Obama’s Church Disappeared
Posted by angela on 06/1/08 in Domestic Ramblings
Obama threw his church under the bus and it vanished into thin air. I can’t find it any more. Well, maybe that’s what Obama wants us to think but I’m not buying it.
The only reason he and his family have left the church is because the relationship has helped the American people to connect the dots as to the company Obama keeps.
If Obama continue to attend church OR to admit that is his church home then all of a sudden he gets to be held accountable for the company that he keeps. Come on, we’re not THAT stupid.
You mean to tell me that after 20 years and a couple of baptisms later he now knows what horrible things the pastors of that church have been teaching?
If it really didn’t matter in the first place then why would he throw the church under the bus? If it was a non-issue then he would have never had to leave the church in the first place. The thing is, it really does matter what has been spewed from the pulpit. So much so that he knows if he doesn’t leave OR do something drastic to denounce what’s been preached - he could lose the Democratic nomination OR worse, nobody will vote for him when he wins the party nomination.
I hope Hillary Clinton pulls it off and no I do NOT see her working side-by-side with Obama.
tag this
Patrick | Jun 2, 2008 | Reply
Campaigns always try to find the dirt on a candidate. This is the usual process, and will probably continue to be so. I don’t like that one bit and it a terrible side of politics. I find it disturbing that the issues take a backseat to someone’s church, family, and other pointless items that should have no impact on their policies and procedures in office.
I have said it before, but I’ll say it again. All three major candidates are not perfect. There is something bad to say about all of them. I have yet to see a candidate for any government position without problems.
Obama so far has been extremely lenient with Clinton and has played with kiddie gloves. He hasn’t brought up the tons of bad decisions and bad contacts that Clinton has had in her life. I think that Clinton and other people have undertaken a more sinister, dirty smear campaign than Obama. I don’t even have to mention her lies, the assassination remark, the fact she voted FOR the war in Iraq and many others to show that she is the weaker candidate.
The math is not on Hillary Clinton’s side. She has a very terrible shot at winning the candidacy. I don’t really see how she could win. If she does, I feel that McCain has a pretty good shot at winning. People may also say that about Obama. Regardless, it’s going to be a tough election.
angela | Jun 2, 2008 | Reply
I don’t think you understand how church does fit into the scenario Patrick and that’s understandable because isn’t it you that doesn’t believe in God? (Correct me if I’m wrong)
Who a person flocks to, worships with and even the golden rule that they allow to define certain moral characteristics does come into play.
To me, I dirty smear campaign is something that somebody has made up in order to convince other people to believe a certain way. I don’t find that to be the case at all since the people that are being accused of racism and other questionable acts have all but proven that they are who they are and they really did say what was spoken. It’s all on video..
Patrick | Jun 2, 2008 | Reply
I do understand how someone’s church factors into the equation and I know why people make it an important factor in judging someone. I just don’t think it should be important. Just because I’m an atheist doesn’t mean I do not understand a religious point of view. Please do not assume. I am a bit offended at that.
A person’s church does come into play in American politics. I do understand that. However, it is not the ultimate measure of a person. I do not think god exists. However, I am a moral person who has values. I try to live my life in a good way. Belief in an ultimate power does not necessarily mean you have moral superiority over another.
Obama is not the one making racist comments and hateful comments about America (if he has, please point them out and tell me if they are valid). His (now former) church and pastors are the ones making them. Does that mean that Obama goes along with everything they say? No.
Smear campaigns are meant to distract people from the real issues of a campaign. I don’t like that, though they are a part of American politics. The campaign against Obama is mainly focused on his contacts and church, rather than against him. In my opinion, that makes their criticisms of him weaker.
angela | Jun 2, 2008 | Reply
You keep talking about a smear campaign but nothing has been smeared regarding Obama and his Church, mentors, and the belief system of those people he had looked up to and respected for 20+ years.
You don’t believe in God so I can totally understand why you would think that being a “good” person is enough. Fortunately with the belief in God we (some of us) can see that it doesn’t matter how “good” you are.. there is no way to work out the sacrifices that have already been made through Christ’s death on the cross. But then.. you don’t believe there is a God and certainly not my God so I can see why that would frustrate you.
Obama’s now former Church is costing him votes. That’s the only reason why he has denounced and rejected people who he has respected for years.
If I had attended a church like Obama’s and had heard many of the things that are being taught from the pulpit.. I would not have lasted for 20 years.
So basically it took Obama 20 years to figure out that the company he keeps is all wrong. And I’m supposed to believe that he can run my country?
I don’t think so!
Patrick | Jun 2, 2008 | Reply
“A smear campaign is an intentional, premeditated effort to undermine an individual’s or group’s reputation, credibility, and character.”
- This is done by all sides. How can the attack on Obama’s church and his choices not be a smear campaign? It may be in the eye of the beholder, but as I see it, all attacks on his (former) church are an attempt to undermine his character.
Why would your belief in Christ frustrate me? Because you believe in Jesus’ sacrifice and I don’t, why would that frustrate me? If you don’t try to convert me or claim I am a terrible person for doubting god’s existence, I have no problem with you or your beliefs. Also, being good in life is enough for what? Not believing that god exists would mean that I don’t think there is a heaven or afterlife. Is that a certainty? No. There could be a god. I am not ruling out that possibility. I just have doubt in the existence of a god. I am a weak atheist. It is possible I may regain my faith. But I don’t have faith in that.
“there is no way to work out the sacrifices that have already been made through Christ’s death on the cross”
I find this a bit confusing. I understand the message behind the crucifixion. I understand how Christians find it powerful and I know the how it provides a basic tenet of their faith. However, is this statement referring only to Jesus’ death, or is it referring to all Christians’ sacrifices?
This is a bit nit-picky and is a small matter, but is “..” supposed to be an ellipsis (…)?
angela | Jun 2, 2008 | Reply
You seem a bit flustered to me Patrick. Why is that?
Patrick | Jun 2, 2008 | Reply
Well, I’m not really annoyed.
I just get really, really tired of people judging atheists because they do not have a belief in god or doubt god’s existence. I am not saying you’re doing that, but some of the above comments have that feeling. I am capable (as many atheists are, not all) of leading a perfectly normal, moral life by myself outside of faith. Of course, there are bad eggs. Some atheists can be huge, disrespectful jerks. That applies to atheists as well as people of faith.
Sometimes in political or discussions of faith, people just write atheists off as stupid or ignorant. They don’t give them the same latitude or weight that they give someone who shares their faith. It is a shame.
It may be the people I have encountered, but for the most part I find that some Christians are usually the most intolerant towards atheists. This is in no way applicable towards all Christians. Other faiths can be equally tolerant or hostile (I mean, look at some Muslim sects). But for my life, and whom I encounter, it is usually judgment from Christians.
Given my history and life experiences, I know Christians the best. I understand their points of view. I know the Bible (not expertly, but fairly well) as well as their teachings. I understand how many may see atheists. I have no problem with the vast majority of Christians (you can apply this to other religions as well). It’s just the few that are stubborn in their viewpoints, the ones that refuse to give people like me an equal footing in conversations, that really make me want to bash my head against a wall.
I can think nothing worse than when I’m talking to someone about faith, and when I mention I’m an atheist, they clam up. They get this holier than thou look on their face, and just tell me I am going to hell. It’s terrible. Only a few people do it, but they are the worst. I try not to judge them for their faith, why do they judge me for mine (or lack thereof)? I understand where they come from, though I don’t understand why they automatically assume I’m a terrible person. When I know someone is Christian (or something else) I usually apply a blank slate to their personality because I know they could be a good person. Sometimes they are not. I try not to let a person’s faith be a factor I judge them on before I hear what they have to say. Christianity holds a neutral zone for me because I know they can be great people.
Why can’t people look past someone’s beliefs to judge their character or their actions? Why does my doubt of god matter for my thoughts? Why can’t my actions and words matter?
Not everyone is a militant for their faith or creed. I have the philosophy of live and let live. I am not saying that you or anyone here judges me as evil because I am an atheist or that I have doubt in god. I am just explaining my viewpoint.
angela | Jun 2, 2008 | Reply
I don’t think it’s that anybody refuses to give you equal footing.
It’s kind of obvious that discussing certain situations will bring us back to the fact that you don’t believe in God and I do.
It’s like trying to compare apples and oranges, don’t you think?
People are judging Obama’s character and they are basing it in Obama’s actions.
I am commenting on Obama’s participation for the last 20 years in a church where he had his children baptized and turned to its controversial pastors for mentoring.
You may not realize this but a person’s faith and actions say a lot about their character.
You don’t believe in God so that kinds puts you in a position where you aren’t really qualified to speak in terms of those people that do believe in God Or somebody that claims to have faith.. and claims to be a source of change..
ie: Obama w/regard to his connections and contacts
Patrick | Jun 2, 2008 | Reply
“I don’t think it’s that anybody refuses to give you equal footing.”
and
“You don’t believe in God so that kinds puts you in a position where you aren’t really qualified to speak in terms of those people that do believe in God…”
These are somewhat contradictory. You really are not giving me equal footing when it comes to talking about faith.
I used to be a Christian. I used to love going to church, and at one time considered being a priest. I know what faith is, and I also know what it’s like not to have it. Of course I realize what faith means to people. Do not say that I don’t know that. I see it in my family, both my immediate one and my extended family. I am entirely qualified to speak on faith.
I also know what people see in that Obama left his church of 20 years. I obviously can see the problem with that. A person’s church can say a lot about someone. I get it.
I am saying that I look past that to what I (me, not you or anyone else) consider more important in choosing to qualities of a leader. I could tell you what I see in all three candidates, but it could take a long time and this is just a comment on a blog. Does it look bad that he left his church? Yes. Of course it does. However, people would hate him if he stuck by his pastor. He is a politician, not a priest or minister. They do what they can to get elected. I don’t like that, but show me a politician who doesn’t do what they can to be reelected or elected.
angela | Jun 2, 2008 | Reply
Patrick.. we will never be on equal footing. You have to come to terms with that and accept it. You don’t believe that God exists and I do believe that God exists. We don’t believe in the same things. Therefore we are not on equal footing.
Obama did stick by his Pastor. He stuck by his Pastor for 20 years. I find it hard to believe that all of a sudden he didn’t know what his pastor was all about.. especially since he is this esteemed politician to the democrats and Harvard educated. Those qualities mean something but his connections don’t? So I should just ignore what these Pastors have said and pretend that Obama never had anything to do with them?
As for you believing that God doesn’t exist.. well.. that’s your opinion.. you are certainly entitled and I’m willing to agree to disagree with you. It won’t be the first time I have taken that stance and I’m sure it won’t be the last.
Rebecca | Jun 2, 2008 | Reply
I just wanted to point out to Patrick that if a Christian tells you you will be going to hell because you are an atheist then that isn’t them placing judgement on you, it is them stating what is pure FACT according to the BIBLE. Personally, I feel there are better ways to reach an atheist than just asserting that they will go to hell. I mean seriously, if an atheist doesn’t see what they are doing in life as an offense towards God, if they don’t see it as sin, if they don’t see their lack of belief as something dreadful then how would they see going to hell as dreadful? One must approach the sin before they approach the existence of heaven or hell or even the gospel of Christ… You may like this blog - it is an evangelist who ministers to atheists and he is quite good - he is also very open to debate: http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/
As for smear campaigns and all that - how is it a smear when we have all seen the video of what has gone on inside of that place?
My opinion - Obama “became a Christian” out of convenience and he left his church the same way.
angela | Jun 2, 2008 | Reply
I can understand why Patrick would find this conversation difficult. He used to be a believer and understands more than even he probably realizes. THAT would make it hard for any former believer-turned-atheist.
Patrick | Jun 2, 2008 | Reply
I think we’re using two different meanings for “on equal footing.” But you’re right, we won’t agree on the issue of faith. That’s cool and I accept that. We are all entitled to our own faith or lack of it. What I meant to say was that you were saying I am not qualified to talk about faith. I have plenty of experience with it, especially since I was very faithful to god several years ago. I think I am as qualified as you or any other. I think you were hopefully trying to say that in the last comment, but I may be wrong.
I think Obama knew all along what his pastor was saying. It’s pretty bad if he denies it, like he has been doing. He probably was not there for everything contentious that his pastors said. But he probably knew their stance. Just because he listens to them does not mean he has to believe in them. Wright and others wouldn’t always talk about racism and America during their sermons. I find it hard to believe that someone couldn’t find something positive in at least one of Wright’s sermons, especially from someone who belives in Jesus. I mean, the Clintons respected him when Bill was president. They invited him to the White House on more than one occasion. Sure, he says contentious, racist words. But he isn’t always that way, with every word. We may not agree with any part of Black Liberation Theology, but Wright would not only refer to just that creed.
I don’t agree with very much of what Wright has said and what he does say. He is pretty racist. But he doesn’t speak ALL lies and racism (a lot of it, yeah). There is obviously a reason why his church has a large congregation and is popular with them. Obama was inspired at a younger age by several of Wright’s speeches. Is that hard to imagine? Not really, in my opinion.
All of the politicians have undergone damage control to sort out their past actions. You see a problem with Obama’s leaving of his church of twenty years when he’s running for office. Either that, or you have a problem with him listening to that message in the first place. I understand. It’s not a good thing and weakens him as a candidate. However, I do still see him as stronger than the other two.
I just do not see him listening to those sermons as a huge deal. No one is forced to agree with everything they choose to hear. If you do see a problem with Obama’s history, that’s cool. Whichever Democrat wins the nomination, the election will be tough.
This is a tough topic as well. Whew…
Patrick | Jun 2, 2008 | Reply
Oh no, not Ray Comfort! You and I have different opinions on him. I see him as a really stubborn person. In videos that I have seen him in, he refuses to acknowledge valid points of the opposition.
I do understand that the Bible says that all non-believers will go to hell. But for an atheist, the Bible is not valid. It may have good messages, but we do not see it as law. I think Rebecca said that in a way, saying that we would not believe in a hell, though this is slightly different. I was mentioning that comment earlier because often those people just clam up and refuse to talk after saying we’re heathens. Even if they believe I’ll be going to hell, they should at least be reasonable and be willing to talk. Sadly, often they aren’t.
Ray Comfort does talk with atheists. This is good, but he goes about in the wrong way. He needs to do things other than just quote the Bible. He makes attempts to do explain things otherwise, but he always returns to the Bible. That will not validate him in the eyes of most atheists.
Comfort has the example of the banana, the atheist’s nightmare or evolutionist’s nightmare as he calls it. He claims it was perfectly suited for a human in the way it’s shaped and formed. He is wrong because he doesn’t take into account that the banana we see is not a natural banana. It’s a banana that has been shaped by thousands of years of selective breeding. The banana that used to be a small green, 1 1/2 inch long fruit is now a monstrous, 8 inch yellow monster. The banana as it is now is not a banana that would have been around at the creation, if there was one (I don’t think there was one like the Bible describes).
Faith is a highly contentious thing. No one will agree on everything.
Rebecca | Jun 2, 2008 | Reply
I don’t know about the banana example…I will have to look it up. Even if you aren’t a fan of his, I still think the blog is a good read for the Christian and the atheist alike. I am also quite fond of his book “The Way of the Master” - but I am guessing I probably couldn’t get you to read it even if I asked nicely.
I think Christians do a lot of harm to themselves by just condemning atheists - calling them heathens - clamming up as you say. It really is sad that people can’t have logical discussions. Of course, from many of the comments I have read from atheists over on Comfort’s blog, you probably don’t consider it logical if a Christian has a discussion with you and brings up the Bible. But you see, as with Comfort and other Christians, it is impossible for us to debate on such a topic as God and not bring up the Bible - the Bible is foundational to our faith. One would have to quote Scripture when debating an atheist - there really isn’t much other way around it as a Christian. I suppose one could try, but in the end it would come back to the Bible because that is what we believe.
Anyways, that is really all I have to say about it - I just wanted to throw it out there for ya. I don’t want to hog Angela’s blog going on about the topic…unless she wants us to?? LOL!
Patrick | Jun 2, 2008 | Reply
Yeah, it does look like we got WAY off topic again, hijacking the blog. Whoops.
I will try to be brief. I am really happy that Rebecca sees what I’m saying. That’s awesome that she realizes that people will not see the same thing as truth, and that it’s good to be open to discussion. If only everyone were the same way.
I see that the Bible is the basis for a Christian’s faith. It’s just hard for me to take it for truth knowing its history. The Catholic Church long ago decided what books to include in the Bible (mainly the New Testament) and dropped whatever they thought did not fit. It just doesn’t make the Bible seem to be the word of god if men decided what would be in it. Also, translations as well as 2000 years of cultural changes (not everything is changed of course) really make the meaning of the Bible different than what the authors intended. Just look up the gnostic gospels (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, etc.). That is why it is tough for me to take the Bible as literal truth. It just seems like a text of man.
I am happy to live in a country that allows people to believe what they want to. We should all be thankful for that.
Off topic again, dang.
Risk Management | Jun 3, 2008 | Reply
hmm you do make good points about him leaving that church. there sure is something fishy about mr obama… hopefully he doesnt win. i know hes a popular guy w/ a good chance to win, but i still think america is pretty racist and that will be a factor against him. i guess we shall see! o_O
-Jerry
Tracy | Jun 4, 2008 | Reply
I realize this is going back into “threadjack” territory.
But I thought I should point out that not all Christian faiths believe that athiests are going to “hell”, in that not all Christian faiths have the same definition of “hell”.
Neither do all Christian faiths belive that the Bible is infallible and without human error in translation and therefore application. (Think of the hundreds of different Christian sects, that have different translations and different interpretations of scripture. That’s one of the reasons WHY there are so many Christian religions. Of course, many Christians will say that anyone who believes the Bible ISN’T perfect, isn’t a REAL Christian…but that’s another debate.)
Similarly, if all a Christian can fall back on is the Bible, then there’s a problem. The Bible as we know it today didn’t even EXIST in Christ’s time, and the New Testament was largely written YEARS after Christ had been crucified and resurrected.
Christians today who base their faith soley on the Bible, can be compared to the majority of the Jews of Christ’s time who based their faith SOLEY on the Old Testment. When Jesus came with new teachings and a new law, the Jews didn’t like it. They said He was blasphemous for speaking “new doctrine” that wasn’t in the only scripture that existed at the time (which was what we now call the Old Testament) They thought he was a heretic, a blasphemous false prophet and called for his crucifixion.
So much for sticking to their guns about scripture, eh?
So what was more important? The things that had been written 1,2, 3,or 4 thousand years BEFORE Jesus came, or what He was saying to them right then when He was among them?
What was more important? The teachings of the apostles that He called to continue to teach in His place after His ascension into heaven, or the teachings of prophets from thousands of years before?
I consider the Bible to be Holy and to be God’s word. But I don’t trust that everything was translated the way it was originally written. (And from the history of the Catholic church, I don’t believe that they kept all it’s truths intact, either.)
The idea that God wouldn’t let men “mess up” his Word has always seemed naive to me.
I mean if you think about it, God let men KILL His son, who was TEACHING His word. Judas was one of His apostles. Christ was WITH Him and He let Judas betray Him. God let’s men mess up all the time. It’s something that we Christians ourselves like to call “Free will”.
angela | Jul 6, 2008 | Reply
I like the New International Version myself..
This is a favorite of mine:
John 3:16-18 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
16″For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.[b]
Footnotes:
1. John 3:16 Or his only begotten Son
2. John 3:18 Or God’s only begotten Son
This is another favorite of mine:
Galatians 3:26-29 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Sons of God
26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
You either have faith OR you don’t have faith.. it’s basically YOUR choice and as far as I know.. God does not force himself on anybody.. people are free to choose and do pretty much whatever they want to.