When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?"
So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." – Matthew 16: 13-17
Who do you say Jesus is?
The foundation of the Christian faith is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches and people indwelt with the spirit of God believe Christ is the Son of God. He was fully man and fully God. He is God. There was never a time he didn’t exist. He’s always existed with the Father and the Holy Spirit. He is Creator. He is Savior. He is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, the Lamb who will return to deliver God’s wrath.
To an unbeliever, some of these things seem contradictory or just plain silly. How can Jesus have been human and deity? How can Jesus be the Son of God and God? What do these things mean? Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – what is that about?
For short and oh-so-sweet answers, follow the links:
Who do you say Jesus is?
As C.S. Lewis wrote in his wonderful book, Mere Christianity, Jesus was either Lord, liar, or lunatic. He wasn’t just a “wonderful teacher” or “great philosopher.” He claimed to be God:
“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
Who do you say Jesus is?
This is how future president Barack Hussein Obama answered the question back in 2004 for an article series called “The God Factor”:
“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.”
That’s all? What an understated, muted, and mealy-mouth response. No mention of the most important thing? If you’re a Christian and this is how you answer the question of who Jesus is, I question the state of your soul. Presumptuous and judgmental? Yes! But let’s back up. Must our president be a Christian? In my opinion, no. I’d vote for an atheist, as long as he’s socially conservative.
But I have BIG problems with someone who professes Christ and tries to appeal to Christians through “faith,” when his words and deeds indicate he is NOT a Christian. Jesus was “an historical figure.” BHO got that right. Jesus is, in a sense, “a bridge between God and man.” But what else is he? What is his most important attribute? That he was God in the flesh, for crying out loud.
Christ is more than an historical figure and bridge between God and man. If he were just a man, then the Bible is untrue. If Christ is not God made flesh and punished for sin in our place, if Christ didn’t rise from the dead, promising us that we’d also rise from the dead, we’re still dead in our sins and under God’s wrath. We have no Savior.
The death, burial, and ressurection of Christ is literal and figurative, symbolic and real, and a direct parallel to what happens and what will happen to us. To be born again in Christ means to die to our former selves, just as our physical bodies will one day cease to function. The “old man” gives way to the “new man.” Our old selves were buried with Christ, and through his sacrifice on the cross and subsequent resurrection from the dead, we are assured that we – those who claim Christ as their Savior – will be resurrected from the dead and reunited with the living God.
I don’t know about you, but I find that stunning. Unbelievable to some. But what an audacious claim.
BHO, why would you leave out Christ’s most important attribute – his deity? This is the very essence of our faith. Who wants to worship a wonderful teacher or historical figure? Becoming a Christian is a life-changing experience, a radical paradigm shift. I’d be ashamed of myself if I told someone Christ is a “wonderful teacher” and left it at that.
Who do you say Jesus is?
Bonus: BHO’s answers to other questions indicate (to me) that he’s either not a Christian or attended a church where he didn’t receive proper biblical teaching. Can you spot the strangeness? For instance, you’ll never guess how BHO answers, What is sin?
(Hat tip: Commenter George Craggs)
Related posts:
{ 5 trackbacks }
{ 61 comments }
God bless you for pointing out what is so obvious to His children, but eludes those who only call Him, but do not call Him Lord.
Sadly, I’ve encountered a lot of this type of misunderstanding among people who profess Christianity. Too few churches teach the Bible in such a way that equips their members with the answers to those “tough questions” that are sometimes difficult for people to reconcile. And I do have my questions about the salvation of those so confused about essential points of doctrine. Ultimately, it’s for us to provide the Word, and for God to judge.
“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.” Gah. Whatever happened to ” I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me”?
“I was raised more by my mother and my mother was Christian.” Uh, no. Saving faith in Christ is not transmitted because of contact with other believers.
Gosh, I could go on. The impression this leaves is of a man who believes in religious pluralism, who knows just enough “churchy language’ to appear to be something he is not.
Amen, LaShawn!
You keep putting the adversary on blast!
I’m not surprised by his answer. He’s a politician, he gave a “politician’s” answer. Plus look at the church he’s been at for 20+ years. Nuff said. Again, its just another reason why I don’t trust the guy. Thanks for this post Lashawn. Keep up the good work, Amen.
LaShawn,
I encourage you to read Cathleen Falsani’s follow-up thoughts on this same issue: http://falsani.blogspot.com/2008/08/godstuff-i-have-faith-that-obama-has.html
She as the author of the article you referred to.
I have my sincere doubts on whether Barry Obama is a Christian.
This is petty and irrelevant:
“Plus look at the Church he’s been at for 20+ years”
If Senator Obama had learned ANYTHING from his years at Trinity, he would know the falsehood in some of the sentiments he expressed. Trinity doesn’t teach ANY of what he’s expressed here.
Just because you all are mad at Jeremiah Wright doesn’t mean that Trinity didn’t teach FUNDAMENTAL Bible precepts, because they DID.
How many people do YOU know who go to Church and don’t seemed to have gleaned much from the teaching and preaching there?
The Senator was on the ROLL at Tinity, not a disciple of Wright or a student of the teachings at Trinity. If he WERE, he would not be hollering out this mess.
LaShawn: Your comments are a response to a public statement made by BHO so they are valid and to the point. I am wondering though if you know what McCain’s response to that question would be? I certainly agree with your concerns about BHO’s position on social issues. I agree with you on about everything you write and hope you keep up the great work you do here. I also hope you hold the republican’s feet to the fire in the same way when it comes to not only the “hot button issues” but whether their candidates really have a grasp of a Christ centered worldview. I am very concerned about McCain’s lack of ability to articulate that. I’m not even sure if he understands the essentials of the christian faith but as one who served in the military during the Viet Nam conflict, I have great respect for him and his service to our country. God bless you LaShawn Ron
Mostly everything I’ve seen said so far in these comments is true. Though nobody except God knows another man’s heart, I will say, that in what I’ve seen from Obama he is no Christian. At least not the type of “follower of Christ” that I am.
With that being said I will now get myself into more “hot water” with you all, as I did in the “use of his middle name” debate on the previous posting. Is John Sidney McCain III a man born of the spirit? Is George W. Bush, or his father? Was Ronald Reagan? Dick Cheney? Donald Rumsfield? Maybe they are, but if I was a betting man I wouldn’t bet on most of them. What determines if a man is a Christian? Is it that he states that he is? Is it that he says he is pro-life and against homosexual marriage? Though in my opinion any spirit filled man or woman would be opposed to these things, is saying you are (knowing that it’s to your political advantage within your party) enough.
As I said, nobody knows a man’s heart but God, but why is Obama’s faith the only one ever in question? As far as I can remember there’s never been a candidate that has run for president for either party that hasn’t proclaimed to have Christian beliefs. Though some more loudly than others. Again as before, I don’t say this to defend Barack Obama. The overwhelming majority of people who frequent this blog, including myself, have no intention of voting for him. I say this for the same reason I brought up the constant use of “Hussein” when addressing him, so that those of us who are Christians, and are conservative in our ideology BECAUSE OF OUR FAITH, hold all of our leaders accountable equally.
Lashawn states that she would vote for an atheist as long as he was socially conservative, so would I, but we all know that a self proclaimed
atheists would have no shot. Which is why ALL politicians must BS their way through “being a Christian”. It’s because we as self righteous individuals almost force their hand.
I wish someone would ask every candidate publicly if they believe that JESUS CHRIST IS THE ONLY WAY to salvation. I wonder what kind of answer they’d all give.
Feel free to now make fun of my “inability to articulate my point” and “my sensitivity”, but I have to call it as (I) see it.
John McCain, same question…
Invoking Trinity and Jeremiah Wright are neither petty, nor irrelevant. If someone purporting to have a degree from a university shows a lack of ability and/or skill in their field, it is NOT out of bounds to consider BOTH their personal aptitude and the effectiveness of his educators. The failure of children coming out of public schools almost universally points towards failures within the SCHOOLS rather than the children.
How different is it, then, to question one’s church when a 20-year stint yields such a poor understanding of the Word? Further, the assertion that the Senator was simply listed as a member rather than a regular attendee is immediately debunked by BHO’s own words from the interview-
GG:Do you still attend Trinity?
OBAMA:Yep. Every week. 11 oclock service.
Given the other evidence of the church’s (or at least the Pastor’s) tendency to confuse scripture, I don’t find it at all out of bounds to describe BHO’s condition as at least partially arising from his attendance there.
Barry’s stand is relevant because he likes to parade his piety. He’s claiming to be a strong Christian, and has lectured “some folks” about not reading their Bible. If he wants to be the “faith” candidate, then we need to judge his faith.
This is no different than Kerry claiming to be a war hero, or McCain being “the Maverick”. It’s up to us, the voting public, to evaluate those claims.
Throughout American political history, some candidates have been scrutinized about their religion while others have not, regardless of party or political ideology. Bill Clinton’s faith was never as explored as G.W. Bush’s. And both JFK and Mitt Romney had to run their campaigns against significant opposition because of their religions. In this go-around, BHO’s faith is drawing much more focus than McCain’s. In none of these cases do I think the level of examination is unfair.
Narrowing back to today’s issue, John McCain’s campaign wants you to believe his policy positions are more likely to be the right one’s because he’s experienced and his decision record points towards his overall good judgment. BHO has neither the experience nor the record to justify the trust he asks in his policy. So he must appeal based purely on the fact that he’s a good guy. One of his attributes as a “good guy” is his faith, which he discusses far more than McCain. In fact, I can’t say I’ve EVER heard McCain discuss his faith.
We’re left to examine what the candidates give us.
Amen, LaShawn. It is possible to take on politics without firing all the slings and arrows of religious fundamentalism all of the time at everyone you deem “unfit.”
Obama has a really, really screwed up pathway to Christianity. Liberation Theology is not the least part of it.
Before the winds of righteous indignation and condemnation begin to blow on who is a Christian and who is not, I suggest a rereading of Gulliver’s Travels.
The politics of competing religious sects is shameful and counterproductive to living a Christian life.
Obama is a run of the mill convenience believer who calls himself Christian. He has huge company. But if he can’t allow the simple concepts of the Trinity to be the foundation of his religious identity, then he is just another politician catering to the religious vote.
I am curious as to why Jeremiah Wright and the whole Liberation Theology movement should be given a pass. From my perspective, it has “whacko” written all over it and Wright appears to be just another preacher rooster with coats of many colors, a high perch and ungodly worldly riches. If he is a humble servant who has carefully tended his flock in basic Christian understanding, he failed to notice that Obama didn’t get the message.
In the final analysis, true Christianity is a profound understanding and belief of rather simple concepts. One need not own or be able to read the Bible to qualify. It is the theology and doxology and militant excoriation that causes the friction. “God damn America” will ring in my ears forever. Those who presume to bring the wrath of the Creator down on the people are stuck in Old Testament hate and vengeance.
I do not care if Obama is an atheist, an Islamist, a Buddhist, a Jew or a drive by Unitarian. But I do care that if he calls himself a Christian, that he get the basic belief requirements correct. Then I will muse about whether I am convinced that he is being honest.
David, why did you leave Kerry, the Clintons, Gore, Dole, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, Ford, Nixon, McGovern, LBJ, Humphrey, Goldwater, the Kennedys, et. al off your list. Is it only Republicans (and I included a few) who concern you?
Well, Bush 43 took plenty of heat when he named Jesus as the most important philosopher in his life. And the left has been after Bush 43 for his “born-again” dangerous militant Christian mindlessness ever since he was elected.
Obama managed to be born into ties with Islam. He then “found” Christianity in an extremely controversial and highly suspect environment. If anything, the MSM has given him a huge pass, just as they gave Clinton when he went on his quick and easy shortcut to atonement tour with the help of Jesse Jackson.
There are dozens of reasons I won’t vote for Obama before I get to his convoluted religious “beliefs.” But he is running a Messiah campaign of hope and change and a deep faith in government and bureaucracy to bring peace and equality and great comfort to the world.
If you don’t look this Messiah as a revival tent charlatan, how do you see him?
Gabe:
“Invoking Trinity and Jeremiah Wright are neither petty, nor irrelevant.”
TBD:
That mess he’s talking about wasn’t learned at Trinity or anyone FROM Trinity. That’s on HIM.
Gabe:
“If someone purporting to have a degree from a university shows a lack of ability and/or skill in their field, it is NOT out of bounds to consider BOTH their personal aptitude and the effectiveness of his educators.”
TBD:
Yeah, but ya’ll are putting Jeremiah Wright on blast, not Trinity, and if you say you’re not, you’re lying. Don’t go there with me. Senator Obama rejected and denounced the place where he supposedly got his Christian roots. Why?
Senator Obama didn’t attend new members classes or any of the dozens of catechisms that are offered on BASIC tenets, OUTSIDE of that BLT mess. I KNOW this for a fact. You don’t progress in the faith JUST on Sunday Mornings, because Sunday mornings are for preaching the Gospel, not teaching.
Gabe:
“How different is it, then, to question one’s church when a 20-year stint yields such a poor understanding of the Word? Further, the assertion that the Senator was simply listed as a member rather than a regular attendee is immediately debunked by BHO’s own words from the interview-
GG:Do you still attend Trinity?
OBAMA:Yep. Every week. 11 oclock service.”
TBD:
I know what he’s said, sir. All I can say is that it’s very unfortunate that he’s put himself in this situation. Very very unfortunate, but the fact is he wasn’t. He simply wasn’t.
Gabe:
“Given the other evidence of the church’s (or at least the Pastor’s) tendency to confuse scripture, I don’t find it at all out of bounds to describe BHO’s condition as at least partially arising from his attendance there.”
Trinity UCC is not the only Christian Church that confuses Yahweh’s words and Jeremiah Wright certainly is the only Christian preacher to confuse scriptures. (Though you’ll have to tell me what scriptures, OUTSIDE of BLT, you’re talking about) Outside of BLT, they are pretty much the same is most any Christian church, amongst which there is a remnant of those who are serious about teaching sound doctrine – while still having room for growth.
So we’ll disagree on this one Gabe. It’s Senator Obama’s RESPONSIBILITY as the spiritual head of his household to minister to those under his roof.
Helio says:
” Amen, LaShawn. It is possible to take on politics without firing all the slings and arrows of religious fundamentalism all of the time at everyone you deem “unfit.”
TBD:
Is Senator Obama deeming anyone ‘unfit’? If so, it’s no different than deeming people of other persuasions and ideologies or “ilks” unfit or irrational, is it?
Being carnally minded is death, but being spiritual minded is a life of love and peace. If you know the Word, you know that’s in it.
Helio:
“Obama has a really, really screwed up pathway to Christianity. Liberation Theology is not the least part of it.”
TBD:
He’s not alone in that.
Helio:
“Before the winds of righteous indignation and condemnation begin to blow on who is a Christian and who is not, I suggest a rereading of Gulliver’s Travels.”
TBD:
Gulliver’s Travels is no guide to who are Yahweh’s people and who are not.
Helio:
“The politics of competing religious sects is shameful and counterproductive to living a Christian life.”
TBD:
Living a “Christian life” and walking in obedience to Yahweh’s words are not mutually exclusive. if it were, then pundits and participants who claim to be Christians wouldn’t behave the way they do.
Even believers should examine themselves in light of the scriptural mandate. And they also suffer examination just like everyone else. Isn’t that what you all are doing to Senator Obama?
Helio:
“Obama is a run of the mill convenience believer who calls himself Christian. He has huge company.”
TBD:
EXACTLY! So why are people fronting as if they are better than he is?
Helio:
“But if he can’t allow the simple concepts of the Trinity to be the foundation of his religious identity, then he is just another politician catering to the religious vote.”
TBD:
Well the concept of the Trinity aside, this is on point.
Helio:
“I am curious as to why Jeremiah Wright and the whole Liberation Theology movement should be given a pass. From my perspective, it has “whacko” written all over it and Wright appears to be just another preacher rooster with coats of many colors, a high perch and ungodly worldly riches. If he is a humble servant who has carefully tended his flock in basic Christian understanding, he failed to notice that Obama didn’t get the message.”
TBD:
Well first of all, I never ever wrote that BLT should be given a pass for anything, because I could write a whole page of things, in historical and scriptural context, that would expose the lawlessness of contemporary Christianity, so that’s not the point for me. I’m not down with BLT, or most things that people do that add to Yahweh’s words. It’s ALL wrong.
And you can’t learn anything from your local fellowship if you’re not there, so you can’t blame Jeremiah Wright for people not learning anything, because you can’t learn much JUST on Sundays, even if you CLAIM to have been in attendance.
Helio:
“In the final analysis, true Christianity is a profound understanding and belief of rather simple concepts.
TBD:
INTERESTING. This is why we’ve been telling people that the Bible is not just a Christian book, and that Christians are not the only people who are saved, sanctified, and filled with the Holy Ghost.
Helio:
“One need not own or be able to read the Bible to qualify.”
TBD:
Uh.. what do you mean by this?
Faith comes by hearing that that by the Word of Yahweh, according to scripture.
I think I may be misinterpreting that statement.
Helio:
“It is the theology and doxology and militant excoriation that causes the friction. “God damn America” will ring in my ears forever. Those who presume to bring the wrath of the Creator down on the people are stuck in Old Testament hate and vengeance.”
TBD:
Jeremiah Wright was out of pocket that day, for real. LOL. But he’s not in small company. I can’t flip through Word or TBN or any station and not shake my head for the out of context and unbiblical foolishness that comes across pulpits.
Helio:
“I do not care if Obama is an atheist, an Islamist, a Buddhist, a Jew or a drive by Unitarian. But I do care that if he calls himself a Christian, that he get the basic belief requirements correct. Then I will muse about whether I am convinced that he is being honest.”
TBD:
Well obviously he doesn’t, sir! But he never did, and why do you expect that he would?
My point is that the same scrutiny that he’s under, is the same that we ALL are under. I’ve told people for a year that he was marginal, or a babe, at best.
He may be uninformed, but at least he’s not a carnal Christian who loathes his neighbors.
Gabe says:
“Narrowing back to today’s issue, John McCain’s campaign wants you to believe his policy positions are more likely to be the right one’s because he’s experienced and his decision record points towards his overall good judgment. BHO has neither the experience nor the record to justify the trust he asks in his policy. So he must appeal based purely on the fact that he’s a good guy. One of his attributes as a “good guy” is his faith, which he discusses far more than McCain. In fact, I can’t say I’ve EVER heard McCain discuss his faith.”
TBD:
Very good points all around.
Again, I’ve been criticized from many non-white and liberal opponents for saying a similar thing, which is that Senator Obama should really just shut up about a few things.
I’m not saying he’s not a “good guy” but good guys are not and have never been President of this country, so he needs to find another angle.
Well I take that back…Jimmy Carter was a good guy, but…well…he’s Jimmy Carter, so..bless his lil heart. LOL.
helio: “If you don’t look this Messiah as a revival tent charlatan, how do you see him?
I see him as a “full of it” politician.
helio:”David, why did you leave Kerry, the Clintons, Gore, Dole, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, Ford, Nixon, McGovern, LBJ, Humphrey, Goldwater, the Kennedys, et. al off your list. Is it only Republicans (and I included a few) who concern you?”
Fine you can add all of them to the list too. I mentioned Republicans because it is a Democrat who we are discussing and I wanted criticizing partisan people (who are the only ones usually participating on political blogs) to see the board in their own eye, and not just the sliver in their opponents.
Also, if we are honest, it is Republicnas who have the history of wearing their faith as a banner politically.
I think that I have made it more than clear in my previous postings that I am not a democrat, a liberal or a supporter of Obama. My issue is with the system as a whole. To me I see absolutely no difference between say Keith Olberman and Bill O’Reilly.
As far as GWB goes, it goes back to my earlier point. His claiming to be born-again helped him with the people he was courting. Who cares if people on the far left who’s votes he wasn’t going to get anyway gave him grief over it.
His administration’s neoconservative military policies and liberal fidcal habits have been their undoing, not their unfufilled conservative promises.
Only God knows if GWB is a spirit filled Christian. I personally think he is full of something, the same thing that Obama is. As you said, there are a dozen reasons not to vote for Obama, I just wish that we would concentrate on the ones that truly matter.
Since no one else has responded to your question, “Who do you say Jesus is?,” here goes:
“I believe . . . in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God,
Begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
Very God of very God,
Begotten, not made,
Being of one substance with the Father,
By whom all things were made;
Who for us men, and for our salvation came down from heaven,
And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary,
And was made man,
And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate.
He suffered and was buried,
And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures,
And ascended into heaven,
And sitteth on the right hand of the Father.
And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead:
Whose kingdom shall have no end.”
That’s who!!!
fiscal, not fidcal. my bad.
David, your response is appreciated and well reasoned. I try not to drive small points, but there are two issues I think are important to the Obama frenzy. You touch on both:
and
Obama has been leading a religious style crusade with himself as Messiah. I see him as a demagogue of the first order. When you take on the Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini, Chavez, Castro, Allende, et. al. role you have to settle on your delivery style. Obama has chosen to walk among us and preach the great faith a “unification” type of government and bureaucracy that will put things right and bring peace and prosperity and justice to the common man. That is full blow religion. It transcends mere “politics.”
Secondly, Republicans are mostly conservatives who find their ethos in the Judeo-Christian ethic. Liberals are largely moral relativists who find their ethos is public polling and language manipulation. Ergo, Republicans are easily tested against traditional culture and ethics. Liberals are tested against momentary “feelings” and popular opinion.
I am unaware of McCain having any Jeremiah Wright type baggage or curious background vis a vis religion. (But Romney sure got a full fisking.) If McCain has been dragging religion into his campaign, I have missed it. Once the Fall campaign begins, you can count on Obama to take a full turn in the black church on Sunday appearances. They will buy him on race identification alone and accept his Christian bona fides without question. Therein lies the difference between the two and the faith issue.
Again, these are my musings only and I am not intent on persuading you to adopt them.
Interesting that your ask the question of Senator Obama, but not of Senator McCain —- any objective person who has observed the behavior and statements of both candidates must reasonably conclude that Senator Obama is more a man of the Christian faith than is Senator McCain. Here’s a link of some interest — http://blog.beliefnet.com/godometer/
RGW doesn’t read any of the other comments before posting.
LaShawn,
Great post!
Jesus also said that we shall know them by their fruits. In your previous post about Obama’s abortion voting record, you demonstrated a perfect example of how one pays lip service to Christ, but their hearts are far from Him and it’s reflected in their actions.
La Shawn says;“I’d vote for an atheist, as long as he’s socially conservative.”
Socially conservative atheist? I that possible? And, would you really be willing to cast your vote based soley on sociopolitical ideology?
Okay, you don’t particularly care for liberal politicians, which is fine. Yet, with all due respect, should’nt an “anti-Christian” (which an atheist is) be viewed in the same light as a “liberal Christian?”
“Doug Giles isn’t arguing that there are no Christians who are liberals; he contends that liberal ideology itself is anti-Christian to the core and should not be supported by one purporting to be a Christian. I concur.”
- La Shawn, 10-26-04 -
Just asking…
… any objective person who has observed the behavior and statements of both candidates must reasonably conclude that Senator Obama is more a man of the Christian faith than is Senator McCain.
That statement brought back many fond memories to this unreasonable non-objective embittered God-and-guns-clinging typical white person. I grew up in Southern Baptist territory, and they were downright tolerant and open-minded when compared to some liberal Christians I knew when I was an ELCA missionary.
I lost count of the number of times I heard the basic humanity of conservative Christians like myself denigrated because we did not support affirmative action, gay/lesbian “marriage”, the so-called peace movement, immigration “reform”, and a host of other hot-button political issues. Such individuals, I noticed, never bothered to present proof of what they said – they simply assumed that we were the spawn of Satan and acted accordingly.
At times I was tempted to shout, “Unclean! Unclean!” whenever anyone approached me so I would not contaminate them with … whatever.
Mwalimu,
Being called unreasonable, non-objective and embittered is a result of two potential things.
1. Your accusers having no light in them.
2. You having no light in you.
And this is EASILY determined by observing the deeds AND words of people.
If we can demonstrate any ideology that is contrary to Yahweh’s Law, then it doesn’t matter what proof, or lack thereof people present, but we have to KNOW it for our OWN sake.
But one of the larger problems is convincing people who claim to be believers WHAT that Law is, that it’s His Law, and not THEIRS.
No matter who smart we think we are, He is smarter than all of us.
Psalm 19:7
The law of Yahweh is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of Yahweh is sure, making wise the simple.
And since EVERY word he says is TRUE, we can’t be wrong if we rely on it and can’t SPEAK on it without SHAME.
Isaiah 8:20 says..
“To the Law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them”
But then again, are we REALLY looking for LIGHT in politicians…and if so, what the heck for?
#30 p. anthony allen constructs a false argument:
This is not a condition for being an atheist.
This question must be corrected to read: Shouldn’t an atheist be viewed in the same light as a “liberal Christian?”
No.
The argument only works if you swallow the false premise that atheist and “anti-Christian” are synonymous.
One cannot read “atheist” into this argument.
If the atheist is militantly anti-religion, that would change the equation for most. But the standard issue atheist should not pose a threat to a person of religion or a religion in general.
heliotrope,
Please keep “MY” arguement in context! The point in the arguement is an atheist is anti-ALL RELIGIONS! That would include Christianity… okay?
The quote reads;
“liberal ideology itself is anti-Christian to the core and should not be supported by one purporting to be a Christian”
to which Ms. Barber agreed. Thus, if “liberal ideology” can be viewed as anti-Christian, Atheism, “at its core” is by no doubt anti-Christian.
Helio says;“The argument only works if you swallow the false premise that atheist and “anti-Christian” are synonymous.”
False premise??? What kind of spin are you attempting??? If you were a vegan, would’nt make sense to say that you are not only a “non-meat eater”, but also “anti-butcher?” Of course you would be, unless you’re silly enough to believe that a butcher get’s paid to cut up dead animals just for fun…
Anybody who would deny medical treatment for a child born alive after a failed abortion cannot possibly be a Christian, is not humane, is immoral and is certainly not fit to be the President of the United States. But, when this same person professes to be a Christian while running for President of the United States, then I add “dangerous” to my list of observations.
p. anthony allen:
You can not invent conditions to create validity for your argument.
An atheist is not anti-religion, anti-ALL religions or anti anything.
If you look at atheism in the encyclopedia (even Wikipedia) you will not find any support for your assertions.
You seem to adopt the short lived state atheism of the USSR for your model, although even the commies permitted the church to exist under its strict thumb.
Insist if you must that atheism is the opponent of religion. In fact, atheism ranges from uncertainty to skepticism to denial. However, the metaphysics of some atheists cause them great problems as they set out to “prove” the non-existence of a particular deity or deities in general.
An atheist telling a Christian that he does not buy all the Bible hocus pocus is decidedly NOT anti-Christian. He is simply a non-believer, and/or a skeptic, and/or a doubter, and/or an immovable mind.
You confuse honest atheism with some rare form of overt Christian (or other religion or all religion) opposition.
Perhaps you will name a few atheists who fit your definition. It would be interesting to see your list.
Do a little bit of research before you continue your fallacy laden reasoning.
heliotrope–
Your post belies your own statements.
Do you really suppose the phrase “Bible hocus-pocus” is anything other than virulently anti-faith? Of course you don’t; you’re too intelligent for that. I’m very suprised, then, that you are an atheist; few truly intelligent people are, or remain so for long.
You say, “you cannot invent conditions to create validity for your argument” while doing exactly that yourself. Honest skepticism is not a “refusal to buy Bible hocus-pocus”. Honest skepticism wishes to look at the evidence–ALL the evidence–to see whether it is valid or not. I’ve never met an atheist who was an honest skeptic. Perhaps there is one out there, but I doubt it. Honest appraisal cannot discover any truth in atheism, because there is none there. Atheism does not “range from uncertainty to skepticism to denial.” Those who are uncertain, or skeptics, are agnostics. Atheists deny.
You do, however, have one thing correct: atheism does not oppose all religion, because it is itself a religion, one with the most stringent of dogmas.
No dissent or reason is allowed. That’s not the “state atheism” of the USSR, it’s USA in 2008.
Dear heliotrope;
Your arguments and statements are usually cogent, concise and ones that I would like to claim for myself; however, your current one is slightly full of holes.
An agnostic could claim, with some degree of justification, to be a non-believer, and/or a doubter etc. The definition of an a-gnostic, after all, is literally (fairly closely) ‘one who does not know’.
A-theism, however, is a metaphysical system that actively DENIES God(s). Hence, an atheist by definition is an anti-’theistic religion’.
Let’s put this in perspective. Let’s say there’s a religion called SGAtlantisology, which prime belief revolves around sentient, more advanced aliens who fly around in Mark IV time-travelling Puddle Jumpers. What kind of responses could we imagine to SGAtlantisology?
“I love the idea! Sign me up!” – ‘emotion’ believer
“Hmm, sounds rational, I could believe in this” – ‘rational’ believer
“I *know* SGAtlantisology is true, and you can’t convince me otherwise, you racist!” – ‘blind faith’ believer
“I’m not convinced.” – soft agnostic
“We’ll NEVER know for sure’ – hard agnostic
“Well, they’re entitled to their beliefs” – secular, can’t-be-bothered man-on-the-street
“What?! Are you all INSANE? There’s no such thing as a Puddle Jumper!! There are no such things as aliens!” – atheist; rabid
“I don’t believe aliens OR Puddle Jumpers exist” – atheist, mild
“Aliens and PJs do not exist” – atheist, dogmatic
“There is no evidence of their existence; hence the hypothesis in unproven and the likelihood of their existence is so low as to be negligible” – atheist, scientific
And while it may be possible for one to exhibit more than one of these responses simultaneously, the major proponents we know of atheism are sadly of the rabid sort;
Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Karl Marx, Charles Johnson regretfully is tending that direction re YEC, I mean, the list can go on and on and on.
Heliotrope, it may well be that I’m sleepy, at work and hence bored out of my gourd, nearing lunchtime with low blood sugar, but did I actually read you saying that anti-theism is RARE? ??? And you actually have not heard of atheists who put down religionists (especially Christians) at any opportune moment? Seriously?
This is not the largest search possible, but searching for ‘atheist contempt for christianity’ on Google yields 507,000 results.
PZ Myers, Jeremy Hall, Seth McFarlane (and you should check out the semi-vinegar they post on Ethical Atheist), http://www.positiveatheism.org
I don’t really think I need to go on, do I?
Seriously, I wanna know what you’re smokin’, and where I can get it.
Remember Jesus said He is the Truth, not part truth, or most, but the Truth. Jesus Christ
Helio says;“Do a little bit of research before you continue your fallacy laden reasoning.”
Please take your own advice…
If you research the etymology of the word “atheist”, you will find it stems from the greek adjective “atheos”, which meant “godless”. In it’s original use the term “atheism” was a pejorative used to discribe those who “contested” or those who were in “discord” with formal religion. Simply put ANTI-RELIGION. (where the prefix “anti” denotes, “opposition to a concept or principle.”)
I see exactly what you’re attempting to do here. My advice to you is to allow La Shawn to answer the question, she’s a big girl and can handle her own. Take Trish’s advice and stop attempting to “spin” the “un-spinnable”!
I don’t think it’s spinning to say that an atheist is not anti-christian or anti-religion. They are people who believe there is no God (more or less – I believe a recent poll said there were 21% of self-identified atheists who believed in a god/higher power).
No doubt there are many atheists who are anti-religion, but this is not a prerequisite to being atheist. In fact, I know of some atheists who are PRO-religion because they think it helps society muddle along better. A personal nonbelief of a deity does not equal being opposed to the existance of religion.
I totally agree with Ed and doubt whether he is a christian or not.
The contention over LaShawn’s statement about atheism seems to be entirely predicated on differing views of what “atheist” means. It’s this same inability to FIRST come to terms with what we each believe these words mean that infects so many political/ideological/religious discussions.
It works the same when trying to interpret what someone writes. The tendency to want to play “gotcha” has made trying to actually communicate a very difficult thing. It’s basically the same thing people do when they wrongly interpret the Bible. Instead of exegesis (drawing ideas OUT of the Word) there is eisegesis (reading INTO it). Context is everything.
Based on the entirety of LaShawn’s works in regards to her politics and her Christianity, it would be silly to assume that when she says “I would vote for an atheist if…,” she is speaking of someone who is virulently anti-Christian, like a Christopher Hitchens. It makes more sense that “atheist” in this regard is being used simply to describe someone who does not believe in God.
The basic idea is that she wouldn’t be concerned at all about the personal religious ideals of the individual running for office so long as they generally hold to a moral code and political ideology fairly close to her own. This would translate across ALL religious (or non-religious) thought. And, frankly, that’s how it should be.
I’m at a loss as to why this would prompt a raise of the eyebrow.
Based on the entirety of LaShawn’s works in regards to her politics and her Christianity, it would be silly to assume that when she says “I would vote for an atheist if…,” she is speaking of someone who is virulently anti-Christian, like a Christopher Hitchens. It makes more sense that “atheist” in this regard is being used simply to describe someone who does not believe in God.
…
The basic idea is that she wouldn’t be concerned at all about the personal religious ideals of the individual running for office so long as they generally hold to a moral code and political ideology fairly close to her own.
That’s exactly what I meant, Gabe. Thanks. I used to spend lots of time explaining myself to new readers or long-time readers who didn’t bother considering context. Those days are over. My entire blog speaks for itself. And I can always depend on commenters like you to set the record straight.
Well I’m at a loss too Gabe because I didn’t know we had atheists posting on this blog.
McCain: “But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”
Thank you for asking the most important question any beleiver should ask of Obama and of everyone else. Since you, a political blogger who loves Jesus, have put the question to BHO in cyberspace, I can only hope Rick Warren, a pastor who loves Jesus (as far as I can tell) will put the question to the two candidates when face-to-face.
I do believe there are cases of believers receiving bad doctrine at unhealthy churches, like those who receive years of “the doors of the church are open,” equate it with an “invitation” to Christ, but are not taught that Christ invites through the preaching of the Gospel without our help (Rom 1:16-17). But receiving bad doctrine on the Deity of Christ leaves you in the realm of unbelief right next door to Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jews, and Muslims. Each Gospel writer presents Christ as the Divine Son of God prior to all other parts of their narratives about the person, words, and works of Christ (Mt 1:20, 23; Mk 1:1-3; Lk 1:32, 35; 3:28; Jn 1:1-18). Christ, as you know, cannot save apart from being Deity. To believe without understanding that Deity is implicit in the perfect obedience, death, and resurrection is not biblical belief. Obama, I would suggest, has not believed upon the Christ of Scripture.
I sent BHO a copy of my book in the hopes that a staffer might place it in his hands, and that he might read it and be pointed in the direction of the truth. Even more, I hope Tim Keller did the same with his book.
Thank you again for thinking.
ECR
LaShawn,
Did you seriously expect everyone to know the entire context of what you meant by “atheist”, or not know that it might seem odd that you would say such a thing?
I think that no matter WHAT a POTUS believes, if word gets out that he believes such and such a thing, he’s going to be questioned on it. People are going to find SOMETHING wrong with what they say, right?
Thank God Jesus didn’t have the same attitude of you by granting salvation to the thief on the cross during the crucifixion before the man repented of his thievery and do some “good works” in the eyes of man. His ways are not our ways.
We’re questioning the man’s salvation now? Lord, help the conservatives that are wayward, angry and religious with no spiritual revelation through the Holy Spirit.
This type of thinking is what has got us in the big mess this nation is in under Bush pimping Christians all in the name of “social conservatism”.
It’s time for Change – Obama ‘08
#37 Trish:
Ooops! I am not in any form an atheist. I wrote: “An atheist telling a Christian that he does not buy all the Bible hocus pocus is decidedly NOT anti-Christian.”
I believe the Bible. But I deal regularly with atheists of good will who are astounded that I am part of the “creation myth tribe.” I accept their skepticism and I ask them to accept my faith in return. Not being in conversion overdrive, I find that we can have vast differences and still be productive partners in many other affairs.
Trish, please forgive me if I misled you into thinking I am either and atheist or an agent of atheism.
I have taught and written in ethics, rhetoric and logic for many decades. I attempt to communicate clearly, but sometimes I strive for brevity and omit important clarifications.
I trained for a period with the Jesuits until I realized that I was not suited for being a member of the Society of Jesus. (My marriage and two children and flock of grandchildren have convinced me that I was right.)
Trish, I take strong exception to this: “You do, however, have one thing correct: atheism does not oppose all religion, because it is itself a religion, one with the most stringent of dogmas.
No dissent or reason is allowed. ”
I lecture at a major University and I am surrounded by atheists. Many are rude and elitists about people of religion, especially Christians and fundamentalist Christians in particular. But they are not a “religion.” There is no atheist church, theology, leader, creed, loose organization, or ritual. Some atheist jerks share an open disdain for people of faith. Some are over excited about the “wall of separation” and make outrageous claims about “militant Christian morality” and its abusive effects on the arts and expression. But the majority of atheists just avoid the discussion of religion all together.
I will spare you and all who read this a brief tour of the foundations of atheism. Once you have read Plato’s Republic, you have a fairly good grounding in the school of skepticism. It has always been among us and it will always be among us.
Thank you for addressing your concerns about what I wrote. I admire your thinking and writing ability and I am chagrined that I have misled you about my own faith. I would ask you to rethink the idea of atheist as enemy. The atheist is an incomplete person and with time and patience your Christian example may well make great inroads into his understanding.
It’s called discernment, hr. The thief on the cross expressed belief that Jesus was who he said he was. Obama’s belief doesn’t seem to extend that far. In so far as this relates to how he presents himself as a potential POTUS, this is relevant to consider before going into the voting booth.
If he were simply Joe Blow at your church, such a discernment is important to how you relate to them. His answers suggest he is either a Christian with flawed doctrine or an unbeliever who THINKS he’s a Christian. In the former case, it is your responsibility as a fellow Christian to help him get his thinking in line. In the latter case, it is your responsibility to share the Truth of the gospel and lead him to a right relationship with Christ. But if his answers did not raise the question in you as to whether he was really saved, you’d simply walk by him on Sunday morning, leaving him to either wallow in Biblical ignorance that could very well spread or keep others in their unbelief, or you could essentially allow your brother to remain damned.
Which is the greater wrong – to question his salvation, or to allow un-Biblical “Christianity” to contaminate what it is to be a follower of Jesus?
That’s exactly what I meant, Gabe. Thanks. I used to spend lots of time explaining myself to new readers or long-time readers who didn’t bother considering context. Those days are over. My entire blog speaks for itself. And I can always depend on commenters like you to set the record straight.
Glad I could help, LaShawn! I know you don’t really need a defender, as it were, but between my 5 sisters, mom, wife and daughter, I’ve become programmed to step in when a lady is besmirched (even tacitly so).
I got your back.
#38 Gregory Kong questions my comment:
Atheists are skeptics and an amorphous blob of humanity in that they are without organization or even common agreement in their skepticism.
The Nazis, the USSR, Pol Pot and others made a clear target of some believers of religion and meant to replace the state or dictator as the “dear leader” or supreme power. That form of organized atheism is obvious.
Show me the parallel of organized atheism in the United States. I submit that there may be an undercurrent of atheism, at best, but that nothing rises to the level of anti-Christianity from them.
I assiduously avoid the concept of agnostic, because it is of recent coinage and has no settled meaning. Please remember that atheists run the gamut from indifferent doubter to full-fledged dissenter and vocal taunter.
Who? Where? What proof?
Heliotrope..it’s cool. Your clarification to Trish cleared it up for me.
Heliotrope says:
“I assiduously avoid the concept of agnostic, because it is of recent coinage and has no settled meaning.”
You mean Gnosticism (yes I wrote Gnosticism) as defined or Gnosticism as practiced, because Huxley coined “agnostic” in response to it..right?
The definition dates to the mind of Thomas Huxley in 1869. Since then, many others have thrown their minds at the definition. Bertand Russell gave the following definition:
And these two differing “definitions” have been further muddled by the musings of William Blake, Carl Jung, Albert Camus, Hermann Hesse, Allen Ginsburg, Arthur Schopenhauer and other “deep thinkers”who all cleaved in some significant measure to gnostic thought. These people have been stuffed into the category of “philosophy” by some, but they were more engaged in the infant (still) “science” of psychology.
If the 1869 definition of agnostic were cemented in place, 140 years would suffice. But even Dan Brown has thrown his revisionism into the concept with his DiVinci Code. Good on Merriam-Webster for attempting to nail it down. Now if we could get the “philosophers” and encyclopedia writers to agree……..
Meanwhile, I treat the word “agnostic” like the word “fascist” and give it wide berth.
Interesting..
I imagine if, like the practice of surveying, you asked people if they were agnostic, you’d get the applied result verses the preference.. ie..I’d like to be an ISTJ but I’m really an ENTJ.
Oh, and to your point, as you are an educator.. how on earth do you teach at the University level?
For example, students come to our group to study Torah, Hebraic Roots, Messianic Aposticism (whatever the hell that is.. LOL) and fundamental Christianity hoping what.. I guess that they can go and teach others or improve their lives, but then go away confused, but learned.
I guess it’s possible to be learned and confused, but when a teacher encourages students to know and IMAGINE the Almighty, but to KNOW the Almighty, we get cussed out by a Rabbi for…well we haven’t figured out why yet.
Which is why, though we diverge on a few things, I can understand more than I’ve admitted to you, why being dogmatic has faults, not unlike the “Handwriting of Ordinances” that the Apostles spoke against so much.
Which means that how we behave is more important that what we PRETEND to know.
I’m babbling.
“Based on the entirety of LaShawn’s works in regards to her politics and her Christianity, it would be silly to assume that when she says “I would vote for an atheist if…,” she is speaking of someone who is virulently anti-Christian, like a Christopher Hitchens. It makes more sense that “atheist” in this regard is being used simply to describe someone who does not believe in God.”
La Shawn;“That’s exactly what I meant, Gabe. Thanks.”
Answered and explained…thanks
It appears that the fragments of the “atheist” grenade may have all spent themselves out and the smoke has begun to clear.
We all have the habit of reading our impressions into things when our hot buttons are activated. Please excuse just on last remark on the topic.
Christians can be judged against rigid and immovable standards. Atheists, having no creed or standards, are innocent of all assigned qualities until they reveal themselves one step at a time.
To forgo religious belief in deference to doubt is the minimal qualification for atheism. Until you know more about the individual atheist’s mind and soul, that is a sufficient description. To assume an atheist is an active denier or opposer or religion is to imbue him with power and blame he has neither merited nor demonstrated.
We have enough internecine conflict within the sects of Christianity over whether the organ should be painted or the bells and smells need updating that we don’t need to go forth all armed and ready against an atheist army that is indifferent or too lazy to answer roll call.
Dear heliotrope; Ah, so you question the definitions themselves also… right, gotcha.
And indeed, if that is the thrust of your argument, then I would have to agree. After all, Confucianism; Taoism; Buddhism, with their lack of church, theology, leader, creed, loose organization, or ritual, could also not be considered religions.
And certainly, the Romans accused Christians of being atheists, and the Athenians did the same to Socrates, so yes, I understand…
Gregory,
I will not follow you to lumping Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism with atheism.
Atheism is skepticism, which morphs into a conviction for some who then may become militantly convinced. (Margaret Sanger for instance.)
Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism are belief systems and have a modicum of unification. I have attended the MCU Buddhist University at Chang Mai in Thailand and I assure you that they have a very well developed theology. Their temples date back nearly a thousand years and their system of bringing young men through “monk training” is remarkable.
Perhaps the Great Atheist will appear one day and get the skeptics semi-organized. I doubt it. For the most part, atheists are a fairly lazy lot when it comes to their atheism.
As an aside, I notice that the American Atheist headquarters has suffered a failed roof and their books and materials got soaked. I would guess they see no irony in this. (Although I am fairly certain that they take notice when a church is hit by a tornado.)
If it is of any comfort, I believe that most anti-religion people are atheists. But I will not concede that atheists are anti-religion by definition. One can not construct that syllogism.
“As an aside, I notice that the American Atheist headquarters has suffered a failed roof and their books and materials got soaked. I would guess they see no irony in this. (Although I am fairly certain that they take notice when a church is hit by a tornado.)”
That is hilarious.. but true.
As is your absolute right to do so, heliotrope. I merely agree with you that definitions are important, and it certainly is true that differing definitionss will get you hilarious results.
My personal definition of atheism is pretty loose, but there are fellow Christian brethren out there who do not believe anyone other than a fellow Christian is a theist (literal belief in God, in this case, Jesus).
My mother having been brought up in a Buddhist/Taoist background, personally I would say that they are religions/belief systems.
Comments on this entry are closed.