Charles Barkley Calls Out Fake Christians

[sunoftheskye]

Former NBA star Charles Barkley, who is not known for his timidity when it comes to discussing his political beliefs, will surely be ruffling right-wing feathers with his latest comments.

Barkley, currently an NBA commentator for the TNT network, appeared today on CNN's 'Situation Room.' When asked by host Wolf Blitzer about his views on the presidential race, Barkley said he didn't want to see the Republicans win because they were 'fake Christians.'

The comment came after Barkley was asked his reasons for supporting presidential candidate Barack Obama, rather than Hillary Clinton or any of the Republican candidates.

"I've got great respect for Sen. McCain, great respect, but I don't like the way Republicans have taken this country," said Barkley. "Every time I hear the word 'conservative,' it makes me sick to my stomach, because they're really just fake Christians, as I call them. That's all they are."

Blitzer moved on to a different question following the comment, but later followed-up at the end of his interview and asked him to elaborate on what he meant by "fake Christian."

"I think they want to be judge and jury," Barkley replied. "Like, I'm for gay marriage. It's none of my business if gay people want to get married. I'm pro-choice. And I think these Christians, first of all, they're not supposed to judge other people. But they're the most hypocritical judge of people we have in the country. And it bugs the hell out of me. They act like they're Christians. They're not forgiving at all."

Barkley also explained why he was supporting Barack Obama. "When i look at him, he represents everything that's good in the black community," Barkley said. "He's intelligent. He's articulate. You know, most of our role models are athletes or entertainers. We've got to get more black kids to be educated, carry themselves with great class and dignity. He's perfect for what we need. We've got so much black-on-black crime in this country right now. We've got a lot of kids not getting their education. That's why I'm supporting him."

Barkley also reiterated a claim he has made before regarding his intention to run for governor of Alabama.
"I just bought a house in 2007 and in 2014, I promise you I'm going to run for governor," Barkley said. "You have to have residency for seven years. I bought my house at the end of last year and I'll be eligible in 2014."

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Charles_Barkley_Conservatives_are_fake_Christians_0215.html

 

[gsdx]

"I think they want to be judge and jury," Barkley replied. "Like, I'm for gay marriage. It's none of my business if gay people want to get married. I'm pro-choice. And I think these Christians, first of all, they're not supposed to judge other people. But they're the most hypocritical judge of people we have in the country. And it bugs the hell out of me. They act like they're Christians. They're not forgiving at all."

I don't know the guy, but Bravo!!!

 

[number2]

You go Charles Barkley!

 

[fadeinout30]

Obama is "100% against gay marriage" along with the vast majority of black people who claim to be Christians.

 

[sabot3ur]

as opposed to "real christians" who DON'T follow most of the bible and just use the famous one liner golden rule as a vague guideline?

the bible has hundreds of silly and outdated rules, most that are not applicable or tolerable in today's society... but when you pick and choose whichever ones you want to follow in order to make it a nicer and more liberal religion... it just makes it look like the whole thing's a ruse that shapeshifts to keep followers throughout the passage of time.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

I have a new-found respect for Barkley. And I'm still hoping that Obama and Clinton will go for gay marriage; it really would be a change in politics...

RG

 

[sunoftheskye]

Obama is "100% against gay marriage" along with the vast majority of black people who claim to be Christians.

So he should support Hillary or McCain who ALSO don't support gay marriage?

And what do black people have to do with this?

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

as opposed to "real christians" who DON'T follow most of the bible and just use the famous one liner golden rule as a vague guideline?

the bible has hundreds of silly and outdated rules, most that are not applicable or tolerable in today's society... but when you pick and choose whichever ones you want to follow in order to make it a nicer and more liberal religion... it just makes it look like the whole thing's a ruse that shapeshifts to keep followers throughout the passage of time.

So religion should remain static over time? An unchanging religion is a sign of a group that isn't changing or maturing; show me any group of people that advances and still believes the same. And good luck on that....

Interpretations change, usually for the better. Why is such a bad thing?
I'll never understand some people...

RG

 

[sabot3ur]

So religion should remain static over time? An unchanging religion is a sign of a group that isn't changing or maturing; show me any group of people that advances and still believes the same. And good luck on that....

Interpretations change, usually for the better. Why is such a bad thing?
I'll never understand some people...

RG

oh sure, change is progressive and good.

but if any religion wants to hold it's validity, changing whatever god said every century isn't the way to convince me.

 

[sunoftheskye]

oh sure, change is progressive and good.

but if any religion wants to hold it's validity, changing whatever god said every century isn't the way to convince me.

I see your point. If what's in the Bible is truly what God "said", then how does it make sense that it's somehow changing?

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

oh sure, change is progressive and good.

but if any religion wants to hold it's validity, changing whatever god said every century isn't the way to convince me.

Why not? If a group truthfully changes, and re-examines what it believes in and why every so often, then why should religion be excepted from that? Why shouldn't we look and see if we trust how something was interpreted, and see if the interpretation is correct?

The Bible is not the "Word of God", but the "Living Word of God", meaning that it can change over the centuries. Also, even it points out that people will use it for their own good, rather than the good of people in general. Just consider how off the King James version is. I have no problem if the current interpretation is way off from the interpretation a hundred years from now; that just means that it's living up to what it's called...

RG

 

[sabot3ur]

because, it just makes it look like the whole thing's a ruse that shapeshifts to keep followers throughout the passage of time.

 

[GL]

the round mound of rebound strikes again!

i love charles. he calls it like he sees it.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

because, it just makes it look like the whole thing's a ruse that shapeshifts to keep followers throughout the passage of time.

Got that you believe that. And my condolences on that. I'd like to think that anything human would change over time, at least in how we perceive it, possibly gaining a new appreciation for it over time. Just look at how our perception of a da Vinci painting has changed, as well as the pyramids. As we get older as a civilization, we find greater appreciation of things past.

At the same time I agree that we need to discard things that don't work. I just don't think that we're there yet with The Bible. I do think that we are there with fanatics of all stripes, religious or otherwise...

RG

 

[sabot3ur]

but this isn't just a painting, this is supposedly the "divine word of god!"

how does charles barkley have the right to call them fake christians, when they are following biblical doctrine more than he is? his version of christianity is the newer happy-go-lucky version that disavows most of what the holy book, the word of HIS GOD, says. I'd say that he's more of a fake christian than they are, because simply saying, "I don't like that interpretation, let's interpret another" doesn't make the basis so.

and I know it's been beaten over the head many times, but you're only addressing the "different interpretations" of the bible, not all the silly laws that people forget about, such as:
Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)

Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)

Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)

Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)

Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9)

If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10).


If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)

If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14)

If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16).


If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)

Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)

If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9)

People who have flat noses, or who are blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)

Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)

...

these were certainly upheld at one point or another in church history, why not now if it's a part of christianity? because it's not socially acceptable? picking and choosing how you want your already established religion to be NOW does not make it official, even if jesus contradicted so much in the old testament by saying "love thy neighbor as thyself".

 

[polobro25]

how does charles barkley have the right to call them fake christians, when they are following biblical doctrine more than he is? his version of christianity is the newer happy-go-lucky version that disavows most of what the holy book, the word of HIS GOD, says. I'd say that he's more of a fake christian than they are, because simply saying, "I don't like that interpretation, let's interpret another" doesn't make the basis so.

Hey Sabot, I'm not trying to make this a huge issue, but maybe Barkley has the right to call them 'fake christians' because he doesn't classify himself as a christian (or at least he didn't in the original quote). Therefore, he isn't obligated to follow the commandments set out by Christianity, nor the new 'happy-go-lucky' version that is popular today. I don't know, just a thought.

Otherwise, I see where you're going with your argument, those who practice the religion should strive to follow all of its commandments, not just the convenient ones, like the 'fake christians' of whom Barkley speaks.

 

[sabot3ur]

haha I guess I just assumed he was, because he called the republicans fake christians, but supports obama who's an example of what he'd consider a "real" christian.

 

[Shepherd 2]

Charles Barkley is a fine black man, and he has experienced racism every day of his life. Where he gets his credentials however to call some Christians fake, I do not know. Will it make Obama more electable? Probably not, and I do want to see him elected.

The problem lies with white men who control the lives of us all. Their white power and privilege is what will determine the upcoming election and let us not be distracted by ad hominem name calling. It will only serve to justify some white men voting for the status quo.

Shep+

 

[JackFTwist]

lots of Christians support marriage equality, including the United Church of Christ to which Obama belongs

 

[polobro25]

Hmm.. Sabot, Actually, I think you're assuming a lot regarding the Barkley quote above, and depending on your own interpretation rather than his actual quote. See, I feel that Barkley is supporting Obama for reasons independent of religion (ie real / fake christian, etc), and his reasons were detailed in the first post.

The point about your interpretation of the original quote alone isn't really significant until one relates it to the dominant discussion b/w you and RGfellow regarding religious / biblical interpretations vs the written word, and relevancy to modern lives. You took Barkley's quote and interpreted it to mean that he was a christian man casting judgement on the neo-con republican 'fake christians' while supporting Barack as a true fellow christian, which isn't an accurate interpretation of the quote, and could be construed as pursuing an agenda. Instead, I saw the issue of 'fake christians' and Barkley's support of Obama as separate points. See where I'm going? Different people, different interpretations regarding the same topic.

Now relating this idea to the interpretation of religious text- I think that the bible uses many symbols, etc to communicate the will of God. Looking at the first bible quote that you gave as a Levitican law, it's also important to look at the role cattle played in the lives of those living during that time. So before we (you, RGfellow, myself) all dismiss the bible as an outdated book, lets take from it the idea that the laws are open for personal interpretation, and should be allowed to change with the as each person sees fit (which has already been said, but I think is important). I'm really not trying to offend you or your pov, just adding to it my own opinion about the autonomy that is available to us in modern religion.