The Promise of Obama

Open discussion on general Baptist-related topics of interest to Baptists around the world.

Moderator: David Flick

The Promise of Obama

Postby Stephen Fox » Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:59 pm

Finally, one feels in Obama's books as well as his speeches the presence of that iconic American, Abraham Lincoln, whom he sometimes names and sometimes namelessly invokes. In The Audacity of Hope, he tells of having once received a rebuke ("not entirely undeserved") for presumptuously likening himself in print to Lincoln. On his first visit to the White House as a freshman senator, he tells us, Lincoln appeared to him as a ghostly figure "pacing the hall, shouldering the weight of a nation," the moral and political genius who managed to maintain "within himself the balance between two contradictory ideas--that we must talk and reach for common understandings, precisely because all of us are imperfect and can never act with the certainty that God is on our side; and yet at times we must act nonetheless, as if we are certain, protected from error only by providence."

This description of Lincoln as a man of self-doubt yet with an unswerving sense of mission is as instructive as it is insightful. Obama seems to have composed his public life in conscious emulation of Lincoln. He announced his candidacy in Springfield and delivered his speech on race in Philadelphia, where Lincoln, en route to his first inauguration, gave a great speech on the Declaration of Independence as America's secular scripture. In his victory speech on the night of clinching the Democratic nomination, Obama incorporated or played variations on several phrases from Lincoln--"the last full measure of devotion," "the last best hope of earth," "the better angels of our nature."

To some, it all seems calculated and hubristic, and they will no doubt continue to detect in his style a self-involved inwardness. But, to me, it feels like heartfelt homage from someone with a keen sense of the complexities and commonalities of human experience. On the hopeful premise that style really does tell us something about the man, this man--to my ear, at least--is the real deal.




Andrew Delbanco teaches at Columbia, where he is Levi Professor in the Humanities and director of American Studies.






From Andrew Delbanco in current Quaker Oats issue of http://www.tnr.com . Just click on current issue and click on article.

Should answer Rick Wright and other's fair minded reservations.

No secret I was strongly leaning toward Obama; this analysis pretty much seals the deal; though I am resigned to the fact Jim and Jonathan will never see the Light.

High time for Barbara Dooley to make an endorsement. Dean Rusk up above is wondering what is she waiting for.
"I'm the only sane {person} in here." Doyle Hargraves, Slingblade
"Midget, Broom; Helluva campaign". Political consultant, "Oh, Brother..."


http://www.foxofbama.blogspot.com or google asfoxseesit
Stephen Fox
 
Posts: 3930
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Re: The Promise of Obama

Postby Jonathan » Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:29 am

Stephen Fox wrote:
Finally, one feels in Obama's books as well as his speeches the presence of that iconic American, Abraham Lincoln, whom he sometimes names and sometimes namelessly invokes. In The Audacity of Hope, he tells of having once received a rebuke ("not entirely undeserved") for presumptuously likening himself in print to Lincoln. On his first visit to the White House as a freshman senator, he tells us, Lincoln appeared to him as a ghostly figure "pacing the hall, shouldering the weight of a nation," the moral and political genius who managed to maintain "within himself the balance between two contradictory ideas--that we must talk and reach for common understandings, precisely because all of us are imperfect and can never act with the certainty that God is on our side; and yet at times we must act nonetheless, as if we are certain, protected from error only by providence."

This description of Lincoln as a man of self-doubt yet with an unswerving sense of mission is as instructive as it is insightful. Obama seems to have composed his public life in conscious emulation of Lincoln. He announced his candidacy in Springfield and delivered his speech on race in Philadelphia, where Lincoln, en route to his first inauguration, gave a great speech on the Declaration of Independence as America's secular scripture. In his victory speech on the night of clinching the Democratic nomination, Obama incorporated or played variations on several phrases from Lincoln--"the last full measure of devotion," "the last best hope of earth," "the better angels of our nature."

To some, it all seems calculated and hubristic, and they will no doubt continue to detect in his style a self-involved inwardness. But, to me, it feels like heartfelt homage from someone with a keen sense of the complexities and commonalities of human experience. On the hopeful premise that style really does tell us something about the man, this man--to my ear, at least--is the real deal.




Andrew Delbanco teaches at Columbia, where he is Levi Professor in the Humanities and director of American Studies.






From Andrew Delbanco in current Quaker Oats issue of http://www.tnr.com . Just click on current issue and click on article.

Should answer Rick Wright and other's fair minded reservations.

No secret I was strongly leaning toward Obama; this analysis pretty much seals the deal; though I am resigned to the fact Jim and Jonathan will never see the Light.

High time for Barbara Dooley to make an endorsement. Dean Rusk up above is wondering what is she waiting for.


All that's left for Obama to do is to begin healing the sick and restoring sight to the blind with mere the touch of his hand.

After reading the Delbanco piece, I'm looking for a dry heaves emoticon.
"There is a simple way to get corporate money out of politics: get the government out of our lives and economic affairs. If government has no favors to sell, no one will spend money trying to win them." - John Stossel
Jonathan
 
Posts: 4209
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:31 am

Re: The Promise of Obama

Postby Jim » Sun Jun 29, 2008 2:07 pm

Delbanco via Foxy: On his first visit to the White House as a freshman senator, he [Obama] tells us [in the sacred book of "Obamam," the Audacity of Hope as inspired by the Rev. Dr. Saint Jeremiah] Lincoln appeared to him as a ghostly figure "pacing the hall, shouldering the weight of a nation,"

J: Iranian President (and resident be-header) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had a similar experience in January 2006 as he was delivering that famous speech at the UN…something about having a vision of the Mahdi (maybe had a beard like Lincoln's), being bathed in a light from heaven, according to the butcher-boy, though some wag suggested the light came from the TV camera-people. More likely, the big A had been too long at his hookah that morning, sucking in a bit of opiate. If Obama thought he saw a ghost of any kind that day at the White House, he might have been too long at a luau bar drinking kickapoo-joy-juice, as Mammy Yokum would have it. In any case, if Eagleton had to kicked off the ticket in 1972 from the veep position because he had received electrical shock treatments, and Obama has been seeing ghosts by his own admission, maybe the democrats had better take another look. Hillary Rodham would not be a possibility since anyone dumb enough to blow $12.5 million on a losing ego-trip is in even worse shape than the delusional Barack Hussein. Maybe they should turn to Kucinich, who has now managed resolutions of impeachment against both Cheney and the cowboy. He's the one "pacing the hall, shouldering the weight of a nation," not Obama or Lincoln's ghost. Of course, Obama might have had his vision in the Lincoln Bedroom while assessing its nightly rental a la the Clinton operation.

Delbanco via Foxy: Obama seems to have composed his public life in conscious emulation of Lincoln.

J: Obviously, Delbanco is even more delusional than Obama and Ahmadinejad, but, after all, he's a Columbia University professor, a prime requirement of being such that one be totally detached from reality. Should one suppose that Obama doesn't know that Lincoln actually suspended the writ of habeas corpus three times, at least? Nah…that would have forced him to see the Mahdi or maybe the ghost of Benedict Arnold stalking George Washington, visiting an illusion, of course, of a future White House. Come to think of it, maybe the Big O and the Big A would hit it right off, both of them suffering the same malady. Perhaps that's why Obama insists on having that tete-a-tete with Ahmadinejad…compare notes…and visions, of course.
Jim
 
Posts: 2516
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: The Promise of Obama

Postby ET » Sun Jun 29, 2008 3:13 pm

I suggest instead of the article in the New Republic, you read the commentary below. It applies to folks of all political stripes.

Misplaced Hope Can Be Dangerous
Can too much trust in a politician also be dangerous and lead to despair, even cynicism? Those old enough to recall the political scene in the '60s when first John F. Kennedy and then his brother, Robert, were assassinated, know the dangers of hope and what can happen when such hope is crushed. In the '60s, crushed hope produced rebellion, even anarchy, along with despair.
*****
The "hope" being sold by Obama and his true believers is misplaced. Obama cannot deliver; he cannot save; he cannot improve individual circumstances by redistributing wealth and talking to America's dictatorial enemies. He is selling snake oil.

The writer of the New Testament Book of Hebrews says that, "faith is being sure of what we hope for" (Hebrews 11:1). What we see in Barack Obama is a man with great rhetorical skills, who is untested in battle. Many are projecting their hopes on him because he makes them feel good. What commander would put a low-ranking officer in charge of all troops during wartime? We are close to making Obama our commander in chief with no hint of how he might perform, other than to withdraw troops from Iraq.

A President Obama might be worth the risk in peacetime, but with crafty enemies seeking to destroy us, can we afford to make what might be a fatal mistake by electing someone upon whom too many of us gave projected, ungrounded hope?


Upon what other than rhetorical skills does anyone believe Obama is going to accomplish what Fox any others believe him to do? I'm "hoping" he'll govern just as his most-liberal-in-the-Senate record reflects...and causes a cleaning of the House like in '94.
Last edited by ET on Sun Jun 29, 2008 11:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.
***
"There is usually only a limited amount of damage that can be done by dull or stupid people. For creating a truly monumental disaster, you need people with high IQs." - economist Thomas Sowell
User avatar
ET
 
Posts: 1534
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:20 pm
Location: Cordova, TN

Re: The Promise of Obama

Postby Haruo » Sun Jun 29, 2008 6:05 pm

Jonathan wrote:
Stephen Fox, quoting Delbanco, wrote:
Finally, one feels in Obama's books as well as his speeches the presence of that iconic American, Abraham Lincoln, whom he sometimes names and sometimes namelessly invokes.

All that's left for Obama to do is to begin healing the sick and restoring sight to the blind with mere the touch of his hand.

I'd forgotten Abraham Lincoln was the one who did that stuff. Sounds somehow more like George Washington. ;-)

Haruo
Haruo (呂須春男) aka Leland Bryant Ross — visit My hymnblog
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist Church Website (I'm the webmaster!)
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6499
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:21 pm
Location: Seattle

some of yall

Postby Stephen Fox » Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:08 pm

need to read the entire article before showing your disdain for this remarkable political moment.
"I'm the only sane {person} in here." Doyle Hargraves, Slingblade
"Midget, Broom; Helluva campaign". Political consultant, "Oh, Brother..."


http://www.foxofbama.blogspot.com or google asfoxseesit
Stephen Fox
 
Posts: 3930
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Re: some of yall

Postby Jonathan » Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:18 pm

Stephen Fox wrote:need to read the entire article before showing your disdain for this remarkable political moment.


No, Stephen. What you need to do is examine what it is about Obama that draws you. So far, all you've pointed to is hype and the hope of the 1000 folks he'll bring with him (whatever that means). Substance, Stephen, substance. That's the stuff that you can only get to by doing more than pointing to editorials that others write or by proclaiming names like Moyers and Gushee as though their very names carried some sort of debate ending power.

So far, I'm still the only one here who believes that you even have the capacity to get there on your own...and you continue to try to prove me wrong with each post.
"There is a simple way to get corporate money out of politics: get the government out of our lives and economic affairs. If government has no favors to sell, no one will spend money trying to win them." - John Stossel
Jonathan
 
Posts: 4209
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:31 am

No bonnie bonnie for Jonathan

Postby Stephen Fox » Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:31 pm

You take your road
And I'll take my road
And me and Moyers and Daschle and Obama will
Get there without you

Cause you and Richard Land
Long time ago
Decided to forgo
the bonny bonny banks
of this political moment

Sing it to yourself to the tune of the Bonny Bonnie banks of whatever the place is
"I'm the only sane {person} in here." Doyle Hargraves, Slingblade
"Midget, Broom; Helluva campaign". Political consultant, "Oh, Brother..."


http://www.foxofbama.blogspot.com or google asfoxseesit
Stephen Fox
 
Posts: 3930
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Re: some of yall

Postby rickwright01 » Sun Jun 29, 2008 11:04 pm

Stephen Fox wrote:need to read the entire article before showing your disdain for this remarkable political moment.


R: A dangerous rhetorical move I often see all across the theological/political spectrum is the assumption that people disagree with us because they must be ignorant. They must be. They know less. They are less intelligent. They have less information. They have read less. If they would only be more educated, more intelligent, get more information (the information we will provide) and read more (the articles and books we say they must read) then they would agree with us. Right?

Sometimes that might be the case. But how often is there someone that - if we are honest with them and with ourselves - is at least if not more informed, educated, intelligent, well read?

How do we know Jonathan has not read something? And if he has read it and still thinks the same... will we suddenly say "oh - well now I take your disdain seriously"? Why set conditions that when met frankly make no difference? ("Sign this statement or you can't work for us". And after they do? Are they safe? Thought not. "Agree with me on all these other issues or I will not listen to your anti-abortion views". And if they do? Do they listen? Just asking.) And who can set conditions for you? And will you make as much effort to meet them as you expect others to meet yours?

This is a trap I sometimes fall into myself. I see liberals do it. Conservatives do it. Evolutionists do it. Creationists and Intelligent Design supporters do it. (Louisiana SB 733 comes to mind.) Earthlings do it. People from Alpha Centauri do it.

Such a mindset is by definition anti-rational. (If rationality - by definition - includes being open to all information and argumentation which may support or challenge.) Sometimes they disagree with us because they are ignorant (in some form). But it is dangerous a priori to assume this.
Resist Creon.
"It is now considered patriotic to celebrate our own evisceration." (Gary Graham at Bighollywood.Breitbart.Com)
User avatar
rickwright01
 
Posts: 844
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baton Rouge, LA

More Light on Obama

Postby Stephen Fox » Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:34 pm

http://thatbaptistaintright.blogspot.co ... ot_30.html

Read this blog; will help you go toward the Light :lol: :brick:
"I'm the only sane {person} in here." Doyle Hargraves, Slingblade
"Midget, Broom; Helluva campaign". Political consultant, "Oh, Brother..."


http://www.foxofbama.blogspot.com or google asfoxseesit
Stephen Fox
 
Posts: 3930
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Re: The Promise of Obama

Postby ET » Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:33 pm

Fox, do you just enjoy posting intellectually dishonest propaganda? Or do you just like to stir the pot so much that you have no problem posting lies? Thomas bases his column on an interview Obama gave in 2004.

Thomas writes in the concluding paragraph:
Obama can call himself anything he likes, but there is a clear requirement for one to qualify as a Christian and Obama doesn't meet that requirement. One cannot deny central tenets of the Christian faith, including the deity and uniqueness of Christ as the sole mediator between God and Man and be a Christian. Such people do have a label applied to them in Scripture. They are called "false prophets"


Now for the intellectually dishonest part from the blog Fox links:
If you want to discredit a guy based on his politics, do so. Blast away. Discredit him all you want. But to criticize a candidate because he is not Christian enough for you is to be un-American. Obama is running for President, not Pastor in Chief. There is a reason why the Constitution has a "no religious test" provision --- to make sure Pharisees don't select our political leaders.

Thomas stated FACTS about what Obama has claimed are his beliefs - and those beliefs are not those of the historical Christian faith. Either the guy holds to basic tenets of the historical Christian faith or he does not. It's got absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he qualifies for President. Just as Mike Huckabee didn't automatically get my vote because he was a Southern Baptist minister running for President, Obama doesn't get my vote just because so many are tossing the poltical savior mantle upon him.

Thomas makes no implication that Obama's religious beliefs have anything to do with whether or not he qualifies to hold the office of President, but when a political candidate makes a play to court those voters with beliefs that are grounded in historical Christian doctrine and implies that he is one of them, then he is not above having his beliefs examined. Thomas' issue is solely with Obama calling himself Christian and yet believing things that have not been associated with historical Christianity. One only need to read the Thomas article to read the interview excerpts that cause Thomas to question Obama wearing the "Christian" label. At best Obama would be a "cultural Christian" - rooted in its values, but not holding to its core, historical beliefs.

Lastly, please note that the blogger states: "Cal Thomas has written a piece at Baptist Press blasting Obama for not being Christian."

Another falsehood. Cal Thomas didn't write a piece at Baptist Press. Baptist Press picked up the syndicated column. If the blogger had even bothered to make it all the way to the bottom of the piece, he would have noticed the copyright at the bottom:
Cal Thomas is a Tribune Media Services syndicated columnist. Copyright Tribune Media Services.

I originally read the commentary at TownHall.com, so to imply that it was some hit piece by Thomas for Baptist Press is dishonest.

You'd do better to show a little more discretion in what you post.
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.
***
"There is usually only a limited amount of damage that can be done by dull or stupid people. For creating a truly monumental disaster, you need people with high IQs." - economist Thomas Sowell
User avatar
ET
 
Posts: 1534
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:20 pm
Location: Cordova, TN

Re: The Promise of Obama

Postby Ed Pettibone » Wed Jul 02, 2008 9:42 pm

ET wrote:Fox, do you just enjoy posting intellectually dishonest propaganda? Or do you just like to stir the pot so much that you have no problem posting lies? Thomas bases his column on an interview Obama gave in 2004.

Thomas writes in the concluding paragraph:
Obama can call himself anything he likes, but there is a clear requirement for one to qualify as a Christian and Obama doesn't meet that requirement. One cannot deny central tenets of the Christian faith, including the deity and uniqueness of Christ as the sole mediator between God and Man and be a Christian. Such people do have a label applied to them in Scripture. They are called "false prophets"


Now for the intellectually dishonest part from the blog Fox links:
If you want to discredit a guy based on his politics, do so. Blast away. Discredit him all you want. But to criticize a candidate because he is not Christian enough for you is to be un-American. Obama is running for President, not Pastor in Chief. There is a reason why the Constitution has a "no religious test" provision --- to make sure Pharisees don't select our political leaders.

Thomas stated FACTS about what Obama has claimed are his beliefs - and those beliefs are not those of the historical Christian faith. Either the guy holds to basic tenets of the historical Christian faith or he does not. It's got absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he qualifies for President. Just as Mike Huckabee didn't automatically get my vote because he was a Southern Baptist minister running for President, Obama doesn't get my vote just because so many are tossing the political savior mantle upon him.

Thomas makes no implication that Obama's religious beliefs have anything to do with whether or not he qualifies to hold the office of President, but when a political candidate makes a play to court those voters with beliefs that are grounded in historical Christian doctrine and implies that he is one of them, then he is not above having his beliefs examined. Thomas' issue is solely with Obama calling himself Christian and yet believing things that have not been associated with historical Christianity. One only need to read the Thomas article to read the interview excerpts that cause Thomas to question Obama wearing the "Christian" label. At best Obama would be a "cultural Christian" - rooted in its values, but not holding to its core, historical beliefs.

Lastly, please note that the blogger states: "Cal Thomas has written a piece at Baptist Press blasting Obama for not being Christian."

Another falsehood. Cal Thomas didn't write a piece at Baptist Press. Baptist Press picked up the syndicated column. If the blogger had even bothered to make it all the way to the bottom of the piece, he would have noticed the copyright at the bottom:
Cal Thomas is a Tribune Media Services syndicated columnist. Copyright Tribune Media Services.

I originally read the commentary at TownHall.com, so to imply that it was some hit piece by Thomas for Baptist Press is dishonest.

You'd do better to show a little more discretion in what you post.


Ed P; And E.T., just what should Fox expect if he does not follow your advice.

In the article by Cal Thomas we find this;
Falsani adds, "Obama doesn't believe he, or anyone else, will go to hell. But he's not sure he'll be going to heaven, either." And Cal's commentary; "Again, that is contrary to what Evangelicals and most Catholics believe."

Is Thomas suggesting that Evangelicals and Catholics are the final arbitrators of who will or will not go to either Heaven or Hell? Is he suggesting that these two groups are the only theologically correct "Christians"? If so how does he handle their theological differences. BTW, I am not persuaded that he can not demonstrate that all Evangelicals and Catholics share his belief on this. I am not an Obama fan.
Some times I can agree with Cal but here I think he is using religion just as inappropriately as he accuses Obama of doing.
Last edited by Ed Pettibone on Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 7411
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

RRick Wrights and Jonathan's case for McCain

Postby Stephen Fox » Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:06 pm

What is it?

I think he is a nice guy; shoulda been the GOP nominee in 2000.
But between the two, Obama and McCain where is the sheen on McCain.
And name me some folks you think McCain willbring to govern with him that begin to compare to the possibilities for Obama.

Wish you fellows had more time to read stuff that makes a difference, has real pragmatic progressive implications in this remarkable moment; but I guess you don't.
Presheate yall, I really do; but history is moving you into insignificance and I really don't have the time to explainit toyou if you can't see the so obvious.

And ET: Baptistaintright takes anonymous comments at his blog. You may want to go there and engage him. I just posted your response above on his blog; and in the past he has made infrequent comments here at bl.com
Last edited by Stephen Fox on Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I'm the only sane {person} in here." Doyle Hargraves, Slingblade
"Midget, Broom; Helluva campaign". Political consultant, "Oh, Brother..."


http://www.foxofbama.blogspot.com or google asfoxseesit
Stephen Fox
 
Posts: 3930
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Re: The Promise of Obama

Postby Big Daddy Weaver » Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:10 pm

ET,

I did read all the way to the bottom of the piece - painful as that was. And I put together during the early hours of Monday morning a nice little blog post about Cal Thomas complete with a video.

I titled it:

A Portrait of Inconsistency: Cal Thomas on Obama
http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com

"We do not serve well the causes we say we believe in by ignoring the continuing devastation of fundamentalism running rampant." - Stan Hastey
Big Daddy Weaver
 
Posts: 1882
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 1:15 am
Location: Waco, TX

Re: The Promise of Obama

Postby Haruo » Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:48 pm

Big Daddy Weaver wrote:ET,

I did read all the way to the bottom of the piece - painful as that was. And I put together during the early hours of Monday morning a nice little blog post about Cal Thomas complete with a video.

I titled it:

A Portrait of Inconsistency: Cal Thomas on Obama

Solid, straightforward refutation of Thomas's standing to raise the question, and BP's honorableness in carrying it. Thanks, BDiddy.

Haruo
who doesn't think any of the four evangelists or any of the Twelve met Thomas's criteria for avoiding the false prophet label, either...
Haruo (呂須春男) aka Leland Bryant Ross — visit My hymnblog
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist Church Website (I'm the webmaster!)
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6499
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Truett Scholar on Cal Thomas

Postby Stephen Fox » Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:56 pm

Dr. Glenn Jonas said...
Ken,
You must not have read the same thing I read. There is a clear inconsistency in Cal Thomas' words driven more by a political agenda than a theological one. In fact, Thomas is doing the same thing that Fundamentalists (and Religious Right partisans) have done for 30 years. They are using theology to their benefit to drive a secular political agenda. It started with Reagan. I think it is shameless. Perhaps Christians are finally getting wise to this political trick.

Et, Jonathan, RWright, et al:

Jonas teaches at Tony Cartledge's Campbell Div. He is a leading Baptist scholar on George Truett.
How sweet a world it would be if you three had the capacity to "get" what BDid and Jonas understand.

SFox

The above comment by Glenn Jonas was on Bdid's Blogline
"I'm the only sane {person} in here." Doyle Hargraves, Slingblade
"Midget, Broom; Helluva campaign". Political consultant, "Oh, Brother..."


http://www.foxofbama.blogspot.com or google asfoxseesit
Stephen Fox
 
Posts: 3930
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Re: The Promise of Obama

Postby ET » Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:24 pm

Ed Pettibone wrote:Is Thomas suggesting that Evangelicals and Catholics are the final arbitrators of who will or will not go to either Heaven or Hell? Is he suggesting that these two groups are the only theologically correct "Christians"? If so how does he handle their theological differences. BTW, I am not persuaded that he can not demonstrate that all Evangelicals and Catholics share his belief on this. I am not an Obama fan.
Some times I can agree with Cal but here I think he is using religion just as inappropriately as he accuses Obama of doing.

No suggestions whatsoever. Most likely that a good number of those who go by the name of Christian today share the belief today of multiple paths to God, even though it is in direct contradiction to Scripture; thus, the reference to historical Christian beliefs.

Fox, why on earth would I want to engage in debate on a blog? Have you forgotten my view of blogs:
Image
I've GOT to get me one of those t-shirts.

Now time to check out for the holiday weekend. Road trip!!

Maybe if I see Obama somewhere along the way and touch his robe, I'll be healed of my liberty-loving characteristics and take upon myself the chains forged upon Obama's anvil of government benevolence and compassion!!! Glory hallelujah!! Nothing like workin' for Massa Obama on the Democratic Plantation!!!! :roll:

“Freedom was given to humanity by God. But, governments, if they can help it, never give freedom. They just hand out slavery with slogans.” -- Taylor Caldwell
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.
***
"There is usually only a limited amount of damage that can be done by dull or stupid people. For creating a truly monumental disaster, you need people with high IQs." - economist Thomas Sowell
User avatar
ET
 
Posts: 1534
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:20 pm
Location: Cordova, TN

Re: The Promise of Obama

Postby Big Daddy Weaver » Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:38 pm

ET,

The question begs - did you find that particular funny on a blog?

I bet you did. I bet you did.
http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com

"We do not serve well the causes we say we believe in by ignoring the continuing devastation of fundamentalism running rampant." - Stan Hastey
Big Daddy Weaver
 
Posts: 1882
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 1:15 am
Location: Waco, TX

Re: The Promise of Obama

Postby RyanHale » Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:11 am

If Cal Thomas wasn't trying to make the implication "that Obama's religious beliefs have anything to do with whether or not he qualifies to hold the office of President," then what was the purpose of the article in the first place? What useful purpose did it serve? Do we honestly believe this piece was not written with a political objective in mind?

Obama's policies & proposals should be examined. These are items of legitimate debate --- but a candidate's doctrine is not a matter of national policy. Urging people of faith to respond with moral propositions is a topic of discussion --- but whether the candidate is going to heaven is not a matter for Congress to take action.

The only reason I can imagine for Baptist Press to even pick up the piece is political.

Oh, btw, I did correct the "falsehood" that Cal Thomas wrote the article for Baptist Press. I should have said the article was picked up by Baptist Press. In my haste to get to an appointment, I didn't complete my edits. Careless mistake but not an intentional fabrication.
RyanHale
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:13 pm
Location: GA

Re: The Promise of Obama

Postby Haruo » Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:03 am

ET wrote:No suggestions whatsoever. Most likely that a good number of those who go by the name of Christian today share the belief today of multiple paths to God, even though it is in direct contradiction to Scripture; thus, the reference to historical Christian beliefs.
I can think of a few specific scriptural passages that "multiple paths to God" could be said to contradict, but you have a very naively narrow notion of interpretation if you equate those specific passages to "Scripture". The very idea of anyone "going to heaven", after all, directly contradicts Scripture. "There is none righteous, nay, not one." The Bible is rife with evidence both for and against the notion of multiple paths to approach God. And there are scriptures to back up annihilationism as well as eternal torment.

Haruo
who will stick with his historic universalism at least for the moment
Haruo (呂須春男) aka Leland Bryant Ross — visit My hymnblog
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist Church Website (I'm the webmaster!)
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6499
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: The Promise of Obama

Postby Jim » Thu Jul 03, 2008 8:39 am

Big Daddy Weaver wrote:ET,

I did read all the way to the bottom of the piece - painful as that was. And I put together during the early hours of Monday morning a nice little blog post about Cal Thomas complete with a video.

I titled it:

A Portrait of Inconsistency: Cal Thomas on Obama

Now that you've put together the quite obvious positions of Bush, Obama, and Thomas, perhaps you will favor us with your conclusions dealing with such things as the "routes to heaven," whether or not Christians and Muslims pray to the same God (or god), whether or not prayers to other gods/entities/idols (Buddha, for instance) suffice for salvation or reconciliation or whatever else, what other gods or mediators (as Thomas mistakenly labels Christ) provide access to God, the comparison of the coming of Mahdi with the second coming of Christ (why not, since deliverance is the game and messiah is the name and God and Allah the same?), whether or not Islam and Christianity are the same, assuming the Islamic Allah and the Christian God to be the same, whether or not Mohammad was a prophet inspired by God, whether or not the Koran and the Bible are valid and equal as instruments of God, and any other bit of wisdom to enlighten everyone.
Jim
 
Posts: 2516
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: The Promise of Obama

Postby ET » Thu Jul 03, 2008 10:51 am

Big Daddy Weaver wrote:ET,

The question begs - did you find that particular funny on a blog?

I bet you did. I bet you did.

Nope, you can get one at Despair.com.

Haruo. Sorry, but I'm not going to go down the theological debate road. The issue is the standard of historical Christian belief compared to what Obama has stated his beliefs to be, not what we necessarily believe today or what you might believe about who gets to heaven or not.

See, now look what you've made me do? I just HAD to check my email before I left and being the undisciplined creature I am, just couldn't stay away from here. :oops:
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.
***
"There is usually only a limited amount of damage that can be done by dull or stupid people. For creating a truly monumental disaster, you need people with high IQs." - economist Thomas Sowell
User avatar
ET
 
Posts: 1534
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:20 pm
Location: Cordova, TN

Re: The Promise of Obama

Postby Stephen Fox » Thu Jul 03, 2008 10:57 am

Not exactly, ET; the way I understand it is your brand of fundamentalist Christianity is the anathema, having only a shelf life of the last 150 years.
You haven't read Pelikan's Jesus Through the Centuries, now have you; much less Johnny Pierce's interview with Fisher Humphreys in the last issue of Baptists Today.
Ryan Hale has the Truett Baptist High Road here.
In your way of thinking there would have only been one US President and that woulda been Harry Truman.
So much for the Land of Liberty in the United States of ET of Cordova, Tennessee

Just for you Hale has written a follow up blog at his site. You ought to check it out and while there click over to the Ga mtn man blog
"I'm the only sane {person} in here." Doyle Hargraves, Slingblade
"Midget, Broom; Helluva campaign". Political consultant, "Oh, Brother..."


http://www.foxofbama.blogspot.com or google asfoxseesit
Stephen Fox
 
Posts: 3930
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Re: The Promise of Obama

Postby Big Daddy Weaver » Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:49 am

Jim wrote:
Big Daddy Weaver wrote:ET,

I did read all the way to the bottom of the piece - painful as that was. And I put together during the early hours of Monday morning a nice little blog post about Cal Thomas complete with a video.

I titled it:

A Portrait of Inconsistency: Cal Thomas on Obama

Now that you've put together the quite obvious positions of Bush, Obama, and Thomas, perhaps you will favor us with your conclusions dealing with such things as the "routes to heaven," whether or not Christians and Muslims pray to the same God (or god), whether or not prayers to other gods/entities/idols (Buddha, for instance) suffice for salvation or reconciliation or whatever else, what other gods or mediators (as Thomas mistakenly labels Christ) provide access to God, the comparison of the coming of Mahdi with the second coming of Christ (why not, since deliverance is the game and messiah is the name and God and Allah the same?), whether or not Islam and Christianity are the same, assuming the Islamic Allah and the Christian God to be the same, whether or not Mohammad was a prophet inspired by God, whether or not the Koran and the Bible are valid and equal as instruments of God, and any other bit of wisdom to enlighten everyone.


I don't have time for a long response. But, I'm an inclusivist. That should answer most of your questions above.

I've always enjoyed this quote from C.S. Lewis taken from Mere Christianity:
We do know that no person can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved by Him.
http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com

"We do not serve well the causes we say we believe in by ignoring the continuing devastation of fundamentalism running rampant." - Stan Hastey
Big Daddy Weaver
 
Posts: 1882
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 1:15 am
Location: Waco, TX

Re: The Promise of Obama

Postby Haruo » Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:38 pm

Jim wrote:... what other gods or mediators (as Thomas mistakenly labels Christ) provide access to God,...

Just curious to know in what sense Thomas made a mistake in so labeling Christ. "For there is one {ONE} God and one mediator between God and men (3x)/ the man, Christ Jesus!" as we used to sing at VBS (same generation as "Jesus, he met the woman, at the we-e-e-e-ell...").

Haruo
Haruo (呂須春男) aka Leland Bryant Ross — visit My hymnblog
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist Church Website (I'm the webmaster!)
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6499
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Next

Return to Baptist Faith & Practice Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dave Roberts and 1 guest