frame

Obama is a Christian?

Opening Argument

I got into this discussion ONCE on DDO.  It didn't go well.  I said I did not think President Obama is a Christian, and he is most likely a Muslim or a disingenuous atheist who wears many religious hats.  Also, according to polls back then, a large number of Americans believed he was a Muslim or blatantly said "I don't know what he is."
The response from another DDO user was literally, "Okaaayyy......"  as if I were totally nuts and it were very obvious what his religion actually is.  It ISN'T, but then again I have been known to have higher than normal cranial density, so I'm hoping someone here could make an effective, reasoned argument that President Obama is what he says he is.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155315/many-americans-cant-name-obamas-religion.aspx

Any takers?
joecavalrynorthsouthkorea
  1. What religion is Pres. Obama?

    9 votes
    1. Christian
      44.44%
    2. Muslim
      33.33%
    3. Athiest, pretending for publicity.
      22.22%

Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • Obama is an African American, Christian President. He has been raised as a Christian and put his hand on the Bible when he got sworn in, even 2 times. He had raised his daughters and christians as well and seems to be commuted to his Christian religion.
    George_HorseBaconToes
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • RodinonRodinon 67 Pts
    @joecavalry
    Howdy, Joe. Your claims run against some things I understand about him.  I thought he had a Muslim father and an Atheist mother.  Under Islam, if your father is Muslim, you are automatically counted as one as well.  Conversion is not permitted.  (Practiced, yes.)  At what point did he convert to Christianity?  Who raised him as such?

    People put their hand on the Bible all the time when swearing legal oaths.  I don't buy for a second that every person who swore on a Bible to enter public office has been a Christian.  Who would feel the weight of lying while putting their hand on something?  The one who believes in it, or the one who doesn't?  I hear atheists and non-religious people "swear to God" all the time.  Doesn't mean anything to them.

    I don't really see that commitment.  He supports abortion.  Privately looks down upon those who "cling to their Bibles" when times are hard.  Publicly criticizes Protestants for the Crusades?  Publicly supports homosexuality and anarchy.  He also lied to me.  I was REALLY REALLY hoping to keep my plan.  Nope.  $220 dollars per month with a $7000 deductible one month.  The next, $860 per month with a $12,000 deductible the next.


    northsouthkoreaGeorge_Horse
  • Rodinon said:
    @joecavalry
    Howdy, Joe. Your claims run against some things I understand about him.  I thought he had a Muslim father and an Atheist mother.  Under Islam, if your father is Muslim, you are automatically counted as one as well.  Conversion is not permitted.  (Practiced, yes.)  At what point did he convert to Christianity?  Who raised him as such?

    People put their hand on the Bible all the time when swearing legal oaths.  I don't buy for a second that every person who swore on a Bible to enter public office has been a Christian.  Who would feel the weight of lying while putting their hand on something?  The one who believes in it, or the one who doesn't?  I hear atheists and non-religious people "swear to God" all the time.  Doesn't mean anything to them.

    I don't really see that commitment.  He supports abortion.  Privately looks down upon those who "cling to their Bibles" when times are hard.  Publicly criticizes Protestants for the Crusades?  Publicly supports homosexuality and anarchy.  He also lied to me.  I was REALLY REALLY hoping to keep my plan.  Nope.  $220 dollars per month with a $7000 deductible one month.  The next, $860 per month with a $12,000 deductible the next.

    Father is Muslim

    The argument that Obama's father is Muslim makes Obama an automatic Muslim has two big problems:

    1) This only applies to children. Once a child reaches puberty, they can make up their own mind about their religion. "'When the young boy reaches puberty, he is given the choice between taking on the religion of his father or that of his mother. Whichever he chooses, it becomes his religion."'

    2) Even if the above wasn't the case, this only applies if you yourself implicitly believe in Muslim religious beliefs over fundamental human rights. The US Constitution grants the right to Freedom of Religion and under US law adults choose what denomination they follow and can change at will. If you believe in the US constitution then people with Muslim parents can choose for themselves what their beliefs they follow, the only reason you would believe otherwise is if you personally hold the Quran to be more important than the Constitution.

    No Incontrovertible proof to the opposite

    You're right to say that Obama swearing ont he bible doesn't automatically make him Christian. However he doesn't need to prove he's Christian. When someone tells you your religious beliefs (like Obama being Christian) they don't need to prove that to you. To say they aren't is to accuse them of being a liar, a serious accusation you need to back up. It isn't an area where there is expected to be dispute unless someone can bring hard proof to the opposite. It's not on Obama to prove his Christianity, it's on anyone who doubts it to prove his lack of Christianity.

    Acceptence of abortion, homosexuality, etc

    This seems to be an argument for him not being exactly the same type of Christian as you, not him not being a Christian, There are many Christian denominations holding to a wide variety of beliefs. As far as I am aware, none of the things you mention in any way exclude someone from being Christian.

    Lots of people think he is Muslim

    Argumentum ad populem logical fallacy.

    northsouthkoreaRodinon
  • Ibama is a Muslim due to his father being a Muslim and Obama shouldn't hve covered that up. Maybe it's a democratic thing to cover stuff up, like Hillary and Obama.
  • @AlwaysCorrect

    You make many valid points:  

    Just because his father was a Muslim, does not mean that he is as well.
    Claiming to be a Christian is not to be called into doubt without evidence.....(more on that later)
    Beliefs on specific issues do not discount one as a believer...(more on that later)
    Yes, that CAN be an ad populem argument, that many others are confused, but I did not intend it that way.  I brought up the polling to show that I'm not the only one to be confused.  That doesn't make me right, but I'm not an isolated case to be dismissed, as the other DDO user did.  A lot of effort has been expended by many journalists to defend the President's claims on his own religion.  That's all I meant there.

    Why I'm not convinced yet:

    Obama may believe in God, and even fancy himself a Christian, but his actions and attitudes are very much not what I would expect from one.  If someone says they are a Christian, they WILL make mistakes and do things wrong here and there, but with him, I see many actions that I find downright deplorable, and no sign of regret for doing them.

    Let's start with some lies:


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/obama-promised-transparency-but-his-administration-is-one-of-the-most-secretive/2016/05/24/5a46caba-21c1-11e6-9e7f-57890b612299_story.html?utm_term=.c092bf3d1167



    Or were they just incompetencies?  Currently, I have a hard time believing that.  The ACA had already been written, and Obama didn't say "Oops, sorry, I was incorrect about that," or "I"m sorry, we won't be able to do everything I promised because of X."  Especially with the ACA, he insisted he said something with a caveat which he had never previously mentioned.  His signature bill had long been written.  And someone who wrote that part of the bill surely could have privately corrected him.
    It was well known that the ACA was written in an opaque and intentionally deceptive manner.  
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Gruber_(economist)#.22Grubergate.22_videos_controversy
    Yet the president never backed down from the ACA, specifically the deceptive parts.  


    I don't like being overloaded with things to respond to, so I will get to the positions on moral topics and attitude indicators later, so as not to overload you.

  • @Rodinon

    Why wouldn't a Christian lie? All Christians are meant to be sinners who are redeemened through their belief in Jesus. You can have mass murderers who are Christians. Lying doesn't mean someone is not a Christian.

    As it says in Romans

     "“There is no one righteous, not even one;"
    ...
     “Their throats are open graves;
        their tongues practice deceit.”
    ...

    " for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 
    24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."

    Indeed, didn't Jesus say "let he who is without Sin cast the first stone"? Isn't it "Unchristian" of you to cast aspersions on another person's Christianity for failing and being sinful as all mankind is meant to me? Should we therefore doubt your Christianity?

    I mean that's if you accept those as lies at all. I didn't sit through every one, but a lot of it just seemed to be politically charged accusations. Like the first video says that obvious there hasn't been an Obama recovery because the unemployment rate has been above 8% for however many months. The thing is the unemployment rate actually spiked to 10% as a result of the 2008 crisis. Under Obama's presidency that unemployment rate  turned around at the end of 2009 and continually decreased. It's not that the economy wasn't recovering, it's that this video from RepublicanSenators has a stake in presenting Obama as bad.
  • I couldn't associate with the man.  If he is a Christian, he is totally uncommitted beyond throwing out a few politically opportune Bible quotes.  He lied repeatedly in regards to the ACA. The second video drives that point home.  "What we said was (brings up something he never said before that totally turns what he had said on its head)"  He supports abortion and homosexuality.  He barely associates with other believers.  Especially on a regular basis.  (Hebrews 10:25 for He who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds,  not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.)
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/29/us/as-the-obamas-celebrate-christmas-rituals-of-faith-stay-on-the-sidelines.html
     If he is a Christian, he's pretty inactive, and fails enough I have to believe he's not trying very hard.  You're right, I can't know.  But he's done a lousy enough job to give me enough doubt.
    Trash_Goddess
  • @Rodinon
    You can support homosexuality and be a Christian.
    Rodinon
  • @Bitch_Goddess

    Yes, you are correct, you can.  In fact, you can technically do anything and be a Christian.  But as Paul said, "I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive.."  And, "But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints;"  But that isn't the biggest issue, in my mind.  There are a lot of Christians who disagree on doctrinal issues.  Could you, or someone else please explain how he did not consistently lie about the "if you like your plan you can keep your plan" charade?

    Assuming he is a Believer, he supports homosexuality despite millions of Christians making it clear that is not the right thing to do, let alone the Bible saying so.  He also unapologetically lied about the ACA.  When finally caught because Jonathon Gruber spilled the beans when he thought no one was watching, and the first big deadline came where millions of Americans LOST their coverage and could no longer even access their own plan, he added a caveat to his promise that he had repeated so many times.  A caveat, which completely nullified his promise, and which he never made clear that was his intention in any way before then.  He is an unapologetic liar who supports sexual immorality.  If he had been a Bible thumper before all this, I suspect everyone would have his head on a pike for hypocrisy.  But so many people, such as Bill Marr, who really have a problem with Christians, don't seem to have any problem with him.  Probably because they know, like so many other public officials before him, his religion is just a show to placate the gullible.
  • Rodinon said:
    Could you, or someone else please explain how he did not consistently lie about the "if you like your plan you can keep your plan" charade?
    I am talking about people being able to be Christian and accept homosexuality. Not about whatever Obama has said. I only commented on here because someone was attacking the idea that one cannot be a Christian if they support homosexuality.

    Rodinon said:
    Assuming he is a Believer, he supports homosexuality despite millions of Christians making it clear that is not the right thing to do

     And millions agreeing with homosexuality. I think you might need to get an update on just how much the Christian view of homosexuality has changed.
    Rodinon said:
    "let alone the Bible saying so..." "He is an unapologetic liar who supports sexual immorality."
    Firstly, I would argue that the Bible does not go against homosexuality. It does, however, go against Pagan temple sex rituals, prostitution, fornication, and rape.
    And nowhere in the Bible does it say homosexuality is sexually immoral. In fact, it would make no sense FOR it to say homosexuality is immoral, as the word was not created until 1948 AD and the actual idea (to straight men at least) of two people actually having reciprocative feelings of love for one another was not an idea that entered minds of heterosexuals until 1900 AD.
    Gang-rape was existent. As was boy prostitution. But two men having feelings and love for each-other was not even introduced as a possibility for heterosexuals in Biblical times.
  • @Trash_Goddess
    I am talking about people being able to be Christian and accept homosexuality. Not about whatever Obama has said. I only commented on here because someone was attacking the idea that one cannot be a Christian if they support homosexuality.


    I suppose I don't mind if you're not here for the main argument.  This could also be interesting.  I agree that someone MAY be a Christian and support homosexuality, but I don't see how you can be consistent with the Bible and do so.

    Rodinon said:
    Assuming he is a Believer, he supports homosexuality despite millions of Christians making it clear that is not the right thing to do

     "And millions agreeing with homosexuality. I think you might need to get an update on just how much the Christian view of homosexuality has changed."

    I used the ad populem argument on purpose, with the extra note of "let alone the Bible saying so."  My point being that even if he is merely a Christian with an unorthodox view on a few things, and he hasn't found that part of the Bible that would change his view, there are many Christians who put up serious opposition to gay marriage, openly practicing homosexuals in the military, requiring insurance to cover gender reassignment, etc., that should be enough to make a man who pays close attention to current events reexamine the issue and discuss it with his fellow believers in an orderly fashion, rather than just saying "I'm doing it this way.  Forget you Brothers and Sisters." (Not an actual quote)


    Rodinon said:
    "let alone the Bible saying so..." "He is an unapologetic liar who supports sexual immorality."
    Firstly, I would argue that the Bible does not go against homosexuality. It does, however, go against Pagan temple sex rituals, prostitution, fornication, and rape.
    And nowhere in the Bible does it say homosexuality is sexually immoral. In fact, it would make no sense FOR it to say homosexuality is immoral, as the word was not created until 1948 AD and the actual idea (to straight men at least) of two people actually having reciprocative feelings of love for one another was not an idea that entered minds of heterosexuals until 1900 AD.
    Gang-rape was existent. As was boy prostitution. But two men having feelings and love for each-other was not even introduced as a possibility for heterosexuals in Biblical times.
    You are correct in that it does go against Pagan sex rituals, prostitution, rape, etc.  I really am at a loss as to how you came to some of the other conclusions, though.  But I would be fascinated to find out! 

    Love was not reciprocated before 1900?  Just me, now, I find that to be a very shocking claim.  I'll counter with a few well known examples.  Jane Austen, though not a recipient of that reciprocation, wrote many romantic novels, and she died in 1817.  Pride and Prejudice was all about the competing courtship of two men for Ms. Bennett.  And it is considered historical fiction because it is period accurate (being written in that period), and it was not considered a bizarre outlandish fiction for that type of romance and courtship to take place.  On the reality side of things, there was the love between George Washington and Sally Fairfax, and then later in life, Martha.

    http://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/biography/washington-stories/passion-and-integrity-the-loves-of-george-washington/
    http://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/martha-washington/george-marthas-courtship/

    Then there was the more well documented love between his Vice President and Abigail Adams:

    http://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/ageless-love-story-john-abigail-adams/

    We could go back further, with Romeo and Juliet, which is considered a timeless example of young love.  It was not considered extremely odd, but compelling because everyone could relate to the sometimes foolish passions of young love.  There's also Marc Antony and Cleopatra, and King Solomon and the Shulamite in Song of Solomon in the Bible.

    As for the word "homosexual," according to Wolfram Alpha, the word was invented in 1892.
    https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=homosexual&wal=header

    However, the modern word for any thing is just a current phonetic representation of the idea.  Homosexuality is clearly condemned in the Bible:

    Leviticus 18:22
    1 Timothy 1:10
    Romans 1:26-27


  • @Rodinon ;
    My apologies for some mix-ups. I realized I did not look over my comment very well and have made multiple errors. But I will start from the beginning.

    Rodinon
     said:
    Assuming he is a Believer, he supports homosexuality despite millions of Christians making it clear that is not the right thing to do

     "And millions agreeing with homosexuality. I think you might need to get an update on just how much the Christian view of homosexuality has changed."

    I used the ad populem argument on purpose, with the extra note of "let alone the Bible saying so."  My point being that even if he is merely a Christian with an unorthodox view on a few things, and he hasn't found that part of the Bible that would change his view, there are many Christians who put up serious opposition to gay marriage, openly practicing homosexuals in the military, requiring insurance to cover gender reassignment, etc., that should be enough to make a man who pays close attention to current events reexamine the issue and discuss it with his fellow believers in an orderly fashion, rather than just saying "I'm doing it this way.  Forget you Brothers and Sisters." (Not an actual quote)
    Firstly, I don't know why you included transgenders in this argument. There is a very explicit difference between transgenders and homosexuals.

    Rodinon said:
    "let alone the Bible saying so..." "He is an unapologetic liar who supports sexual immorality."
    Firstly, I would argue that the Bible does not go against homosexuality. It does, however, go against Pagan temple sex rituals, prostitution, fornication, and rape.
    And nowhere in the Bible does it say homosexuality is sexually immoral. In fact, it would make no sense FOR it to say homosexuality is immoral, as the word was not created until 1948 AD and the actual idea (to straight men at least) of two people actually having reciprocative feelings of love for one another was not an idea that entered minds of heterosexuals until 1900 AD.
    Gang-rape was existent. As was boy prostitution. But two men having feelings and love for each-other was not even introduced as a possibility for heterosexuals in Biblical times.
    You are correct in that it does go against Pagan sex rituals, prostitution, rape, etc.  I really am at a loss as to how you came to some of the other conclusions, though.  But I would be fascinated to find out! 

    Love was not reciprocated before 1900?  Just me, now, I find that to be a very shocking claim.  I'll counter with a few well known examples.  Jane Austen, though not a recipient of that reciprocation, wrote many romantic novels, and she died in 1817.  Pride and Prejudice was all about the competing courtship of two men for Ms. Bennett.  And it is considered historical fiction because it is period accurate (being written in that period), and it was not considered a bizarre outlandish fiction for that type of romance and courtship to take place.  On the reality side of things, there was the love between George Washington and Sally Fairfax, and then later in life, Martha.

    And here come my mistakes.
    I forgot to include "two people of the same sex". So it would say "...and the actual idea (to straight men at least) of two people of the same sex having reciprocative feelings of love for one another was not an idea that entered the minds of heterosexuals..." and then here is where I made another error, which it would be corrected to "until late 1800's to early 1900's".
    The reference to 1948 was yet another mistake on my behalf (I really was not paying attention to my argument, I apologize), in which it was supposed to be the year 1946 in which the word first ever entered the Bible. 


    Now, my favorite parts:

    Leviticus 18:22
    1 Timothy 1:10
    Romans 1:26-27

    Leviticus 18:22

    People today widely believe that the Bible condemns being gay. They get this idea from, well, reading the Bible. When most people leaf to Leviticus 18:22 in their Bibles, they read something like this: “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.” In Leviticus 20:13 they find identical words, only adding death by stoning as the punishment. That seems pretty clear. End of story. In our early twenty-first-century American culture, a man who “lies with a man as with a woman” is usually thought to be gay.
    But the Bible was not written in our day nor for our time. These two texts were written about 2,500 years ago in a time and place scholars generally refer to as the Ancient Near East. What did it mean for “a man to lie with a man as with a woman” in the Ancient Near East? Male-male same-gendered sex in the Ancient Near East—so far as ancient texts discussed it—had three possible meanings: domination, recreation, and religious devotion. To understand the first, one need only think today of prison sex or war-time rape, or read the news from Syria, where male rape has recently emerged as a tool of government repression. This modern thing is actually a very old thing. In the Ancient Near East male-on-male sex was usually seen as an act of violence. This was (and is) not gay sex. It was heterosexual phallic aggression. It was generally frowned upon, unless done in a context where violence and domination were the points, as in war. Today the practice is shocking. In the ancient world, not so much. Ancient Near Eastern recreational male-male sex was a similar thing. This is something one might do with a slave or personal servant in the absence of female companionship. It was also frowned upon in some cultures, who viewed it as exploitative and demeaning to the man or boy who was forced to play the role of “catcher” in such sexual activity. To lie with a man “as with a woman” pretty much captures the point. Men were supposed to be men, not women. Gilgamesh is a good example. The chief shortcoming of the ancient king of Ur was his voracious sexual appetite, which he satisfied with women, daughters, and sons—no one was safe. In the Ancient Near East, male-male sex can also have a religious meaning. Sex as religious devotion is an odd concept for most of us, but it was not so for ancients. The Ancient Near East is a dry place. Agriculture there is a critical, but precarious undertaking. Consequently, agriculture attracted a good deal of religious attention in ancient times. Fertility gods were common, as were fertility rituals. Sometimes this involved ritual sexual activity with male priests, who, like the gods they represented, were thought to be androgynous—that is, both male and female. Devotees believed that by planting one’s seed in such a priest, one could ensure the fertility of the earth for another year. None of these meanings depended upon the homosexuality of the participants. In fact, it was quite the opposite. All depended on the assumption that the initiator of the act (the “pitcher,” so to speak) was acting in the very heterosexual role of the male. A man could dominate another man by buggering him, thus forcing him into the subordinate role of the female. That was why it was permitted to rape one’s enemies at the end of a battle, but not to bugger one’s slave. In the first case, violent aggression is part of what the soldier signs on for. In the second case, you’re just taking advantage. In the case of ritual sex, the devotee (again, the “pitcher”) is seen as performing the heterosexual male role of planting his seed in another, in this case, a man reimagined as part female. So, was there actual gay sex, as we today understand that concept, in the Ancient Near East? Probably. But it is never discussed in the surviving literature. What meaning, then, did the sex acts referred to in Leviticus have? Theoretically, it could have been any of the three: domination, recreation, or cult sex. Most scholars think it was the last of these. This is because of the word used to condemn it: abomination, in Hebrew to’evah. This word is often used in contexts where a religious offense is involved. And this section of Leviticus, known to scholars as the Holiness Code, is all about steering clear of foreign religious and cultural practices. So the Leviticus texts probably forbid engaging in sex with foreign priests—but we cannot be sure. Those texts might forbid the sexual exploitation of male slaves. But we can say very clearly what the Levitical prohibition does not mean. It does not forbid falling in love with another man and having intimate sexual relations with him. Male-male sex just did not have that connotation in the Ancient Near East. Male-male affection was not unknown in that place and time. A famous example from the Bible is the close relationship between Jonathan and David depicted in 1 and 2 Samuel. David says of Jonathan, “Your love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women” (2 Samuel 1:26). And yet, the account of their relationship never mentions sex. Male-male sex in the Ancient Near East does not mean “I love you.” It means “I own you.” Today, of course, it is different. Male-male sex can mean “I love you.” To such a thing Leviticus offers no comment.




    1 Timothy 1:10
    The explanation for this one is completely too long, so I found a site that had the information.
    https://www.gaychurch.org/homosexuality-and-the-bible/the-bible-christianity-and-homosexuality/
    (And yes, it is biased. However, it does provide evidence for each and every claim)




    Romans 1:26-27
    Romans is taken from Paul's philosophy on unbridled passion. It was pagan idolatry and temple sex rituals among heterosexuals that was the focus of Paul's issue. Sexual orientation was not even discovered yet, so while same-sex behavior existed (almost exclusively pederasty or prostitution) it had nothing to do with gay people.


    I do hope this makes better sense than my last horribly-written argument.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch