does Barack Obama believe in the divinity of Christ?

[© tweed]

does Barack Obama believe in the divinity of Christ?

[© tweed]

why is this such a horrible thread?  I'm not trying to imply that he is a Muslim.  I just find his wording to be interesting when speaking of his religious background/affiliation...

I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change.


...which sounds to me as if he may view Christianity as a vehicle for social reform.  that isn't mutually exclusive with believing in the divinity of Christ, by any means, but it doesn't sound like he was "called" (as jmfcst claims to have been, for example).

[© tweed]

why is this such a horrible thread?  I'm not trying to imply that he is a Muslim.  I just find his wording to be interesting when speaking of his religious background/affiliation...

I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change.


...which sounds to me as if he may view Christianity as a vehicle for social reform.  that isn't mutually exclusive with believing in the divinity of Christ, by any means, but it doesn't sound like he was "called" (as jmfcst claims to have been, for example).

"I'm not trying to imply that he's a muslim"  That's getting so old.  Reminds me of a Seinfeld episode.  "...not that there's anything wrong with that."  No one is claiming that you implied he's a muslim.  I certainly didn't.  And even if he is a Muslim, I have no problem with that.  The fact that it did occur to you to utter that statement, though, is a bit disconcerting, and adds to the weirdness of the thread.  But it was already weird before you typed that.

First, it doesn't belong in this board.  It would be great under "off-topic" stuff, or maybe even "general US discussion" (that's a stretch), but it certainly doesn't belong here.

Also, and more importantly, who can say whether Obama believes in the divinity of Christ?  Who can say whether any man believes in the divinity of Christ?  Who can say what another believes about anything?  And who cares?  Maybe you do, but it's a highly philosophical question--one that probably different sects of Christians have gone to war over, maybe when they're not busy fighting over whether it's legal to divorce the Queen or whether women can be altar boys, or whatever different sects of Christians fight over these days--but it's not a question that any of us can answer.  I suspect you already know all this, and are just looking for data--Some correlation between answers and demographic, as evidenced by the choices you offer--but it still doesn't belong in this board.  And that's my only objection.  But, like elcorazon, I also find it a bit awful, since it serves no practical purpose because it cannot be objectively answered by anyone other than one person, and that person is probably too busy to be posting here. 

It's like me putting up a poll, in this board, asking whether my dog is gay.  Because (1) none of you know whether my dog is gay, and (2) my dog's sexual orientation has nothing to do with the Presidential Election of 2008, and (3) so what if he's gay?, and (4) I wouldn't have a fucking dog.  Dogs are nasty.  I'm still amazed that there are people who let them live in their houses.  Bizarre.  I could understand it if this were 30,000 BC and we lived in a hut made of ivory mammoth tusks and a floor made of bear skins and pissed in our own soupbowls, and we were hunting mammoths in an ice-covered part of what is now the Crimean Penninsula, and we depended on the wolves to help us find, and kill, mammoths.  But I live in a suburb, with a well-manicured lawn that I don't want dug up and shat upon, and I have an electronic alarm system, I get my meat at a supermarket from a butcher, and I have the bright, glowing images on my television to keep me company.  So whether it's gay, straight or asexual, I still have no use for them.  And I certainly wouldn't want the filthy beasts pissing on my carpet and getting fleas on my bed.  That's all I'm saying.

if your dog was a candidate in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election, a discussion of his sexuality may well be justifiably located in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election topic board.  besides that, this reads as your patented entertaining ramble, though with an usually high dosage of vitriol, so I can't quite find a groove to respond to the rest of it.  sorry!!

[© tweed]

why do you assume that the only reason for a person to attend church if they don't believe in the divinity of christ is political ambition?

On a regular basis for decades? Sure, there are some people (even in this island where the social pressure to go to church is dead even though religious sentiment certainly isn't) who don't believe but do so anyway for entirely sincere cultural reasons, but Obama doesn't seem like that sort of person. And they tend to be quite open about things.

I still think you're presenting a series of false dichotomies here...

Obama may well believe in Christianity as a set of principles and as a moral code, and as a vehicle for social reform, without believing that Christ was divine (and even perhaps feeling that instead the entire story is a metaphor).  I know self-described Christians who feel like this.

[© tweed]

When running for office he has, quite clearly, indicated that he's a believing Christian in ways that other believing Christians were obviously supposed to, er, "get", even if other people don't. If that was at all fraudulent (and I don't think it is), then he's a fraud, a monster and the worst sort of cynic.

if it were 'fraudulent' I am completely confident that he would not be alone in fabricating religious belief for political expediency - and by far not the worst offender.

[© tweed]

He is most probably an atheist. Although he most probably believes in a little bit of Christianity. And being an atheist is absolutely great. We dont need more religious crap, and those centuries of brainwashing stories any more. We need a President that will rule by justice and fairness, not based on religious ideas. I say this now and I will say it again and again "Die religion die".

It's good to see the atheists upholding logic consistence and rationality.

so you take one guy's moronic opinion and label it as "the atheists" "upholding logic consistence and rationality?"  how is that fair?

imagine if I took the words of David Duke and said "it's good to see the Christians upholding compassion and rationality!!"  how would that be received?

[© tweed]

He is most probably an atheist. Although he most probably believes in a little bit of Christianity. And being an atheist is absolutely great. We dont need more religious crap, and those centuries of brainwashing stories any more. We need a President that will rule by justice and fairness, not based on religious ideas. I say this now and I will say it again and again "Die religion die".

It's good to see the atheists upholding logic consistence and rationality.

so you take one guy's moronic opinion and label it as "the atheists" "upholding logic consistence and rationality?"  how is that fair?

imagine if I took the words of David Duke and said "it's good to see the Christians upholding compassion and rationality!!"  how would that be received?

If you were debating with David Duke directly and he said "I'm a Christian and I hate atheists because they are not compassionate and rational" I wouldn't have a problem with you citing an example of how he is not those things and using the above line. I don't think a lot of rational people would.

why bring into it, all of the atheists?  why not just states, "it's good to see an atheist..." rather than "it's good to see the atheists..."? 

[© tweed]

You must have grown thin-skinned from all your controversies today. I had already posted an answer to another stupid atheist in this thread and had read other posts that were border-line. So I used the plural somewhat subconsciously. In the context "the atheists" must not be interpreted as "all atheists". It's like when you say "the cavalry has arrived!" you don't necessarily mean all the cavalry in the world, you know?

it really isn't, but ok.  I'm not saying your wording was intentionally malicious, but simply, unnecessary.  if I had said something such as "the Christians" in an inverted context I am sure I would have been jumped all over and labeled an overgeneralizing bigot.  such is the nature of the universe, I suppose.