Aside from political talk, has he been talking about the ramifications of making a break with his church? Did he say what he does believe? If he is anything akin to a mainstream Christian, then breaking with your long-time church is a very traumatic thing. I can't imagine what he could be doing for personal support. And knowing that the wife is only now proud of her country.

Is this a typical view of African American churches? How does this kind of rabble-rousing help the cause of black people? And how does it reflect on God? The whole thing mystifies me.

What mystifies me is why politicians should have to make any declaration vis-à-vis their religious beliefs. They aren't running to be Pope or head of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. They are running to represent a pluralistic constituency which includes both believers and non-believers of all stripes.

While I do agree with you, I posted this here to ask about his spiritual welfare. Politics aside, what happens when the fury dies down, or if he doesn't make it to the White House? Will he shop around for a church or just do without? What influence does his wife have on what he does spiritually?

Spiritually speaking, in a way what he believes will influence how he runs the country. I think Bush uses his religiousity as a political tool, which is wrong. Bill Clinton is a dirty pig, and I think his wife will be more of the same. I never read up on John McCain either, but if he is as liberal as they say, then conservatives will have nowhere to turn with their votes.

Spiritual welfare? What on earth does that have to do with politics? If it isn't in a script, Obama can't say it without putting his foot in his mouth. Hilary makes things up on the fly, perhaps while dodging sniper bullets. And McCain? He is likely in anger management. They are all about as spiritual as Jack Van Impe.

Is there much 'spiritual' difference between one predominantly black church and another?

Whichever one he is in, he's still a Protestant Christian, isn't he?

If he were a Quaker one day and a Roman Catholic the next that would be something.(He should have chosen 'Quaker' the first time. Quakers don't have preachers or 'Reverends' ! )

Isn't Jeremiah a good name for the Reverend Wright ? Jeremiah, the prophet of doom and misery, lamenting all,a denouncer of the times.A 'jeremiad'is a doleful tirade, a list of grievances.

quote:

He should have chosen 'Quaker' the first time.

As I recall, the Quakers sit silent until the spirit moves them to say something. Which means if Obama were there, no one else would get to say a word.

quote:

If he is anything akin to a mainstream Christian, then breaking with your long-time church is a very traumatic thing...

Yet, going by the explosive growth of megachurches in the US, church-hopping is quite common there - assuming megachurches aren't being filled with brand new converts to Christianity. What some might see as 'rabble-rousing' others might see as a Christian commitment to social justice and helping the poor or disadvantaged.


(What does Michelle Obama's slip of the tongue have to do with Barack's spiritual well-being?

'Speaking in Milwaukee, Wis., on Monday, she said, “People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and … for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”

Greeted with rousing applause after making the comment in Milwaukee, Obama delivered an amended version of the speech later that day in Madison, Wis.
“For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country …" elections.foxnews.com)

Let's see if I can get this straight, just in case I should ever decide to mend my agnostic proclivities, and join some 'mainstream Christian' denomination. I would learn to choose a president on the basis of his religious beliefs. I would describe a former president as a 'pig' and his wife as a 'pig by association'. Someone who hasn't been 'proud of her country' on occasion is clearly unpatriotic, and I would find it 'traumatic' to sever ties with my fellow 'rabble' and join a more 'mainstream' christian organization.

Thank you, but no thanks. Oscar Wilde got it right, methinks. Thank God, I'm an atheist.

It figures that the only people talking are non-churchgoers. How is saying that "the government is making conspiracies" going to help the poor and disadvantaged? He should be saying something constructive, like "teach your children" or "love one another" (and not in the conjugal sense). A pastor should not be preaching politics from the pulpit, and that is exactly what he is doing.

In a Christian church, the man is the head of the household and his view should hold sway over his wife and children. It has everything to do with what kind of Christian you are. It should be a lifestyle and a mindset, not just a place to go on Sunday. Any other kind is useless to God and to oneself.

I think Clinton is a pig, because he should have respected his position for at least his presidential term and kept his pants on. How can I respect someone who has no respect for his wife or his country? And she should have said something like "I hate that he did that to our marriage" and then said "I forgive you". She pretty much just took it. And I'd like to hear more about what she will do in office, because she didn't do anything when Bill was in office.

I'm not basing my politics on what my church says. I'm basing it on my pocketbook. Politics is a useless game, and I know you all think the same about my spirituality. I should have stayed away.

Hey, its all non-church-goers on this forum.

quote:

A pastor should not be preaching politics from the pulpit, and that is exactly what he is doing.

Of course, the loopier things that Wright said are pretty silly, and, as Obama pointed out, divisive or offensive. But I don't agree that a pastor should not mention politics.

Bush (just for example ) started a war in which hundreds of thousands have died for no good reason (maybe for oil - to support a lifestyle Americans perhaps feel entitled to), and says that government-backed health care for children must not be extended because it smacks of socialism, even if it's the only realistic way there is of providing those children with health care. Come to think of it, Bush even hinted that God told him invading Iraq was OK - and there're plenty of loopy right-wing pastors desperate to start Armageddon in the Middle East. How could a Christian stay silent on those topics? If some communist got into the White House and said that everyone had to hand in their guns, and give all they had to the poor, would the "let's not get involved in politics" pastors still stay silent?

Many, many aspects of daily life that touch on morality and the spiritual are also political, and politics affects almost all aspects of life.

I wonder if Obama's candidacy has given one half of the US a glimpse of how the other half thinks. The ideas of politically and socially engaged churches (socially engaged not just in the patronizing, band-aid sense of doling out charity), and of people with a healthy disrespect for blind 'my-tribe-right-or-wrong' patriotism are not so exceptional in other countries. Maybe those ideas had just been temporarily sidelined in the US.

quote:

I know you all think the same about my spirituality

I don't understand this. I don't even know what your spirituality is, and it's pretty clear that no one in this forum has thought the same as anyone else on any topic for a long time.

quote:

...the man is the head of the household and his view should hold sway over his wife...

Could you come round to my house and explain this to my wife? You know, occasionally I have the suspicion that she just doesn't quite get it. Maybe it's to do with her funny-shaped female brain...

I've stated on other threads that I don't like Bush either. It's pretty slim pickins when it comes to morality in politics. And while it is true that religion is intertwined with one's worldview, I am not saying that anyone should rule with "God told me..." or for that matter "this is what the people want". I want someone with a strong personality, a person to look up to, that could make mistakes (sometimes) but own up to them, someone that says it like it is. He already said something good about the gas tax, in thinking it was a foolish thing to abolish it for the summer. I want concrete ideas, although I also understand that the President is mostly a figurehead. The job of a leader is to put a face on government, and to take the heat for the bad, and get congrats for the good. How much power does a president have anyway?

I think it was time Obama stood up to the pastor, and I have respect for him. It's gonna be lonely at the top if he gets into the White House.

Oh, and NNN, it's not you doing the Christian-bashing. But there isn't a good thread left on this forum. It's all dueling scriptures and nonsensical stuff. What a waste.

quote:

What a waste.

Chalk it up to the fact that many have left, and the threads here do not generate much of a response.

quote:

...I am not saying that anyone should rule with "God told me..." or for that matter "this is what the people want".

That's a good point. I guess the idea is that, when someone says he (it's usually a 'he') is acting on behalf of a higher power, it's probably time to climb a tree and pull it up after yourself.

On this radical churches thing, though...

I was reading an article today by someone from the Fraser Institute (an annoying dinosaur of a right-wing think-tank we have to put up with here in BC), which basically said that we needn't listen to all these tree-huggers, because actually, by many indicators, pollution is decreasing and the planet is getting healthier. What the twit writing the article completely missed is that levels of pollution are falling because of the pressure (scoffed at or deplored at the time) from eco-freaks in previous decades.

Likewise, even a reactionary like George Bush would be quickly shown the door of a mainstream Christian church of a century, or a couple of centuries, ago. The political, radical pastors then were yelling about slavery, for example. Yesterday's radicalism is today's commonplace.

We all like to think that, if we'd been around in the nineteenth century, we'd be with the radical fringe abolitionists, but how many of us would actually have been part of the "let's not rock the boat" and "let's not get political" crowd?

I'm not saying Wright's sillier ideas will come to be accepted. Of course he goes too far, but, under an administration which (just for example) is proud of torturing people and pretty much ignores the poor of an entire flooded city, how far is too far? Apparently, even Jesus was capable of losing it under provocation.

quote:

And she should have said something like "I hate that he did that to our marriage" and then said "I forgive you".

If that is the "Christian" way, it seems she may be even more "Christian" than you. I believe she may have done just that, but you seem incapable of doing the same for either of them. I don't think it's any of my business, or the rest of the country's for that matter. All in all, I think he did a pretty good job of the one we hired him to do. IMHO.

quote:

Oh, and NNN, it's not you doing the Christian-bashing.

I don't think any contributor on this thread engages in "Christian bashing." Nor, as expressed on another thread, Christian hating. That people point out the incosistencies of texts, the hypocrisy of some practioners, or other aspects which Chrisitans might be uncomfortable with, is not an example of bashing or hating.

Going back to the original question (kind of), a working definition of what it is to be 'spiritual' is maybe that it means having the ability to see how everything (including actions and events) is connected, to see beneath the surface of things, and to always be aware of some Bigger Picture (that last might include an anthropomorphic deity, if that's what you believe).

Those who talk of nuking Iran can't be thinking about consequences, or about what that 'obliterating' a country actually means. Similarly, those encouraging a summer orgy of gasoline consumption aren't thinking things through - they're going for the quick-fix of pleasing people superficially in order to win approval. As for justifying torture...

I'm not saying Obama is the Dalai Lama, but could he be (judging by what's been said in the campaign so far) the most 'spiritual' of the candidates?

quote:

The job of a leader is to put a face on government, and to take the heat for the bad, and get congrats for the good. How much power does a president have anyway?

This is a good point but, in the examples I gave - aid for New Orleans, invading Iraq, approving torture, blocking expansion of SCHIP, Bush does or did have the power (on paper anyway, if not in terms of character) to think 'WWJD', and make a difference.

quote:

I'm not saying Obama is the Dalai Lama, but could he be (judging by what's been said in the campaign so far) the most 'spiritual' of the candidates?

Couldn't he also be the biggest lying hypocrite ? According to my way of defining "spiritual" he believes in ghosts and other imaginary beings, despite a complete lack of supporting evidence. How, other than succumbing to our own prejudices, are we to select the "leader of the free world"? Unfortunately, the other choices available may also be pretending to be the "born again" mainstream Christian who can appeal to Catholics without offending Baptists, etc. etc.It seems obvious to me that the least likely electable nominee is avowedly secular.Can't we stop mixing religion with politics in this country?

"In a Christian church, the man is the head of the household and his view should hold sway over his wife and children."

Well, that takes care of Hillary! See what I mean?

quote:

Originally posted by frankvan:

"In a Christian church, the man is the head of the household and his view should hold sway over his wife and children."

Well, that takes care of Hillary!

You mean that Hillary's household isn't Christian, Frank? She said they differ. She could have been mis-speaking , of course

No Christian believes that, do they? The devout in some branches of the faith may pay lip service to it but they have to live in the real world. Brides in the Anglican church here don't promise to 'obey' their husband any more. If the quote read ' the Muslim faith' for 'a Christian church' it would be nearer the truth.

quote:

You mean that Hillary's household isn't Christian, Frank? She said they differ. She could have been mis-speaking , of course

No Christian believes that, do they? The devout in some branches of the faith may pay lip service to it but they have to live in the real world.

Don't ask me, Fred. I'm only going by what VelvetVoice says. If Hillary listens obediently to Bill, that should mean we'll get "two for the price of one" by electing her. That ought to please the "mainstream christians, No?
Unless, of course, the lord-and-master husband happens to be a "dirty pig".

Anyhow, it's the christians who DON"T have to be confined to a single, so-called, "real world".

quote:

In a Christian church, the man is the head of the household and his view should hold sway over his wife and children.

This may have been true in a patriarchal society where women and children were property, but it is hardly a reality of 21st century Western culture.