Peoples personal values can change…
“Is President Obama a Christian, or not?”
Richard Land says: “You can`t know that without talking to him…”
Surely there`s enough evidence in his public statements and his actions to give a straight answer!!!
Personal values always change unless one is a Luddite idiot and is of completely closed mind and unwilling to learn as a human being. For most people, this stops in adulthood, as very few people are willing to publicly “go wherever the argument leads”, as in my religious travails, or in the about-face of Christopher Hitchens from insane leftist/communist to something else - very publicly, and lost his job for it.
But, in any individual, compare the personal values of a twelve-year-old with those of a twenty-year-old. They’re not the same. But sin is immutable. Is Obama a Christian? Went to a racist church, tries to appease Muslims in all things, and speaks of the “Holy Qur’an”, pronounced in the authentic Arabic manner, in several of his speeches. Enough to make me doubt. I don’t think he’s a Muslim, but just an irreligious member of the “We’re a
Black Supremacist Non-judgmental Interfaith Ecumenical Church for the Age Where We Believe Religion is Irrelevant Even Though Militant Islam is Knocking at the Door”
Obama’s definition of sin is not the Christian definition of sin.
“Jesus was a historical figure,” :eek: Really? Is that the best he can answer? I always heard that answer from people that respect Jesus, but aren’t Christian. But he calls himself Christian, and that he is influenced by everything else out there. It does sound like he picks and chooses from everything to support what OBAMA values, even what “Jesus says…” If he goes to bed at night believing he has transferred what he values to his daughters, not necessarily the principles of “his faith,” he is happy. Just because a person believes something is not against his values, doesn’t mean it is not a sin. (Unless they are the head of their own religion.)
Here we go again: is he a Christian isn’t he? Would someone please define the word “Christian”? Far as I know, it describes someone baptized in the name of Christ. You’d think religious organizations would all use the same definition but who knows? Obama’s a special case so maybe he needs a unique, cloudy definition that changes with the political tide…
Also, nowhere in the interview do I see him saying “my personal values”; he said “my values”. Assuming one is a Christian, one’s values are Christian ones, no?
I wonder how Christian it is to play word games with an 8 yr old interview for the purpose of putting another’s faith in doubt? Does that step outside of ‘historic Christianity’? Hmm, might that make Baptist Press a possible Muslim organization…?
Christian is another word for Nicene. There are plenty of people baptized in the name of Christ who aren’t even nominal Christians - such as Jesus Name Pentecostals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormons - for one, after the apostolic times, the only valid baptism is a Trinitarian one. And plenty baptized in the name of the Trinity that don’t give two whits about their faith or what it teaches, but call themselves “Christian” - thus, “nominally” (“by name”).
“Nicenean” would be a better descriptor of the creed of our faith, but that’s why it is a creed. Christian was given to us as a mocking slur and repurposed to honor the founder of our religion, God made man. In context, “my values” means exactly the opposite of “sin, as in sin”, or “what Christianity teaches”, or “the Bible”, or “the Church”. It means, “my relativistic values, open to reinterpretation: nothing is really a sin in an absolute sense, but they wouldn’t elect me if I said that.”
I’ll edit that and say Christianity - in the broadest sense - is Niceno-Constantinopolo-Chalcedonian, at the minimum. From the Creed, and the definition of Christ. Those who aren’t Nicene and Chalcedonian are not Christian.
It really isn’t that complicated. You don’t have to know the meanings of multisyllable words to define a Christian. Here is Fr Serpa’s answer: forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=649742&highlight=christian.
Since the president is a Christian by what the Church teaches (unless of course someone wants to challenge the validity of his baptism), then I see no reason “my values” means anything other than the values every Christian holds. The interviewer could have asked him to clarify, but since he didn’t, we have no basis on which to take a negative interpretation.
P.S. I hear conservatives talk of their values all the time. Is ‘our values’ ever equated to personal, relativistic, un-Christian ones? Even by liberals, it is usually automatically assumed that they are referring to religious values.
For anyone interested, here is the full transcript of the 2004 interview
My name is Miss linda, i will like to have a good relationship with you please write me with my ID (email@example.com)
so that i will send you my photo and tell you about me.
It is not being baptized in the name of Christ, but in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. As Khalid said only the Trinitarian formula constitutes a valid baptism.
I remember a homily by a holy priest from Trinity Sunday of perhaps ten years ago on Matthew 16 13-17.
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.
If this is not what you believe about Jesus, you are not a Christian, even if you include the name of Jesus in the title of your church like the Mormons, or believe that Jesus was the the annointed one, but not the Son of God, like the Muslims.
So, was the president baptized according to the Trinitarian formula? Funny how I don’t ever seem to hear the “is he a Christian” crowd asking that question?
This is like the point that CMatt loves to bring up (re: being Catholic). However, when people say things like “He’s not a Christian”, the unspoken words usually mean “He doesn’t appear to believe what Christians profess.” These aren’t statements about the actuality of any indelible Christian mark, but about whether his actions/beliefs are in sync with Christian thought.
Peter Kreeft makes this point in his book Socratic Logic. We should address the point made, or ask for clarification of terms (which you did early in the thread), rather than divert the argument.
That’s the greater part of what “Nicene” means. “Trinitarian”. Like the Nicene Creed, which I believe all Catholics are supposed to have memorized, like the Paternoster. The Nicene creed we have today is actually from the Council of Constantinople, which is why I added “Constantinopolitan”. It’s called the “Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed”.
“Chalcedonian” means that you believe Jesus was both fully God and fully Man, because “what was not assumed [incarnated] can not be redeemed”.
Essentially, a “Niceno-Constantinopolo-Chalcedonian” is a Trinitarian who is not a Monophysite, a Eutychian, or a Nestorian.
If the President was baptized in the Trinitarian formula, he was a Christian. If he still believes in the Trinity and that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully Man, and the other articles of faith, he is still a Christian (if not, he is an apostate or an heretic - being baptized may mark you, but it doesn’t protect you from apostasy or heresy). Based on his political actions, he is a poor Christian (but not as bad a Catholic as Nancy Pelosi - she better not be allowed communion).
I remember what Paul said about those who preach another gospel, even if he is an angel from heaven, they are damned to Hell, and then I find it funny how the Book of Mormon has, right on its cover in massive, bold letters, ANOTHER GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST, and how no one realizes that and they still gain converts.
It is of little importance whether or not we grant Obama the title Christian based on his Trinitarian baptism (assuming that is what he received). What is monumentally more significant is the fact that he clearly does not understand sin, nor what Christian values are. And we don’t know this only by way of this interview, nor from every other interview in which he clearly muffles and contorts the true meaning of Christian. We know this from the public witness of his political body of work. So, sure, let’s grant him the name “Christian” on account of his baptism. But do not be naive enough to think his values equate to the values that “every Christian holds”. That is patently false.
It says a lot to me that he does not admit that Jesus is God, that he only professes that Jesus is a mediator between us and God:
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 is your opinion. I’m hard pressed to believe that we’ve applied this level of scrutiny to the professed faith of any other public figure - not even Church leaders and certainly not previous presidents or other political figures (other than perhaps Pelosi et al; though, despite frequent talk of excommunication, I never see it asked if she is a Christian - only whether she is faithful to Church teaching). Does what we do sync with the seal with which we were stamped? A good question to apply, but let it apply to all, not just to “the One”. Any limited application would be rank hypocrisy.
He’s Christian? …I say AMEN! He’s a Christian with issues then. Not uncommon either.
That is precisely my point. People do things regarded as un-Christian all the time in the public sphere. I see them loudly criticized but I hear nobody ask whether he or she is a Christian: not Ms Fluke of recent fame, not Rush Limbaugh, not convicted felons, disgraced politicians or even condemned criminals. I simply never see the question of synchrony between religious beliefs and personal actions, phrased in that way except with regard to the president.