• Bernie Sanders's Religious Test for Christians in Public Office
    443 replies, posted
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52361001]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.[/QUOTE] You're arguing with someone for whom acquiescing to any of your points would require admitting that perhaps his religion is not abject fact, which he cannot do.
[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] Yes, I get that there are people who take things literally that shouldn't be taken literally, but that's entirely different from saying they take the entire thing literally. As I said, if the person is protestant, then they don't hold to transubstantiation, which would be the literal interpretation. I'm not justifying their position. I'm simply clarifying that categorizing people into two groups, literalists and non-literalists, isn't useful at all in understanding people's positions. [editline]14th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52361001]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.[/QUOTE] Matthew 26:26 says: "26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”" It's not a technicality to say that a literal interpretation would mean the bread was literally his body. Yet no protestants hold that view, even the so called 'literalists.'
[QUOTE=sgman91;52361024]Yes, I get that there are people who take things literally that shouldn't be taken literally, but that's entirely different from saying they take the entire thing literally. As I said, if the person is protestant, then they don't hold to transubstantiation, which would be the literal interpretation. I'm not justifying their position. I'm simply clarifying that categorizing people into two groups, literalists and non-literalists, isn't useful at all in understanding people's positions. [editline]14th June 2017[/editline] Matthew 26:26 says: "26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”" It's not a technicality to say that a literal interpretation would mean the bread was literally his body. Yet no protestants hold that view, even the so called 'literalists.'[/QUOTE] oh yeah no that's totally fine then i'm sure
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52361103]oh yeah no that's totally fine then i'm sure[/QUOTE] What are you even saying? I never said one or another was good. I was clarifying the incorrect idea that people take the entire Bible literally. It's a common misconception by people ignorant of Christianity.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52361115]What are you even saying? I never said one or another was good. I was clarifying the incorrect idea that people take the entire Bible literally. It's a common misconception by people ignorant of Christianity.[/QUOTE] One doesn't have to take every word in the book to be taking a "literalist" path. You're quite literally only arguing over the word "literal" and the extent to which it's being used. If someone literally believes the earth is 6-10,000 years old, they're a literalist even if they don't think the bread is literally Christ and the wine is literally his blood. The extent to which you use generalizations without any backing is hilarious, as if I've never studied the subject or met Christians who would disagree with you
[QUOTE=sgman91;52361115]What are you even saying? I never said one or another was good. I was clarifying the incorrect idea that people take the entire Bible literally. It's a common misconception by people ignorant of Christianity.[/QUOTE] There are people that do. They may not be a large amount of them compared to every other denomination but you cannot argue that they do not exist.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52361024]Yes, I get that there are people who take things literally that shouldn't be taken literally, but that's entirely different from saying they take the entire thing literally.[/QUOTE] Absolutely no one is saying that. You're playing word games to win an argument against a straw man and I know that you're too smart to have not noticed.
[QUOTE=BelatedGamer;52361271]Absolutely no one is saying that. You're playing word games to win an argument against a straw man and I know that you're too smart to have not noticed.[/QUOTE] Funny, because the guy *literally* right above you is, in fact, saying that.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52361515]Funny, because the guy *literally* right above you is, in fact, saying that.[/QUOTE] I find your ability to split hair over the most nonsensical things pretty weird man. And just so you know I am not *literally* saying you split hair, it's just a saying.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52361527]I find your ability to split hair over the most nonsensical things pretty weird man. And just so you know I am not *literally* saying you split hair, it's just a saying.[/QUOTE] You made the argument, and I responded to it.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52361557]Don't make the argument, then?[/QUOTE] What argument? That biblical literalists exist in some fashion?
[QUOTE=sgman91;52361515]Funny, because the guy *literally* right above you is, in fact, saying that.[/QUOTE] You are intentionally misinterpreting what he's saying and it's both petty and dishonest.
[QUOTE=BelatedGamer;52361706]You are intentionally misinterpreting what he's saying and it's both petty and dishonest.[/QUOTE] He might be completely sincere in what he's saying. I remember us having to explain to him why libtard is offensive.
The fuck's the point of arguing nobody takes 100% of the Bible 100% literally? Your original point was that the only thing that differs from Christian to Christian is how they practice their religion, and that their beliefs are identical. The simple fact that different Christians take different parts of the Bible literally is enough to disprove that point. Whether some of them take all of it literally is irrelevant.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52361115]What are you even saying? I never said one or another was good. I was clarifying the incorrect idea that people take the entire Bible literally. It's a common misconception by people ignorant of Christianity.[/QUOTE] I'm willing to bet that no-one takes the ENTIRE bible 100% literally. However. HOWEVER. When you have a senator/congressman, during a session, taking out the bible and citing this [QUOTE=Inhofe]Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that "as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night," my point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous. [/QUOTE] This one idiot in a position of power is using a book that we've known to be scientifically wrong for a thousand years, in public office. Now I don't care how moderate or progressive you claim to be, if you buy into nonsense with no evidence backing it for no good reason (like accepting jesus' divinity, despite his actual EXISTENCE being in dispute, especially considering the extraordinary claims made about him (earthquakes when crucified, H2O into complex carbohydrate molecules, etc etc)) then you're not sound enough in the head to lead PUBLIC OFFICE where you're supposed to evaluate data critically, make sound and rational decisions, which anyone who legitimately believes that nonsense is not, in my opinion, qualified to do.
I'll be glad when religious people are a minority. In some countries (Czech Rep., Japan), it's already there, but I think this country would be way better off without religious people
[QUOTE=proboardslol;52362583]I'll be glad when religious people are a minority. In some countries (Czech Rep., Japan), it's already there, but I think this country would be way better off without religious people[/QUOTE] Only good thing about this country, religions are essentially non-existent. I can't think of anyone besides older generations (50+) that I know of who is religious.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52334448]Quite often it could be the opposite, missionaries risked themselves with no support to spread Christianity. Scandanavia and Japan are good examples of that..[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Tudd;52334360]You might be mistaking "by the sword" for Islam though.[/QUOTE] I'm really glad this thread has stayed relevant because I've been waiting for a week to respond to these. The conversion of Scandinavia was in no way peaceful. Conversions through force (read: torture) were not uncommon. One famous example was Olaf Tryggvason, who usurped the throne of Norway in order to spread Christianity and notably forced a snake down one man's throat as well as resting a burning brazier on another's chest. And since you brought up Islam, I'd like to point out that we had no such problems with the Islamic people to the south. We traded with (and raided) them often, and even made up the bulk of their Varangian guard. I realize the topic has shifted quite a bit since these posts but this has been annoying me since. To call Scandinavia a good example of peaceful Christianization, especially to spread bigoted hatred of a group we never had a problem with, is an insult to my people.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.