... which always made sense to me. In the case of whether someone is a Christian, the answer could easily vary based on whether your definition of Christian is just someone who consistently asserts that he's a Christian — which was apparently Dana Milbank's definition, causing him to insist that it's easy and obvious to say that Obama is a Christian — or whether you think a Christian is someone with a particular set of sincerely held beliefs — which could have been what caused Scott Walker to say he didn't know whether Obama is a Christian.
I would suggest that there is a definition of Christianity within which it is possible to assert that no one is a Christian and another that gets you to the answer that everyone is a Christian.
Should politicians get into the activity of defining Christianity? Consider that Obama seems to have decided he can and should define Islam. (He has a pragmatic reason for saying that ISIS is perverting Islam and therefore only lies in saying it is Muslim.) But is there any good reason for any American politician to tread into the territory of saying what Christianity is?
Another Clinton remark — a Hillary Clinton remark — has been proposed as an answer to the is-Obama-a-Christian question: "What difference at this point does it make?" That's from traditionalliar in the comments to my post earlier this morning about Dana Milbank's column. And as long as I'm frontpaging comments from that thread, let me bring up this quite profound piece from Jason:
When Joan of Arc was being interrogated for heresy, her interrogators tried to lure her into a theological trap.ADDED: Hey! ISIS = is is.
The question they asked was, "do you know whether you are in God's grace?"
If she answered "yes," she would essentially be uttering heresy - it was actually Catholic doctrine that no living person could know for sure whether she was in God's grace while alive.
If she answered "no," she would be admitting to being in a state of sin, and therefore open herself to execution for that.
One of the men interrogating her, Jean Lefevre, protested that the question was unfair. "It is a grave question," he argued, and she should not be required to answer it.
Joan of Arc famously and brilliantly replied. "If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me. I should be the saddest creature in the world if I knew I were not in His grace."
In essence, she punted.
I'm sure Dana Milbank would have been outraged.
That is, if Milbank were anywhere near as fair as those who interrogated a teenage girl and killed her by burning her at the stake.
पोस्ट्स
११५ टिप्पण्या:
This is one of those times when it's appropriate to answer, "That is above my pay grade."
now I'm going to re-read Bertrand Russell's essay "Why I Am Not A Christian." I'm agnostic about his definition of what a Christian is but I think that defining a Christian by the person's self designation as a Christian is not helpful.
Milbank's other problems, in addition to the ones Althouse identified and analyzed, is that he doesn't take religion seriously.
The aggressively atheistic Christopher Hitchens well expressed the matter, responding to a minister who was interviewing him:
Question: I'm a liberal Christian, and I don't take the stories from the scripture literally. I don't believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make and distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?
Hitchens: I would say that if you don't believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you're really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.
In both of those occasions the people who were being questioned had behaved badly and that isn't the situation with Walker. And as to those two people even though it was bad behavior it was also their normal behavior.
Hitchens, like Russell, took religion seriously.
The media are overconfident. They are only toying with the amateur from the northern farm lands. But that is a mistake because Walker has a chess board of planned moves. Not Cheese board, but a chess board. Ask Garage.
Meanwhile the most sophisticated planners of the Bush III chess playing team and the Clinton II chess playing team suddenly are waking up to find their candidate in check.
The lefts confusion/frustration in this matter is easily understood.
The left has already annointed obama as a god. As a messiah. Therefore how can he not be a Christian?
A Superintendent in the Church of the Nazarene just tweeted this:
"A Christian is a person who believes in Jesus enough to follow Jesus."
What does Hillary Clinton think about Dana Milbank's declaration that Scott Walker's cowardice should disqualify him as a serious presidential contender?
Christian, like any word in play, has multiple meanings at the same time, and the meanings are equated to get various doctrines.
You can't define your way out of it. You have to do lit crit on the interplay to say what's happening.
"I don't know what the pastor was thinking. It hardly seems Christian."
Which says that his church going isn't enough, and putting it flatly like that adds "as he ought to know."
The speaker is one up on the pastor at that point, not by redefining Christian but by taking two meanings and saying one is the right handle to take hold of both.
Blogger Mike Sylwester said...
What does Hillary Clinton think about Dana Milbank's declaration that Scott Walker's cowardice should disqualify him as a serious presidential contender?
That's awesome.
By my Evangelical definition of Christian, I can only know if I am a Christian. And then, it is knowledge that is only barely there. For I know that evil Jim is capable of bullshitting himself. I throw myself on God's mercy due to the sacrifice of His Son and my Savior, Jesus Christ. Ask me about someone else, my answer is always, "they say they are, why don't you ask them."
What does Hillary Clinton think about Dana Milbank's declaration that Scott Walker's cowardice should disqualify him as a serious presidential contender?
Since she isn't taking questions from the media, you are not going to find out any time soon.
Hillary is in the four corners and the game has not started yet.
Hitchens has it right, technically, but that knowledge as we understand it and he stated had no effect on him.
Whatever faith you subscribe to, there must be an effect on your life or it is meaningless faith.
Maybe, it depends upon what the meaning of the word "me" is.
Bill has trouble with the 7th Commandment.
This business, preoccupation with media/politicos and their intramural semantic games, is a great example of the profound triviality that characterises the preponderance of the discourse about contemporary civic life.
Milbank must think Obama is extra cowardly for not calling terrorists Muslim fanatics in light of their self declared Islamic jihad.
It is always amusing to witness the left self destruct on the shoals of traditional beliefs.
They can't resist the impulse to heap ridicule on those that "cling to their God and their guns" only to be reminded that about 75% of Americans self identify as Christians and the same number believe Second Amendment guarantees the right to own a gun.
This may be the right answer for an academic of formal discussion but certainly not a smart answer in a political one.
Not with a hostile press looking to play gotcha.
It may not be fair but life ain't fair. Certainly not political life.
We have a mostly liberal press; certainly liberal on issues like this. You have to campaign with that in mind.
St. John's Church across Lafayette Park from the White House says this on its website: "St. John’s first service was held in October 1816. From that time to the present, every person who has held the office of President of the United States has attended a regular or occasional service at St. John’s." A plaque at the entrance of the church says pretty much the same thing.
Nota bene: has attended a service, not has worshipped. Because St. John's knows that whether somebody is actually worshipping is known only to that person (and maybe--for believers--God). All the rest of us can say is whether or not he was in attendance. The same goes for somebody's religion. We can know what he professes. We can't know what is in his heart.
Let's not forget the ever useful
"That's a clown question, bro."
" I would say that if you don't believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you're really not in any meaningful sense a Christian."
Smart man Hitch. This Christian misses him.
Trey
"A thing is a thing. Not what is said of that thing."
Why is this so hard? I would say that Walker's opponents are merely desperate and trying to score points, but there seems to be actual misunderstanding about the limits of our knowledge.
Why can't they acknowledge the utter poverty of our abilities when it comes to the detection and understanding of the inner lives of others and also our own frequent failure to grasp our own motivations, beliefs, and feelings?
Give Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.
And the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.
Office seekers should stay away from any such questions, which is what Walker did.
Dana blew it. To accomplish his objective, he should have asked Walker, Do you think Obama is a Muslim? An I-don't-know answer to that question couldn't be as easily justified as an I-don't-know answer to whether Obama is a Christian. Walker would have been tempted to say, I have no reason to think he is a Muslim. Then Dana could have asked, Do you think he's a Christian? Either Walker says, I have no reason to think he isn't, or, if he says I don't know, he has to explain why the answer is different from the one about being a Muslim.
A born again Christian, e.g. fundamental Baptist or evangelical, does not consider a follower of a mainline Christian denomination to be a Christian.
If you asked a fundamental Baptist is a Unitarian or an Episcopal were a Christian, then the answer may be "no" in a strict sense, since a true Christian has to be born again.
A better question is, "does attending a nominally Christian church automatically designate someone as a Christian?"
As a lapsed Catholic who attended a small southern University filled with evangelical Southern Baptists, it was my frequent delight to explain to them, as they tried to evangelize, that they were doomed to eternity in hell because of their misguided, heretical beliefs.
Being of the one true Church has its fun moments.
As to Clinton, you knew he was lying because his face was making noises. His wife, the same.
If having a set of sincerely held beliefs is the sine qua non for being a Christian, Obama flunks the test.
He has no, zero, zip and nada "sincerely held beliefs" about anything--other than the belief that he's the greatest thing since sliced bread. Narcissus was a piker compared to Obama.
America's foremost expert on Christianity/Catholicism is Nancy Pelosi. To the point she actually argued with the Pope...allegedly.
"Hillary is in the four corners and the game has not started yet."
Marquette beat North Carolina's four corner offense to win the NCAA National Championship in 1977 by refusing to play along with what NC was doing.
I've lost my faith, but I'm more a widower than a divorcee. When I was young, I was a practicing Catholic and know first hand what it feels like to be in a state of grace after receiving communion. I no longer believe, but I don't rejoice in my lack of faith.......It's the difference between a man who loses his wife after a happy marriage and someone who goes through a bitter, expensive divorce.....There are variants among non believers. I'm not a non believer in the way Bill Maher is.
Milbank seems to think that being a Christian is like joining a club, and for some "Christians" that is exactly what it is.
They are the ones that are referred to in Matthew 24:
"41"Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;…"
The thing is, there is no way to know what is in someone's heart, so there is no way to know if someone is a sincere Christian are not, regardless of their profession of belief. In fact, individual Christians shouldn't be too sure of their own salvation, they should be wondering if they are a sheep or a goat.
It's funny to hear the liberal reporters complain that Walker refuses to play the game by their rules and won't wear the "Kick Me" sign. Without his cooperation, how can they hand the election to the Democrats?
The best answer to this question migjt have been: unlike the president, I'm not going to get into the conversation about the true meaning of a religion or render my opinion on what constitutes a true believer. No politician should be in that business.
Marco Rubio gave what I think is the best answer to this general question about Obama. Asked about Giuliani's comment he said:
"I don’t feel like I’m in a position to have to answer for every person in my party that makes a claim...Democrats aren’t asked to answer every time Joe Biden says something embarrassing, so I don’t know why I should answer every time a Republican does. I’ll suffice it to say that I believe the President loves America; I think his ideas are bad."
That answers the question and turns it back on the questioner.
"If you asked a fundamental Baptist is a Unitarian or an Episcopal were a Christian, then the answer may be "no" in a strict sense, since a true Christian has to be born again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHv4s_hYs4c
"I’ll suffice it to say that I believe the President loves America; I think his ideas are bad."
If Rubio really believes that then I don't think he is very smart, if he lying then I think he is gutless by not standing up to the Obama loving liberal media.
"Christian" is a broad term, sufficiently capacious to hold all thoe who confess and follow Jesus the Christ, regardless of denomination. Many Catholics are Christians. Many Lutherans are Christians. Many Evangelicals are Christians. It's not sectarian, it's a broad term.
But as the use of the word "many" suggests, it does have limits; it doesn't mean that everyone is a Christian, even if they style themselves as such. Ex vi termini, a Christian is not merely someone who has some kind of interest in Jesus, but someone who confesses that Jesus is Christ, and all that follows from that. There are a lot of soi-disant "Christians" who are actually, at best, "Jesusists."
See this post for more on that theme.
In my church tradition (conservative presbyterian), we talk about the visible church and the invisible church. The visible church is basically everybody who belongs to a church or says they are a Christian. The invisible church is everybody who has a sincere, internal belief that God's promise of salvation is true and applies to them. We can see and know the visible church, but only God knows the invisible church.
Browndog said...
"America's foremost expert on Christianity/Catholicism is Nancy Pelosi. To the point she actually argued with the Pope...allegedly."
Meh. When you have a stupid, verbally-incontinent pope who insists on speaking constantly in what amounts to a private and personal capacity, people are going to argue with him. Pelosi's problem is that she argues with the faith, not necessarily that she disagrees with the pope. It depends what she disagrees with him on. People forget that there have been plenty of times in the Church's history when one could have thrown a stone in the air in St. Peter's Square and hit a random passer-by who was more Catholic than the pope; remember Alexander VI? We were in some senses spoiled by Benedict, a great pope; you forget that it's only a few years since Paul VI reigned.
To a Baptist church member the issue of who is a Christian comes down to having a "born again experience" or not. That's why they want to talk to you sincerely and ask if you had one and what was it like...describe the experience.
And they preach every Sunday as if they suspect many church attenders have not experienced it yet.
But that's still a huge faith leap from being a dutiful cradle Catholic or Protestant Episcopalian by family church attendance..
But the speaking in tongues baptism is a bridge too far. When a Baptist crosses that bridge he is immediately thrown out. An example of that was John Osteen, a Texas Southern Baptist Pastor who moved on to found the mega church that his son Joel Osteen now runs after after John's death. But Joel does not advertize that Baptism in the Holy Spirit experience like his daddy did. He wants more a middle of the road Community Church, and I suspect that is where Walker wants his Baptist religion too.
Yes, Clinton's "'is' is" line makes logical sense. It's a very lawyerlike parsing of language and tense, something all lawyers who heard it appreciated as a legal distinction.
But lawyer or not, it's something everyone who wasn't already deep in the Clintonista tank understood was an after-the-fact evasion of what, in substance, was a monstrous, deliberate lie. Whether grammatically defensible or not, it was morally and politically indefensible.
I wouldn't use it, ever in any context, as an example to be followed, because, lawyer or not, I can occasionally recognize that America and its future are gravely threatened by someone who elevates legalisms and grammar so far above substantive honesty and integrity.
Satan, too, surely has a J.D. — probably from Yale.
Re how Walker ought have handled this, I'll quote and adopt the formulation from my friend Patterico:
"I think Walker is leaving some rhetorical opportunity on the table. I think he should say, as I have said here recently: 'I don’t know if Barack Obama is a Christian or not. What I do know, however, is that he used his claimed Christianity to sell an opportunistic political lie about his beliefs on gay marriage to the American public. I think we need leaders who won’t lie to the citizens, about their religious beliefs or anything else.'"
Question: I'm a liberal Christian, and I don't take the stories from the scripture literally. I don't believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make and distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?
Hitchens answer is correct. The whole "dying for our sins" thing is a pretty fundamental part in the faith.
Can the priest explain the Eucharist without it?
Ralph Hyatt said...
"Milbank seems to think that being a Christian is like joining a club, and for some 'Christians' that is exactly what it is."
That's exactly right. Exactly right. You talk to some people and they seem to think it's a social club that worries about what Catholics tend to call "social justice" and things of that nature. For many more, it's little more than (in Agnes Royer's famous phrase) their political party at prayer.
The pearl clutching by Milbank and others is amusing because it demonstrates that Walker's strategy is at least partly effective.
He may need to go further though- or perhaps it would be best if another GOP candidate picks up the ball and runs with it. Actually when I think of it, each GOP candidate could fashion responses that address this in different ways.
Rand Paul could pull off the most intellectual response, turning the question back on the journalist by asking if he is in effect proposing a religious test which would be unconstitutional.
Other candidates might mention that Christianity consists of many denominations and even more sects, and nearly all of them believe it is wrong to judge others, so we generally assume good faith when someone proclaims himself a Christian. Bonus points if one of these candidates briefly slips in a reference to the 2008 campaign when Obama explained his coming to the faith at Reverend Wright's church.
And then one third approach- I picture Chris Christie being best suited to pull this one off- is asking the journalist why on Earth he thinks that President Obama would be in need of someone (especially a GOP candidate) to defend his honor? Obama has written two autobiographies, gave a speech about his faith, and was twice elected by a nation of people who identify most with Christianity, so why the condescending need to protect his reputation as a Christian in good standing?
Walker is running for President of the United States and not President of the Republican Party.
IOW, there's a larger audience than those who loathe the media and don't care how they are handled.
Sometimes you have to take the world the way it is and not the way you want it to be.
"I would suggest that there is a definition of Christianity within which it is possible to assert . . "
You would, wouldn't you, being a law professor and all.
Whether what's possible is historically or theologically meaningful is another matter.
@william - 11:30
I'm right there with ya, buddy. Only from the Episcopal Church (back when it was, you know, a church, as opposed to a bunch of New Agers believing in whatever the hell they want to believe...) side of the equation. I don't take joy in my disbelief, and in many ways envy those around me their belief.
Atheists who congregate baffle me, as do angry, bitter bastards like Bill Maher who proselytize their lack of belief, thus creating a religion of disbelief. That, in my mind, is the height of illogic. It's why I refer to myself as a "non-evangelical atheist."
I really miss Hitchens.
In the South, I believe the question is "Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior?"
A. Obama is better equipped to define Islam than to define Christianity.
B. The Apostle's Creed defines the irreducible minimum of the Christian faith.
"Atheists who congregate baffle me, as do angry, bitter bastards like Bill Maher who proselytize their lack of belief, thus creating a religion of disbelief. That, in my mind, is the height of illogic. It's why I refer to myself as a "non-evangelical atheist."
I sometimes wonder if Maher's shtick isn't just an act. Not that he isn't an atheist, I'll take his word on that, but I wonder if the whole "evangelical atheist" thing isn't just a way to attract eyeballs and thus make money. As for the followers, they seem to want to belief in something. Apparently that eliminating religion will lead to peace on earth and good will towards men. Because nobody has ever fought for any other reason than religion.
It depends upon what the meaning of the word "Christian" is.
What a wuss. In the good old days, Christians knew how to tell who was Christian and who wasn't.
And if they decided you weren't, they burned you at the stake. It's the Christian thing to do.
Oh, and if not for Christianity we would have at least colonized the Solar System and perhaps even reached the stars.
SMG, you want to guarantee more asinine questions? Follow your advice
He should blast reporters who ask dumb questions. Without fail
We know what this is about -- both sides know.
Milbank knows that it is truly irrelevant if Obama is a Christian and that religious test for a candidate is deeply anti-American. He also knows that Obama, like many politicians including many Republican, is lying about his (lack of) faith. Obama believes he needs to do this to retain credibility with voters, and Milbank like most liberal journalists is sworn to uphold this fiction. And Obama's right-wing critics know all this too -- his lack of faith and its genuine lack of relevance. It's a massive dance of hypocrisy -- right wingers pretending to care, left winger pretending that the right wingers are wrong, Obama pretending to be a Christian and pretending to be offended if his faith is pretend-challenged.
Can we move on, America?
(reposted to fix some typos)
I'm pretty sure that question was answered ~1600 years ago: I believe in one God, creator of heaven and earth...
Are people still arguing about it?
Simon said...
Wrong Pope, and the "argument" was over abortion.....allegedly.
"I'm right there with ya, buddy. Only from the Episcopal Church (back when it was, you know, a church, as opposed to a bunch of New Agers believing in whatever the hell they want to believe...) side of the equation."
So I hear you saying the Episcopalians aren't Christians anymore. A nice one for my collection of definitions.
We wouldn’t rebuke an infant whose first attempts at walking ended on the floor. So why would we criticize the novice Sunday School teacher for misapplying a Bible verse or shame a tongue speaker for misjudging when it would be helpful to exercise his gift?
Being filled with the Holy Spirit does not make us infallible.
I am having a hard time getting a foursquare endorsement of speaking in tongues out of this passage. It looks a lot more like judge not lest you be judged to me.
Let's take stock here:
- Obama's birth father is a Muslim
- his stepfather is a Muslim
- lived in a Muslim country in his formative years
- went to an all-Muslim madrassa (school) for several years
- a picture of him as a kid shows him in Muslim garb
- has stated that the Muslim call to prayer is the most beautiful sound he's ever heard
- when running for Prez, was only saved from his Freudian slip "my Muslim faith" by vertically challenged faux journalist Stephanopolous
- the LA Times refuses to release tape of his remarks at dinner for radical Muslim professor Rashid Khalidi
- his foreign policy consists entirely of backing the Muslim Brotherhood over moderates/secularists
- refuses to use the terms "radical Islam" and "Muslim terrorists"
- deliberately poisons relations with Israel
- calls Fort Hood slaughter "workplace violence"
- constantly derides Christianity (Crusades, clinging to guns/religion, et al)
- mangles every Biblical reference he uses to justify his positions
- much more
And what does the "unbiased", "objective" "news" media do? Insist that Obama's opponents all reaffirm his Christan faith or be viciously attacked.
"And if he happened to be married, his wife would say to him: 'Dear husband of mine, how can you get such notions into your head? How can you doubt that you are a Christian? Are you not a Dane, and does not the geography say that the Lutheran form of the Christian religion is the ruling religion in Denmark? For you are surely not a Jew, nor are you a Mohammedan; what then can you be if not a Christian? It is a thousand years since paganism was driven out of Denmark, so I know you are not a pagan." -- Johannes Climacus
"Political Wire publisher Taegan Goddard caught a lot of flak on Twitter after mocking Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker for claiming he could discern God’s will, only to admit that he had no idea Christians believed they could communicate with God through prayer."
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/24/reporter-mocks-scott-walker-for-claiming-to-communicate-with-god-through-prayer/
@Ann,
Jesus said "By their fruits you shall know them."
And Paul provided a helpful list of Fruits of the Spirit of God.
However, Jesus did warn His followers that many will preach His name (and perform miracles in His name!), yet be told at the end of days to Depart. "For I never knew you."
Do Episopalians or Baptists fall into that problem? Individually, or as a group? (From Jesus' teaching, I kind of suspect that asking about believers "as a group" is meaningless question. Hence the commentary upstream about the "invisible Church" and the "visible Church".)
@Unknown, @hombre
If a person can't agree with that Creed, then I don't think they should claim the title of Christian.
But as I said, Jesus talked about fruit more than about creeds. Even if the Creed is attributed to His Apostles.
Sure President Obama has talked about his Christian beliefs in the past, but who's to say he hasn't, you know, evolved....?
I have to question your assumption that Dana Milbank is shaping anyone's opinion of Scott Walker except for folks who already agree with him. The great mass of Low Information Voters have no idea who Dana Milbank is, a few more may have some recollection of the idiot who wore the Smurf hat to report on George Bush, and the rest of us know he's a partisan shill of the StatzMedia.
If attending Church with a Minister who preaches a sermon titled "God Damn America" makes you a Christian, then Obama is definitely a Christian.
"What does Hillary Clinton think about Dana Milbank's declaration that Scott Walker's cowardice should disqualify him as a serious presidential contender?"
Great question. Someone should find her and ask her. Oh, wait, she's in hiding (or rehab, or waiting for the tucks to heal, or whatever her reason is).
Adding to my list of potential responses from various GOP candidates, I can picture Huckabee (if he's running, I don't know) stepping up with a version of the "Bless his heart" response- something like this:
You know, one of the main things Jesus taught was not to judge others so it really isn't my place, but I will say that I was heartened during the campaign before the 2008 election when Obama spoke with passion about the circumstances that led him to join Reverend Wright's church. Of course on one of the political questions then, about gay marriage, he expressed an opinion at that time based on a religious view that is much closer to mine than what he currently states that he believes. And I think that other Americans who hold the more traditional Christian view on marriage might be puzzled about the President's change of heart, and maybe for some people that makes them question his sincerity, I don't know.
People calling themselves Christian very definitely runs a wide theological range. As far as collecting definitions I think it depends on whether your can be a heretic and a Christian simultaneously. If yes then all self professed Christians are "Christian". I take this view, using the term broadly. If no, then only the Book of Life has the final list.
@dreams
How can you not know that? It speaks of a total disengagement from religion. Not just unbelief, but something beyond that. It rather like living among Muslims and not noticing that they are called to prayer 5 times a day. What does he think prayer is for?
This appears to be another situation where a non-Christian thinks being a Christian is like being in a club. That being a Christian would mean a constant attempt to discern God's will so we could adhere to it does not occur to him.
I love that Clinton clip. As he starts to answer, you can see very briefly a little smirk on his lips. Its that moment when the thought leaves his brain and heads to his lips. He knows its total BS, and it humors him that he'll have the whole world snowed by his BS. Or so he thought.
As I remember Obama's statement on his views of who Jesus was-- it is very consistent with Muslim beliefs.
Jesus, a historical figure, a wise teacher and even a prophet, but a man-- not the Savior God, who, taking the form of a man, perfect in every way, laid down his life for the atonement of all who accept his sacrifice, raised the form of a man to new life, showing us the hope of the resurrected body in the coming age.
I'm not saying he is Muslim- I don't think he is, but it aligns with Muslim doctrine.
Why is this so hard for your rubes to understand?
ISIS and the like claim they're true Muslims and acting on behalf of that faith--they assert their Muslim identities over and over. The President says they're not really Muslims and accordingly shouldn't be associated with Islam.
The President has said he's a Christian a few times, and even said he could no more disown his longtime pastor than he could a member of his family (before, of course, he disowned that pastor), so anyone who dares to not affirmatively confirm their belief that Obama is a Christian should be excluded from consideration as a serious person.
This couldn't be more clear. ISIS says they're Islamist and if you belive that you're an idiot. Pres Obama says he's a Christian and if you fail to condemn anyone who doubts that you're an idiot. Obviously.
If you've been baptized, you're a Christian. From the moment of baptism and forever after. Period.
Everything else is just paperwork.
I was baptized and confirmed into the Episcopal church. Technically, I'm a Christian.
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 8: 35-39
But I don't believe.
However, I could take the easy path to blend in and gain acceptance with the dominant society. I could go a few blocks over to the nearest Episcopal Church this Sunday, kneel before the cross and present myself for the Eucharist. The priest and and congregation would embrace me love and joy, not knowing that there was a liar in in their midst.
That is not my path. I will not lie and deceive those I know and love who do believe. I was taught in the Church that faith is a secret mystery, a secret known only to the individual who professes and practices that faith. If you were to ask me if I thought so-and-so was a Christian, I would think you rude and tacky, and that you were delving in an area that was none of your damn business. My answer would be that I don't know. I haven't witnessed (a very important concept in this context.) their profession and practice of faith. Who am I to know?
Roughcoat said...
"If you've been baptized, you're a Christian. From the moment of baptism and forever after. Period."
Well, you know, boy! If it's just that easy, we ought to start triggering sprinkler-systems in malls, getting on the PA and saying "I baptize you in the name of the father, of the son, and of the holy ghost," or running around with rigs like those ones from "Ghostbusters II" hosing everyone down with holy water and reciting the baptismal formula! My goodness, if it were that simple, we could save every person alive with a few fire-hoses, a pump, an adequate supply of holy water, and a megaphone!
Of course, things aren't so simple.
Baptism is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. (Cf. Jn 3:5.) Baptism expurges original sin and such actual sin as antedates it, but it doesn't convert a person's heart, and it does nothing about subsequent actual sin.
BrianE said...
"As I remember Obama's statement on his views of who Jesus was ... [was] Jesus, a historical figure, a wise teacher and even a prophet, but a man-- not the Savior God, who, taking the form of a man, perfect in every way, laid down his life for the atonement of all who accept his sacrifice, raised the form of a man to new life, showing us the hope of the resurrected body in the coming age."
I think that this is one of the dominant beliefs of our time, including among self-styled Christians. It certainly isn't Christanity, because it neither has nor needs a Christ. It's "Jesusism," and whether recognized or not, it's nothing new--it's just a kind of soft Arianism. "All this has happened before, and all this will happen again."
Catholics once maintained that Protestants weren't Christian, and vice versa. Both Catholics and Protestants once agreed that Mormons weren't Christian. You can still find plenty of people within each group who still cling to those positions. The one thing that is known for certain is that Jesus wasn't a Christian since He died before Paul invented the Christian religion.
"SMG, you want to guarantee more asinine questions? Follow your advice.
He should blast reporters who ask dumb questions. Without fail"
Do what Rubio did.
Answer the question AND say its asinine.
The press is not going to go away simply by doing what Walker does. We can complain, we can say it's unfair, we can moan.
But that's not changing a damned thing.
This isn't just a debate between the candidate and the press. The public is also listening. I think most don't like this question but just dismissing it isn't persuasive to them (that's a guess).
Go over the head of the media by doing what Rubio did.
Again, for better or worse, the media is a player in this.
@Althouse:
So I hear you saying the Episcopalians aren't Christians anymore. A nice one for my collection of definitions.
Lighten up, Professor. It's a dark joke referring to the old church vs. country club that Catholics use to tease us with, and riffing on the schisms and bleeding of parishioners out of the Episcopal Church. It's a vey painful war that's divided my family. But nothing that you quoted of mine would suggest that I'm saying the Episcopal Church of America is somehow un-Christian. I figured william might get it. It's clear that you did not.
It seems to me that any and all who adhere to the Nicene Creed have long been considered Christian.
You don't cease being a Christian if you commit murder, since the idea is that we're all sinners, after all. Especially a Calvinist, who is a member of the "Elect," could not lose his status as a Christian.
In that way, ISIS beheaders can well be Muslims in spite of their transgressions. Obama needs to be pinned down on that.
When I was a kid, one could answer a question that demanded an "Absolutely!" by responding, "Is the Pope Catholic"?
Of course, in the Baptist and Bible churches I frequented, the answer to the question, "Is the Pope Christian?" would certainly have been "NO!"
Both Catholics and Protestants once agreed that Mormons weren't Christian.
I've solved this one by telling Mormons I'm Mormon.
I figure if they can abuse the English language, so can I.
Well, you know, boy! If it's just that easy, we ought to start triggering sprinkler-systems in malls, getting on the PA and saying "I baptize you in the name of the father, of the son, and of the holy ghost,"
Reminds me of the classic Lenten punchline: "You were born a cow, you were raised a cow, you are now a fish."
I suppose Milbank unwittingly opened up a worthwhile debate--namely, how everyone defines "Christian" (is it as simple as believing the divinity of Christ, or can different faiths see other factors involved) and how much we take someone at their word, or for that matter if any of us should judge such things. Walker's response suggested it's none of his business, rightly, and was rather polite about a stupid question he was asked. I suppose there are better answers he could have given--"your time on earth is finite, and you only have enough time to ask so many questions, and asking questions is your profession. And you choose to waste time asking this question?" "If you want to know if Obama is a Christian, maybe you should ask him. I also won't tell you what his favorite TV shows are, or what breed of dog he eats." "Perhaps you should ask Hillary Clinton, she was asked that seven years ago."
Walker ought to let this non-issue play out more--not in the "media is picking on me with gotcha questions" complaint (the complaint itself is as tired as the questions it complains about) but rather to emphasize that media figures are still obsessed with whether Obama is the religion he claims, and it seems most Republicans couldn't care less. After all, it was the Post reporters who brought this up, and Walker's answer isn't actually incorrect.
Both Mormons and Arian Christians (if there still are any Arian Christians), can sincerely accept the Apostles Creed. However, both of them believe that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are three separate, supernatural beings. The Nicene Creed was developed to exclude such beliefs from traditional Christianity, and firmly establish the doctrine of the Trinity.
Unknown said...
Milbank must think Obama is extra cowardly for not calling terrorists Muslim fanatics in light of their self declared Islamic jihad.
Unknown wins the thread
I think the Reformation freed us from the tyranny of others telling us what is or is not Christian, although it didn't free us from the attempts of others to control us by invoking divine insight.
The community organizers just can't stop organizing....others.
B. H. Obama is not a Muslim or a Christian as he worships only himself.
If Obama fits into one faith category, it is an old one called Scientific Marxism that historically must replace capitalism and all social order not submitting to the Idea.
That can be done the easy way or the hard way. And it so happens that World Weather Control also requires total control of all life by a great Leader to create the perfect earth Karl Marx saw coming.
Just saw Selma.
How many Christians rode their high horses across the Edmund Pettus Bridge?
Christianity explained in just over two minutes.
Answer the question AND say its asinine.
no, because they'll keep asking idiotic questions.
Just insult them. Ask if their editors have nobody qualified to do their jobs for them. Ask them what Hillary said about the topic. Refer to their ineptitude and incompetency constantly.
You don't NEED the media. Go above their head.
The press is not going to go away simply by doing what Walker does. We can complain, we can say it's unfair, we can moan.
But that's not changing a damned thing.
Playing along with their bullshit hasn't exactly worked wonders, either.
Hell, simple be silent. Say "I only answer questions that are remotely relevant".
When asked to discuss what somebody said, just reply "I'm sorry, you seem to have confused me for that person."
When asked if you think Obama is a Christian, reply that you don't know him and won't speak for him. Does he love America? Same thing.
You don't see Democrats asked to blow Republicans, do you? Republicans are asked because they WILL happily suck off a Democrat if the media asks them too.
We need to Knock. That. Shit. Off.
Hell, if the entire Republican field decided to copy Marshawn Lynch's media strategy, I'd applaud them.
Piss on their shoes. It's not like the reporters can do anything about it.
Cry and whine? Hell, Americans ALREADY hate the media.
If the people who are outraged about Walker not fervently dismissing any doubts about obama's Christian faith being sincere, thought that obama's Christian beliefs were sincere, then they wouldn't be on their knees worshiping obama.
Query for Dana Milbank: Is Mitt Romney a Christian?
The relationship between Christianity and the LDS is complicated enough that massive amounts of ink have been spilled over it. OTOH, the LDS is a lot closer to Christianity as generally understood and practiced than, say, ex-Bishop John Shelby Spong is.
Aw, rats. You guys have gotten onto the LDS already. Sorry not to have read the latest comments.
My Plan for Christian Life
In this life you should fight for justice; as soon as you pass over to the next life you should instantly ask for mercy.
If Planned Parenthood members or Democratic slime-media types get to heaven because it turns out they were following the best they knew how I won't know they are there, I'll never see or hear of them again because it will be heaven.
As an intelligent human being I know that Obama despises this country. I know he lied about Benghazi. He lied about gay marriage. He is lying right now about the negotiations with Iran. He's lying about why the IRS held up Tea Party applications - they did what he wanted. He lied about Obamacare being ready. He's lying right now about the true employment rate. He's wiping out the African-Americans through abortion; he's giving their jobs to Hispanics; he's lying about being a "brother" to them. And he's lying if he says he thinks religion matters; he really only thinks Hawaii matters and parties matter and golf matters.
But I wouldn't say, "he won't be saved and I will be." That's not something I know.
@ken in tx: The Nicene Creed predates the Apostles' Creed and was indeed intended to answer the Arian Heresy.
The Apostles' Creed was never intended to, and does not, reflect the Arian Heresy and is still in use in many churches today where the Trinity is fully understood - to the extent the Trinity can be fully understood.
(Edited to undo predictive text.)
Christianity is basically accepting what is written in the four gospels. And at its core is the acceptance of the crusifixtion and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins.
You can throw in the Nicene and Apostle's creeds to sum it up collectively.
It's quite simple. Everything else is on the unimportant fringe.
"In the good old days, Christians knew how to tell who was Christian and who wasn't.
And if they decided you weren't, they burned you at the stake."
In the better, much older days, they knew how to tell who was a Christian. If they decided you were, they burned you at the stake or killed you in other ways.
Well, I guess there's parts of the world this still is the way Christians are treated.
I'll accept anyone's assertion of faith and let God sort them out later.
Walker hit a home run with his answer and then nailed the stupid reporter over the stupid question.
I commented earlier about my limited experience with Pentecostal Christians (in re 'tongues' and SW). A shorter way of saying what I wrote then is, if I, Roman Catholic, could vote for Mitt Romney, LDS, then I can vote for a Pentecostal Scott Walker, if that is in fact who he is.
I'm surprised no GOP candidate has answered
"What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"
Althouse is either blinded by Walker love, or lying when she comes up with this defense for Walker.
Unlike Althouse, Dana knows what Walker knows:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/02/25/scott-walkers-view-of-obamas-religion-makes-him-a-moderate/
Walker's not taking a stand on principle, he's serving up red meat to rubes, I mean to Repubs.
Duh.
The Apostle's Creed defines the irreducible minimum of the Christian faith.
Out of curiosity: says who? It wasn't adopted until centuries after Jesus died, and has never been a universal Christian doctrine.
Is no one else uncomfortable with the idea of politicians defining religious faiths?
You need an epistemology check, PBandJ_LeDouanier.
Baptism is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one [to be a Christian].
I thought you were a Catholic, Simon? That is not in accordance with Catholic teaching. I quote from the catechism:
"Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated."
And your "putting holy water in mall sprinklers" idea would not constitute valid baptism, as you really ought to know. (Apart from the propriety of publicly comparing baptism to scenes in Ghostbusters... which I won't comment on specifically. ;-)
Mike Sylwester said...
"What does Hillary Clinton think about Dana Milbank's declaration that Scott Walker's cowardice should disqualify him as a serious presidential contender?"
I would rather hear Hillary describe what she think happened when Bill went to Orgy Island on Epstein's love plane with the 4 underage masseuses.
Achilles wrote:
"Bill went to Orgy Island on Epstein's love plane with the 4 underage masseuses."
Come now. There is no reason whatsoever to believe the girls knew anything about professional massage.
"I'm basing my answer on the famous old Bill Clinton answer which always made sense to me."
This sentiment says a lot about Althouse and democrat party member values. I would point to this moment as the point when democrats revealed to the nation that they had no integrity, no dignity, no interest in truth or justice or personal accountability or their responsibilities to the American people to govern for the greater good. It was a de facto proclamation that there was no rule, law or moral code that democrats wouldn't defile to retain power. Further, that there was nothing that a democrat could do that wouldn't be protected and defended by the democrat party press and fellow party members. Look at the whole quote here:
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."
Is there a woman in the world who would accept this absurd rationale, this excuse for a lie if she had caught her partner cheating? Althouse, would you admire this statement if your husband lied this way to you about an affair? Is there a parent in the world who would allow their child to lie to them using this kind of perverted semantics? And to admire it? To say that it makes sense, instead of scorning it for the cowardly weasel-words they are? That is, should be, shameful. But being a democrat means having no shame, no scruples, no honor.
This was simply one of the lowest, most despicable, craven, embarrassing utterances ever spoken by an American president. And democrat party members responded by defending it, rationalizing it, and eventually outright admiring it for the chutzpah displayed. The quote above was copied from a Slate article from September 1998 in which the author, Timothy Noah, praises Clinton as a Zen master who thinks carefully about the true meaning of words.
This really was a seminal moment in American politics. The casual acceptance of unrepentant deceit has led directly to the Obama presidency which has been lies and dishonesty and subterfuge from its inception. From blatantly concealing and misrepresenting his personal history, to openly lying on topics ranging from his views on gay marriage, to the content of momentous legislation, to the criminal activities of federal government agencies, this presidency and this electorate are the harvest of that shameful speech and its aftermath. The young voters today who unquestioningly support Obama were children when this Clinton/Lewinsky scandal surfaced. They observed and absorbed the behavior and attitudes of their authority figures, and they have grown into adults without a moral or ethical foundation. Thus we have "Fake but accurate" ethos coupled with the "Hands up, don't shoot" dishonesty. This nation is in dire need of a cultural awakening where the kind of honesty and integrity which previous generations were taught is restored and celebrated. Kids used to be taught to emulate and admire a president who said "I can not tell a lie.", and another who carried the name "Honest Abe". Now we have presidents who teach them that it's okay to lie to get what you want, and that if your lie is big, and bold and outrageous, you'll be praised and rewarded.
Jaed, my comment is consistent with that quote from CCC1272. :)
I am less sure than you that the "firehose" baptism would be invalid. Illicit, sure, but invalid? The traditional approach stresses valid matter and form as minima, both of which are satisfied; some authorities (the Catechism of Pius X, for example, explicitly add a requirement usually presupposed, namely the intent of the minister. Is the consent of the baptizee required to make it valid? I'm not so sure that it is. Consider infant baptism. Ordinarily, we think of the parents as consenting on behalf of the child, and committing to raise it in the Catholic faith, and Canon 868 affirms that such consent is required for the baptism to be licit. But Canon 868 also provides that in some circumstances, the baptism is licit even without consent, and that implies that the baptism is valid either way. After all, if consent is required for validity, it can't be waived, right?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा