I'm not a Christian, and I know very little about what's in the Bible. But my understanding is that Jesus is both a God and Man according to Christianity. There probably are no adequate English words to describe it, but I suppose the word "bridge" is as good a word as any. I'm also curious: does Jesus ever claim that his followers must recognize his divinity? Where, in his words, is it stated that a "true believer" must consider him literally to be God?
I would like to address some of the thought on Christian faith, but not in the debate on Obama's beliefs. I just think that was a very sincere response and I personally haven't heard that kind of openness on religious belief since Carter. I heard alot of things Bush supposedly believed, but I don't remember him stating anything in an interview. Maybe I missed it. Christianity as a religious expression can be about anything today. I think there are some telling remarks he made that give insight into his value system. I personally like a bible perspective on Christianity. If there is a better perspective I am not familiar with it. Jesus part in the gospels pretty much defines it and the Apostle Paul writes all these letters answering questions on it or clarifying it. Nothing is clearer than the bible's statement on what is a true Jesus follower.
I will never pretend to be a Christian theologian. So rather than give you a weak argument, I will quote the words of C. S. Lewis, a professor at Cambridge University, the author of Mere Christianity and once an agnostic himself who converted to Christianity. He writes:
Yes, I've heard that argument before. But does Jesus actually say anything so outlandish that he would have to be considered a madman were he not truly God incarnate? If he claims God to be his father, is it not possible that he means that in the sense that we are all God's children? Does Jesus ever identify himself as part of the Holy Trinity, or did that view originate with another?
not to mention that Jesus more often referred to himself as 'the son of man' than 'the son of god'. really though anyone that reads 'bridge between man & god' and concludes Jesus is not god, has another agenda.
Jesus is not a bridge between man and God. Jesus is God. Jesus is the Son of God. Words matter and those words are wrong. If Jesus is not God, then He is a liar and deliberately lied to all of us. And if He is a liar, then He is also a hypocrite because He told us to be truthful whatever the cost, while He lived the biggest of lies. More than that, He was a demon, because He told others to have faith in Him if you seek eternal salvation. If He couldn't back up His claims and knew it, then He was unspeakably evil. Last, He would also be a fool because it was His claims to being God that led him to his death lest you forget His crucifixion and pontious Pilate begging him to admit he was not the Son Of God or die. Also if Jesus was not God he can not be a good moral teacher. Let's be realistic. How could He be a good moral teacher and knowingly lie about the most important point of His teaching ‑He is God? If he is not God than he is the biggest false Prophet trying to convince the masses he is the ONE. That is much closer to Demonistic than Godly. Which leads me to 3 choices, Jesus is either a liar, a lunatic, or God. The prerequisite to Christianity is to make a choice. "But," as the apostle John wrote, "these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and" ‑ more important ‑ "that believing you might have life in His name" (John 20:31). Jesus is not a bridge between God and Man. That bridge leads nowhere. The evidence is clearly in favor of Jesus is God. And I in all my faults keep that fundamental belief as my truth.
I'm agnostic, so I'm not an expert, but I've read Lewis and although he was a terrific writer, I'd disagree with him on this. I see no reason why Jesus couldn't have been a great man, even if he didn't happen to be the Son of God, or the son of a god. Frankly, I find the idea of Jesus simply being a great man easier to believe.
I guess these are the options: (1) He's actually God (2) He's was deceiving his followers into believing he's God, perhaps with good intentions (3) He was delusional (4) He considered himself "one" with God, in the same sense a pantheist might ("God is all, all is God") (5) The accounts in the Bible that suggest Jesus was God are fictionalized Frankly, and again I am not familiar with the Bible, I'm inclined to consider (1) as the least likely of all these possibilities.
It sounds like Obama takes a more European view on Christianity, where Jesus is more of a symbol of man's potential goodness and God is the manifestation of infinite love. Jesus, being the Son of God, is a testament of God's gift to mankind. I'm not sure if a Christian can go with what his gut beliefs are as always the 'right' choice or as one in tuned with serving his God. I'm not sure if I totally understand what it means for God to talk to you or having the absolute conviction that you are following God's will, and 'I think' that's what Obama was getting at it instead of giving the ostensibly toolish reply President Bush gave on being the Decider and claiming that God told him to do certain things. So that reply of Obama's can sound arrogant or it could sound measured depending on your impression of him. But if you reread his answers again, a lot of it is very measured and grounded in common sense. There's not a lot of risk or waste in his words. Which is why he's given them again or referenced to them over the last 4 years...
It's always refreshing to read someone's beliefs when they have put a lot of thought into them. I disagree with him about a lot, but I'm not going to judge someone else's idea of God or Jesus. My first thought was that it seemed New Age, but I read it again and it reminded me of another view of Jesus that I've read. It sounds distinctly Jeffersonian. Jefferson's religion seems radical in today's context, but radical thinking about divinity and Christ were encouraged by the version of Unitarianism that became popular during the last half of the 18th century.
I wonder how Americans would react today if Obama decided to write his own version of the Bible with all the miracles and supernatural stuff stripped away, like Jefferson did. He'd never get away with that.
I really enjoyed that article. It helps me understand him much better as a Christian, and it connects a lot of dots for me with respect to how he approaches issues as a politician. That was an interesting answer for sure. He avoided either confirming or denying that he believes that Jesus is divine and God's son. That had me wondering a bit too, but there could well be a fair bit of context behind that answer. He lived in a Muslim country for a number of years and that issue is a hot button issue for Muslims (in spite of the fact that I believe the Koran does not deny that Jesus is God's son). He's also an academic, and in that world there are people who will write you off for admitting that you believe these things, so this answer may have been a standard answer of his when he wants to avoid pushing that particular hot button. Whether that's a good approach to the issue or not is another question. These points resonated quite strongly with me. That's largely how I pray, although I do pray in more traditional ways as well. With respect to the personal moral compass, ultimatley our relationship with God is a personal one. Unlike Obama I did not grow up in a strongly religious environment, and unlike Obama's experience my born again experience was one of the huge, epiphany like, transformations. It was only really after that that I came to understand that the God I knew was the God of the Bible, and I only understand that because what I read in it resonated with this new understanding/spirit that was awakened in me. A good church is a great resource. Even the Bible is only a great resource, but the root of it all is a person's personal relationship with God, and when I hear him talking about his "personal moral compass", this is what I hear him saying. Obama and I took quite different routes to get to this place, but I do agree with what I hear him saying here. The whole Trinity thing is another hot button issue with Muslims, and a number of other groups as well. It's also a concept that was defined by the church and is not in the Bible. I'm not saying that it's completely wrong, but it wasn't important enough to be included in the Bible, and because of that it's not something that I think about very much. W.r.t. the workings of the Holy Spirit, in my experience they are as he has described here. There is a lot more to the Holy Spirit than this, of course, but the phenomenon he describes here is one I have experienced a number of times. I didn't interpret it quite this way. I think he was beginning to make a finer point, but he never really expanded on it. I could guess where he was going with it, but that would only be speculation my part. For me this is actually quite deep. I'd like to ask him all kinds of follow up questions, of course, but this interview suggest to me that his faith is real and personal to him. He's not just regurgiating a bunch of standard positions that were fed to him by a given denomination. He has grappled with these issues and has a personal understanding of them.
"No man comes to the Father except by the Son ..." Off hand I can't remember what the exact passage is, but I think you could argue that Jesus could be seen as a bridge. He's also referred to as a gate, and a shepherd. John 10 talks about the gate. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john 10&version=31 Jesus is a lot more than this, of course, but I don't think it's wrong to refer to him as a bridge.
That quote from C.S. Lewis is very strange. It presupposes that the entire Jesus story from the bible is 100% complete and accurate, and then uses said assumption as a background to declare him either a madman or god. The choices represent such bizarre absolutes as to make the argument lunacy in itself. Frankly, such a sentiment makes me more inclined to understand Obama's take on it, than disagree with it.
Jefferson didn't share his Bible until years after he had stepped down from President. Even so, Jefferson's religious views were used against him as ammunition when he ran for President. He was called an atheist, and the Federalists said that he was going to burn churches down. The Federalists painted all Republicans as guilty by association.
Your back and forth with OMR is probably the oldest religious controversy in the history of Christianity. If it is any help, they couldn't agree exactly on what Jesus was 1400 years ago, and in all the years since the 'great scholars' haven't been able to agree. Ultimately, at the time, it was agreed that both answers were correct, probably because both sides just got tired of arguing back and forth.
Isn't it awesome, Ottamaton, how these little disputes over word choice and subjective axioms rapidly displace the entire dialogue from the actual teachings of jesus? The history of christianity is interesting inasmuch as it demonstrates how little emphasis was ever placed on being "christian". I find a combination of pitifulness and utter hilarity in the neverending struggle among groups of men to define god.
