Lord and savior ... barrack obama??

[TheGrungeDiva]

First, Ritter, I want to thank you for your excellent response. I really appreciate it when a colleague such as yourself can comment and even disagree with me without the personal insults that too often fly from both sides in a debate. God has surely blessed you.

Denying Christ's divinity is a hallmark of some wings of liberal theology (you can't really pin liberal theology down by its definition anyhow. It is also considered a form of blasphemy.

I will agree with you that there are many extreme liberals who deny Christ's divinity. I would say they are not nearly so common as perhaps you are putting forward. Unitarians do, but they do not consider themselves Christian. I've met some UCCs and others who will lean towards that. I actually got fired from a Presbyterian church because my theology was too conservative, and in this case yes, this particular congregation (or at least the pastor thereof) was one of those "Jesus was just a really great guy and we should all try to emulate him" types. But I've been a liberal Christian for over 4 decades, all over the country, and I have to say there really are few people who consider themselves Christian but deny the divinity of Jesus. Most will be honest and admit they're not really Christian.

That could be so. He really may believe that his beliefs are supported by scripture and the Republican ones are not. Perhaps he thinks the question is irrelevant in the context of fundamental principles although culturally relevant. There is no real way to judge without asking the man himself.

Well, true ... I couldn't say for sure without asking. But I am pretty confident that he DOES believe this, because it is what I believe, and what millions of other Christians believe. He is a member in good standing in the UCC, and that is what they teach, so it makes sense.

As I hinted before, there are people who belong to a denomination but don't adhere to its tenets. Presbyterians who deny Jesus' divinity, Catholics who think birth control is okay, Jews who eat bacon. So he might not follow the UCC teaching, but combining that with what he has said in public, it seems most likely that he does.

According to Jeremiah Wright, the man had shown little personal interest in religion when he spoke with Obama, that is why I would bank on the latter judgment. If that is the case (and there is no way of knowing for sure matters of the heart being what they are), then he is a candidate.

I'd like to see your source for this comment.

Thank you for mentioning Thomas Jefferson. This something I wish more Evangelicals would point out. A good portion of our star founding fathers were not Christians.

Thank you for agreeing! I, too, wish more Evangelicals recognized this.

All of this to say, if we are to read history accurately, Christians have cooperated with non-Christians in the operation of civil government since the founding era. To say otherwise would be dishonest and discredit the biblical principles that apply to all people.

AMEN! This is so well said, Ritter, thank you. I think when it comes down to it, this is what they were trying to get at, with the separation of church and state. Not to eliminate God from everywhere, but to make it so non-Christians were at the same table, working together with Christians. Christians in the late 1700s had no problem with it, we shouldn't either.

There is little different about Barack Obama in these respects. If Christians want to take issue with that, they have decades of tradition to take issue with. Perhaps it is time they should.

This is a concern for me. I see more name-calling against Obama than I have seen of any other president. Clinton was no more religious -- and in many ways far less -- than Obama, and although he was harshly criticized for many of his moral failings, I don't remember anyone complaining about his lack of Christian faith (or if they did, it was far less vocal than today's criticisms of Obama.) Same goes for Jimmy Carter, the last Democratic president before him. He was DEVOUTLY Christian, even Evangelical, and yet decidedly liberal (for his time).

Which makes me ask: what is different about Obama? Why are people so quick to accuse him of being non-Christian, sometimes of being Muslim, when they would never say such of Clinton, or Reagan (who was probably the least religious president in most of our lifetimes)? I would like to believe that we are no longer a racist country, but I really can't avoid going there, when I see such criticism that seems to be based on nothing but the color of his skin.

Never said it was easy.

Amen! Again, thank you for your excellent comments.

 

[Ritter]

First, Ritter, I want to thank you for your excellent response. I really appreciate it when a colleague such as yourself can comment and even disagree with me without the personal insults that too often fly from both sides in a debate. God has surely blessed you.

I grew up in a dark blue area of New York. If I didn't know how to keep my cool, I wouldn't have had any friends until late High School, hahaha. That and I have a theory that civil discussion (that is agreement based on controlled open-mindedness and consideration of all facts) is possible if both parties are of requisite intelligence. If truth exists, both sides can see it albeit from different angles.

Major differences occur largely due to frame of reference and application of facts, ie Weltanschauung. The struggle is then, in its proper place, more philosophical than factual. That isn't to say facts don't play a part, they are merely subordinate.

I also have a deeply abiding respect for the humanity of others. It's okay to see things as they are. There is a time to take the gloves off. But if you go off half-cocked and deny a person's common nature as a human being, you then set your foot on the same path trodden by the likes of Pol Pot and Hitler.

There are times you will see me come off as sarcastic, dismissive, etc (and you have likely seen me do it to conspiracy theorists on this forum), but I do my best to respect human value.

You appear to run your life by the same guidelines, for that reason we share some affinity, and I feel more solidarity with you than many on this forum even though we do differ with Party ID.

Now to the meat of things.

I will agree with you that there are many extreme liberals who deny Christ's divinity. I would say they are not nearly so common as perhaps you are putting forward. Unitarians do, but they do not consider themselves Christian. I've met some UCCs and others who will lean towards that. I actually got fired from a Presbyterian church because my theology was too conservative, and in this case yes, this particular congregation (or at least the pastor thereof) was one of those "Jesus was just a really great guy and we should all try to emulate him" types. But I've been a liberal Christian for over 4 decades, all over the country, and I have to say there really are few people who consider themselves Christian but deny the divinity of Jesus. Most will be honest and admit they're not really Christian.

I have very little first-hand experience with liberal churches, so I will have to cede the argument as far as Church congregations are concerned.

That said, our country is now rife with what one may describe as heresies with out a clear theology. Maybe I am erroneous in identifying them as liberal Christians. Perhaps the true distinction is that they employ theology liberally. They attend all manners of Churches, express a belief in what I would best describe as ambiguously Theist and spiritualist. Pay lip service to Christ, but do not identify him as prophet, priest, and king. Ironically, they will talk of a relationship with God, but then turn to various forms of demonology.

Yet they refer to themselves as Christians and they are legion. These are the people of whom I spoke

Well, true ... I couldn't say for sure without asking. But I am pretty confident that he DOES believe this, because it is what I believe, and what millions of other Christians believe. He is a member in good standing in the UCC, and that is what they teach, so it makes sense.

As I hinted before, there are people who belong to a denomination but don't adhere to its tenets. Presbyterians who deny Jesus' divinity, Catholics who think birth control is okay, Jews who eat bacon. So he might not follow the UCC teaching, but combining that with what he has said in public, it seems most likely that he does.

Fair enough. I would respect him more were that the case. Forgive me if I don't trust everything people forged in the fires of Chicago politics say.

I'd like to see your source for this comment.

The Amateur by Edward Klein. I borrowed the book, so I cannot cite the exact page for you.

AMEN! This is so well said, Ritter, thank you. I think when it comes down to it, this is what they were trying to get at, with the separation of church and state. Not to eliminate God from everywhere, but to make it so non-Christians were at the same table, working together with Christians. Christians in the late 1700s had no problem with it, we shouldn't either.

Well, some of them did, hahaha. Notice how they are the ones we don't remember. What they did have in common were principles of governing derived from the Renaissance and the Reformation (not so much the Enlightenment as so many claim). Ad fontes. They didn't separate governing from principle and realized that principle was largely derived from either the true belief in Biblical truth or Biblical truth as it served public order and stability. The same tradition you and I are carrying on in right now in this little oasis of ours.

This tenuous alliance has since broken as both sides unknowingly accepted Enlightenment concepts like the theory of the General Will. That is one of the many fundamental problems we have today in the realm of political philosophy. We love to complain about Right-Wing extremists, but the other side of its spectrum has its little "theocrats" (using the term loosely for the sake of demonstration) who seek to pollute the body politik in a similar fashion. We both believe the government capable of more than it ever has been. We view life in and principle as a temporal struggle to survive (which it is at times), rather than the it's proper place in transcendence.

We are divided by the philosophical planks we ironically hold in common.

The term "separation of church and state" carries with it many problems and misconceptions. It carries with it some truth, but the frame of reference is flawed. That's why I typically dispose of the term altogether. I wish I could do the same with the entire political spectrum as we know it, but that is a bigger fish to fry. Actually it would be easier to fry it than what I would like to do with it. That's a discussion for another forum though.

This is a concern for me. I see more name-calling against Obama than I have seen of any other president. Clinton was no more religious -- and in many ways far less -- than Obama, and although he was harshly criticized for many of his moral failings, I don't remember anyone complaining about his lack of Christian faith (or if they did, it was far less vocal than today's criticisms of Obama.) Same goes for Jimmy Carter, the last Democratic president before him. He was DEVOUTLY Christian, even Evangelical, and yet decidedly liberal (for his time).

Which makes me ask: what is different about Obama?

To quote the man himself, "that's above my pay-grade."

There are many answers to your question. You're dealing with a problem that I think is rooted in what I've mentioned above.

The Bush era was an equally dirty and chaotic one. Perhaps I noticed his ribbing more than you did because my respect for President Bush is greater than my respect for Obama.

Both Presidents believe the government capable of more than it was ever meant to be, and use it accordingly. The base of both parties believes the same. We do not cast our hopes on the eternal, but the temporal. The temporal promises what the eternal can only bring us. It is a clash of two churches.

That is why people of the "other side" come off as more offensive.

I'm sure there are better theories out there or similar ones stated better, but that is what I put forward for what its worth.

I don't buy the platitude political division always makes people stronger or that debate and inquiry is always what opens up the heavens. There are times when the truth is more obscured by it. That is part of the reason why you don't see me cashing in on every internet debate.

That said. It is good to find a liberal that makes me jump for joy, because her goal is to ascertain truth for the noble goal of healing. It's nicer to read this than:

OBAMA IS THE SON OF BEELZABUB ACCORDING TO DANIEL 16:5, BUT YOU SCUM WOULD NEVER UNDERSTAND THAT. WHY SHOULD I BOTHER DEBATING YOU?

[Thoughtful and respectful response.]

HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT?! *Mindless reiteration of point already addressed.

 

[Ritter]

Oh, and as a side note, I normally do not write this much unless I'm updating my blog or novel.

So if you like this, check out my blog! (see link on profile page).

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Oh, and as a side note, I normally do not write this much unless I'm updating my blog or novel.

So if you like this, check out my blog! (see link on profile page).

I shall!

BTW and FWIW, I noticed a lot of ribbing of Bush Jr., as well. A lot of "my people" would make fun of his "Bushisms," the mispronounced words or made-up phrases. "Nu-kyu-ler" instead of "nuclear" was a great example. I have heard many people from various parts of the country pronounce the word that way. It's a colloquialism from a regional dialect, not unlike "coo-wa-fee" vs. "cah-fee" vs. "cau-fee" depending on where you live. Whenever someone teased him for such, I stuck up for him. I said, "Hey, he can pronounce it any way he wants to. How he says it isn't as important as what his policy is on it."

Although there are some things that a politician absolutely should know. Like, anyone who is running for public office higher than, say, mayor of a small city, should be able to name at least one reputable magazine or newspaper printed in the U.S. Just one. Or, being able to see a foreign country from your window is not sufficient for a strong background in foreign policy. So I didn't mind the "Caribou Barbie" ribbing that our almost-Vice-President received for her ... erm ... lack of understanding.

As always, thank you for your insight.

 

[Ritter]

I shall!

BTW and FWIW, I noticed a lot of ribbing of Bush Jr., as well. A lot of "my people" would make fun of his "Bushisms," the mispronounced words or made-up phrases. "Nu-kyu-ler" instead of "nuclear" was a great example. I have heard many people from various parts of the country pronounce the word that way. It's a colloquialism from a regional dialect, not unlike "coo-wa-fee" vs. "cah-fee" vs. "cau-fee" depending on where you live. Whenever someone teased him for such, I stuck up for him. I said, "Hey, he can pronounce it any way he wants to. How he says it isn't as important as what his policy is on it."

Although there are some things that a politician absolutely should know. Like, anyone who is running for public office higher than, say, mayor of a small city, should be able to name at least one reputable magazine or newspaper printed in the U.S. Just one. Or, being able to see a foreign country from your window is not sufficient for a strong background in foreign policy. So I didn't mind the "Caribou Barbie" ribbing that our almost-Vice-President received for her ... erm ... lack of understanding.

As always, thank you for your insight.

Yeah, I think that was a classic story of a campaign not being able to see beyond superficial demographic draws.

 

[Anonimous]

I have also noticed That Obama has never made any comments about this subject. You would think if he is a christian that he would openly oppose that claim as blasphemy. People are slowly starting to realize that even though they voted for him, he is not the person they thought he was at the time. I think this is the way the acceptance of the antichrist will be at first. He will do great things...at first.

 

[Anonimous]

I just can't believe God takes sides. There are just as many antichristian republicans as democrats. When I heard a republican praying for war and destruction in the name of Jesus on TV I was amazed. To me...and I could be wrong...when I hear some thing like that I have to ask myself, "how does that make us different than the muslims who call for the destruction of the US and Israel in the name of Allah?" It doesn't. I don't remember ever reading where Jesus sanctioned outright war with anyone.