What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

What does the Bible say about homosexuality?
by Matt Slick





There are those who like to say that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. Various verses are cited (out of context) and the verses that people use to show that homosexuality is wrong are explained away. The world wants to change God's words and meanings into something more suitable to its sinful desires. Nevertheless, the truth stands: The Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. Let's look at what it says.

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

Homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Bible. It goes against the created order of God. He created Adam and then made a woman. This is what God has ordained and it is what is right. Unlike other sins, homosexuality has a severe judgment administered by God Himself. This judgment is simple: They are given over to their passions. That means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins (Romans 1:18ff). As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance and trusting in Jesus. Without Jesus, they will have no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.

What should be the Christian's Response to the Homosexual?
Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross, repented of, and never done again.

As a Christian, you should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same you would any other person in sin. The homosexual is still made in the image of God -- even though he is in grave sin. Therefore, you should show him same dignity as anyone else you come in contact with. However, this does not mean that you are to approve of their sin. Don't compromise your witness for a socially acceptable opinion that is void of godliness.

******************

1. All Bible quotes are from the NASB Bible.
http://www.carm.org/questions/about-bible/what-does-bible-say-about-homosexuality


Christianity and Homosexuality
by Matt Slick



The homosexuals and lesbians have gained considerable political and social momentum in America. They have "come out" as the term goes, left their closets, and are knocking on the doors of your homes. Through TV, Radio, Newspapers, and Magazines, they are preaching their doctrine of tolerance, equality, justice, and love. They do not want to be perceived as abnormal or dangerous. They want acceptance and they want you to welcome them with open, loving arms, approving of what they do.

In numerous states in America several bills have been introduced by the pro homosexual politicians to ensure that the practice of homosexuality is a right protected by law. Included in these bills are statements affecting employers, renters, and schools. Even churches would be required to hire a quota of homosexuals with "sensitivity" training courses to be "strongly urged" in various work places. There is even legislation that would make the state pick up the tab for the defense of homosexuality in lawsuits, while requiring the non homosexual side to pay out of his/her pocket.

The Christian church has not stood idle. When it has spoken out against this political immorality, the cry of "separation of church and state" is shouted at the "religious bigots." But when the homosexual community uses political power to control the church, no such cry of bigotry is heard. Political correctness says it is okay for the homosexual community to impose its will upon churches, but not the other way around. Apparently, it isn't politically correct to side with Christians.

What does the Bible say?
The Bible, as God's word, reveals God's moral character and it shapes the morality of the Christian. There have been those who have used the Bible to support homosexuality, taken verses out of context and read into them interpretations that are not there. Quite simply, the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. Let's look at what it says.

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,1 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
With such clear statements against homosexuality, it is difficult to see how different groups can say the Bible supports homosexuality. But they try by redefining love, marriage, sex, homosexuality, etc. in order to accomplish their goal. But the truth is that God created man and woman, not man and man, or woman and woman. Nevertheless, the Bible is a powerful book, and because it is the homosexuals often try and make the Bible agree with its agenda. But it doesn't work. The Bible does not support homosexuality as we have seen from the scriptures above.

Unlike other sins, this sexual sin has a judgment administered by God Himself: He gives them over to their passions (Rom. 1:26-28). This means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins. As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance. Without repentance, there will be no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.

Finally, with their hardened hearts, they seek to promote their lifestyle in society. This is become more real since homosexuals are gaining strength and forcing those with opposing views into confinement and penalty. So much for fairness. It is okay to demand it for themselves, but they balk at allowing it for those who disagree.

Should homosexuals be allowed to marry one another?
In this politically correct climate that relinquishes morality to the relativistic whims of society, stating that homosexuals should not marry is becoming unpopular. Should a woman be allowed to marry another woman? Should a man be allowed to marry another man? Should they be given legal protection and special rights to practice their homosexuality? No, they should not.

The Bible, of course, condemns homosexuality. It takes no leap of logic to discern that homosexual marriage is also condemned. But our society does not rely on the Bible for its moral truth. Instead, it relies on a humanistic and relativistic moral base upon which it builds its ethical structure.

Homosexuality is not natural. Just look at the male and female bodies. They are obviously designed to couple. The natural design is apparent. It is not natural to couple male with male and female with female. It would be like trying to fit two screws together and to nuts together and then say, "See, its natural for them to go together."

Homosexuals argue that homosexuality is natural since it occurs in the animal world. But this is problematic. It is true that this behavior occurs in the animal kingdom. But, it is also true that we see animals eating their prey alive. We see savagery, cruelty, and extreme brutality. Yet, we do not condone such behavior in our own society. Proponents of the natural order argument as a basis for homosexuality should not pick-and-choose the situations that best fit their agendas. They should be consistent and not compare us to animals. We are not animals. We are made in God's image. Logic says that if homosexuality is natural and acceptable because it exists in the animal world, then it must also be natural and acceptable to eat people alive. But, this is obviously faulty thinking. Therefore, appeal to the practice in the animal world as support for homosexual practice is equally faulty.

Political protection of a sexual practice is ludicrous. I do not believe it is proper to pass laws stating that homosexuals have 'rights.' What about pedophilia or bestiality? These are sexual practices. Should they also be protected by law? If homosexuality is protected by law, why not those as well?

Of course, these brief paragraphs can in no way exhaust the issue of homosexuality's moral equity. But, the family is the basis of our culture. It is the most basic unit. Destroy it and you destroy society and homosexuality is not helping the family.

What should be the Christian's Response to the Homosexual?
Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross and repented of.

Christians should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same they would any other person in sin. They should treat homosexuals with the same dignity as they would anyone else because, like or not, they are made in the image of God. However, this does not mean that Christians should approve of their sin. Not at all. Christians should not compromise their witness for a politically correct opinion that is shaped by guilt and fear.

In fact the following verses should be kept in mind when dealing with homosexuals.

"Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. 6 Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person," (Col. 4:5-6).
"But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith," (1 Tim. 1:5).
You do not win people to the Lord by condemning them and calling them names. This is why God says to speak with wisdom, grace, and love. Let the love of Christ flow through you so that the homosexuals can see true love and turn to Christ instead of away from Him.

Objections Answered
1) If you want to say homosexuality is wrong based on the O.T. laws, then you must still uphold all of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

The Old Testament laws are categorized in three groups: the civil, the priestly, and the moral. The civil laws must be understood in the context of a theocracy. Though the Jewish nation in the Old Testament was often headed by a king, it was a theocratic system with the Scriptures as a guide to the nation. Those laws that fall under this category are not applicable today because we are not under a theocracy.

The priestly laws dealing with the Levitical and Aaronic priesthoods, were representative of the future and true High Priest Jesus who offered Himself as a sacrifice on the cross. Since Jesus fulfilled the priestly laws, they are no longer necessary to be followed and are not now applicable.

The moral laws, on the other hand, are not abolished. Because the moral laws are based upon the character of God. Since God's holy character does not change, the moral laws do not change either. Therefore, the moral laws are still in effect.

In the New Testament we do not see a reestablishment of the civil or priestly laws. But we do see a reestablishment of the moral law. This is why we see New Testament condemnation of homosexuality as a sin but not with the associated death penalty.

2) That homosexuality is a sin if committed outside of a loving, committed, relationship. But a committed homosexual relationship is acceptable to God. This is a fallacious argument.

Homosexuality is never defined in the Bible in an acceptable behavior if it were practiced by individuals who had a loving relationship with each other. Homosexuality is always condemned. Homosexual acts are not natural acts and they are against God created order. As stated above in the article, male and female are designed to fit together -- in more ways than one. This is how God made us and he made as this way so that we could carry out his command of filling the earth with people. Homosexuality is an aberration from God's created order and makes it impossible to fulfill the command that God has given mankind.

Whether or not a homosexual couple is committed to each other is irrelevant to the argument since love and feelings do not change moral truths. If a couple, not married to each other but married to someone else, commits adultery yet they are committed to loving each other, their sin is not excused.

If homosexuality is made acceptable because the homosexual couple "loves" each other and are committed to each other, and by that logic we can say that couples of the same sex or even of different sexes who love each other and are committed to each other in a relationship automatically make that relationship morally correct. The problem is that love is used as an excuse to violate scripture. Second, it would mean that such things as pedophilia would be acceptable if the "couple" had a loving and committed relationship to each other. Third, the subjectivity of what it means to "love" and the "committed" to another person can be used to justify almost any sort of behavior.

3) That where homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible it is not how we relate to it in the 21st century. It meant something different to the people in Biblical times and has nothing to do with modern day homosexuality.

The four Scriptures listed above refute this idea. Let's look at what they say and see if there is some misunderstanding? The first scripture in Leviticus says that it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as he would lie with a woman. Obviously this is referring to sexual relationship and it is condemned. The second scripture in Leviticus says the same thing. The third scripture in 1 Corinthians outright condemns homosexuality. And finally, Romans clearly describes a homosexual act as being indecent.

There is no mistake about it, the view of homosexuality in the Old Testament as well as the New, is a very negative one. It is consistently condemned as being sinful.

Whether or not people of the 21st-century think homosexuality is acceptable or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is sinful before God. God exists and he is the standard of righteousness. Whether or not anyone believes this or believes that morality is a flowing and vague system of development over time, has no bearing on truth. God has condemned homosexuality as a sin in the Bible. It is a sin that needs to be repented of the same as any other sense and the only way to receive this forgiveness is through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

4) That the sin of Sodom was actually the sin of inhospitality.

This is a common error made by supporters of homosexuality. The problem is this explanation does not account for the offering of Lott's daughter to the men outside the home, a sinful act indeed, but one that was rejected by the men outside who desired to have relations with the two angels in Lot's home. Gen. 19:5 says, "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.' Those men wanted to have sexual relations with the angels who appeared also as males. Does it make sense to claim that God destroyed two cities because the inhabitants weren't nice to visitors? If that were the case, then shouldn't God destroy every household that is rude to guests? Gen. 18:20 says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was "exceedingly grave." Not being hospitable to someone has never been considered an exceedingly grave sin, especially in the Bible. But, going against God's created order in violation of his command to fill in multiply the earth in the act of homosexuality, is an exceedingly grave sin. In fact, we know that it is exceedingly grave because in Romans we read about the judgment of God upon the homosexuals in that he gives them over to the depravity of their hearts and minds. This is a serious judgment of God upon the sinner because it means that the sinner will not become convicted of his or her sins and will not then repent. Without repentance there is no salvation and without salvation there is damnation. Therefore, the argument that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were not hospitable, carries no validity.


1. The word "homosexual" in the NASB version is the Greek aρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoites). It occurs two times in the New Testament. The KJV translates it as abuser of (ones) self with mankind once, and defile (ones) self with mankind once. 1 one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual. (Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurrence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) (G733). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.) The 1901 ASV, the KJV, translate it as "abusers of themselves." The NASB and NKJV translate it as "homosexuals." The NIV as "homosexual offenders." The RSV as "sexual perverts."



http://www.carm.org:80/christianity/christian-issues/christianity-and-homosexuality

Challenges Obama Christianity Claims

News Analysis of 7 Reasons Campaign
Christian Anti-Defamation Commission

Challenges Obama Christianity Claims

Christian Group Reviews Obama History, Writings, and Interviews

To Expose Presidential Candidate’s Disingenuous Religious Proclamations

Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for president of the United States, has repeatedly claimed to be a Christian, but there is more evidence disputing that declaration than affirming it according to Dr. Gary Cass, Chairman and CEO of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission.

Dr. Cass observes, “From his speeches and his writings, even his personal history—despite protestations to the contrary—it appears that Obama’s ‘Christianity’ is carefully constructed to appease traditional American voters.”

Americans expect their leaders to embody Judeo-Christian ideals and beliefs, so it is important for Obama to be perceived as a practicing Christian. Every one of the forty-three United States presidents, regardless of political party, has mentioned God in his inaugural address. George Washington, the hero of the American Revolution, the first president of the United States, and often referred to as the ‘Father of Our Country’ stated: “It is impossible to properly govern without God and the Bible.”

Dr. Cass summarizes: “Here’s a man, Obama, who desperately needs to convince half the voters in the United States that he believes in something that he doesn’t truly understand…even two decades after his alleged conversion to Christianity.”

Unfortunately for Obama, it is not his political opponents who expose this fiction, it is his own words, as well as those of his friends and family.



Obama’s Muslim Roots

Dr. Cass explains, “The most glaring misstatement of fact in the packaging of Obama for the presidency is assertion that—in his words—he is rooted in Christian tradition. The claim is unsubstantiated. His mother was, at best, an agnostic. His biological father was a Muslim. His stepfather was from a devout Muslim family. Throughout his formative years, Obama lived in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim society where—according to a passage in his first memoir, Dreams from My Father—he studied the Koran. He lived his teen years with his maternal grandparents who, by his own description, were Universalists, not Christians.”

In a 2007 New York Times interview, entitled Obama, A man of the World, Obama fondly recalled the Islamic evening call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.” According to the article, “Obama went on to recite its opening lines with a perfect Arabic accent: “Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! I witness that there is no god but Allah! I witness that there is no god but Allah! I witness that Muhammad is his prophet!”

“A devoted follower of Jesus Christ would never say ‘Allah is supreme and there is no god but Allah,’” argues Dr. Cass. “Sitting in a pew from time to time doesn’t make someone a Christian. If anything, Obama is rooted in Islamic tradition.”

Obama On “My Muslim Faith”

On September 5th, 2008, in an ABC television network on-air conversation with former Clinton advisor turned political pundit, George Stephanopoulos, Obama uttered the line, “You’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith.” Stephanopoulos quickly saved Obama from political disaster by reminding him that he meant to say his “Christian” faith.

“I have never met a Christian, especially one who claims to have been a Christian for twenty years, mistakenly confuse Islam with Christianity when referring to his or her personal faith,” notes Dr. Cass. “Perhaps this was Obama’s only candid public comment on his belief system since people started keeping track of the things he has said.”



Libyan Strongman Identifies Obama as Muslim

On June 11th, 2008, Libyan leader Mu’ammar Al-Qadhafi was videotaped and broadcast on Al-Jazeera TV at a gathering as he referred to: “A black citizen of Kenyan African origins, a Muslim who studied in an Islamic school in Indonesia. His name is Obama. All of the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man. They welcomed him and prayed for him and his success and they have been involved in a legitimate contribution campaign to win the American presidency.”

Dr. Cass observes, “Clearly one of the world’s most vocal anti-American Arab leaders is convinced that Obama is a Muslim and is cheering the possibility of having a brother Muslim named the leader of the free world. Just as troubling is the candid admission that Muslims in Arab countries and in Africa are making financial contributions to the Obama campaign. It is against U.S. election laws for foreign nationals to give money to any candidate for federal office, but that is apparently not a deterrent to Obama or to Qadhafi.”



Marketing Obama In America

At a time when the United States is at war with Islamic fundamentalists, it has been vital that the candidate obliterate any connection to his Muslim roots. For the American public to buy the Obama brand, it was pivotal that the candidate convince voters that he was a bona fide Christian.

As Dr. Cass observes, “Once he decided to run for president, Obama and his surrogates started attacking anyone who questioned his Christianity. So, for an accurate insight into his duplicity, we need to look at an interview he gave to Chicago Sun-Times religion columnist, Cathleen Falsani, on March 24th, 2004, a few days after he was nominated to run for the U.S. Sentate from the state of Illinois and three years before he was considered a presidential candidate.”

During the exhaustive interview with Falsani, Obama showed himself to be profoundly uninformed about the basic tenets of the Christian faith. Falsani, who currently also writes a blog for the pro-Obama website, The Huffington Post, authored the book, The God Factor: Inside the Spiritual Lives of Public People, a collection of spiritual profiles. (Published in 2006 by Farrar, Straus & Giroux.)



Obama’s Statement of “Faith”

To Falsani’s question, “What do you believe?” Obama answered: “I am a Christian. So, I have a deep faith. So I draw from the Christian faith.” Then he qualifies that statement by saying, “On the other hand, I was born in Hawaii where obviously there are a lot of Eastern influences. I lived in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, between the ages of six and 10. My father was from Kenya, and although he was probably most accurately labeled an agnostic, his father was Muslim. And I'd say, probably, intellectually I've drawn as much from Judaism as any other faith.”

Obama continued to distance himself from the teachings of Jesus when he finished his answer saying, “I'm rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.”

“Nowhere in the Bible is there a reference to Obama’s many paths,” explains Dr. Cass. “Nor is there any biblical basis for his astoundingly erroneous assertion in the Falsani interview that, ‘All people of faith—Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone knows the same God’.”



Obama’s Alleged Christian Foundation Part One: His Mother

In his 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father, Obama wrote derisively, "My mother's confidence in needlepoint virtues depended on a faith I didn't possess.” He continued, “She was a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position-paper liberalism."

In his 2006 book The Audacity of Hope Obama wrote, "I was not raised in a religious household.” He explained, “My mother's own experiences only reinforced this inherited skepticism. Her memories of the Christians who populated her youth were not fond ones.”

Yet a year later, in 2007, shortly after Obama declared his intention to run for president, he described his mother as "a Christian from Kansas." He went on to explain that, "I was raised by my mother, so, I’ve always been a Christian."

That statement is even further suspect when compared to his half sister’s description of their mother that same year in the July 16, 2007 edition of The Christian Science Monitor. When asked whether her mother (and Obama’s) was an atheist, Maya Soetoro-Ng answered, "I wouldn't have called her an atheist. She was an agnostic. She basically gave us all the good books—the Bible, the Hindu Upanishads and the Buddhist scripture, the Tao Te Ching—and wanted us to recognize that everyone has something beautiful to contribute."

Since Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, married two Muslim men, it would be perfectly reasonable assume that her library also contained a copy of the Koran among “all the good books.”



Obama’s Alleged Christian Foundation Part Two: His Grandparents

In the 2004 Falsani interview, Obama was asked, “Have you always been a Christian?” Obama replied with the historically inaccurate assertion that, “I was raised more by my mother and my mother was Christian.”

That statement was in direct contradiction to a 2007 speech when Obama claimed, "My mother, whose parents were nonpracticing Baptists and Methodists, was one of the most spiritual souls I ever knew. But she had a healthy skepticism of religion as an institution.” Accepting the “my mother was Christian” statement at face value, Falsani next tried to narrow down Obama’s denominational influence by asking, “Any particular flavor?”

Without answering the question about his mother, the senatorial candidate replied that his Kansas grandmother was Methodist and his grandfather was Baptist. “This was at a time when I think the Methodists felt slightly superior to the Baptists,” he expanded. “And by the time I was born, they were, I think, my grandparents had joined a Universalist church.”

“Universalists aren’t Christians,” Dr. Cass counters. According to its own website (www/uua.org), “Unitarian Universalism (today’s version of the Universalist church which merged with the Unitarian church in 1961, the year Obama was born) is a liberal religion with Jewish-Christian roots. It has no creed. It affirms the worth of human beings, advocates freedom of belief and the search for advancing truth, and tries to provide a warm, open, supportive community for people who believe that ethical living is the supreme witness of religion.”

As Dr. Cass explains, “Although Unitarian Universalists tend to retain some Christian traditions from their Protestant history, they do not necessarily identify themselves as Christians, nor do they necessarily subscribe to Christian beliefs. Visit the Unitarian Universalist website. The name ‘Jesus Christ’ isn’t used a single time. This is clearly a case of misrepresentation by Obama’s of his past.”



Obama on Prayer

In the course of the interview, Falsani questioned Obama about his prayer life. To which the candidate responded, “Uh, yeah, I guess I do. It’s not formal, me getting on my knees. I think I have an ongoing conversation with God. I think throughout the day, I’m constantly asking myself questions about what I’m doing, why am I doing it.”

Few mature Christians confuse self introspection with praying to God as Obama suggests.



Obama on Heaven

When Falsani followed up the prayer question by asking Obama if he believed in heaven, the candidate needed clarification. “Do I believe in the harps and clouds and wings?” he asked.

“A place spiritually you go to after you die?” the reporter clarified.

Obama demonstrated a clear ignorance of the Bible’s teaching on the subject of the afterlife. He answered, “What I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, that I will be rewarded. I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing.”



Obama on Sin

The next question from Falsani was, “Do you believe in sin?” To which Obama replied, “Yes.”

Since the answer provided little insight, Falsani asked him to define sin. “Being out of alignment with my values,” the Harvard educated former law professor answered.

Noting that Obama’s response was inconsistent with the Christian definition of sin, Falsani queried, “What happens if you have sin in your life?”

“I think it’s the same thing as the question about heaven,” Obama responded. “In the same way that if I’m true to myself and my faith that that is its own reward, when I’m not true to it, it’s its own punishment.”

“Again,” Dr. Cass points out, “Obama demonstrates a total disregard to the teachings of the Bible.”



Obama on Jesus

Perhaps the most telling exchange from Falsani’s interview of Obama was the simple inquiry: “Who is Jesus to you?”

To Barack Obama, “Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he’s also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher. And he’s also a wonderful teacher. I think it’s important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.”

The question about Jesus was the final proof Dr. Cass needed to determine the paucity of Obama’s Christian insight. “I’m more than a little skeptical of an avowed twenty year Christian who is so blatantly uninformed about the Bible and its teachings. How many of the two billion Christians in the world when asked ‘Who is Jesus?’ would get the answer wrong? How many couldn’t define sin as explained rather succinctly in the Bible? How many have no idea what heaven has promised in Holy Scripture? This guy is checking the box ‘Christian’ on an application form without any idea what he’s talking about. Unfortunately, the application he’s filling out is to be the president of the United States.”



Obama’s Political Christianity

Contrary to all available evidence, while ignoring two thousand years of Christian tradition, Obama has the audacity to hope that people will accept him as a Christian simply because he says so. Obama’s statement: “I believe that there are many paths to the same place” defines him as a non-Christian. Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me.”

Dr. Cass concludes with the observation that, “Judging the intent and the degree of Mr. Obama’s deception is above my pay grade. My greatest concern is that Christianity is being hijacked by a prominent individual purely for personal, political, and financial gain. There are two billion Christians in the world. Every one of them should be insulted that their Savior is being used as a hollow campaign promise.”

The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission is a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) education corporation whose purpose is to work constructively to advance a robust religious liberty in public opinion and policy so that Christians everywhere might fulfill their biblical duties to God and neighbor. The commission is dedicated to responding to attacks by any individual person or groups of persons, institutions, or nations that defame and/or discriminate against Christ, Christianity, the Holy Bible, Christian churches and institutions, Christian individuals, and Christian leaders.



http://www.christianadc.org/resources/69-news-analysis-of-7-reasons-campaign