Does our "Individual salvation depend on our collective salvation" or does our collective salvation depend on our individual salvation?

Thank you for commenting, Proud.
One of the speeches was a commencement address and the link is the highlighted blue 'speeches' above. You can use your browser's word search for salvation.
Here's an excerpt to put his statement into context.

"You can choose to narrow your concerns and live your life in a way that tries to keep your story separate from America’s.

But I hope you don’t. Not because you have an obligation to those who are less fortunate, though you do have that obligation. Not because you have a debt to all those who helped you get here, though you do have that debt.

It’s because you have an obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. Because thinking only about yourself, fulfilling your immediate wants and needs, betrays a poverty of ambition. Because it’s only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential and discover the role you’ll play in writing the next great chapter in America’s story "

Yeh, I get the 'love thy neighbor' part and whole heartedly agree with it.
My point is that it's twisted. Even in his examples of what he's saying it's the individual who provides the salvation for the collective. It just seems to me he's twisting the 'love thy neighbor' to make it fit a preconceived dogma.
I get the bit about society nurturing the individual but he's placed the cart before the horse.
The biblical source of 'love thy neighbor' although directed at the collective requires the individuals of the collective to adopt that philosophy and behavior.
It does explain President Obama's emphasis of the function of the government though.
That is, if you believe the government is his concept of the collective. He is trying to build the structure that will provide salvation for the individual. So his loyalty and dedication is toward that facilitator, the government.
Yeh, I get it. It's his concept of utopia. And it is Marxist.
It leads to the concept that government is the highest authority. Which explains him having no problems with usurping established religious beliefs. He had to back off on that though.
But like I've mentioned before. My problem with government is how much control it has over the individual. When government takes on the role that President Obama would give it, rights are surrendered, 'pursuit of individual happiness' is redefined to 'what is good for the state'. And the government becomes the master, the individual the slave serving the master.
Kind of like an Orwellian nightmare, or a dark Soviet umbrella.
Gotta go.

Thanks for the quote. I tend to agree with him. As I said above I think it works both ways - the individual is enhanced and more "saved" (I know that's an incredibly awkward way of putting it, but I'm still on my first cup of coffee LOL) - by living in an enlightened and charitable society, and that society only becomes enlightened by the enlightenment of its members.

I have to disagree with your assessment of the President's view. Obviously, he's not a Marxist and has never even remotely suggested that things like your right to own private property or to build and own your own business should be taken away. But he is absolutely correct, in my opinion, that we DO have an obligation, at least a moral obligation, to our neighbors. We DO have a responsibility to speak out against evil and to try to create a safer and more redeeming society.

The President does not believe that the role of government is to provide salvation. The President does believe, correctly, that the role of government is to make sure that the opportunities for salvation are protected - like your Minister's right to tell you about the Bible, or your parents' right to guide you on a path of charity and compassion, or your right to get an education, or even making sure that if you want to start a business of your own there are tax incentives and zoning laws and other regulations that will help you do so.

You and a lot of others speak repeatedly about "government taking your rights away". What rights of yours have been taken away?

OK let's start with the "Obama wants to take everyone's guns away" idea. Since the President has been in office, including the time when he had close to a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, he has not proposed a single bill or asked Congress to come up with a single bill that in any way restricts anyone's existing Second Amendment rights. He could have theoretically reimposed the assault weapons ban during that period and he didn't even try. In fact, the only piece of legislation that affects gun rights in any way that he has signed since he took office was one that EXPANDED the rights of gun owners so that now anyone who wants to can bring their assault rifle with them when they visit our National Parks. In fact, Wayne LaPierre, one of the NRA's most outspoken leaders, said a few months ago (I'm not kidding) that the fact that Obama has not tried to take everyone's guns away is evidence that he wants to take everyone's guns away. The "gun roundup" in the Katrina Aftermath (which did in fact have at least a shred of rational basis - thousands of homes containing guns were abandoned and looters could easily have built up an armory of their own - though I don't think even that is sufficient basis to do what they did) was ordered and directed by the Bush Administration, so whether it was a good idea or a stupid idea, it had nothing to do with President Obama.

I'm asking as civilly as I can - what evidence is there to support the idea that "Obama wants to take everyone's guns away"?

I would invite you to read this article (yes, it comes from an opinion site and I don't pretend it is a scholarly scientific analysis):

http://www.sodahead.com/unite...

The President has not demonized the Republicans, the rich, or the evangelical gun nuts. As for the Republican War on Women, that's not even subject to debate any more. It's real, it's ongoing, and it's getting worse. I agree with you entirely that the race card is being played way too often, but it seems that somewhere between 95 and 100% of those plays are coming from people attacking President Obama, not those who support him. And when has the President ever assaulted the beliefs of any church? Trying to prevent the Catholic Church from imposing its views on its employees whether they believe them or not is unconstitutional and stupid, and I would hope that ANYONE who believes in Constitutional values would similarly oppose such an oppressive power grab. I often find it amusing that the conservatives continually try to pass Islamophobic discrimination laws because of a nonexistent "Sharia Law takeover of the United States", yet turn a blind eye when the Catholic Church attempts to make everyone in this country bow down to the Pope.

You know from our long association that I am a devoted fan of American history. Whether or not you agree with the conclusions I draw or the interpretations I make is a separate question and you are of course completely entitled to your own interpretation. But I have to say, in my personal opinion, having studied American history for almost half a century, that I can't think of anyone in the last hundred years who has shown more respect and devotion to the principles and values on which this nation is founded than Barack Obama. (Maybe Martin Luther King, Jr.) He's not perfect by a long shot, and even I don't agree with him 100% of the time, but he has never once said or done anything since the day he took office that was not intended to improve the lives of the American people.