You can’t be a good Christian and a good Democrat

[Logicman]

Ah Yes.. its a soft science. Depending on where it's from, it even could be pseudoscience. BUt, like I said, I take my judgement about your understanding.. and it's definitely not up to par.

Nonsense. Your lack of a formal education in theology is another area that hurts you in debating Christianity and the Bible.

 

[RAMOSS]

Nonsense. Your lack of a formal education in theology is another area that hurts you in debating Christianity and the Bible.

Well I do know one thing. Your knowledge there certainly isn't one of someone who can read in context.

You can show jpg's to books though. Too bad you can not show you actually read them.

 

[D_NATURED]

I was mistaken. I'm not sure your combination of ill-considered vitriol and hyperbole will sell. Thanks for the smile, though.

The kind of people who smile at their own guilt are a special brand of sociopath, born of faith.

 

[blackjack50]

Ramoss made the claim that the supernatural doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on him.

Not really. While it is true that the “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” I think the typical position is that the Judeo-Christian god does not exist as we do not have evidence. We are still making the claim without evidence. I would say one cannot reject a God on the basis of absence of evidence. But when he rejects your claim? That is not him making a claim. And really? I only bring this up because once you understand the scientific method and that approach to faith...it really breaks down the position that some of the more...militant...atheists might take. Ultimately science and religion are not mutually exclusive as some seem to think.

 

[blackjack50]

You seem to have confused "Christian" with "Christian right". Of course, the "Christian right" is not fully compatible with being a democrat.

The problem is, of course, that being a good Christian has nothing to do with burning down abortion clinics, fighting gay marriage, or dehumanizing transgender people.

That is kind of my point. There is a “Christian right” and Christians. But quite often I find myself to be assumed to be someone who wants abortion clinics burned down, no gay marriage, and dehumanized transgenders. And that is only at the mention of being Christian. It makes me wonder if Christian Democrats have to justify their faith in their own circles. To make an effort to make sure people know their faith is “pc.” It certainly seems that way from the outside.

 

[RAMOSS]

Not really. While it is true that the “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” I think the typical position is that the Judeo-Christian god does not exist as we do not have evidence. We are still making the claim without evidence. I would say one cannot reject a God on the basis of absence of evidence. But when he rejects your claim? That is not him making a claim. And really? I only bring this up because once you understand the scientific method and that approach to faith...it really breaks down the position that some of the more...militant...atheists might take. Ultimately science and religion are not mutually exclusive as some seem to think.

The existence or non-existence of the supernatural has nothing to do with the existence/non-existence of God. If something exists , it is natural. Therefore, if God exists, God is natural. .. by definition.

 

[Absentglare]

That is kind of my point. There is a “Christian right” and Christians. But quite often I find myself to be assumed to be someone who wants abortion clinics burned down, no gay marriage, and dehumanized transgenders. And that is only at the mention of being Christian. It makes me wonder if Christian Democrats have to justify their faith in their own circles. To make an effort to make sure people know their faith is “pc.” It certainly seems that way from the outside.

The bible doesn't single out homosexuality the way the Christian right seems to think it does; so much of the Christian right doesn't come from the bible, but from their own orthodoxy.

Many people have faith that is flexible enough to accommodate reality. I'm not sure why being PC would be a concern, democrats make having concern about other people part of their ideology in a way that is fully consistent with the teachings in the bible.

 

[Somerville]

Nonsense. Your lack of a formal education in theology is another area that hurts you in debating Christianity and the Bible.

:lamo :roll:

It is YOUR lack of a formal education in theology that causes others to laugh at your fatuous responses; responses which always have one of two bits - one word 'rejection' of an opponent's post (they aren't really rejections as most people simply ignore them) and link(s) to various evangelical, proselytizing websites, ones often written by persons with little to no actual education on the subjects they think they are discussing.

 

[blackjack50]

The existence or non-existence of the supernatural has nothing to do with the existence/non-existence of God. If something exists , it is natural. Therefore, if God exists, God is natural. .. by definition.

The very debate IS about the existence or non existence of the supernatural. What definition of the word are you using?

of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

existing or occurring outside the normal experience or knowledge of man; not explainable by the known forces or laws of nature; specif., of, involving, or attributed to God or a god

By most definitions...God would be defined as supernatural. Outside the realm/knowledge/normal experience of/visible or observable universe. Not explainable with our current knowledge. I would say that something with infinite wisdom...or even wisdom that exceeds man’s own ability to understand...should be considered supernatural. The question is...can something exist and be supernatural? As in...can it exist and be beyond our understanding? You seem to be saying...emphatically...no. It cannot. If it exists...then we understand it and it is natural (and I guess by extension observable).

So. Can something exist and be supernatural? This question is more about philosophy than science at this point. I don’t think science is adequate at explaining things beyond what we know.

 

[Logicman]

Not really. While it is true that the “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” I think the typical position is that the Judeo-Christian god does not exist as we do not have evidence. We are still making the claim without evidence. I would say one cannot reject a God on the basis of absence of evidence. But when he rejects your claim? That is not him making a claim. And really? I only bring this up because once you understand the scientific method and that approach to faith...it really breaks down the position that some of the more...militant...atheists might take. Ultimately science and religion are not mutually exclusive as some seem to think.

I still say if he makes a bold claim that God and the supernatural do not exist, the burden of proof is on him to back it up. Otherwise they can run amok ad nauseum and think they're making great arguments.

 

[RAMOSS]

The very debate IS about the existence or non existence of the supernatural. What definition of the word are you using?



By most definitions...God would be defined as supernatural. Outside the realm/knowledge/normal experience of/visible or observable universe. Not explainable with our current knowledge. I would say that something with infinite wisdom...or even wisdom that exceeds man’s own ability to understand...should be considered supernatural. The question is...can something exist and be supernatural? As in...can it exist and be beyond our understanding? You seem to be saying...emphatically...no. It cannot. If it exists...then we understand it and it is natural (and I guess by extension observable).

So. Can something exist and be supernatural? This question is more about philosophy than science at this point. I don’t think science is adequate at explaining things beyond what we know.

Anything that is nature.. or in other words, anything that exists, or can exist. That means , the supernatural does not exist.. merely the natural, too narrowly defined.

 

[Logicman]

:lamo :roll:

It is YOUR lack of a formal education in theology that causes others to laugh at your fatuous responses; responses which always have one of two bits - one word 'rejection' of an opponent's post (they aren't really rejections as most people simply ignore them) and link(s) to various evangelical, proselytizing websites, ones often written by persons with little to no actual education on the subjects they think they are discussing.

You have your own websites you copy and paste ad nauseum, which fail miserably most times.

You also struck out last time when you went after "Mark's bad geography." You strike out a lot, Somerville. So your claims have little or no merit, IMO, and your theology, while slightly better than most skeptics, still lacks basic understanding of Biblical truths.

 

[blackjack50]

The bible doesn't single out homosexuality the way the Christian right seems to think it does; so much of the Christian right doesn't come from the bible, but from their own orthodoxy.

Many people have faith that is flexible enough to accommodate reality. I'm not sure why being PC would be a concern, democrats make having concern about other people part of their ideology in a way that is fully consistent with the teachings in the bible.

The Bible DOES single out homosexuality in many places. But ultimately...I think Jesus would not be in favor of condemning homosexuals. Not as we see it now. In fact...it would be in his nature to support it based on the biblical evidence. And I think many issues on the “Christian right” come from literal interpretations. Which is not an orthodoxy issue.

The reason being PC is an issue is because...what happens when you run into something that IS a violation of your faith? I don’t think the left deals very well with opposition to their views (especially the PC love everyone ideology). Take it this way...you call someone out for being anti homosexual as being on the “Christian right.” What about strict interpretation and openly anti homosexuality AME church? Do they get a pass because they African American?

 

[blackjack50]

Anything that is nature.. or in other words, anything that exists, or can exist. That means , the supernatural does not exist.. merely the natural, too narrowly defined.

Then by your definition...supernatural does not exist as a scientific definitoln. That isn’t proof God doesn’t exist. Merely that your definition is not adequate to describe the unknown. If something exists (say aliens on another planet)...it isn’t supernatural. It is natural. We just don’t know if it is exists. I don’t believe supernatural can be used as a definition the way you use it.

 

[RAMOSS]

Then by your definition...supernatural does not exist as a scientific definitoln. That isn’t proof God doesn’t exist. Merely that your definition is not adequate to describe the unknown.

It doesn't say anything about God existing or not existing. It is saying 'if god exists, then god is natural.' from a metaphysical perspective.

 

[Absentglare]

The Bible DOES single out homosexuality in many places. But ultimately...I think Jesus would not be in favor of condemning homosexuals. Not as we see it now. In fact...it would be in his nature to support it based on the biblical evidence. And I think many issues on the “Christian right” come from literal interpretations. Which is not an orthodoxy issue.

The reason being PC is an issue is because...what happens when you run into something that IS a violation of your faith? I don’t think the left deals very well with opposition to their views (especially the PC love everyone ideology). Take it this way...you call someone out for being anti homosexual as being on the “Christian right.” What about strict interpretation and openly anti homosexuality AME church? Do they get a pass because they African American?

The bible has ten commandments, homosexuality is not featured among them. Using gods name in vain is, but for some reason there's a fixation on homosexuality and relative silence on the use of gods name in vain. Likewise on committing adultery. People like Newt Gingrich and President Trump fail on this issue rather spectacularly, but their womanizing out of wedlock is waved away. Can you imagine evangelicals electing a homosexual? I can't. In my opinion, the Christian right emphasizes homosexuality as a sin when the bible is largely ambiguous on it. If it's about sexual activity that doesn't make babies, then masturbation is easily the worst offender in terms of volume.

One issue with PC that i think goes understated is how lopsided liberals often enforce the rules of correctness. Somehow it's fine to mock whites, rednecks, and Christians; hell, even my ranting above could be argued to reinforce stereotypes of Christians. But i tried to be careful, i think Christians and the Christian right are relevant categories for discussion. Where liberals get it wrong is allowing these categories to be used as insults. It's pernicious and it should not be ignored.

People are free to their faith, but that generally involves their personal beliefs. Your personal beliefs don't entitle you to flagrantly violate laws when those violations then impact other people. So when Native Americans use peyote in religious ceremonies, no harm no foul. But when someone claims that they shouldn't provide healthcare to their employees, that belief is being used to impact the life of the employee, so i ultimately disagree with it.

 

[Logicman]

The bible has ten commandments, homosexuality is not featured among them. Using gods name in vain is, but for some reason there's a fixation on homosexuality and relative silence on the use of gods name in vain...Can you imagine evangelicals electing a homosexual? I can't. In my opinion, the Christian right emphasizes homosexuality as a sin when the bible is largely ambiguous on it.

Tsk tsk...

The Bible is hardly ambiguous concerning homosexual sin. Let's review the pertinent Scriptures:

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

1 Timothy 1:8-10 - “But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine…”

Jude 7 – “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”

There's no gay marriages in the Old Testament; No gay marriages in the New Testament; no gay sex approved anywhere in the Bible. Just the opposite - gay sex is condemned in both testaments. God is consistent on that.

By the way, homosexuality wouldn't be such a popular subject in this world of ours if the unregenerate-minded weren't so darn intent on pushing its illicit agenda like its doing.

 

[zyzygy]

Tsk tsk...

The Bible is hardly ambiguous concerning homosexual sin. Let's review the pertinent Scriptures:

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

1 Timothy 1:8-10 - “But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine…”

Jude 7 – “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”

There's no gay marriages in the Old Testament; No gay marriages in the New Testament; no gay sex approved anywhere in the Bible. Just the opposite - gay sex is condemned in both testaments. God is consistent on that.

By the way, homosexuality wouldn't be such a popular subject in this world of ours if the unregenerate-minded weren't so darn intent on pushing its illicit agenda like its doing.

The primitive men who wrote the bible were homophobes. What a surprise.

 

[Daisy]

The primitive men who wrote the bible were homophobes. What a surprise.

And yet some 40 writers were all in agreement, spanning a period of over 1,600 years of writing...

 

[Tanngrisnir]

And yet some 40 writers were all in agreement, spanning a period of over 1,600 years of writing...

No, they weren't.

Again, if you'd just sit down and read it, you'd see that for yourself.

 

[zyzygy]

And yet some 40 writers were all in agreement, spanning a period of over 1,600 years of writing...

In agreement about what?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

In agreement about what?

It's a talking/bullet point that True Believers often toss out w/out intending to have it seriously scrutinized. They weren't in agreement about almost anything, given the biblical contradictions, two different creation stories, two different geneaologies of Jesus, etc....

 

[Somerville]

You have your own websites you copy and paste ad nauseum, which fail miserably most times.

You also struck out last time when you went after "Mark's bad geography." You strike out a lot, Somerville. So your claims have little or no merit, IMO, and your theology, while slightly better than most skeptics, still lacks basic understanding of Biblical truths.

I did not see my last post as a "strike out", inasmuch as you refused to acknowledge that a Christian professor who had studied the Bible for years made the point that your theologian, a man without the same education, denied was valid. The problem I have after years of studying history, not just that of Christian origins, is that too many Christians who claim to be historians simply refuse to use the techniques in common usage among those who study other topics in human history. Faith before questions, often the questions aren't allowed or they are answered by obfuscation and rhetorical dodgeball.

 

[Somerville]

And yet some 40 writers were all in agreement, spanning a period of over 1,600 years of writing...

Did you know there are actual scholars who say the Tanakh was put together no earlier than the Sixth Century BCE, following the Babylonian Captivity. The New Testament was compiled during the latter years of the First Century CE, with some scholars saying that some of the books might have been written as late as the second half of the Second Century, with interpolations and editing into the Fourth Century. If so that would be only 1,000 years and possibly only 800 years.

Those "40 writers" may have frequently disagreed in the original works, but we don't know because the oldest complete texts we have today are from the First Century BCE. There are archaeological findings which show that many of the tales told are fiction.

 

[Logicman]

I did not see my last post as a "strike out", inasmuch as you refused to acknowledge that a Christian professor who had studied the Bible for years made the point that your theologian, a man without the same education, denied was valid. The problem I have after years of studying history, not just that of Christian origins, is that too many Christians who claim to be historians simply refuse to use the techniques in common usage among those who study other topics in human history. Faith before questions, often the questions aren't allowed or they are answered by obfuscation and rhetorical dodgeball.

There's way too much evidence for the Gospel accounts to try to kick them all under the bus.