• Bernie Sanders's Religious Test for Christians in Public Office
    443 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Jcw87;52345324]Stating that the god in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the same god isn't exactly a controversial statement. Christianity and Islam both derive from Judaism, with their primary disagreement being who the prophet is. Trying to deny the common roots of these religions sounds like historical revisionism to me.[/QUOTE] They obviously aren't the same god. They have different natures, different goals, different methods, different revelations, different traits, different prophets, etc. The only similarity is a utilization of the some of the same prophets, but many times in different ways. Islam doesn't even derive from Judaism. Remember, Islam didn't come around until ~570 AD, over 500 years after Christianity. To say that they are the same god is to ignore what makes Christianity Christian and Islam Islamic.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52345100]How is stating a fact presumptuous?[/QUOTE] Cause you're applying it to us specifically.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52345416]Cause you're applying it to us specifically.[/QUOTE] No... I'm saying that claiming to be a former Christian is an irrelevancy when it comes to having a good understanding of Christian doctrine and theology. There are tons of people who are current Christians and still don't have any clue why they believe what they believe. I wouldn't be surprised if your average Christian couldn't even give a basic description of the doctrine of the Trinity. Your answer to my saying that a lot of this disagreement is rising from ignorance was that many of you are former Christians. This would only be relevant if being a former Christian gave you some authority or guaranteed a level of knowledge. The problem is that it doesn't.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52343100]In this case, the arbitrator is an elected official acting as part of the government. The constitution is very clear about government discrimination based on religion. It's an open and shut case that's a breach of the constitution.[/QUOTE] Elected officials are simply representatives that vote on our behalf. Putting restrictions on how they should vote would be the undemocratic thing to do. [editline]12th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52343452]Yes, of course I would let them in government because it's the normative Muslims position. I don't know of any Muslim groups who don't believe the Shahada is necessary to gain Allah's forgiveness, and I know a whole lot of Muslims that would work to protect all rights equally, even though they agree with that position. Much of this disagreement seems to be based on the abject religious ignorance of people who simply aren't familiar with actual Christian theology.[/QUOTE] You keep using "but lots of religious people think that way" as if we give a shit how many people hold that view. If someone holds shitty views, other people holding the same doesn't make those shitty views any more acceptable. [editline]12th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=benwaddi;52343590]What dont you get, you cannot block someone from office for their beliefs but they cant use those beliefs to defend actual actions or intent to commit actions. [B]As soon as someone from that religion abused their position to impose the racist religious belief onto others they would be punished accordingly, that is the whole "freedom from religion" thing.[/b] This is why every serial killer doesn't pull the Aztec priest card. If Bernie had pulled out some policy that Vought had proposed that showed he intended to implement that religious bigotry then I would be right along with him.[/QUOTE] You seriously believe US politicians are prevented from imposing their religious views on people through policy? That's cute. [editline]12th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52344192]You say that as if it matters at all. The vast majority of Christians don't even read the Bible or go to church, let alone do personal serious study.[/QUOTE] You sure know a lot of shit about "the majority of Christians". Would be nice if you could actually back up your assertions.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52345645]You keep using "but lots of religious people think that way" as if we give a shit how many people hold that view. If someone holds shitty views, other people holding the same doesn't make those shitty views any more acceptable.[/QUOTE] If 1 billion people hold a certain view, and it doesn't generally lead to them treating others badly, then it's a safe assumption that the view doesn't cause people to treat others badly.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52345426]Your answer to my saying that a lot of this disagreement is rising from ignorance was that many of you are former Christians. This would only be relevant if being a former Christian gave you some authority or guaranteed a level of knowledge. The problem is that it doesn't.[/QUOTE] firstly it does guarantee insight into it lol and secondly you immediately presumed and apparently still assume that those of us who were christian must have 0 knowledge simply because you say the majority doesn't
[QUOTE=sgman91;52345698]If 1 billion people hold a certain view, and it doesn't generally lead to them treating others badly, then it's a safe assumption that the view doesn't cause people to treat others badly.[/QUOTE] Not all of those 1 billion people are political representatives. Political reps are supposed to be held to a higher standard than your average Joe, and when it comes to that your country is living proof that your assumption is not a safe one to make at all. A little bit of misplaced empathy or inconsistency doesn't usually do too much damage, but when it directly affects millions it can actually have heavy repercussions.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52345645]Elected officials are simply representatives that vote on our behalf. Putting restrictions on how they should vote would be the undemocratic thing to do.[/QUOTE] Sweet! We can bring back government discrimination based on sex, sexual identity, and race! I mean, that's what you're advocating for here, throwing out the protections of the constitution and all.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52346368]Sweet! We can bring back government discrimination based on sex, sexual identity, and race! I mean, that's what you're advocating for here, throwing out the protections of the constitution and all.[/QUOTE] Since when have those protections applied to representative votes? AFAIK they don't have to give any justification to their decision, otherwise the GOP wouldn't be able to pass any of their self-serving bullshit. I really don't see what you're babbling about regarding the constitution, this is irrelevant here. If you want to start investigating into every rep's thought process to ensure they aren't making any decision based on bigotry then be my guest, but I highly doubt that's something that's being done currently.
[I]God forbid someone has an opinion that there is a right way and a wrong way to live life[/I] /s As it has been said in the Qu'ran "Indeed, the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are those who have disbelieved, and they will not [ever] believe" -Qu'ran 8:55 ([url]https://quran.com/8/55[/url]) On the other hand, the Bible says "16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." John 3:16-17 ([url]https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16-17&version=NIV[/url]) It would seem Islam is actually the hateful religion here rather than Christianity. Irony truly spares no one, not even Bernie Sanders.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52356852]All religion can be as hateful as anyone wants them to be. As someone posted earlier, it is just a way to express thoughts and feelings that are already inside people.[/QUOTE] That's a very generalized statement. No, not all Religion can be as hateful as anyone wants them because a religion isn't defined by the believers but by what the religion actually teaches. Just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't mean in anyway that the hypocrisy represents the actuality of the religion. What defines a religion is the said religion's teachings.
[QUOTE=Timof2009;52356882]That's a very generalized statement. No, not all Religion can be as hateful as anyone wants them because a religion isn't defined by the believers but by what the religion actually teaches. Just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't mean in anyway that the hypocrisy represents the actuality of the religion. What defines a religion is the said religion's teachings.[/QUOTE] Do you honestly think there is only one single interpretation of every religion? There's a reason there's both extremely hateful and extremely peaceful sects of both Christianity and Islam.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52356964]It is defined by the believers, actually. That is why there are 5 different churches down the road, each with different interprtations.[/QUOTE] You're being disingenuous. The key doctrines of Christianity (and Islam) are held by a huge number of people. Most of the disagreement are on the edges.
I dunno I think Lutherans and Catholics disagree quite a bit. At least on 95 things.
[QUOTE=Timof2009;52356882]That's a very generalized statement. No, not all Religion can be as hateful as anyone wants them because a religion isn't defined by the believers but by what the religion actually teaches. Just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't mean in anyway that the hypocrisy represents the actuality of the religion. What defines a religion is the said religion's teachings.[/QUOTE] Okay, the definition of a religion is the religion's teachings. Who teaches the religion? Oh. The believers. But they don't define the religion. What they teach defines the religion, right? Oh wait. What the believers teach is defined by the believers. And they disagree. Frequently. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members"]Then you end up with this[/URL]. Don't tell me "religion is defined by the teachings" when the Christian KKK spent decades slaughtering people for their skin color while flaunting the burning cross of their religion. God sent his only son to murder people he didn't like, that's what the Bible says.
Oh boy I sure love people discussing Islam in my Christianity based discussion. Just like I love people talking about Clinton in my Trump threads!
[QUOTE=Timof2009;52356824]On the other hand, the Bible says "16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." John 3:16-17 ([url]https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16-17&version=NIV[/url])[/QUOTE] That's just a roundabout way of saying God condemned non-believers. He's the one who created it all in the first place, and he's supposed to be omnipotent. They both say basically the same thing.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52357897]I dunno I think Lutherans and Catholics disagree quite a bit. At least on 95 things.[/QUOTE] The Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox split is the one major split, but it's based on there being different sources of authority, not major disagreements on what the Bible says. The Catholic church would believe what the protestants believe if they didn't also think their church tradition had what is essentially equal authority.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52358468]The Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox split is the one major split, but it's based on there being different sources of authority, not major disagreements on what the Bible says. The Catholic church would believe what the protestants believe if they didn't also think their church tradition had what is essentially equal authority.[/QUOTE] There's a big split between those who interpret the bible literally and those who interpret it figuratively. But why the hell are we arguing about what Christianity is, when the topic at hand is about how religion [i]shouldn't be involved in politics[/i]? The content of the religion and what its followers believe are [i]completely irrelevant[/i]. It [i]doesn't matter[/i] what your [i]core tenants[/i] are or how many people believe in them. What is relevant is what Vought stated in that article, and what Bernie Sanders said in response. You can't go around saying negative things about other religions and expect people to trust you to be unbiased in matters regarding religion. If a hypothetical individual said negative things about black people, would you trust them to not be biased against black people? I certainly would not. How is it any different from an individual who says negative things about the followers of a particular religion?
[QUOTE=sgman91;52358468]The Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox split is the one major split, but it's based on there being different sources of authority, not major disagreements on what the Bible says. The Catholic church would believe what the protestants believe if they didn't also think their church tradition had what is essentially equal authority.[/QUOTE] If you look at things broadly enough everything looks the same. All organized religions are basically the same because they tell you to be good, they just disagree on how to be good.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52359005]If you look at things broadly enough everything looks the same. All organized religions are basically the same because they tell you to be good, they just disagree on how to be good.[/QUOTE] I'm talking about specifically Christian doctrine. Within Bible believing protestantism, for example, they essentially all agree on the nature of God, the nature of Jesus, salvation through faith, etc. I can go into basically any Bible based church, hear a sermon, and agree with it. [editline]14th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Jcw87;52358964]There's a big split between those who interpret the bible literally and those who interpret it figuratively.[/QUOTE] Firstly, this is a false dichotomy. No Christian thinks the entire Bible is literal. The real question is whether the parts that are clearly written literally should be taken literally. The large majority of the Christian tradition says yes, and a few odd historical theologians (like Origen) along with the new liberal Christian movement say no (when they disagree). Secondly, this is a new issue pushed by culture, not new Biblical theories. If you take a look at the historical development of liberal Christianity, you'll find that they are always following behind culture. You will also find that they never have a consistent view of the Biblical interpretation. They'll take some things very literally, like love your neighbor, while taking other things figuratively, even though both are literal statements. To the rest of your response, go read the thread. We've already discussed that.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52359703] Firstly, this is a false dichotomy. No Christian thinks the entire Bible is literal. The real question is whether the parts that are clearly written literally should be taken literally. The large majority of the Christian tradition says yes, and a few odd historical theologians (like Origen) along with the new liberal Christian movement say no (when they disagree). Secondly, this is a new issue pushed by culture, not new Biblical theories. If you take a look at the historical development of liberal Christianity, you'll find that they are always following behind culture. You will also find that they never have a consistent view of the Biblical interpretation. They'll take some things very literally, like love your neighbor, while taking other things figuratively, even though both are literal statements. [/QUOTE] Saying that there aren't [i]any[/i] in existence that take the whole bible literally is just setting yourself up to be proven wrong. I've met a flat earther Christian before. They DO exist. What possible reason would they have to believe something so retarded other than every word of the bible is taken literally? But I'm not here to argue about what Christianity is, because that is just a huge waste of time. [QUOTE=sgman91;52359703] To the rest of your response, go read the thread. We've already discussed that.[/QUOTE] I've read the thread. You straw-manned every good point to hell and back. There is clearly something that you don't quite understand, and I want to know exactly what it is, and why. [QUOTE=Jcw87;52358964] If a hypothetical individual said negative things about black people, would you trust them to not be biased against black people? I certainly would not. How is it any different from an individual who says negative things about the followers of a particular religion?[/QUOTE] Answer my question.
Ken Ham and the museum of creationism and bible literaism would beg to differ as well
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52360444]Ken Ham and the museum of creationism and bible literaism would beg to differ as well[/QUOTE] Do they think Jesus is a literal door? Do they believe in transubstantiation? Etc. If not, then they don't take the entire Bible literally.
According to Gallup, 24% of Americans believe the Bible to be the literal word of god and to be taken as such. [url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx[/url] And this is the record low for such a view.
I'd vote against him too. People whose personal morals dictate that they condemn anyone who doesn't celebrate their religion belongs nowhere near government
[QUOTE=sgman91;52359703]I can go into basically any Bible based church, hear a sermon, and agree with it.[/QUOTE] for people who actually consider their denomination thats defo not gonna be the case.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52360751]Do they thing Jesus is a literal door? Do they believe in transubstantiation? Etc. If not, then they don't take the entire Bible literally.[/QUOTE] oh well yeah that makes everything fine [editline]14th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=DOG-GY;52360965]for people who actually consider their denomination thats defo not gonna be the case.[/QUOTE] I'm excited for him to tell you what the situation [B]really[/B] is for real christians.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52360751]Do they thing Jesus is a literal door? Do they believe in transubstantiation? Etc. If not, then they don't take the entire Bible literally.[/QUOTE] People who take the bible completely literally definitely exist. Just take a look at the theological Flat-Earthers. They're absolutely 100% taking the bible literally. There's a series of videos by a guy that actually claimed that the Earth was literally a footstool at the foot of a physical throne that god sat in, and used that as an argument against a round earth. To paraphrase, "Where do the legs of a stool go on a ball earth? It's nonsense." He also failed to understand basic physics in arguing for a flat earth. I can't find that specific video, but his channel is still active. [url=https://www.youtube.com/user/TigerDan925]Here's his channel.[/url] Also Dopefish did a very funny commentary on one of his videos and that's where the footstool argument comes from. Stop automatically asserting shit without anything to back it up. Saying "No Christian takes the bible completely literally" without any sources is just shitty and a bad argument tactic. Even the most basic level of college education starts with "PROVIDE SOURCES FOR YOUR POINT" being hammered into your brain.
[QUOTE=zombini;52360993]People who take the bible completely literally definitely exist. Just take a look at the theological Flat-Earthers. They're absolutely 100% taking the bible literally. There's a series of videos by a guy that actually claimed that the Earth was literally a footstool at the foot of a physical throne that god sat in, and used that as an argument against a round earth. To paraphrase, "Where do the legs of a stool go on a ball earth? It's nonsense." He also failed to understand basic physics in arguing for a flat earth. I can't find that specific video, but his channel is still active. [url=https://www.youtube.com/user/TigerDan925]Here's his channel.[/url] Also Dopefish did a very funny commentary on one of his videos and that's where the footstool argument comes from. Stop automatically asserting shit without anything to back it up. Saying "No Christian takes the bible completely literally" without any sources is just shitty and a bad argument tactic. Even the most basic level of college education starts with "PROVIDE SOURCES FOR YOUR POINT" being hammered into your brain.[/QUOTE] oh but they don't take specific wordings super literally so they're not really literalists and he can have his win on the most egregious of technicalities.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.