lord would go to heaven. I am not trying to accuse you of not being a Christian, or anybody else for that matter, I am just trying to let you see something that you don't seem to be getting.

    I think using the word literal is a little misleading. I do not believe that every single word of the Bible means exactly what it says, without looking at the context, or the type of writing that it is. NOBODY does this, despite how much you want to label fundamentalists as doing this. Rather I mean that every word in the Bible has truth in it, and actually conveys the meaning that it is supposed to get across. Thus if the Bible says that God sees slave and master as equal, then I do not believe that this is just some practically worthless metaphysical statement, rather I believe it means that in God's eyes there is neither slave nor master. You are asking me for a verse where the Bible outright says, "Thus saith the Lord: Slavery is evil" This is misleading. I never made the case that the Bible was outright against slavery. Rather I made the case that it can easily be inferred that Christianity upholds the dignity of every single human being. When I interpret the Bible, I do so from a Christian perspective, not from an OT Jewish perspective, or a postmodern scholar's liberal interpretation. Nonetheless, the NT does tell us what we are to do if we are in the position of a slave. It does not deny the reality of slavery, but rather tells people how to behave no matter what position they are in. You need to keep in mind though, that the Bible was not written to solve all of mankinds problems on earth, rather it was written to give people hope in the Truth, and show them how to live within the problems. If you tell me where the Bible says that God views slavery as good, then I will show you where it says that God says it is evil. Remember, even satan used scripture.

    I still cannot understand why you are trying to force this view though, if you are a Christian, then I want you to prove me wrong and show me that you have real faith. Your comment that I criticize every one that doesn't agree with me is valueless. For instance, lets say I was in a chess club, and then somebody decided to join, but started playing checkers, and refused to play chess. Then this person paraded himself as a great chess player. (This illustration is not exact, but hopefully it shows something to the effect that you cannot just call me mean because I don't accept every view of the Bible.)

  • Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    theotrek: I agree with every word you said. I don't want people to get the sense that in any way, I believe slavery in any form is ok. The real reason I am pushing that is because I know a number of folks on this site are fundamentalists and its not possible to be a true "literal, Bible believin' Christian" and not take a post modern view of slavery.

  • Thu Jan 17, 2008 11:09 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    The Bible does indeed condone slavery, but some distinction must be made as to what slavery was 2000 years back, vs. what we know in the recent past in the Americas. Slavery was at times a means to pay a debt as an indentured servant of more recent history. Slavery was also used in the aftermath of war. While it was demeaning and spoke of subjection, it was not quite the same as the "loftier modern" usage of POW camps. A slave had the opportunity to rise from his status in a different manner than our more recent past. Slavery was also not as racially oriented as our modern counterpart.
    On the other hand, we still have slavery today. We abuse developing nations, turning their populace into economic slaves. Our immigrant workforce in the US is often treated as slave labor, as well. Lincoln's proclamation did not do away with slavery any more than other proclamations throughout the Americas and Europe.
    The Bible does give a basis for understanding God's love and value for all humanity on an equal basis, regardless of issues of this kind. This is emerging Biblical doctrine in one sense, but it is there sufficiently to have helped us understand that slavery is not truly acceptable. Would that all our forms of slavery had been abolished.

  • Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:24 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Chris333,

    “ifeelfine, show me one single verse where God said, "Slavery is good" or right or anything of that nature.”

    Will these work?

    Luke12:42-48 parable on slave beating
    Esphesians 6:5-6 slaves and masters, know your role if you're a slave
    Titus 2:9-10 Be submissive if you're slave. good article to refer to if you're the master.
    1 Peter 2:18-19 slaves, be subjugated by your masters.

    Chris333, you earlier said that:

    “the Bible says that slave and master alike are both seen as equal in God's eyes, and that if you just so happen to be a master, that you better treat your slave rightly, lest you be judged harshly in the next life”

    So, in other words even the NT doesn’t say or even imply that THE VERY ACT OF SLAVERY IS WRONG. Rather, if you just ‘happen to be a master’ as you put it, that you’re supposed to treat your slave with ethics. Right, why can’t one find that very likely to happen? Talk about special pleading.

    Excuse me, but isn’t that the height of illogical reasoning, as the very act of being involved in slavery as a master, regardless of how ethically you treat the slave, is still in principle the issue at hand and still wrong? (Obviously it is) The conditions of slavery was what was opposed and not how marginally ethical the masters were to their slaves. By removing the operations of slavery you remove the byproduct conditions of having to treat a slave ethically altogether, sadly even Moses and Jesus didn’t acknowledge this.

    You’re attempting to imply that the act of slavery is gravy so long as the slave is treated ethically, however the very ordeal of slavery is dehumanizing alone, regardless if the slave isn’t beaten daily like a mule, or worked to death. By referring to how the slave is to be ethically treated, you’re attempting an apologetic stance that rationalizes that act of slavery and try to have it appear less hostile than it really was.

  • Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:53 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Chris333,

    “You are probably right citsonga, and it is unfortunate that they abused the Bible as they did.”

    Abused? Are you serious? These people were following the express commandments handed down at the time of Moses by god himself. The very same commandments that expressly called for witches and wizards to be killed and never defines slavery as an abomination. In fact, certain OT passages infer that jews could own a slave so long as they weren’t their brothers (fellow jews). When read in this context, many of the other laws also only applied to ‘other jews’, this would explain why although god commands ‘not to kill’, you would be hard pressed to find a single book that doesn’t involve unjust killing. Joshua is a great example of this.

    Is it any wonder that witch trials and the inquisitions occurred at all? No, it’s not. This is what happens when a non rationale person adopts a literalist view of holy texts, in which they can rationalize any sort of behavior. This is why we have Muslims that feel its ok to fly planes into buildings. It’s not immoral if your very own bible declares it as so Chris333, that much you will concede.

  • Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:29 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Chris333,

    Yes, your statement is illogical. You, in your apologetic stance are rationalizing the accounts of slavery in your very own book in sake of preserving your faith in an ‘inerrant text’. Over rationalizing anything is the very definition of illogical reasoning.

    “Jesus Himself said that the laws of Moses were given because the people's hearts were hard’

    Jesus also proclaimed that he was sent to confirm the prophets and uphold laws of the OT and not change them. So, in that respect much of the OT that affirms slavery is as valid as ever.

    “then He referred to how things were in the beginning, the way God intended.”

    If Moses really was on a direct line with god at Sinah, we would expect certain things like Slavery to be defined as an abomination, instead like many other early barbaric coulters we see that it is emphatically used following putting all males and non virgin females to the sword.

    “You are not saying that I am illogical, you are saying that Christ, the founder of Christianity, is illogical.“

    Nope, I am certainly saying both you, the OT and NT with regards to slavery and not emphatically denouncing slavery are all equally illogical. You can deny it all you want, but it’s in your book for all to read it for themselves and draw their own conclusions of its horror.


    ”NO WHERE IS IT IMPLIED”

    One wonders then why you gave the impression that atheism implies slavery is condoned by this uttering:

    “in atheism if you have the ability then go ahead have slaves, people do not have dignity, unless you say so”

    It’s quite clear that in your eyes, somehow atheism affirms that slavery is ok. When I asked for where it’s implied, you couldn’t muster a response.

    “My point was that nothing is implied.”

    Oh, I think all the mentions of slavery in your bible imply at the very least that slavery condoned.

  • Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:52 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Chris333 - I'm still waiting for those verses.

    I am a Christian (I've noticed that you question a lot of people's Christianity when you don't agree with them). I've said it before and I'll say it again: I have a real issue with fundamentalism. You can't have it both ways, either the Bible is literal (not figurative or metaphorical) or its not. I happen to feel that it is the most powerful Book of faith ever written. And taking such an awesome Book literally just destroys the beauty of it.

    I absolutely agree that the case can and has been made that God does not desire slavery. But a literal reading of the Bible suggests that God is in favor of it (even in the NT)

    Chris: Here is a question for you that you might answer, since you won't answer my question about the Biblical verses against slavery, what does a literal reading or interpretation of the Bible actually mean to you?

    Theotrek - thank you for the comments.

  • Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine, show me one single verse where God said, "Slavery is good" or right or anything of that nature. NO I will not accept versus that talk about Mosaic laws for how to treat your slaves or something regarding after the fact of slavery etc.

    The case can be made, easily, that God does not desire slavery, and that Christianity is against slavery. The NT tells people what to do if they find themselves in the situation of being a slave or a master, either way. However the NT is strikingly clear that God views slave and master as equals. If God views them as equal, and Christ never had a slave, and we are called by mutual submission to one another, then where does slavery fit into that? The Bible is not pro-slavery, as much as you want it to be. The OT was dealing with a separate time, and it is clear from the view of Christ (which is how Christians view the Bible) that slavery was not the ideal God set.

    ifeelfine, I just have to ask you too, are you a Christian? Why are you trying to force a negative view of the Bible, that is really difficult to make, if you are actually a Christian?

  • Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    theotrek,

    "seedplanter--I believe ifeelfine was referencing an earlier comment made by Chris333 to the effect that the Bible did not teach slavery."

    Are you reading my posts? Prove what you say.

  • Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    theotrek, your thinking was wrong, my posts clearly show that in every case. Please read them before jumping to conclusions.

  • Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    seedplanter--I believe ifeelfine was referencing an earlier comment made by Chris333 to the effect that the Bible did not teach slavery.

  • Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    72, You don't sound like you feel too fine. Where are you trying to go with this?

  • Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:25 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Chris333 - I'm not letting you off that easily. I asked you to quote me a passage or two where it says that God disapproved of slavery. I see lots of passages where He seems to approve of it, but none where he disapproves of it directly.

    It's only through our interpretation of the Word that we find, of course, slavery is an evil institution. It's a literal interpretation that the Bible approves of slavery.

  • Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Chris333-Yes, I am a Christian. My comment to which you refer was in response to thinking you had written that the Bible never supported slavery or that it had never been used systematically to support it.

  • Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:46 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    You are probably right citsonga, and it is unfortunate that they abused the Bible as they did. If they would have been following the example of Christ they would have known better. We cannot even imagine Christ owning a slave, and as I made the case below it is easily shown that God is against slavery. It is unfortunate that those slaveowners used the Bible to justify their behavior, when really it was economic gain that provided the main reason why they wanted to have slaves.

  • Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Ten Commandments seem to say slavery is OK:

    10. "Neither shall you desire your neighbor's house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

    Perhaps thats one of the passages Christians used to justify enslavement of Africans in the New World.

  • Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:11 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    AgentOrange, why should you care? You belive in social evolution don't you? I know that you do not believe in universal morals. That is why yuo would not have voted for William Wilberforce who led the charge against the slave trade in Europe. He was a conservative moralist and an Evangelical Bible believer. Probably didn't even believe in evolution.

    One cannot cut out specific cultural issues without understanding their context. Then again, I'm sure that you have done your research more thoroughly than anyone else here.

  • Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:31 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    theotrek,

    Are you pro-Christian? Please refer to what I wrote below.

  • Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:30 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    agentorange,

    And the least informed biblical statement award goes to agentorange. Are you joking? Give me a break. There was nothing illogical about my statement. Jesus Himself said that the laws of Moses were given because the people's hearts were hard, then He referred to how things were in the beginning, the way God intended. You are not saying that I am illogical, you are saying that Christ, the founder of Christianity, is illogical. Your arrogance exceeds imagination.

    "You’re so pathetic. Where is it implied that b/c a group of people lack a belief in god that it gives them a license to enslave each other? No where is this implied anywhere and under any such label. If anything, it’s implied in your bible that slaves are to obey their early masters and just be hopeful for a better afterlife. What repugnance. "

    NO WHERE IS IT IMPLIED, that was my point, do you read what I write? I think I have had this problem with you before. You don't seem to comment on what I write, but on your strawmen that you build and knock down. My point was that nothing is implied. Atheists can say, "oh slavery is horrible" or they can say "oh slavery is ok because I am asserting my will to power" There is no right or wrong, it is what you want. Christianity can easily make the case that slavery is wrong, whether or not people understood that over the centuries does not show a deficiency with the faith, but with the people. Christ never owned a slave, He never promoted slavery, He pointed to the way God intended. But let me guess, you are going to say, "Oh but the OT says, Moses says..." and then cause me to repeat everything I just said.

  • Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:05 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    JHS--the "profamily groups" are political machines with specific agendas. The shame is that so many have bought into the propaganda of limited issue rhetoric.

  • Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:01 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Maranatha, Grassley, yes, is making some strides. He is NOT part of the Bush administration, however. He is stepping around Bush, since the executive branch has turned a blind eye. Grassley, however, is looking at tax evasion, not non-profit complicity in politics. I heard Jerry Falwell a couple of years ago give political speech at a VERY PUBLIC church event. There was no thought that it would cause him any trouble.

  • Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:57 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    Chris333--Try Numbers 31:25-47 as God's instruction to turn captive armies into slaves. Also Leviticus 25:46 among other passages. Slavery was an accepted norm. What was different is that they were not to enslave their own countrymen. The NT is pretty silent on the issue. The Bible was used in the past to support a slavery system. Not the best approach, but such was the application.

  • Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Chris33,

    “Slavery is not a good thing, and we can be sure that God does not desire slavery, as if He did then He would have made slaves for Adam and Eve in the beginning, but He didn't do that, it was only later as people became corrupt that these laws came. “

    Worst logical utterance in the world goes to- Chris. Are you serious? The OT laws are the ones that made slavery quite tolerated in the first place for the jews. Which by the way, (drum roll) were passes down by your god. Had god put Moses in his place from the get go he would have very strict outlined prohibiting slavery as it’s an abomination as no man should be a slave to another. The jews would never have had slaves and would have equally have condemned such acts as being ungodly.

    But we don’t see that at all. No, instead we see Moses writing down how to beat your slave, how much to charge for them depending on their sex and age and when to takes slaves (after war obviously) .If god so obviously doesn’t condone slavery as you say, why oh why wasn’t it declared at Sinah that it be an abomination? What, was Moses’ phone line connection with god interrupted midway through and he got cut off right when he was to declare slavery an abomination?

    Work on the Sabbath? DEATH! Own a slave? No big deal, just be sure not to beat him to death in less than two days and its kosher. What is more absurd than that which is morally repugnant?

    “The OT times are also radically different from the NT times, they were also speaking to a certain group of people.”

    BS. People back then were barbaric, just look at the records of what they did. The NT came along and slavery was just as popular, nothing changed. Not until the Enlightenment did ‘social equality’ even become a part of the vernacular.

    “a strong case can be made within Christianity that slavery is wrong, and that all humans have true value in God's eyes and are equal in God's eyes”

    Right, that might be the case, but why then did it took 1860 years before it was ever even acknowledged? As you try to spin it, you’d think with Christendom spreading the idea of slavery being abolished would be a no brainier, but that didn’t happen.

    “…in atheism if you have the ability then go ahead have slaves, people do not have dignity, unless you say so.

    You’re so pathetic. Where is it implied that b/c a group of people lack a belief in god that it gives them a license to enslave each other? No where is this implied anywhere and under any such label. If anything, it’s implied in your bible that slaves are to obey their early masters and just be hopeful for a better afterlife. What repugnance.

  • JHS »
    Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:52 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 1

    Where are all these pro-family groups, when the middel class is losing their you know what, to high dollar oil, insurance cost and the like who by the way contribute big to the republican party, the most hostile group to the middle class. When are the bible thumpers going to wake and realize as we are going ito a recession that it is the greedy, war mongers corporate interest that is destroying the family, BUT YOU KEEP ELECTING THEM ANYWAY!

  • Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:07 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Agent orange, the Bible says that slave and master alike are both seen as equal in God's eyes, and that if you just so happen to be a master, that you better treat your slave rightly, lest you be judged harshly in the next life. Also, for Christians the NT is clear that we are to have submission to one another. The value of every life is upheld. Slavery is not a good thing, and we can be sure that God does not desire slavery, as if He did then He would have made slaves for Adam and Eve in the beginning, but He didn't do that, it was only later as people became corrupt that these laws came. The OT times are also radically different from the NT times, they were also speaking to a certain group of people. You are no biblical scholar, I wouldn't try parading your ideas around as if you are. Here is the thing though, a strong case can be made within Christianity that slavery is wrong, and that all humans have true value in God's eyes and are equal in God's eyes, and should be treated as such by each other (love thy neighbor as yourself and so on). HOWEVER, atheism says nothing about this, in atheism if you have the ability then go ahead have slaves, people do not have dignity, unless you say so. You have failed miserably in showing how Christianity says otherwise and have showed no alternative, you need to rethink your ideas.

  • Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:20 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    theotrek: "I don't think the current administration has gone after ANY tax-exempt group that has taken a pro-Republican stance."

    It can certainly be argued that Senator Grassle (R, I believe) asking church groups for financial records is doing this very thing.

  • Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:18 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    theotrek, others may have recognzed slavery as wrong, but it was William Wilberforce who worked tirelessly to have it abolished in England - which encouraged believers here in America to do the same. We know too that missionaries to India impacted that country in a very real way as they spoke out against the caste system, burning widows on funeral pyres, Hindus using children as temple prostitutes, etc.

  • Sun Jan 13, 2008 8:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    (referring to Atheists) “they can never devote their lives to God, and moreover there is no objective reason why they should have those morals.”

    What? You’re saying we Atheists shouldn’t be moral simply b/c lack belief in god? Why not? I don’t want to live in a corrupt society where people are robbing one another and murderous rampages and to ensure that, I don’t feed into that type of corrupt system. Call it ‘Karma’ if you will. Additionally, if I go and kill someone purposely, I and my relatives would likely not only have to deal with the shame, but also the consequences of revenge killing. Do I want others that I care of to have to suffer injustice towards them? Of course not.

    You have to ask yourself, ’why are Atheists are moral at all?’ We have no reason to be hopeful and lush over your heaven nor do we fear damnation of your hell. So we give up both the compulsive fear and lust of wishful think and opt for a more rational evidence based approach. To use the ‘carrot and the stick’ approach that most religions entail to entice followers to behave is ingenious as it means you only behave morally b/c you’re fearful of hell, while we behave morally for other reasons entirely.

    Since only people of faith have this higher morality, why are so many of them, especially those in high ranking, always caught with their hand in the cookie jar? What the hell is wrong with all the Catholic cardinals and priests that can’t keep their damn hands to themselves regarding kids.

    “there are also many atheists who practiced "ethnic cleansing"

    Oh, you must be referring to Hitler and the Nazis and the utter genocide of the Jews then? Please do tell how this was an Atheistic motivated ordeal. If anything, this was the result of not being skeptical and rationale enough and was built around dogmatic views of anti Semitism and racial superiority of Norse populations. After all, nearly 2 millennia of anti Semitic acts were used against the jews that stemmed directly from Christendom in their disgust as ‘Christ killers’. What more motivation was needed?

    Regardless of Hitler and if he was a Christian or not, (many sources show his catholic roots) he wasn’t the one that readily joined the ranks of the SS and Nazis to perform the final solution, an entirely anti Semitic campaign. Those that lined up to become Nazi’s were mostly Catholics or Protestants. The Catholic church still has never excommunicated a single person that was involved and to aid in the Final Solution to exterminate the Jews the Clergy handed over documentation on which people were of Jewish faith going back many generations. Many of those that signed up for the Nazi’s could have been ‘conscious objectors’ as was done in Vietnam, instead they didn’t have any reason to object and not only nearly exterminated the jews but also went on a conquest of their neighbors. They had their chance to express the best of moral authority and didn’t bother.

  • Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    “Show me one page where the Bible says that slavery is good, or to enslave people.”

    Chris333, with Moses’ handing down of laws regarding sex and what is considered ethical and humane, many things are listed as an abomination. Everything from beastiality, gay sex, incest, etc. is covered; however they don’t list a minimum age for consent on the matters. Of all those laws mentioned, one that isn’t is pedophile, or sex with a young person. In fact, in Numbers 31:7-18 wee see Moses is recorded as giving direct commandments to take women and young girls whom are virgins for themselves (referring to the warring men) after they have utterly put all males, young and old to the sword. This is the type of barbaric behavior common to the Goths, Mongols, Vikings or any other morally inept society and nothing I would parade around as being of 'high morality'.

    Deuteronomy 20:10-16 depicts how to deal with nations of people that you are passing into on your way to Canaan. If they rebel, kill them all. If they submit, take them as slaves. In Deuteronomy 21:10-16, it then goes on to describe how to deal with female slaves/captives after you’ve vanquished their husbands and male kids. In Leviticus 27 2-8 is all about how much to charge for slaves depending on their age and sex.

    If they went to such lengths to write such obligatory rules on slavery and track it in a holly book its quite clear they were for a purpose and not just to pass the time. Quit rationalizing. I do find that these rules regarding slavery were only for non-jews, so a jew wasn’t permitted to have a jew as a slave, but it was ok for them to have a non-jew as a slave. This perhaps coincides with being ‘the chosen people’ and the ego boost that ensues.

    “It only speaks about what to do if you are a slave. How is that pro-slavery? The Bible is pro-human and upholds the dignity of every human being.”

    No it doesn’t. Both the OT and NT refer to slaves/servants and how they are to be regarded in this life by their masters and how their roles are to be played. Have you not read the book of Joshua and other OT books where it records the children of Israel putting to destruction every person ‘by the sword’ and town in their path? How is that humane? That is repugnant.
    Now that you see how immoral much of the bible is, why would you even argue that only scripture can provide moral foundations? Now you see why I am not a Christian like yourself.

    I've read the bible numerous times and am in the process of reading the Koran, and it's worse morality wise.

    These are my personal vids, straight verses from the Koran and I am not finished.

    Islam is peace 1 & 2.

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dt17ApjtSM

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fMIULOa2Zk

  • Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Regarding slavery in both the OT and NT. I am not advocating to 'throw the baby out with the bath water' on this one as non christian countries no doubt used slaves. This is a ESV and KJV.

    Exodus 20:17 regards coveting a neighbors slave
    Exodus 21:11is all laws regarding slaves, among other nonsence. pretty inhumane, imoral and illogical if you ask me. but these are desert nomads, so lets not expect too much.
    Exodus 21:20 how to beat your slave ethically.
    Exodus 21:26-27 how to beat your slave ethically pt2.
    Levit 25:44-46 regarding bequething slaves to your children.
    Levit 27:1-8 Prices for slaves for their age and their sex.
    Numbers 31:7-9 When to take slaves (you might also like Numbers 31:17-18 too)
    Deut 5:21 Coveting your neighbors slave again (reidiration)
    Deut 20:10-17 Also when to take slaves.
    Deut 21:10-16 How to treat you female slave after you vanquished her husband and kid(s)
    Judges 2: 6 taking other tirbes they vanquised as wives/slaves.

    Luke12:42-48 parable on slave beating
    Esphesians 6:5-6 slaves and masters, know your role if you're a slave
    Titus 2:9-10 Be submissive if you're slave. good article to refer to if you're the master.
    1 Peter 2:18-19 slaves, be subjegated to your masters.

    Surely there are more, if that's not condoning it then I don't know what is. This is the chief reason why despite christendome being some 1850 years old, slavery was still around at all and why devine rights of kings were invoked.

    Bible and slavery
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F2gFpwnCME

  • Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:10 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine, all men are free in God's eyes, we all have value in God's eyes. Just because scripture deals with a contemporary problem such as slavery, does not mean that it endorses slavery. Show me one page where the Bible says that slavery is good, or to enslave people. It only speaks about what to do if you are a slave. How is that pro-slavery? The Bible is pro-human and upholds the dignity of every human being. The Bible does not say "Do not discriminate against others because they are of a different race" But we do not take that to mean the Bible is pro-discrimination.

    Theotrek, yes atheists can have morals like Christians, they can never devote their lives to God, and moreover there is no objective reason why they should have those morals. They just choose to be that way, there are also many atheists who practiced "ethnic cleansing" if a Christian does this then we can rightly condemn them as being hypocritical towards the faith they have, but if an atheist does this then they are not hypocrites they are just doing what they think best according to their faith.

  • Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Magnum--I don't think the current administration has gone after ANY tax-exempt group that has taken a pro-Republican stance. Go figure...

  • Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:28 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    FOTF should be concerned with its Tax Exempt status. I thought they were not suppose to take sides in Political elections and keep their Tax Exempt Status.

  • Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:54 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    For the record, I believe that God and is against slavery but a literal reading of the Bible doesn't bear that out.

  • Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:52 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Chris333 - Show me the scripture.

  • Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:26 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    thelordismylight--In Brasil at one point some 99% of the population were African slaves. This in a country where it was required by law that one be catholic. Check your data.

  • Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:19 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    BTW, http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080111/30818_Christian_Group%3A__Modern-Day_Slavery_Exists_in_America.htm

  • Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:17 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Christians may have among those who recognized that slavery was wrong, but they were not the only ones. We like to claim that being a Christian gives us a higher morality, but I have found many non-Christians and even atheist or animists with morality and ethics as lofty as many Christians would seek to claim.
    Ghandi rather liked Jesus' teachings. He just did not like the fact that Christians did not live by Jesus' ideals. It was the church that created oppression in India through its link with politics. It showed itself off target by allowing politics to diffuse the authority of Christ.

  • Sun Jan 13, 2008 1:18 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    jenna: "Christians realised slavery was wrong - and they were the ones who fought to get it abolished."

    So true - this is what the life of Wilberforce was about.

  • Sun Jan 13, 2008 1:16 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    iff, in those days, 'progressive' Christians did not doubt the veracity of God's Word. They knew the abolition of slavery did not require them to violate any scripture.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Also on CP
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Music
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links