SAY IT AIN’T SO, BRO
Posted on March 28th, 2008 by joebib into the Politics, joebib writes categoryThis one's just in from The Christian Post:
OBAMA SUGGESTS JESUS CHRIST NOT THE ONLY WAY TO HEAVEN
Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama suggested Wednesday that Jesus Christ is not the only way to heaven during a campaign event in North Carolina.
Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama D-Ill., speaks at a town hall meeting in Greensboro, N.C., Wednesday, March 26, 2008. While answering a question about his Christian faith, Obama said he believes that Jesus Christ died for his sins and through God’s grace and mercy he could have “everlasting life,” according to the Los Angeles Times.
But he also believes Jews and Muslims and non-believers who live moral lives are as much “children of God” as he is, according to The Associated Press.
As an example, he spoke about his late mother who was “not a believer.”
"[S]he was the kindest, most decent, generous person that I have ever known," Obama said, according to the Times. "I'm sure she is in heaven, even though she may not have subscribed to everything that I subscribe to."
Obama’s response came amid the recent controversy surrounding his former Chicago pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who made inflammatory remarks about race and America in sermons he delivered many years ago.
The Illinois senator, who has made religion a cornerstone of his campaign, has denounced the comments – which included “God damn America” for its racism – but refuses to distance himself from the pastor, whom he compares to an uncle.
During his response on Wednesday, Obama praised his church, Trinity United Church of Christ, especially its choir, and said it was very warm and welcoming and is like any other church in America in that it exists to praise God.
Obama also said he believes in putting the Gospel to action here on Earth and treating people with “dignity” and “respect” as children of God, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Currently, Obama is leading the Democratic race with 1,622 delegates compared to Hillary Clinton’s 1,485, according to CNN.
That's just great. 
(And just when I thought I had this whole thing figured out…)
-joebib
RSS feed for posts
March 28th, 2008 at 6:43 am
Joe,
A wise friend once noted that most Christian pastors believe in universal salvation; “why just listen to their eulogies”, he said. “The meanest, nastiest, most sinful person to ever walk the earth, who never attended church or ever took Jesus as savior, becomes a saint in burial” …
Obama, FYI, is UCC. That denomination is all about inclusiveness.
March 28th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Why do fundy Christians find Universalism threatening? Why do they think that God is so small that he fits into the bible box? Why do they limit him to words on a page? Why is true and pure unconditional love threatening?
The fundamentalist Christian should look to Copernicus and see the earth goes around the sun, not versa visa. Earth is only one of many planets.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
What are you saying, No-Um? Are you a universalist? Note, I have been tarred and feathered elsewhere for simply saying that I “lean towards” the belief of “ultimate reconciliation”, which others promptly labeled “universalism” …
The basis of my statement is a great number of scriptures that express the will of God that all men should be saved - and the observation that death and hell, at the time they are thrown into the lake of fire, have been emptied of their people. The LOF stands as a possibility for people, though I see no direct / specific scripture stating that any person would be tossed into the LOF. To be true, I have NOT spent an inordinate amount of time pouring over scriptures on the subject … rather, what I have expressed here and on the other site where I was keel-hauled is that I have put an ear to the heart of God, and I hear Him express the desire / will for all men to be saved. Just how He does that, I don’t know … perhaps for some, it will be “by the skins of their teeth” …
L8r!
March 29th, 2008 at 8:28 am
I see the many different camps fighting over words, fighting over what they mean. Anyone can conclude whatever preconcieved ideas they have by using the bible.
When I came out from under BT’s Umbrella the emotional struggle was what to do with all the wonderful experiences with God. Were “real” or were they only contrived by the setting and influence of the group dynamics.
I have concluded that the relationship I have with God, my prayer life is what is genuine. The experience I call “God’s presense with me” has not changed when my view of the Bible and it’s authority has changed.
I asked the hard questions. Why am I so fearful that God loves an evil a person? How many parts of the Bible do I ignor, while claiming to believe it, because they are too difficult to reconcile with the loving God I experience? How do I know that other faiths are wrong when descriptions of their experience of God’s presence is like my own.
I see Christians changing and leaving IC churches, but not willing to keep going. Keep asking hard questions and see where it takes you.
Sam, yes, I would fit into the camp of the Universalist, not because I reasoned it out in my head, but because I know it to be true in heart.
Fear seems to keep people bound. But I am wanting to know still, why is it that people fear love? Why is it abhorant that other religions might have a string of truth which connects them to the same God Christians worship? This isn’t a ratorical question, I am really wanting to hear from Sam’s heart. Not Biblical thoughts or quotes, but emotional, “GUT” thoughts on this issue. How do you feel about people burning in hell for eternity. Does that sync with the God you know when you pray?
Joe’s entry implys that Obama is not a “true” believe if he thinks other religions can know God, so I’m just asking why that’s so bad…. asside from the doctine battle.
March 29th, 2008 at 11:16 am
The difference is Jesus, NoUm. He is who He said He is and His word is complete truth, or not. He said “I am THE way, THE truth, THE life; NO ONE comes to the Father except through Me” …
The other religions teach a path to God that does not include Jesus and as such, I believe adherents to those alternate religions will come face to face with Jesus for the first time, upon the event of their death.
The question seems to be is there grace / life / forgiveness for those who do not receive / acknowledge Jesus Christ until after they die?
It seems to me that there is, for it is written “EVERY knee will bow and EVERY tongue will confess, Jesus Christ is Lord” … elsewhere, Peter said “if thou shalt confess with thy mouth “Jesus is Lord”, and believe in thine heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved” …
Well, it appears that everyone will meet that criteria eventually - some just don’t come to that confession and belief until after death and after being shown, like good ol’ doubting Thomas.
Where I find it difficult to believe is, will the Lord take those who are made to “bow the knee” and confess, and throw them into the LOF saying “too little, too late, suckers …”
I can’t prove it by scripture - it is just my hope, my prayer, my greater faith in a God who is “mighty to save” and who is “willing that none should perish” … than I believe in a God who is eager to condemn as some evangelicals make Him out to be …
Can the muslim help it if he was born in a region / culture / religion that denies the Son of God or even persecutes / puts to death ‘infidels’? Romans 7 makes it sound like the flesh can not overcome sin, so the only prescription to escape the law and find life in Christ, is death … and as it is written, it is appointed for every man to die once … so perhaps the ultimate wisdom and grace of God has made possible the salvation of every man by condemning every man to death, whereupon every man is ultimately faced with “the door” who is Christ Jesus. Funny … thinking about our lives like an hour glass … we can’t escape death and Jesus any more than sand can escape passing through the narrow gap to the other side …
In my way of thinking, most evangelicals are just bickering over the timing of salvation … and I think the Father would have us know salvation in Christ Jesus sooner or later - that we would make peace with Him through Christ now, rather than delay it to the end, when a person would be shown the horror of their life with out Jesus … imagine facing Him and having to own up to persecuting Him in the person of believers - of owning up to all the slander we’ve spewed … better to walk with Him now and confess the sin now and receive forgiveness now, rather than pile up all that debt for the end …
Obama is just a more liberal Christian - belonging to a denomination that focuses on a different subset of scripture (the truth) than yer typical fire-and-brimstone type. It just seems to be a matter of the revelation people have, NoUm. You mentioned the other religions - Christians are really just practitioners of the jewish religion (OT / Torah) who have also received Yeshua. So, since the jews who knew God through Moses, David, et al, have not received Jesus, will God condemn the people through and for whom He sent His son? I think they’ll meet Him in death, weep over their life choices, receive Him in death and be saved. The only real difference between the Jews and Christians is, the Christians simply have the more current revelation - rather - they know the one who is God revealed.
I believe all men will be saved, not because I can prove it with scripture, not because I have some revelation others don’t, but because I believe my Lord and Savior is that strong, is that determined.
There’s an old scripture in Isaiah that speaks to the fierce determination of the Lord - He says “how can I give my glory to another - I will not yield” … I wouldn’t want to be in the devil’s shoes going up against God in whom there is “no quit” …
Ah - it’s this passage NoUm:
I just really feel the heart of the Father in that passage … and I seem to know that I - people in general - have NO understanding for how great and powerful He is nor the lengths to which He will go to save men and crush the rebellion of the devil …
Sam
March 29th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
So, Sam… have you left your alter-ego behind?
While I do not believe the Bible teaches ultimate reconciliation, I do see Scripturally that God’s criteria seems to be much different than has been often taught from the pulpit.
I find great comfort in Romans 1 and 2, that the Lord gives everyone a choice. It is just not possible that every human that ever lived will have had the chance to hear the gospel. But everyone (of age) has the chance to recognize a transcendant Being and He is fully able to take it from there.
But I have great difficulty with the saying “all paths lead to God” for this reason: If there is a way to God that does not require the death of His Son, then the suffering and murder of Jesus is unnecessary. Therefore, if a person hears the gospel, and decides to try another path because they don’t like the blood-stained one, then they have made a choice, rejected His Son, and God will abide by their decision.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Agreed Anna - Jesus is THE (one and only) door. The path to the Father / life is through Him and Him alone.
The only question / observation I have is, whether people must enter into Him in this life or for those not afforded the opportunity in this life, can they enter in to Him after their physical death, upon meeting Him in the afterlife for the first time?
I don’t have an answer - but have a hope that all men will be saved, ultimately, even if it means coming face to face with him, aware of complete failure and sin in this life, reduced to sobbing over the waste of this life not knowing him - resisting him - denying and even persecuting him - I hope, even pray, everyone has that opportunity to enter in through Him, and that His love and forgiveness is enough to melt even the strongest resistance …
My altar ego seems to depend on which computer I’m using.
There’s a fleet of ‘em around here … 
March 30th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
I’ve been reading about near death experiences over the past few years. Descriptions about the expreience have the common thread of people feeling that they are being pulled toward a bright loving light.
The interesting thing is that people with Christian background say this light is Jesus, people with Islam backgroud say this light is Allah, Hindus say it’s one of thier gods, etc. etc.
Perhaps that light is Sam’s “whether people must enter into Him in this life or for those not afforded the opportunity in this life, can they enter in to Him after their physical death, upon meeting Him in the afterlife for the first time?”
And Anna’s”But everyone (of age) has the chance to recognize a transcendant Being and He is fully able to take it from there.
Here is something to consider: After Jesus was raised from the dead and he appeared to his followers, many did not recongize him. Perhaps, Jesus is appearing in many place and not being recognized as “Jesus” but being there all the same. Since he does not posess a “human ego” would he really care what name he is called, as long as his redemptive love is able to penatrate the dark places?
This may settle the “only through Jesus” delema, while syncing with the trancentant love of God I/we have encountered in the depth of our being.
March 30th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
This morning we were studying Revelation 16, which is about the “bowls of wrath.” These are hard passages to wrap my mind around because they show such a different aspect of the Lord. When we picture Jesus, do we think of Isaiah 63 or Psalm 110?
But it comes to mind that in our conversation about salvation, we must remember that the Cross is not only a demonstration of the love of God, but a demonstration of His wrath as well. If we ignore that part of the equation, our understanding will be warped.
We just can’t cut Rev. 14:9-12 out with our scissors because it offends us. We need to learn from John 6 how to handle it when God offends us. Do we still love Him and trust Him, while admitting we do not understand Him? I hope so.
ps to No-Um: I think the Lord does care what name people use. In Is. 42:8 He said, “I am YHWH, that is My name. And My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to carved images.” Also note Phil. 2:9-11.
March 30th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Any insight Anna as to whether the afflictions contained in the 7 bowls of Rev. 16 are literal/physical or spiritual and whether or not any of them have been poured out yet?
I’ve certainly experienced a measure of affliction in this life - at times I would have called this life “hell”. I’ve known wounds of the soul / spirit from the enemy, from religious abuse … I’ve been to institutional churches whose water supply was dried up and dead - with some of the OT symbology found especially in the psalms, I’m inclined to receive Rev. 16 metaphorically and spiritually … that also has to do with your John 6 reference - vs. 63 says “my words are SPIRIT … ” and Revelation after all is the Revelation of Jesus Christ to the apostle John for the church …
If Rev. 16 is literal / physical, us ‘prosperity believin’ Christians would be well advised to by stock in Jergen’s and Eucerin and various sun blocking creams …
March 30th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Hey Joe, the comment above reminds me of a story Walter Martin used to tell about arguing with a JW … Walter called him ‘brother’ and the JW took exception … so Walter asked the JW if he believed God made Adam and Eve and whether he believed we are all descended from Adam and Eve … the JW agreed with Walter so once again he said something like “glad we can agree on that, BROTHER!” …
What bugs me about that Christian Post article, Joe, is that it is “conclusive” but offers very few direct Obama quotes to support the summary / conclusion drawn by the Post … an inventory of quotes from Obama yields:
How shocking Obama’s words are! Let’s round up the brethren and burn him as a heretic!
I don’t know about you, but I’d call that article a hack job.
Call me this week, Joe, so I can get you straightened out again. K?
Sam
March 31st, 2008 at 10:15 am
A bunch of confused christians. No wonder Jesus has not returned yet. Most of you can not even agreeing how people get to heaven, born again, saved, etc etc hahahaha.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Well…YEAH! Of course it is, as are most of the pithy comments around here, for that matter.
I mean, can you imagine how it would be if the mods turned off the "blockquote" feature? We'd actually have to start quoting people fully and in context! Since that would make it very difficult to distort/misinterpret what everyone else is saying, the comments would virtually dry up, and I for one would have very little to say.
-joe
March 31st, 2008 at 7:15 pm
SAY IT AINT SO-O-WHOA-OH-OHHHH
YOUR DRUG IS A HEARTBREAKERRRR
June 19th, 2008 at 8:28 am
I love this article. This is really who you want in the White House? Here’s the link.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Sorry here’s the link.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11168.html
June 19th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Man our political system is broken.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Yeah, the subject of that article is being discussed on the recording board I frequent … if the McCain campaign is smart, they won’t even acknowledge the issue - because if he does criticize Obama for it, McCain will need to make a visible show of support of/from Muslims - and that will most certainly cheese-off the Christian right. Imagine if instead of being photographed in front of a row of US flags, McCain appeared flanked by Muslims in front of a mosque … ain’t gonna happen, and he’d better not criticize Obama for it else he step into a quagmire with conservatives …
June 19th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Yeah, but I love it when you have a candidate who says he’s inclusive of everyone and then he goes and does something like this. Here’s another link. Just another politician who goes back on his word. Forget this “change” message.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Actually, it’s consistent with a “change” message … it’s a “change” from the last “change” message … why, he’s downright chameleon …
Reminds me, I have to find out if the LP.org candidate (Barr) is on the IL ballot yet or if I’m gonna hafta do a write-in again this year. One thing’s for certain - we won’t see any of the other candidates appear in IL.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Doesn’t the article start by saying:
Sounds to me like this article is reaching…in fact most of the Obama bashing is very far reaching. There’s not a whole lot to criticize the guy about so articles like this get written that are really more of an attempt to stir some controversy that’s not really there.. Who cars if a couple of volunteers didn’t want Muslim women in a picture? You really think that is going to effect how Obama runs the country? Kinda silly if you ask me.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:17 am
The problem is that it happened more than once. Deciding who is going to sit behind the candidate for pictures does not happen by chance.
This does not make Obama a bad candidate. It simply shows that he is willing to compromise to get elected just like every other politician.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:06 am
Ex slave, maybe you should check out my second link and tell me what you think about his sudden reversal about public money? Why isn’t the liberal media all over him? Well cuz he’s Obama of course! And this is “Obama bashing (and) it is far reaching”. I don’t think so. This guy lied about what he said he would do. Not only that, he hasn’t even given a good reason for doing so. You know what his “people” said? They said well Obama needs to raise his own money to combat the lies that conservative 571L’s are going to spread about him.
Are you kidding me? The only ad’s so far have been the ridiculous ad’s by MoveOn.org trashing McCain. No tell me how this is 1) far reaching and 2) not hypocritical.
June 20th, 2008 at 11:02 am
I don’t think Obama lied, I think he just changed his mind. I suspect he initially intended to take public financing, until he realized he could raise a lot more money if he opted out of public financing. Which, of course, is completely self-serving.
But yeah, I agree, I am surprised the media isn’t picking up on this more. It’s a pretty big reversal in his stance. Though, it may just take a while for the media to really pick it up.
FWIW, in my opinion, this was the right move. Money runs politics, and you’re not going to win if you hamper yourself by only relying on public funds. Obama is taking the short term hit, by appearing inconsistent, in order to realize the long term gain of hundreds of millions of dollars in fundraising. See, I don’t think Obama is perfect. I just want him to win.
June 20th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Not making allowances for change is a sign of a closed-minded, stubborn and not-so-smart (!) individual. This is often the issue with fundamentalist Christians — they cannot allow for any change — their rules/guidelines are rigid. That is why when someone else begins to question things and develop ideas that don’t fit in with their rules, they reject not just the ideas but often the person.
Everyone has an opinion on how they will raise their children — what they will and won’t do. But their ideas usually change once they actually experience having the children. Political opposition likes to take a change of mind/heart (upon gaining more experience, knowledge & understanding) and call it “lying” to serve their own purposes. Just my two cents.
June 20th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
There is no problem with changing your mind. It is a sign of learning. The problem is when a person is duplicitous in explaining the change of mind. His reasoning for changing his mind on accepting public funding was that he felt he needed to battle the GOP’s 527s. Well, the only political add I have seen is from a 527 against McCain. So, is Obama going to work against the Dems 527s, of course not. Changing your mind is OK. Not being honest is a bad thing. He is turning down the public money because he is making tons of money as is. He is also doing without all of the PAC money. I think he made the correct decision. I would have preferred him to talk about how his fundraising results is the model for the future blah, blah, blah. I believe it is in the best interest for me to be president. Using the money that regular citizens are sending in blah, blah, blah. He could have turned this into a positive in my opinion. Instead, he looks like a flip flopper.
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:04 am
Mountains out of mole hills to me…but we are all entitled to our own opinions. I don’t consider something like this hypocritical because it doesn’t go to the heart of who he is. Everyone can change their mind. If it is something that bothers you then great, you can vote for McCain. But for me, don’t care if he changes his mind a bit about stuff that bears no significance to me. Now if he decided to go back on his word about ending the conflict in Iraq, then I would be upset. That would be a serious breach of public trust because he has run his whole campaign on being against the war.
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:25 am
FF,
I get what you are saying…it makes sense and I agree with you. I have to stop myself and take a step back when it comes to certain things…my initial reaction is to defend
June 23rd, 2008 at 3:52 pm
You’re wrong. Obama has asked MoveOn to stop their 527’s.
Also, McCain is way worse on this issue. McCain actually officially opted to accept PUblic Financing (when his campaign was broke) and is now pretending he never did, (which is an FEC violation) and is in fact breaking the law.
June 23rd, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Cat,
According to the article the only thing it is shutting down is the way it raises money, correct? I don’t think the ad said it is not going to continue airing the ads that it has produced? It is just changing the way it is raising its money.
Also, would you mind providing proof for your accusation against McCain?
Thanks,
Prez
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Here’s the section I was referring to on McCain:
And I thought MoveOn was shutting the 527 ads down, but perhaps I was wrong.
June 23rd, 2008 at 6:29 pm
The ad I saw was not a MoveOn ad. I am not trying to compare McCain to Obama in my comments. What I am looking at for myself is whether or not Obama will truly be a change candidate. My current evaluation of Obama is to see whether or not his rhetoric is going to match his actions. To me, when his explanation was a shot at the Republicans rather than simply making a more positive case said “old politics” to me.
Here is another example. There has been an on-going discussion about under what terms we will negotiate with countries with terrorist ties and nuclear ambitions. Obama says that he will not continue the failed policy of the Bush administration of not talking with those people without pre-conditions. Well, requiring pre-conditions has been an American policy for forever. It was Clinton’s policy. So, when I hear that I hear “same old, same old”, not new style political candidate.
Let me predict now that the withdrawal of troops will take Obama’s entire first term.
None of that means I like or vote for McCain. They are just observations about Obama as a candidate.