• Bernie Sanders's Religious Test for Christians in Public Office
    443 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52334333]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?[/QUOTE] I live in a world where you actually look at what people believe instead of making these huge assumptions about what someone might possibly believe. The guy in the interview specifically told Sanders what I'm saying. He said that he intends to treat all people with dignity and respect, no matter their religion.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334306]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] You're comparing the beliefs of someone who knows the objective truth passed to them from an omniscient god to the beliefs of someone who thinks they know they're right based on their own admittedly incomplete and flawed perspective of the world. Those just aren't the same thing, dude :v
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52334341]You're comparing the beliefs of someone who knows the objective truth passed to them from an omniscient god to the beliefs of someone who thinks they know they're right based on their own admittedly incomplete and flawed perspective of the world. Those just aren't the same thing, dude :v[/QUOTE] They are both truth claims. Are you honestly going to say that the average gay marriage supporter holds to that believe in a lesser way than the average Christians holds to their Christianity? I really don't see how anyone could argue that.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334338]I live in a world where you actually look at what people believe instead of making these huge assumptions about what someone might possibly believe. The guy in the interview specifically told Sanders what I'm saying. He said that he intends to treat all people with dignity and respect, no matter their religion.[/QUOTE] You were just arguing in another thread, not even 2 days ago, for your "right" to generalize the entirety of the left
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334338]I live in a world where you actually look at what people believe instead of making these huge assumptions about what someone might possibly believe. The guy in the interview specifically told Sanders what I'm saying. He said that he intends to treat all people with dignity and respect, no matter their religion.[/QUOTE] And Donald Trump said he had the biggest inauguration crowd in history. People say lots of things. That doesn't mean anyone who doesn't believe them is a bigot.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52334350]You were just arguing in another thread, not even 2 days ago, for your "right" to generalize the entirety of the left[/QUOTE] When talking about general ideologies, then yes, it's fine to use accurate generalizations. When talking about specific individuals, the no, generalizations aren't useful. That's ignoring the fact that his generalization isn't even correct.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334347]They are both truth claims. Are you honestly going to say that the average gay marriage supporter holds to that believe in a lesser way than the average Christians holds to their Christianity? I really don't see how anyone could argue that.[/QUOTE] Here's the foundational, fundamental difference. Gay marriage, in my eyes, is a human right. A human right is a construct of people. A gay person deserve that human construct to be valued. The claims christians make about the nature of god are not supposed to be "Human construct" arguments. They're divine arguments supposedly. [editline]9th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52334354]When talking about general ideologies, then yes, it's fine to use accurate generalizations. When talking about specific individuals, the no, generalizations aren't useful. That's ignoring the fact that his generalization isn't even correct.[/QUOTE] Neither was yours of the left, but you have no problem repeating it as if it were...? You were using those same generalizations [B]on[/B] the individuals you were arguing with. Fucking ludicrious.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52334351]And Donald Trump said he had the biggest inauguration crowd in history. People say lots of things. That doesn't mean anyone who doesn't believe them is a bigot.[/QUOTE] I don't get your point. Are you saying that it makes more sense to assume that he holds to a specific non-Biblical worldview instead of thinking that he believes what he is actually saying, and is Biblically consistent?
[QUOTE=Paramud;52334042] Typically using a sword.[/QUOTE] Actually Christianity is notoriously a religion spreaded by missionaries, saints, and relatively peaceful conversions. By most interpretations of the Bible throughout history, believers had to have the free will to choose to be a believer, and thus "by the sword" isn't really accurate to its rapid adoption early on. You might be mistaking "by the sword" for Islam though.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334347]They are both truth claims. Are you honestly going to say that the average gay marriage supporter holds to that believe in a lesser way than the average Christians holds to their Christianity? I really don't see how anyone could argue that.[/QUOTE] I accidentally rated you star. What I meant to do was hit the reply button and call you out on your hypocrisy because you repeatedly fail to address your opponent's arguments and keep moving the goalposts. Not that we expect intellectual integrity from you, but really, when I read your posts for the very first time, in that thread about the hate preacher who was whacked with a baseball bat, I thought you might actually have some spine. I'm very disappointed.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52334360]Actually Christianity is notoriously a religion spreaded by missionaries, saints, and relatively peaceful conversions. By most interpretations of the Bible throughout history, believers had to have the free will to choose to be a believer, and thus "by the sword" isn't really accurate to its rapid adoption early on. You might be mistaking "by the sword" for Islam though.[/QUOTE] How easily we forget the Crusades. Or how Catholics and Protestants murdered each other for centuries.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52334355]Neither was yours of the left, but you have no problem repeating it as if it were...? You were using those same generalizations [B]on[/B] the individuals you were arguing with. Fucking ludicrious.[/QUOTE] I don't know. Lots of people in that thread agreed with the generalization. You also ignored the point about the difference between talking about ideologies and individuals, which was my main response. [editline]9th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=archangel125;52334361]I accidentally rated you star. What I meant to do was hit the reply button and call you out on your hypocrisy because you repeatedly fail to address your opponent's arguments and keep moving the goalposts. Not that we expect intellectual integrity from you, but really, when I read your posts for the very first time, in that thread about the hate preacher who was whacked with a baseball bat, I thought you might actually have some spine. I'm very disappointed.[/QUOTE] Point out what I dodged and I'll respond to it.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334347]They are both truth claims. Are you honestly going to say that the average gay marriage supporter holds to that believe in a lesser way than the average Christians holds to their Christianity? I really don't see how anyone could argue that.[/QUOTE] I think most people just single mindedly devote themselves to whatever ideas are most appealing to them at the time. I don't really care how the average person thinks. What I do care about is you saying that believing you're objectively right and believing you're probably right based on subjective experience are the same, cause they're obviously not.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52334367]I think most people just single mindedly devote themselves to whatever ideas are most appealing to them at the time. I don't really care how the average person thinks. What I do care about is you saying that believing you're objectively right and believing you're probably right based on subjective experience are the same, cause they're obviously not.[/QUOTE] I just simply don't think it's true that most people who beleive in gay marriage would say it's subjective.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334363]I don't know. Lots of people in that thread agreed with the generalization. You also ignored the point about the difference between talking about ideologies and individuals, which was my main response. [editline]9th June 2017[/editline] Point out what I dodged and I'll respond to it.[/QUOTE] Oh so you were using them and it's okay for you but not okay for anyone else?
[QUOTE=Tudd;52334360]Actually Christianity is notoriously a religion spreaded by missionaries, saints, and relatively peaceful conversions. By most interpretations of the Bible throughout history, believers had to have the free will to choose to be a believer, and thus "by the sword" isn't really accurate to its rapid adoption early on. You might be mistaking "by the sword" for Islam though.[/QUOTE] The missionaries may have been peaceful, but they were reinforced by people with pointy metal sticks, and later people with metal rods that launched metal balls really fast. Those people going, "Listen to what the man with the book says or we sodomize you with this sword."
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52334371]Oh so you were using them and it's okay for you but not okay for anyone else?[/QUOTE] ... If the generalization is accurate and we're talking about generalized ideologies, then it's fine for anyone to use them. I even gave examples of generalizations in that other thread about the right. This situation is about an individual, not a generalized group. To apply generalizations to a specific individual, especially when it goes directly against what they themselves have said, is fallacious.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334369]I just simply don't think it's true that most people who beleive in gay marriage would say it's subjective.[/QUOTE] probably not, cause most people probably couldn't properly define the word 'subjective' [editline]9th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52334359]I don't get your point. Are you saying that it makes more sense to assume that he holds to a specific non-Biblical worldview instead of thinking that he believes what he is actually saying, and is Biblically consistent?[/QUOTE] no I'm just saying "he said he would respect people once therefor anyone who thinks that he wouldn't is an anti christian bigot" is a dumb argument
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52334376]no I'm just saying "he said he would respect people once therefor anyone who thinks that he wouldn't is an anti christian bigot" is a dumb argument[/QUOTE] He laid out his theological understanding of the issue. If you think he's a liar, then you need to justify that belief, especially when the belief he explained is very normative Christian belief. He said that non-Christians are condemned before God, but that that does not cause him to treat non-Christians without dignity or respect. That is his position, and it is a very Biblical and normal Christian position. You can't just assume that he's lying. That makes no sense.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334363] Point out what I dodged and I'll respond to it.[/QUOTE] For one example, the argument I made that a politician who has made religious statements publicly condemning a religious minority is unfit to represent a culturally and religiously diverse populace, while one who is integratively complex is more fit because they understand and respect different positions - just as Sanders does. You dodged it by making it inexplicably about gay marriage, as if a society that valued individual freedoms was somehow incompatible with that assumption. Gay marriage is entirely besides the point. And again, in the post of yours I last quoted, you took a perfectly reasonable argument about an individual who believes that he's got it all figured out because of religion being less fit to govern than an individual who makes allowances for gaps in his understanding and made it about semantics without actually even attempting to address the point. Likely because you couldn't. If I were to tell you the Earth was flat and the universe orbited it, that wouldn't make it as valid a statement as our knowledge that the Earth is round, even if it was a sincerely held belief, simply because the latter is demonstrably correct while the first is not. [editline]abc[/editline] You should abandon the Socratic method. It inevitably leads to circular arguments without ever addressing the weight of evidence supporting one claim over another.
[QUOTE=archangel125;52334391]For one example, the argument I made that a politician who has made religious statements publicly condemning a religious minority is unfit to represent a culturally and religiously diverse populace, while one who is integratively complex is more fit because they understand and respect different positions - just as Sanders does. You dodged it by making it inexplicably about gay marriage, as if a society that valued individual freedoms was somehow incompatible with that assumption. Gay marriage is entirely besides the point. And again, in the post of yours I last quoted, you took a perfectly reasonable argument about an individual who believes that he's got it all figured out because of religion being less fit to govern than an individual who makes allowances for gaps in his understanding and made it about semantics without actually even attempting to address the point. Likely because you couldn't. If I were to tell you the Earth was flat and the universe orbited it, that wouldn't make it as valid a statement as our knowledge that the Earth is round, even if it was a sincerely held belief, simply because the latter is demonstrably correct while the first is not.[/QUOTE] I responded by saying that the type of position you stated, what you call "integratively complex," simply isn't a realistic system in politics. It certainly isn't one that Sanders holds to. Sanders believes in LOTS of very strong, exclusionary, truth claims. For example, he does not "understand and respect" the belief of the man who he was interviewing.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334396]I responded by saying that the type of position you stated, what you call "integratively complex," simply isn't a realistic system in politics. It certainly isn't one that Sanders holds to. Sanders believes in LOTS of very strong, exclusionary, truth claims. For example, he does not "understand and respect" the belief of the man who he was interviewing.[/QUOTE] You say that, but Sanders has displayed extremely high levels of integrative complexity multiple times, as demonstrated in the instances within which he has won over supporters of Donald Trump in his talks with them, simply by understanding the issues that are important to them and addressing them. Sanders, however, does not tolerate hypocrisy or dishonesty, especially in politicians. An admirable trait.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334384]He laid out his theological understanding of the issue. If you think he's a liar, then you need to justify that belief, especially when the belief he explained is very normative Christian belief. He said that non-Christians are condemned before God, but that that does not cause him to treat non-Christians without dignity or respect. That is his position, and it is a very Biblical and normal Christian position. You can't just assume that he's lying. That makes no sense.[/QUOTE] Because I'm sure you've never thought someone wasn't being entirely truthful without explicit proof that they were lying before, right? :v
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52334297]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] Uh it isn't a singular factor and I never implied that it was the only factor. It was a big one that explains the social progress and mindsets that people started applying to beliefs. Geography also played a huge factor for a variety of reasons for example. But yeah, I think people take for granted a lot of values we hold that have a Christian root to it. Western nations quite simply don't have laws or values derived from Confusciousism or other religions in the same way.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52334407]Uh it isn't a singular factor and I never implied that it was the only factor. It was a big one that explains the social progress and mindsets that people started applying to beliefs. Geography also played a huge factor for a variety of reasons for example. But yeah, I think people take for granted a lot of values we hold that have a Christian root to it. Western nations quite simply don't have laws or values derived from Confusciousism or other religions in the same way.[/QUOTE] Hey, Tudd? I mentioned the Crusades and the historical violence of Christianity. I was really, really hoping you'd respond to that, considering your statement earlier. What gives?
[QUOTE=archangel125;52334403]You say that, but Sanders has displayed extremely high levels of integrative complexity multiple times, as demonstrated in the instances within which he has won over supporters of Donald Trump in his talks with them, simply by understanding the issues that are important to them and addressing them. Sanders, however, does not tolerate hypocrisy or dishonesty. An admirable trait.[/QUOTE] ... So he only has to "understand and respect" the stuff that you agree with? Sanders appeals to common desires. He doesn't "understand and respect" opposing arguments and positions. [editline]9th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52334404]Because I'm sure you've never thought someone wasn't being entirely truthful without explicit proof that they were lying before, right? :v[/QUOTE] No, I generally don't think people are lying unless I have at least some reason to believe that they are.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52334407]Uh it isn't a singular factor and I never implied that it was the only factor. It was a big one that explains the social progress and mindsets that people started applying to beliefs. Geography also played a huge factor for a variety of reasons for example. But yeah, I think people take for granted a lot of values we hold that have a Christian root to it. Western nations quite simply don't have laws or values derived from Confusciousism or other religions in the same way.[/QUOTE] It's not like christians were the first people to come up with the vast majority of what eventually became christianity anyways
[QUOTE=archangel125;52334403]You say that, but Sanders has displayed extremely high levels of integrative complexity multiple times, as demonstrated in the instances within which he has won over supporters of Donald Trump in his talks with them, simply by understanding the issues that are important to them and addressing them.[/QUOTE] Like when he declared moral and political war on an arbitrarily defined group of US citizens? Somehow you think actually proposing a political approach to a group he sees as a problem is less active than someone quoting scripture and, evidenced by none of you geeks pulling anything solid out your arses, a clean record. I doubt half of you would even be arguing the toss in here if it wasn't precious Bernie that was playing fast and loose with rules be doesn't like (oh but he is so honourable!) Die Bernie hat immer recht!
[QUOTE=Tudd;52334360]Actually Christianity is notoriously a religion spreaded by missionaries, saints, and relatively peaceful conversions. By most interpretations of the Bible throughout history, believers had to have the free will to choose to be a believer, and thus "by the sword" isn't really accurate to its rapid adoption early on. You might be mistaking "by the sword" for Islam though.[/QUOTE] What was the colonisation of Africa :thinking_face: Hell, what was the colonisation of the Americas? What were the Plantations in Ireland? The fact you're getting a history degree is upsetting to me. You are way too biased and put your political ideology in how you view and retell events. That is a no-no. I hope you never teach or write history. Because you lie about it and simplify it to the misrepresentative extreme, like a shitty Hollywood movie, though with obvious insideous intent.
[QUOTE=benwaddi;52334424]Like when he declared moral and political war on an arbitrarily defined group of US citizens? Somehow you think actually proposing a political approach to a group he sees as a problem is less active than someone quoting scripture and, evidenced by none of you geeks pulling anything solid out your arses, a clean record. I doubt half of you would even be arguing the toss in here if it wasn't precious Bernie that was playing fast and loose with rules be doesn't like (oh but he is so honourable!) Die Bernie hat immer recht![/QUOTE] Which group might that be, hmm? I think you should calm down a little, Ben. You're angry, and that never helps your argument. You're making little sense here. [editline]9th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52334428]What was the colonisation of Africa :thinking_face: Hell, what was the colonisation of the Americas? What were the Plantations in Ireland? The fact you're getting a history degree is upsetting to me. You are way too biased and put your political ideology in how you view and retell events. That is a no-no. I hope you never teach or write history. Because you lie about it and simplify it to the misrepresentative extreme, like a shitty Hollywood movie, though with obvious insideous intent.[/QUOTE] If he refuses to respond to my comment or any of this post I'm quoting, he'll be stating in the most public way possible that he's got no balls. Because - mark it well - this has always been something we've called Tudd out for. He'll make ridiculous claims, and when faced with the cold hard facts that prove him wrong, he'll slink away, to pick another battle he thinks he has a chance of winning.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.