By Dr. Andrew Corbett, September 3rd 2013
  During his first Presidential election campaign, President Barack Obama gave a speech about why he thought the Bible was outdated and therefore should not be used to guide any public policy decisions. He cited the Bible's condemnation of certain foods, fabric combinations and slavery as ample evidence to convince his audience that when the Bible similarly condemns certain sexual practices it should also be readily dismissed. His comments were very amusing and won him much popular approval. But then multitudes of Bible scholars began to point out the obvious errors in President Obama's 'reasoning' (which largely went unreported in the Mainstream Media). Consequently, or coincidentally, he has not repeated these remarks. But last night (Monday, September 2nd, on the ABC TV program "Q & A"), Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd did. He waslikewise cheered for his amusing comments about the Bible being outdated on issues like slavery andtherefore its statements about sexuality. Most of the subsequent twitter traffic has applauded Prime Minister Rudd for his 'bold and clear defence of same-sex marriage'.Ps Matt Prater, of New Hope Church Brisbane asked, "You claim to be a Christian yet you recently came out in support of homosexual marriage - something the Bible says is wrong. If you call yourself a Christian why don't you believe the words of Jesus in the Bible?" The Prime Minister responded by saying that Bible also commending slavery (which is wrong), therefore it was also wrong when it comes to its statements on sexuality. Mr Rudd's response met with rousing applause from the audience and much favourable Twitter traffic. Pastor Matt on the other hand was pitched as a typical narrow-minded, cold Christian Fundamentalist. I know Matt. I know that he is not like this. I also know that Matt deeply loves people - irregardless of their sexual identity. Given the appropriate opportunity, I'm sure that Pastor Matt could have responded in a compassionate manner to what is often a very heated and volatile public debate. But it is worth noting that Prime Minister was unfair to Pastor Prater and his actual question, because he ignored three key factors by giving the answer he gave. Let me explain [click here to read the full article]. |
