• Bernie Sanders's Religious Test for Christians in Public Office
    443 replies, posted
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334131]... It's a truth claim like literally any other truth claim. Also, since when is being steadfastly devoted to something you think is true the same as never considering any other view?[/QUOTE] We're just going to go in circles so I'm going to stop responding to you at this point. I hope you never get the theocracy you so clearly desire.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334057] Please at least attempt to learn a modicum of actual Christian doctrine before pretending to be knowledgable (And no, Dawkins isn't a good source). No Christian society, ever, has stoned disobedient children as a policy. That's never been a thing. So what's more likely? Every Christian society since the time of Jesus wrongfully ignored that part of the Bible or you don't really understand the Bible? I would say the latter.[/QUOTE] Good job missing the point. I know enough about the bible that even if I mis-remember a detail, I can easily use a google search to find tons of objectionable things in it. [quote] Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT) [/quote] [quote] “If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB) [/quote] [quote] A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB) [/quote] [quote] Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB) [/quote] My point isn't about stoning unruly children. It's about people clearly ignoring these types of bible verses, because any sane human being would recognize their terribleness. Any person running for elected office should know about the separation of church and state, and respect it. They especially shouldn't be calling out other religions by name.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52334133]Do you really not understand how someone regarding a group of people as sinners condemned by god who will justly be tortured for all time for refusing to accept their religious ideology could possibly negatively inform their view of that group? Don't you think that the parts of someone's ideology that they choose to speak about might say something about how that religious ideology informs their views? like in a world where people are fucking computers and subtext doesn't exist and we just judge people explicitly by what they literally say yeah you're totally right but we don't live in that world and people aren't that simple[/QUOTE] I could easily say, "Do you really not understand how thinking that all religious people are deluded into believing a false fairy tale could possibly negatively inform their view of that group?" Instead of trying to use this emotional language, why not actually look at the reality of the situation? Firstly, there are absolutely TONS of Christians who do not treat people badly even though they think they are sinners damned to Hell. In fact, many Christians go out of their way to treat those people with love. Secondly, what could theoretically maybe happen isn't the same thing as saying what is likely to happen. There is zero reason to think that the man in the original article is going to mistreat Muslims. [editline]9th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Jcw87;52334150]Good job missing the point. I know enough about the bible that even if I mis-remember a detail, I can easily use a google search to find tons of objectionable things in it. My point isn't about stoning unruly children. It's about people clearly ignoring these types of bible verses, because any sane human being would recognize their terribleness. Any person running for elected office should know about the separation of church and state, and respect it. They especially shouldn't be calling out other religions by name.[/QUOTE] You clearly don't understand the idea of the Jewish laws and how they apply to Christians. Like I said previously, you are claiming to have a better understanding of Biblical theology than every Christian society to have existed. That is the height of ignorance and narcissism. [editline]9th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=geel9;52334136]We're just going to go in circles so I'm going to stop responding to you at this point. I hope you never get the theocracy you so clearly desire.[/QUOTE] What's funny is that I abhore theocracy. I never argue public policy on the basis of religion, and argue against those who do. You are deluded yourself into painting a picture of Christians that simply isn't true. We're going in circles because you never stick to an argument. Every post is a new rabbit trail.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334153]I could easily say, "Do you really not understand how thinking that all religious people are deluded into believing a false fairy tale could possibly negatively inform their view of that group?" Instead of trying to use this emotional language, why not actually look at the reality of the situation? Firstly, there are absolutely TONS of Christians who do not treat people badly even though they think they are sinners damned to Hell. In fact, many Christians go out of their way to treat those people with love. Secondly, what could theoretically maybe happen isn't the same thing as saying what is likely to happen. [editline]9th June 2017[/editline] You clearly don't understand the idea of the Jewish laws and how they apply to Christians. Like I said previously, you are claiming to have a better understanding of Biblical theology than every Christian society to have existed. That is the height of ignorance and narcissism.[/QUOTE] There's a difference between how "religious people are stupid" biases your actions and "people of other religions deserve to go to hell" biases your actions. And also a difference between those and how "gay people have the right to be happy" biases your actions. Also, there are tons of Christians who [I]do[/I] treat people of other religions badly - or even of the same religion, but with different views - because they think they're going to hell. There's also tons of Christians who don't think other people are damned to hell because of their religion.
[QUOTE=geel9;52334136]We're just going to go in circles so I'm going to stop responding to you at this point. I hope you never get the theocracy you so clearly desire.[/QUOTE] He hasn't said anything indicating a desire for theocracy, you guys are all just too thick skulled to consider what he's ACTUALLY saying and see instead responding to some weird alternate version of this thread that doesn't actually exist.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334109]So you believe in an exclusively morally subjective worldview. That's still an exclusive truth claim. How can I trust that you will treat those who believe in objective views fairly? No matter how you try to spin it, everyone makes exclusive claims of truth. This does NOT rationally require them to mistreat those who disagree.[/QUOTE] Are you still defending Vaught here, after he made a statement specifically condemning Muslims?
[QUOTE=Last or First;52334172]There's a difference between how "religious people are stupid" biases your actions and "people of other religions deserve to go to hell" biases your actions.[/QUOTE] You're drawing arbitrary lines in the sand that coincidentally put you on one side and Christians on the other. Why shouldn't I assume that you thinking massive numbers of people are stupid cause you treat them badly? Let me clarify, that this is based on your guy's logic. I recognize that people are able to distinguish their opinion of another person and how they treat them. [QUOTE]Also, there are tons of Christians who [I]do[/I] treat people of other religions badly - or even of the same religion, but with different views - because they think they're going to hell. There's also tons of Christians who don't think other people are damned to hell because of their religion.[/QUOTE] There are tons of people in general who treat other people badly. There are plenty of atheists who treat religious people badly, for example. This comes from the person, not the belief system, unless that belief system actually calls for them to be treated badly.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334153]I could easily say, "Do you really not understand how thinking that all religious people are deluded into believing a false fairy tale could possibly negatively inform their view of that group?" Instead of trying to use this emotional language, why not actually look at the reality of the situation? Firstly, there are absolutely TONS of Christians who do not treat people badly even though they think they are sinners damned to Hell. In fact, many Christians go out of their way to treat those people with love. Secondly, what could theoretically maybe happen isn't the same thing as saying what is likely to happen.[/QUOTE] Yeah. If I thought that atheists were all intelligent, euphoric logic lords and that religious people were uniquely ignorant cromagnons, that probably would inform how I act towards that group of people. My view of religion would also probably inform how I would act in regard to religious issues. That would be a perfectly reasonable cause to not support me if you were a religious person. And my point isn't that it's likely to happen; though I would argue it is. My point is that you saying "but technically lots of christians believe this so there's no reason to ever take issue with him saying it" is pathetically naive. If you want to argue that this guy is a chill dude who treats everyone fairly, bring up evidence of that. Don't pretend that him saying "I promise not to treat the heathens unfairly" is proof that anyone who disapproves of his being appointed is just an anti christian bigot.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334153]I could easily say, "Do you really not understand how thinking that all religious people are deluded into believing a false fairy tale could possibly negatively inform their view of that group?"[/QUOTE] I mean, you're the one here who claims that a large majority of religious people legitimately believe non-believers will suffer eternally after death, even though it would completely disregard the alleged clemency and fairness of their god in the process. You're the one who insist they have such inconsistent beliefs. I personally don't think that most Christians/Muslims/Jews legitimately believe that, if that's the case I can definitely say without qualms that they have fucked up dark-age-tier beliefs.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52334187]Yeah. If I thought that atheists were all intelligent, euphoric logic lords and that religious people were uniquely ignorant cromagnons, that probably would inform how I act towards that group of people. My view of religion would also probably inform how I would act in regard to religious issues. That would be a perfectly reasonable cause to not support me if you were a religious person. And my point isn't that it's likely to happen; though I would argue it is. My point is that you saying [B]"but technically lots of christians believe this so there's no reason to ever take issue with him saying it"[/B] is pathetically naive. If you want to argue that this guy is a chill dude who treats everyone fairly, bring up evidence of that. Don't pretend that him saying "I promise not to treat the heathens unfairly" is proof that anyone who disapproves of his being appointed is just an anti christian bigot.[/QUOTE] Can you quote where I said that (Hint, I never made that argument). My point was that if you are going to argue that holding the belief in question causes people to mistreat non-Christians, then you would need to demonstrate how the billions of Christians in the world are currently mistreating non-Christians en-mass because they almost all hold that belief. The fact that this isn't happening shows how wrong it is. [editline]9th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=_Axel;52334195]I mean, you're the one here who claims that a large majority of religious people legitimately believe non-believers will suffer eternally after death, even though it would completely disregard the alleged clemency and fairness of their god in the process. You're the one who insist they have such inconsistent beliefs. I personally don't think that most Christians/Muslims/Jews legitimately believe that, if that's the case I can definitely say without qualms that they have fucked up dark-age-tier beliefs.[/QUOTE] What are you trying to achieve with the emotionally laden insults? I don't give a single crap what you think about christianity. What I do care about is your biases and hatred coming out in the real world.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334196]Can you quote where I said that (Hint, I never made that argument). My point was that if you are going to argue that holding the belief in question causes people to mistreat non-Christians, then you would need to demonstrate how the billions of Christians in the world are currently mistreating non-Christians en-mass because they almost all hold that belief. The fact that this isn't happening shows how wrong it is.[/QUOTE] yeah if only I could give an example of christians mistreating people for participating in behavior or believing in ideas they believe that god disapproves of well drat you've got me, I can't think of a single instance of it. Guess you win, dude :/
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52334203]yeah if only I could give an example of christians mistreating people for participating in behavior or believing in ideas they believe that god disapproves of well drat you've got me, I can't think of a single instance of it. Guess you win, dude :/[/QUOTE] I assume you're talking about gay marriage? If so, that has nothing to do with the fact that they think gay people are going to hell. It's based on the fact that they think marriage is inherently a male/female thing. You want to not vote for someone based on that policy choice? I have no problem with that, but it's not the topic of this conversation. I said to show that the belief that non-Christians are going to hell causes them to mistreat people. That's the argument you've been making. This would include everyone who is a non-Christian.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334196]What are you trying to achieve with the emotionally laden insults? I don't give a single crap what you think about christianity. What I do care about is your biases and hatred coming out in the real world.[/QUOTE] What biases? What hatred? I think you're reading into what I'm saying a little too hard. I'm pointing out that the belief that heathens will burn in hell is outdated and inconsistent, and that I honestly doubt it's a core belief of the majority of Christians. [editline]9th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52334196]Can you quote where I said that (Hint, I never made that argument). My point was that if you are going to argue that holding the belief in question causes people to mistreat non-Christians, then you would need to demonstrate how the billions of Christians in the world are currently mistreating non-Christians en-mass because they almost all hold that belief. The fact that this isn't happening shows how wrong it is.[/QUOTE] That's funny because I already posted an explanation to that a few pages back, but you stopped replying to me after putting words in my mouth a few times. The fact that one of the most non-secular developed county is also among the most socially backwards shows that letting religious beliefs influence politics doesn't yield particularly good results.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334208]I assume you're talking about gay marriage? If so, that has nothing to do with the fact that they think gay people are going to hell. It's based on the fact that they think marriage is inherently a male/female thing. You want to not vote for someone based on that policy choice? I have no problem with that, but it's not the topic of this conversation. I said to show that the belief that non-Christians are going to hell causes them to mistreat people. That's the argument you've been making. This would include everyone who is a non-Christian.[/QUOTE] you want me to explain why people tend to have a negative view of those they perceive as immoral?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52334232]you want me to explain why people tend to have a negative view of those they perceive as immoral?[/QUOTE] Christians think all people are immoral sinners, not just non-Christians. This has nothing to do with being immoral or moral. It has to do with having Christ's forgiveness or not having Christ's forgiveness. [editline]9th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=_Axel;52334212]That's funny because I already posted an explanation to that a few pages back, but you stopped replying to me after putting words in my mouth a few times. The fact that one of the most non-secular developed county is also among the most socially backwards shows that letting religious beliefs influence politics doesn't yield particularly good results.[/QUOTE] I probably ignored it because saying that the US is among the "most socially backwards" is such a joke of a comment that I didn't feel it deserved a response.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334251]Christians think all people are sinners, not just non-Christians. This has nothing to do with being immoral or moral.[/QUOTE] but christians aren't condemned by the objective arbiter of all truth and morality to justly burn in fire for all eternity for refusing to accept salvation in jesus christ, are they
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334251]I probably ignored it because saying that the US is among the "most socially backwards" is such a joke of a comment that I didn't feel it deserved a response.[/QUOTE] What countries would you say are more backwards socially among developed countries?
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334109]So you believe in an exclusively morally subjective worldview. That's still an exclusive truth claim. How can I trust that you will treat those who believe in objective views fairly? No matter how you try to spin it, everyone makes exclusive claims of truth. This does NOT rationally require them to mistreat those who disagree.[/QUOTE] Now you're grasping at straws, arguing semantics. Let's get down to brass tacks, shall we? A politician who is capable of integrative complexity; that is, a politician who understands that people hold other beliefs that may be just as valid as his own belief system, is fit to represent a culturally and religiously diverse population. A politician who lacks integrative complexity, who is convinced that his belief system is the only truly right one, and who goes so far as to make a public statement denigrating a minority religious group, using religious terms, is unfit. Your move.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52334256]but christians aren't condemned by the objective arbiter of all truth and morality to justly burn in fire for all eternity for refusing to accept salvation in jesus christ, are they[/QUOTE] In Christian theology, all people, including Christians deserve the same fate of Hell. Everyone. The only difference is that some people accept the salvation offered by Christ and some don't. The people who do aren't any better than those who don't. Their salvation is found completely in the grave given to them.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334262]In Christian theology, all people, including Christians deserve the same fate of Hell. Everyone. The only difference is that some people accept the salvation offered by Christ and some don't. The people who do aren't any better than those who don't. Their salvation is found completely in the grave given to them.[/QUOTE] That's a convenient way of saying non-believers go to hell. In practice, it yields exactly the same result.
[QUOTE=archangel125;52334261]Now you're grasping at straws, arguing semantics. Let's get down to brass tacks, shall we? A politician who is integratively complex; that is, a politician who understands that people hold other beliefs that may be just as valid as his own belief system, is fit to represent a culturally and religiously diverse population. A politician who lacks integrative complexity, who is convinced that his belief system is the only truly right one, and who goes so far as to make a public statement denigrating a minority religious group, using religious terms, is unfit. Your move.[/QUOTE] The vast majority of politicians, including those on the left, don't think those who disagree with them may be just as right as them. Those who think gay marriage is a right do not think that those who think it isn't a right may have an equally valid view. You may disagree with that, but you are the extreme outlier. Politics, as a realm of human interaction, is the conflict between people who disagree on what is right and what is wrong. You're just presenting a false narrative.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334262]In Christian theology, all people, including Christians deserve the same fate of Hell. Everyone. The only difference is that some people accept the salvation offered by Christ and some don't. The people who do aren't any better than those who don't. Their salvation is found completely in the grave given to them.[/QUOTE] okay except the specific statement here is that one group of people is condemned by God to burn in hell so here we have a moral landscape where everyone is equally guilty of sin, but one group isn't condemned by god to burn in hell for refusing his forgiveness can you [I]really[/I] not understand how someone could look at that and come away with "non christians are more immoral than christians"?
[QUOTE=_Axel;52334274]That's a convenient way of saying non-believers go to hell. In practice, it yields exactly the same result.[/QUOTE] It's the truth of the belief. There's nothing "convenient" about it.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334084]EVERYONE believes in an exclusive system of truth. Do you think that gay marriage is correct? Then guess what? You have an exclusive belief system as well.[/QUOTE] That's quite a leap of subjects. In this context religious exclusivity is not the same as 'exclusive system of truth'. He isn't just saying that his version of faith is the truth and that there can't be multiple truths. He is directly contradicting someone who made the argument that although interpretations are different, religious people ultimately worship the same god. He is countering this with extremely finicky Bible verses showing that you must accept the trinity or whatever and must accept Jesus Christ specifically, otherwise you have 'not simply deficient theology, but have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and stand condemned'. That is an extreme view that stretches from a belief and into a judgement. Being religious is fine with me when it's something that gives you spiritual meaning and a source of goodness, but once you start picking out verses to justify condescending other people's faiths, I think you've gone off the deep end. By the way, [URL=http://theresurgent.com/wheaton-college-and-the-preservation-of-theological-clarity/]here's[/URL] the article.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334275]The vast majority of politicians, including those on the left, don't think those who disagree with them may be just as right as them. Those who think gay marriage is a right do not think that those who think it isn't a right may have an equally valid view. You may disagree with that, but you are the extreme outlier. Politics, as a realm of human interaction, is the conflict between people who disagree on what is right and what is wrong. You're just presenting a false narrative.[/QUOTE] someone can support a position while also maintaining that they could be wrong and that alternative perspectives are valid not every belief that everyone holds is some religious dogma
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334282]It's the truth of the belief. There's nothing "convenient" about it.[/QUOTE] The belief did stem from somewhere.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52333661]Quite a lot of it, and actually I be more impressed by what you name on the contrary. Because there can be certainly specific policies in different countries with different religions that stand out, but overall Christianity replaced primitive cultures and was part of pushing the forefront for hundreds of years of western civilization, which was and is objectively the most free/human rights friendly society that exists. And that wasn't a coincidence when other religions have existed for far longer. We're there regressive Christian countries with terrible human right violations? Ofcourse, but they did progress out of it and that is a testament to reinterpretation and the ability for Christianity to reform/splinter with intellectual inquiry many times compared to other religions. Not sayin other religions can't do this, but this was very prominent in Christianity.[/QUOTE] Boiling down the success of Western civilization to one specific factor, namely Christianity, is outrageously smallminded. Likewise, claiming that social and political issues seen elsewhere in the modern world are largely to blame on [I]not[/I] being Christian extends beyond absurdity and into offensiveness. Please, take that shit back to /pol/. The sociopolitical landscape of the modern world is incredibly complex. Your oversimplification of it is childish.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52334278]okay except the specific statement here is that one group of people is condemned by God to burn in hell so here we have a moral landscape where everyone is equally guilty of sin, but one group isn't condemned by god to burn in hell for refusing his forgiveness can you [I]really[/I] not understand how someone could look at that and come away with "non christians are more immoral than christians"?[/QUOTE] I'm more interested in what it actually teaches than what some theoretical person might possibly believe. No, no one who actually reads their Bible would think that non-Christians are more immoral than they are. In the words of the Bible: "8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us." (1 John 1:8-10)
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52334289]someone can support a position while also maintaining that they could be wrong and that alternative perspectives are valid not every belief that everyone holds is some religious dogma[/QUOTE] If you think something is true, then you think those who disagree are wrong. That's the nature of a truth claim. You can both think that you are right while also being open to hear other opinions. Those are not contradictory.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334298]I'm more interested in what it actually teaches than what some theoretical person might possibly believe. No, no one who actually reads their Bible would think that non-Christians are more immoral than they are. In the words of the Bible: "8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us." (1 John 1:8-10)[/QUOTE] dude, we aren't talking about what you think the bible literally communicates We're talking about how specific beliefs inform people's thoughts and behavior. And whether you think it's wrong or right, it's pretty goddamn obvious to anyone who's being halfway honest with themselves that someone can take "christians are more moral than non christians" away from these specific beliefs. do you just live in a world where every christian must believe and act in the way you believe the bible commands them to act? Do you not understand that everyone doesn't interpret the bible exactly the same way you do, and that not everyone is going to behave exactly as the bible says they should?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.