Shocking.
But he also believes Jews and Muslims and non-believers who live moral lives are as much “children of God” as he is, according to The Associated Press.
As an example, he spoke about his late mother who was “not a believer.”
“[S]he was the kindest, most decent, generous person that I have ever known,” Obama said, according to the Times. “I’m sure she is in heaven, even though she may not have subscribed to everything that I subscribe to.”
(thanks, Newsvine)
Isn’t it weird that to get elected president, people still (rightly?) believe that you have to pander to people who believe life on earth is some sort of trial for a second, eternal life, the existence of which they have no doubt in?
I don’t think “believers” are stupid. I think they must be tortured; their subconscious must be a maelstrom of contradictions, evasions, and rationalizations, as they must continuously bridge a gap between a view of reality in which they have unshakable faith, and a living reality which contradicts those beliefs every day.
This mentality is frustrating for me … Over-generalizing with a degree of self-justifying authority. Jakob’s perspective is coming from his own life experience and belief system (even if it’s an “absence of belief” system), and the way he frames his opinion is essentially non-confrontationally confrontational: “I don’t think you’re stupid, but it must be hard being as wrong as you are.”
It seems like it’s become trendy to nihilistic. I can’t find meaning in this situation, so there isn’t meaning. “Why do bad things happen to good people?” “How can there be a God if there is so much suffering in the world?” “The greatest single cause of Atheism in the world is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and walk out the door to deny him with their lifestyles … That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.” These thoughts may be profound and difficult for a person of faith to answer, but they certainly aren’t new nor do they prove belief false.
I’d like to think I’m a pretty smart person. I don’t subscribe to the more legalistic or unflinching views of faith, but I don’t simply write those views off for my own convenience… Instead of saying “I don’t believe these,” I look at them for an understanding of what those views mean and what they meant to their original audience … A “how does/can/should these apply to me” mentality rather than a “these don’t seem to make sense, so they aren’t rational” mentality. By approaching the contradictions in this fashion, I’d like to think that I’m taking a more scientific approach than blanket acceptance or blanket rejection (both alternatives claiming justification in their own core mentalities).
I appreciate Obama’s perspective, and I think it is evidence of a thinking man’s faith. I hope he is able to get more people asking questions and pushing the limits of their old-school understanding of religion, and I like the prospect of seeing these kinds of discussions in response.
