Obama is Insane
Monday, June 2nd, 2008 at
8:46 pm
From a theological perspective at least. Heresy? Via the corner.
GG: Do you believe in sin?
OBAMA: Yes.
GG: What is sin?
OBAMA: Being out of alignment with my values.
I can’t imagine a way to spin that as reasonable in or out of context. Sin is being out of line with Obama’s values?
Well, in the light that for the liberal/progressive hypocrisy is the only sin … that makes sense. That is, the only error one can make is not “being true to oneself” or acting differently than one the values one believes in.
However … that isn’t what sin is.
Filed under: Christianity • Liberal • Mark O. • Politics • Religion
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
What if he had said, “Being out of line with my Christian values” – would that have made a difference to you?
For sin is, in one definition, falling short of the mark, in perhaps the best biblical definition of the concept (“For all have sinned and fallen short of the Kingdom of God…”), falling short of WHAT mark? God’s Way, and our understanding of God’s Way are our Christian values, are they not?
I think you’re trying to hard to find fault with a brother in Christ. There’s nothing wrong with what he said.
Dan,
That would be wrong too.
Let’s put it another way, if a person told you that he thought sin was defined as above (being in alignment with my Christian values) and that his reading Scripture told him that he must kill the infidel. Would he be sinning when he slaughtered villages of Muslims?
He would be correct in saying that is how sin is defined. He would be incorrect in his interpretation of scripture.
How do you define sin?
Dan,
Sin is that which separates us or moves us away from God.
Sin is not about “my values.”
Dan,
The problem is the “my” in the sentence.
Sin separates us from God, that would be one definition of what sin does. But what IS sin? “THAT which separates us from God” – What is “THAT”?
Ultimately, we probably agree that sins are those actions which fall short of God’s Way – as defined by God, not by us. But, we can’t speak for God, we can only speak as to our understanding of God’s Way.
Again, I think you’re striving way too hard to disagree with a fella. Perhaps for political reasons (ie, you don’t like his politics)?
Dan,
Sin is defined by what it does. That is, sin is all those things which separate us from God.
This statement is contradicted by the statement that sin “is not acting according to my values.”
You either agree with your statement on sin and disagree with Obama or don’t actually follow your statement and agree with Obama. Which is it. You can’t logically have both.
Sin is defined by what it does. That is, sin is all those things which separate us from God.
Says you. Christians have had many discussions over the years over what is/isn’t sin, how to define it, etc. The Bible doesn’t offer us a precise definition is, although I think Paul’s “all have sinned and fallen short” is a fairly commonly accepted definition – at least in the evangelical world.
If I’m not mistaken, I’ve heard it said that the Greek word for sin in the Bible is translated literally as “falling short” as an arrow might fall short of its target.
You either agree with your statement on sin and disagree with Obama or don’t actually follow your statement and agree with Obama. Which is it? You can’t logically have both.
Once again, says you.
For my part, I fully understand that some things are objectively wrong (killing children, for instance) and always so. But as I’ve noted before, we are imperfect humans, we do not/can not speak FOR God 100% correctly.
So, I think the best definition of sin that Obama could have offered would have been to say that sin is falling short of living aright, or of living God’s Way.
But it is acceptable to me to say that sin is not living up to our Christian ideals, or even our ideals – with the implication (for Christians) that we’re talking about Christian ideals.
Why is it acceptable to me when it is not the way I would define it? Because it’s not that big a point.
The Bible does not tell us specifically how to define sin.
Church tradition does not tell us specifically how to define sin.
God has not told us how to define sin.
Mark HAS told us how HE defines sin, and I have offered how I define sin, but those are our human best interpretations of an undefined biblical concept.
IF I thought Obama was saying, “Whatever I think is sin, IS sin,” then I would disagree with him. I don’t for one second think he thinks thusly (and even then, there is some reality in that definition – “what I think is sinful, is sin for me…”) The Bible offers that suggestion itself.
1 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions.
2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only.
3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.
4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.
Romans 7
Thus, this biblically undefined concept is a bit vague in ways. Is it possible that sin depends on who we’re talking about? Isn’t that what this passage is saying?
For the alcholic, drinking alcohol may be a very grievous sin. For the tea-totaller, taking one drink of beer may not be a sin.
On what basis do you hold your definition of sin?
Dan,
We are not in essential disagreement theologically on what constitutes sin. However, we both disagree with Obama. Sin is not “my values”. The definition of sin lies outside of “me”.
To think so, is theological insanity.
Dan,
Uhm, that’s what he said. How can you not think a person is saying what their words mean? He said, “Being out of alignment with my values.” How is that not wrong?
What is sin (you say, “Sin is that which separates us or moves us away from God.”) and on what do you base that position?
Do you have even one Bible verse that says that is the one and only true definition of sin? A church leader? Says who?
What of Paul’s description of sins that are more subjective and personal in nature? Was Paul “insane,” too?
Dan said:
IF I thought Obama was saying, “Whatever I think is sin, IS sin,” then I would disagree with him.
Mark replied:
Uhm, that’s what he said.
I think we have a problem too often by thinking we know what the other person says, even when he hasn’t said that. In fact, Obama said, and I quote, [sin is] “Being out of alignment with my values.”
Obama did NOT say, “Whatever I think is sin, IS sin.” Those statements are not the same.
On what he actually said, one would have to know from WHERE did “my values” derive? Did the speaker mean to say “MY values which I make up out of whatever seems right to me,” OR did the speaker mean to say, “My values that I derive from my Christian faith system”?
You’re suggesting without proof that he intended the first version. I see no reason to believe that, short of more shallow, partisan reasons.
The two statements are not one in the same.
Dan,
It doesn’t matter “where his values derived”. Sin is not defined by what Obama or anyone else thinks there are.
Note comment 2, imagine he is Obama. You would tell him, killing those Muslims is a sin. He would say, no it is in line with my values. You would disagree with the idea that for him, “my values” define sin. The same with the “real” Obama. What his values are is irrelevant to what sin is. It doesn’t matter if his values were “derived” from his method of exegesis of the Christian gospels and faith system or not. The sinful nature of his actions do not derive or have anything to do with “his values.”
Are you suggesting, when you face Christ in His judgment seat at the eschaton that you would defend those actions which He tells you were sinful because after all, they really weren’t sinful because they were in accord with “your values.” I won’t and I think neither would you. But that is, alas, how Obama apparently views the matter.
Nowhere, when you discuss sin in the above. do you ever align sin with personal internal value system. You have now, and in other discussions always used external referents be they Scripture, tradition, or revelation to decide what is right. When you were arguing that “killing children is always wrong” you never argued that it was right because it was aligned (or not) with “your values”. Sin in your argument has never been “about you” except for just now.
Defining “sin” as alignment with “my values” is theological insanity, nothing you’ve actually logically argued says anything different.
The only reason you’re defending it are “shallow partisan reasons.” That particular insult works both ways.
‘Twas not intended as an insult but an observation.
If McCain had made that same statement, I’d be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, too, so it is not designed to be partisan nor shallow on my part.
And so, HOW do you define sin (are you sticking with your earlier attempt?) and BASED ON WHAT?
Dan,
Actually, defining sin as alignment with my values is something we know. It’s called humanism, which is theologically unsustainable, although contains its own internally consistent logic.
Sin in your argument has never been “about you” except for just now.
You are correct. And it is now only because I do not believe Obama is saying what you think he is saying. You are free to jump on it and say, “YES! THIS is what he is saying!” but I think you’d be wrong (objectively wrong) for doing so.
Knowing many folk who don’t normally talk about religion or faith matters, I know that if you were to ask them what sin is, you’d get all manner of responses. I could be wrong, but I don’t think Obama is saying what you are thinking he is saying.
Most people believe in objective truth, even if they don’t always express that. Just as in our earlier conversations, YOU seemed to express that you don’t believe in objective Good and Evil, but rather, by deciding one way, you are expressing what YOU think is the Good. Or something like that.
That’s what I picked up from your words earlier – that you don’t believe in objective Right and Wrong, but rather in moral relativism (sometimes killing babies is a good and sometimes it is wrong). I don’t think you really think that, but it sure sounded like that is what you were saying.
Actually, defining sin as alignment with my values is something we know. It’s called humanism, which is theologically unsustainable, although contains its own internally consistent logic.
And so, PAUL was a humanist AND insane?
ON. WHAT. BASIS?
Dan,
Hmm. So if I had said, “sin is acting differently than my (personal) values.”
You’d have said, “That’s just peachy?”
I think not. So why would you give Obama (and McCain?) a pass?
And I’m unclear on why you think my definition of what constitutes sin relevant. Where does that enter into this discussion?
Dan,
St. Paul never said “sin is what I think it is.” And I didn’t say Obama was insane, I said his statement was theological insanity.
We’re discussing “sin.” How you define it and on what basis matters.
One of the (objective) sins that I think our more conservative brethren tend to make (and I still make quite often) is that of being stingy with Grace. Assume the worst of a person’s statement and take it the worst way possible.
You are assuming that Obama MEANS that he thinks sin is whatever he says it is. Obama didn’t say that.
And still I wonder, do you think Paul was a humanist and insane when he used more subjective wording to talk about sin?
In truth, the Bible discusses sin in many contexts and looks at it a variety of ways. You seem to be saying “ONLY MY VIEW of sin is accurate and ONLY WHAT I THINK Obama meant is accurate.”
The sin of hubris.
St. Paul never said “sin is what I think it is.”
NEITHER DID OBAMA!
Dan,
But he (Obama) did.
Uhm. No I’m not. I said your description of sin (St. Paul’s) and mine are essentially the same, but not anything like Obama’s. And I’m only interpreting Obama based on he said not what I “think he must have meant but didn’t say.”
Obama said “my values”.. He didn’t say St. Paul’s values, God’s values, those values expressed in the traditions of my Church, or any other such thing. He said “(sin is) acting out of alignment with my values”. How is that not logically equivalent to “sin is what I think it is”, i.e., my values? There is no other way to interpret that.
When i was in the Army, we had a joke about writing someone’s efficiency report to say, “This officer failed even to live up to the low standards he set for himself.”
I have read the entire interview Obama gave in March 2004 to the then religion reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times. It’s here.
There is no question, ISTM, in context, that Obama is in fact defining “sin” to be whatever he wants it to be at the time. His entire frame of reference in discussing religion is completely self directed and self centered.
Even when pressed by the reporter, Obama never even comes close to confessing Jesus as the Son, co-equal with the Father. At best, Jesus is a “bridge to God,” or a moral example, but no divine. It simply begs credulity that Obama would believe Jesus so and not say it during an interview of this depth.
Elsewhere:
GG [interviewer] Do you believe in heaven?
Obama: What I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, that I will be rewarded. I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing.
The Sin question, in full:
GG: Do you believe in sin?
OBAMA: Yes.
GG: What is sin?
OBAMA: Being out of alignment with my values.
GG:
What happens if you have sin in your life?
OBAMA: I think it’s the same thing as the question about heaven. In the same way that if I’m true to myself and my faith that that is its own reward, when I’m not true to it, it’s its own punishment.
Later:
GG: What are you doing when you feel the most centered, the most aligned spiritually?
OBAMA: I think I already described it. It’s when I’m being true to myself.
GG: Is there someone you would look to as an example of how not to do it?
OBAMA: Bin Laden. (grins broadly)
“Grins broadly” = “Gosh, I’m glib.” (In the interview, Obama actually describes himself as glib.)
But is not bin Laden also being true to himself? Is he not staying in alignment with his own values?
Obama’s is a near-totally self-referential religion, and I have a hard time calling it Christianity. But why be surprised? After all, this is a politician who tells his audiences, “We are the change we’ve been waiting for.” Just what the heck does that mean?
Having said that, I’ll go on to say that my overwhelming reservations about Obama do not stem from his personal religion, or lack thereof, or whatever it may be. I do not insist that someone be Christian to hold the office. In fact, I voted for Lieberman during the 2004 Tenn. primary. My severe concern with Obama is the fact that he is a hardcore leftist, a very typical product of the Chicago political machine, who seems to be less about interviewing for the highest office in the land than about creating a cultic following.
Worse, I have exactly zero confidence that he holds the Constitution to be anything other than whatever he wants it to be, that is, a malleable, “living” document actually designed to enhance rather than limit the powers of government (a shortcoming sadly shared by Hillary and McCain, too).
(Don’t think for a minute that Hillary of McCain fill me with gladness. No matter who wins the Dem nomination, voting this November will seem to me to be like deciding whether I want to be hanged or electrocuted.)
Says you.
I have already shown that there IS, in fact, another way to interpret it. It depends on what he means by “my values,” doesn’t it?
WHICH definition of Paul’s do you agree with?
Romans, where he suggests the “falling short” idea?
The other one in Romans where Paul suggests that sin is subjective – depending on the person and their faith? (“One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only.”)
Or the other one in Romans 14 where Paul says, “for whatsoever is not of faith is sin”?
Dan,
Yes, I suppose if “my values” doesn’t mean “my values”, but something entirely different then, well, the statement is reasonable … but then it wouldn’t be the statement he made would it? You realize of course, Mr Obama is a lawyer and is trained to be careful with words and their meanings, yes?
And I think if you try to develop a thesis that St. Paul is either a moral relativist or secular humanist I think that project will fail. On your St. Paul and Roman’s exegesis I refer you to my definition of sin as that which separates you from God. Fits pretty well doesn’t it?
Mr Obama, for example, thinks it reasonable to kill children for fun (as he supports late term abortion for convenience). I do not. I think “his values” places him out of bounds for Christian ethics. However, for “shallow political reasons” I suppose you will support him nonetheless.
For me, “my values” ARE “my Christian values.”
Are you different in that regards?
Dan,
Well, I try to my best align my values with Christian values.
I just don’t (and think you don’t) hold to the pretense that sin is defined by my idea of what those values might be see the example in comment #2.
Obama does. That’s wrong.
By its very nature, the concept of “sin” is a theological one and not a matter of personal values. One must first assume there is a God against whom we can sin, and that being God, the diety is the one who determines what sin is.
From a Judaeo Christian perspective, sin cannot be a self-alignment issue because God has set the rules.
1. All of us have sinned. This is explained in the bible text, Romans 3:23.
2. Sin has consequences. Romans 6:23 explains that the “wages” of sin is death (separation from God) but the gift of God is etearnal life through Jesus Christ.
For a more detailed explanation from a Christian perspective, Google “Romans Road” — the Christian gospel is summed up in a few passages from St. Paul’s letter to the Roman church.
What does this have to do with O’Bama’s alleged messiah complex? Nothing really. The more we hear from the church where O’Bama has received his religious education over the past 20 years, the more obvious it is that his religious views are not influenced by Christian theology. Trinity United seems more like some kind of racist hate cult than a Christian church.
Simply having the name “Christian” in your church’s name and having your own New Age definition for sin does not make you a Christian any more than sitting in a garden makes you a plant.
Only God knows whether O’Bama has settled the sin question according to God’s values. We can only look at the evidence from our own human understanding. If I were hearing his case as a member of a jury, I’d probably vote to acquit him of any charge that he is a Christian. After all, his views are not in alignment with my values — and that makes him a sinner by his own definition 🙂
I have values, my wife has values, my church and congregation have values, my neighbors have values… rarely do we mention that all of our values are Christian. They are simply “our values.” And we would all agree that we are sinning if we are not being true to our values.
Obama proclaims to be a Christian, so I assume his values are his Christian values. Is he a good Christian? I don’t know. Is he the bad, bad, bad man that you’re making him out to be? No.
Josef,
Uhm, and sin is acting out of accord with God’s values. Which nobody (Christian) pretends is “his” values, because we only see God’s values “through a glass darkly”. Except Obama apparently who sees clearly and “knows” his values are righteous.
Which is why he is
wrongtheologically speaking, insane.Hi Mark,
Thanks for the reply. My point is that I’ve said exactly the same thing Obama said, and I know that I wasn’t saying what you’re implying Obama is saying.
Have you ever tried to contact the Senator? Maybe he’d consent to an interview for your blog and you could have this conversation with him.
Josef
Josef,
So … when you said, “sin is not acting according to my values.” What did you mean?
See comment #2. How would you respond to that person making the same claim?
We could go back and forth on this all day. If you and I sat down with a list of sins and non-sins, I think we would agree 100 percent of the time, even though we seem to have different definitions of sin.
So have you ever tried to contact Senator Obama to have a discussion like this?
Josef,
I have not contacted the Senator, but I’ll consider framing a list of questions and seeing if “his people” might respond.
You on the other hand, seem to have no interest in answering my questions.
I’m unclear on whether we’d agree on what is sin and non-sin and what that has to do with the question at hand.
Do you think you would have 100% agreement with what God sees as sin? I don’t think that I do and that is the point.
when you said, “sin is not acting according to my values.” What did you mean?
He probably meant the same thing that I said that I would mean: Sin is not acting according to my CHRISTIAN values. As a Christian, my values are CHRISTIAN values.
What I didn’t really emphasize before and would like to add now is that Obama, like many people out there, does not sound like (to me) he has a lot of experience talking in theological terminology and jargon and it is okay if people don’t always express their belief in a JUST PERFECT manner.
I prefer sincere expressions of belief even if they may not be perfectly theologically sound to religious-sounding pablum that might sound technically better but is coming from a grace-less nitpicker like me (for instance).
If I may inject something here:
Dan & Josef, I think you’re missing a key point that Don Sensing made in comment 24.
Even if he meant his Christian values, those values don’t seem to include redemption from Jesus, just living “as well as I can”.
Given that statement, the meaning of Obama’s phrase “my values” is more likely to mean more literally his values.
I, too, prefer honesty in religious expression. But I think you fellas are imposing something onto Obama’s words that you want to be there, but the context doesn’t seem to support. I agree with Rev. Sensing’s comment: “Obama’s is a near-totally self-referential religion, and I have a hard time calling it Christianity.”
Dan,
It is said that Obama is “really smart”, “is a Harvard educated lawyer”, “has read Barth”. None of these sound like someone who is careless with words or is likely to be theologically unsophisticated.
You’d think that the “is naive/unsophisticated/uneducated” is an excuse not normally resorted to by the Democrats, who like to point out the standard trope of intelligence/sophistication of their candidate over the opposition. Witness the “Bush=dumb” mantra.
Would you ever say that sin is “when you don’t act in accordance with your values”? Recall comment #2.
Mark, the fact is that there are a good number of educated and uneducated individuals who would give the exact same answer as Obama did and who would be, indeed, quite saved. Saved by God’s grace. Saved by faith in Jesus.
Now, do I know for a fact that Obama is one of these or if he’s just a huckster politician trying to use the right words to cynically win over another voting bloc? I couldn’t tell you for sure.
But there are way too many people out there wanting to jump ugly on fellow Christians and fellow travelers because they don’t like the answers they give, because those answers don’t line up with the CPC (Christian Politically Correct) answers they learned in Seminary or in Evangelism Explosion or in listening to some of these evangelical hucksters on radio and TV.
Real Christians in the Real World don’t always give perfectly orthodox Christian answers. I’m inclined to give people grace and leave it to God and I get awful tired of the more mean-spirited out there (as I used to be and still am, sometimes, God help me) telling us who is saved and not, or who they’d “convict” if they were on trial for being a Christian or not.
We are believers saved by God’s Grace to be Christians in a Church built upon and identified by its love. Let’s live like it.
“Well, first of all, I believe in an Almighty God, and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That’s what I believe.”
How ’bout this person? Is this a pat, orthodox Christian answer?
No, of course it isn’t.
Is this person saved, based on that answer? Or do they have a fatally flawed idea of the nature of God?
Very good point. Bush was wrong when he said that. Absolutely and completely.
But I would then again appeal to context. We’ve looked at Obama’s context; a question by a friendly American media person who was, in fact, a religion writer, and while speaking for himself. In that easy situation, Obama still gives an almost secular humanist answer to the question of heaven.
Bush was speaking to an Arab audience, on an Arab TV station, speaking for America (based on the question) and as our country’s head diplomat, if you will, while responding, off the cuff, to a question who’s answer could have long-running diplomatic implications.
Doesn’t make him right on the subject. Doesn’t excuse him for saying it if he didn’t believe it, if that’s the case. But there’s just a tad bit of difference in context.
Dan,
It seems you would argue objections to Arius and Arian theology would be judgemental and mean. Heresy needs to be confronted.
Mr Sensing above makes a good point, that the religious affiliation of a candidate should not be the primary (or perhaps even “a”) criteria for our selection for his position in our (alas?) secular state. However, it seems fairly clear from the statements Obama is making that he is a secular humanist posing as a Christian.
That’s fine as far as it goes, however, at the same time if you
However, there is good reason to firmly and strongly hold to small “o” orthodox Christian tenents and not let heresy run amuck. Dan is right to strongly object to your Bush quote. It is first order heresy. Statements made by Obama noted above such as the “relativist soteriology sop” that I called “theological insanity” is exactly that and should be called such. I will continue to call a spade a spade, and if McCain makes similarly egregious theological errors I’ll call them out … as should we all.
To let your fellow Christian continue in error is not how you love him. However, I am not in his community nor his spiritual guide.
You’ve made two arguments in defense of Obama’s statement. The first is, that he was quoted out of context or was inaccurate. Given other statements he’s made and the fact for example that by his training accuracy of wording is his profession, that seems unlikely. The second argument is that correction of heresy in our brother is ungraceful and unloving. You are exactly wrong. I hold that not correcting him is worse.
There is a lot of freedom within Christian belief, without straying to heresy. Read Chesterton’s Orthodoxy for better examples. But we encompass the pacificst like Assisi and the Templars at the same time.
God Bless you all. There’s really no need to complicate the issue — unless you just desire to argue.
Please allow me to present my view: As a politician, Obama gave the best possible answer that he could have for today’s world. However, as one who professes to be Christian and having spent about 20 years in a “Christian” church, his answer was the worst possible answer. When asked “What is sin” my nine year old daughter will tell you (un-coached) something along the lines of: “Disobedience to God”. Very little can be added to that answer, if any. There is absolutely nothing that anyone can do to prevent themselves from sinning. To say that living outside of one’s values constitutes sin, provides the implication that they can control whether or not sin takes place.
Is Obama a Christian? Not for me to say. However, with his stance on the murdering of innocent children and his being ashamed to present a true definition of sin (if he knows it) in the political arena, my discernment would lead me to believe that he might not be. Therefore, lets pray for him like we’re told to do.