The word “Christian” has many senses. Mormons claim that “Christian” applies to them. So do Jehovah’s Witnesses. So did the Branch Dividians. So this English word, like many others, is infected with ambiguity and vagueness.

I believe that when people hear Barack Obama say that he is a Christian, they understand the word in a particular sense. Namely, Peter the Presbyterian believes that Barack Obama means that he (Obama) is a “Christian” in whatever sense Peter takes himself to be a “Christian.” And Jeff the Jehovah’s Witness believes that Barack Obama is a “Christian” in whatever (very inclusive) sense Jeff takes himself to be a “Christian.”

If you’re reading this, chances are you’re an Evangelical. When you hear Barack Obama say that he is a “Christian,” you probably understand him to be endorsing a certain set of minimal “Christian” doctrines that is compatible with Evangelicalism. Probably you don’t think Obama is a full-blown Evangelical, but you at least take him to be endorsing something like C.S. Lewis’ “mere Christianity,” which is compatible with Evangelicalism.

Right?

Well, the bad news is that Barack Obama does not believe that he is an Evangelical. When asked that exact question by Cathleen Falsani, Obama’s answer was “I’m not sure.”

The worse news is that Barack Obama does not even subscribe to C.S. Lewis’ “mere Christianity.” Barack Obama’s beliefs are incompatible with Evangelicalism. They’re also incompatible with Presbyterianism, Lutheranism, and indeed all forms of traditional, orthodox Christianity. That makes Obama a heretic, in the most precise sense of the word.

Barack Obama cannot in good conscience endorse the Nicene Creed. Neither does he endorse Biblical inerrancy. And he flat-out denies the reality of hell.

In an interview with Cathleen Falsani, Obama denied that anyone will go to hell:

continue reading

A couple posts ago, I brought to your attention Barack Obama's tendency to construct straw men during interviews and debates. What's really unusual about Obama is his incredibly reliable habit of preceding such logical fallacies with the phrase "this notion." Here's just one more example:

Speaking of the accusations that he had inappropriately close political relations with 1960s anti-war radical Bill Ayers, Obama told ABC News' Charlie Gibson:

"I'll repeat again what I've said many times. This is a guy who engaged in some despicable acts 40 years ago when I was eight years old. By the time I met him, 10 or 15 years ago, he was a college professor of education at the University of Illinois . . . And the notion that somehow he has been involved in my campaign, that he is an adviser of mine, that . . . I've 'palled around with a terrorist', all these statements are made simply to try to score cheap political points."

Dear Sarah,

Congratulations and Thank You. It was nice to see you again -- it feels like forever since the Republican National Convention! I'm not sure who that person was that sat down for interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric, but I'm sure glad you showed up last night.

When chosen as VP, Biden was billed as Obama's "attack dog." Last night, he was extremely docile and quiet, to the point of seeming drowsy and exhausted. (Did you slip him something in his drink? It's OK, you can tell me.) I think you successfully neutralized Biden's infamous bark and bite. 

Just one small suggestion, though. You don't need to remind me that you're an "average Joe-six-pack, doggone it," from "Main Street Wasilla donchaknow." If I thought I were qualified to be Vice President of the United States, I would run. But I don't think I'm qualified, and I prefer to vote for people who are. So it's best not to demote yourself like that. It's not the end of the world, though.

The logical fallacy of the straw man occurs when the arguer misrepresents, exaggerates, or simplifies her opponent’s position, and then attacks this weaker position. This fallacy often involves turning the opponent’s position into an extreme generalization using “always” or “never” or “only.” It's called the fallacy of the "straw man" because by misconstruing your opponent's argument, you've failed to attack your opponent and are instead attacking a frail misrepresentation of him or her, a "straw man."

(I suppose in the modern climate of political correctness, we should really change the name of the fallacy to "straw person.")

In any event, I've noticed a definite trend in Barack Obama's debate tactics: he routinely builds and attacks straw men (or straw people). That's not unusual in politics, unfortunately. What is unusual is that Obama has a consistent verbal indicator. Nearly every time that he builds and attacks a straw man, he begins the misrepresentation of his opponent's view by calling it "this notion." Here are three examples:

In case you missed it, here is the full debate from C-SPAN.

And the full transcript, if you prefer reading.

If you've ever taken a Philosophy 101 course and talked about philosophy of mind, you've heard this classic objection to dualism. Dualism is the view that minds are not brains or bodies, but rather immaterial souls. According to dualism, you can exist apart from your body. According to physicalism, you cannot exist apart from your body, since you just are your body. Clearly Christians have a stake in this debate, since we weekly profess our belief in life after the death and destruction of our bodies.

Physicalists tend to think you are some part of your body, namely your brain. While you could exist without your arms or legs or lungs or most other parts of your body, you could not exist without your brain, they say. The brain is the "seat of consciousness." In support of this, physicalists very often point to mind-brain correlations. They say "Look, whenever you experience pain, this part of your brain lights up. And if we disable this part of your brain, you can no longer feel pain. Therefore, feeling pain just is identical with being in this brain state."

I'd like to direct your attention to what looks to be a very interesting television series called "Closer to Truth." Here's a description from its website:

Public fascination with questions of Cosmos, Consciousness and particularly of God has grown substantially in recent years. Public debate has been intense, often heated. Closer To Truth presents to mass audiences these leading-edge ideas in an approachable, rational and balanced manner, and introduces the human personalities behind these ideas. By meeting these change-making characters close-up, the thinkers behind the thoughts, visiting them in their homes, offices, labs, gardens, churches and temples, Closer To Truth humanizes riveting ideas and makes them more accessible and more relevant.

continue reading

After Obama got the chance to lay out his position on abortion at Rick Warren's event, and Nancy Pelosi got her chance on Meet the Press a couple of weeks ago, Joe Biden finally took his turn on Meet the Press yesterday. Tom Brokaw asked Biden what he would tell Obama, if Obama were to ask him when a fetus becomes a human being. This was Biden's answer:

I'd say, look, I know when it begins for me. It's a personal and private issue. For me as a Roman Catholic I'm prepared to accept the teachings of my church. But let me tell you, there are an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths -- protestants, jews, muslims, and others -- who have a different view. They believe in God as strongly as I do, they're intensely religious as I am religious. they believe in their faith and they believe in human life. And they have differing views as to when... I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society.

I've been disturbed by the mainstream media's condescending sexism towards Palin. We've all heard about the media's fretting over whether Palin can responsibly have a career in politics given her family obligations, and yet similar questions are never asked of male candidates. A more subtle instance of such sexist bias has appeared in the wake of Palin's fantastically successful speech at the Republican National Convention.

I noticed that, in article after article, journalists took the time to remind us that Palin worked with a speechwriter. To prove this, just do a google news search for the name of Palin's speechwriter ("Matthew Scully"), together with her last name. You'll find the results HERE. There are 294 results from Aug 29, 2008 to today. Go ahead and read through some of them. Notice the subtle way in which the speechwriter is mentioned in order to discredit Palin's accomplishment.

Here's the transcript of Sarah Palin's remarkable speech last night. In my opinion, it was an absolute homerun. That it was a homerun is evidenced by this hurried and defensive press release from the Obama campaign. I don't think anyone so far as succeeded in dissecting Obama like Palin has. Her jabs were so quick that she didn't come off as mean or aggressive, but they were so precise and forceful that she'll certainly persuade millions of the 30 million people who watched her.

My favorite lines were these:

Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown.

continue reading