This revelation shocks the media establishment.
But it shouldn’t, because he clearly isn’t.
In fact, if those Americans who do believe Obama’s religious charade read this column and watch the video embedded below from 2006 – presumably before he decided to run for president in 2008 – there will be even fewer who accept his pronouncement of faith.
Forget for a moment that he was speaking to a group of apostates led by socialist Jim Wallis at the Call for Renewal conference. Just listen to what he says – how he mocks the Bible.
Not only does he show a glaring, almost childish, fundamental misunderstanding or deliberate distortion of the Bible’s context, but he claims that others, presumably people like me and you, are “not reading their Bible.”
It starts getting interesting around the 26-minute mark, if you don’t have the patience or the stomach to listen to the entire speech. It was in this address that he first made the point publicly that “whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation.”
“Even if we had only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?” Obama asks rhetorically. “Would it be James Dobson’s or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK – and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith. Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application. So before we get carried away, let’s read our Bibles now. Folks haven’t been reading their Bibles.”
Let’s take these scriptural quandaries one by one:
- Leviticus: To say that Leviticus justified slavery as it is known today in many countries of the world, including some ruled by kings who Obama bows before, is an absurdity. In fact, all of the passages of Leviticus dealing with slavery place rather strict limits on it. Slavery among the children of Israel meant something entirely different from what it means in the Islamic world today or what it meant in America in the 18th and 19th century. Life as a slave in ancient Israel was far better than life today in North Korea or many other Communist societies where citizens are slaves to the state. Leviticus recognized slaves as human beings with rights, not mere chattel. Slavery was designed to pay a debt. It was more akin to indentured servitude. Once the debt was paid, the person was free. This was not the case in Egypt or the rest of the world at the time of Moses. Many people became bond-slaves willingly because they were better off than as a “free” person. In fact, abolitionists in England and America were guided by their fervent belief in the Bible – and the institution of slavery no longer exists in any nation that became Christianized. However, with retrogressives like Obama in charge, it will become a reality again because they see no limits on state power and plenty of restrictions on individual rights.
- Deuteronomy: Nowhere in Deuteronomy does it suggest anyone should ever stone his or her child when he “strays from the faith.” That’s a complete misrepresentation of the Holy Word of God. Let’s look at the actual text of Deuteronomy 21:18-21:
“If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”
Note that this “son” is not a child. He’s a full-grown man who is a glutton and a drunkard – and completely beyond the control of his parents. The parents don’t stone their child to death, as Obama suggests. Both parents must agree to physically bring him before the judges. The son would have the opportunity to speak on his own behalf. Then, and only then, all of the men of the town would have to participate in the execution – meaning only a complete menace to the community would ever be killed in such a circumstance. Furthermore, it is worth noting that nowhere in the Bible does it suggest such a situation ever actually arose. That suggests that grown children in Israel recognized what faced them if they were utterly rebellious toward their parents. What we can take away from Deuteronomy, therefore, is that the deterrence effect of capital punishment really works.
Earlier in the speech, Obama notes: “My Bible tells me that if we train a child in the way he should go, when he is old he will not turn from it.” He uses this Proverbs 22 twist to suggest government should spend more to do the training. I think we can all see how well that formula is working in Obama’s America.
- Sermon on the Mount: Obama is right about one thing: Matthew 5-7 is indeed a radical passage – but not in the way his retrogressive mind perceives. If he believes it means nations should lay down their arms before their enemies, he is either completely clueless or, worse, completely disingenuous. When Jesus talks about loving one’s enemies, presumably the reference Obama has in mind, God is commanding us to pray for them, to share the gospel with them, to make an effort to change their hearts. This is what Jonah was commanded to do when God told him to preach repentance to Nineveh. Jonah didn’t want to go, because he knew God would likely convert the entire nation and spare Israel’s enemy from judgment. That’s exactly what happened. What is the application here for the U.S. Defense Department? Only Obama and his retrogressive friends at Call for Renewal seem to understand.
Let’s recall that Obama claims to have become a Christian in Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Hate. There, he says in this speech, he came to believe the church could be used as “an active, palpable agent for change in the world.” That’s what Liberation Theology is all about. It’s not about salvation. It’s not about redemption. It’s not about evangelizing. It’s not about the gospel. It was in that demonic assembly, he says, “I thought I heard God beckoning me.”
Is it possible that wasn’t the voice of God at all? Does it even seem likely that it was his own political ambition or his own desires beckoning him? Or maybe it was the voice of the adversary whispering in his ear?
No one has seen Obama attend a church service or attend a Bible study since he got to the White House – which suggests he hasn’t learned much about the Bible’s content since 2006 when he distorted and enthusiastically mocked its content.