Bernie Sanders vs the Religious Christian
imo "most christians" don't know if they're going to heaven but they sure hope so
the ones who KNOW are among a multi-religious class of unquestioning zealots who should never be approved for any position of mass consequence, completely unrelated to the particular details of their respective religion
this not a constitutional argument but a pragmatic one of methodological competence
the constitutional argument remains "if you discriminate against people on religious bases, you can't be in the government"
the ones who KNOW are among a multi-religious class of unquestioning zealots who should never be approved for any position of mass consequence, completely unrelated to the particular details of their respective religion
this not a constitutional argument but a pragmatic one of methodological competence
the constitutional argument remains "if you discriminate against people on religious bases, you can't be in the government"
Governments are packed with such people, and people in positions of power generally, which is one of the reasons for continued structural institutionalised racism. The problem extends to cultural / religious bigotry.
One of the ways this is challenged is to insist on inclusive language. This undermines potential damage caused by prejudices which may still be held by individuals, but which gradually become less relevant.
One of the ways this is challenged is to insist on inclusive language. This undermines potential damage caused by prejudices which may still be held by individuals, but which gradually become less relevant.
I know you think you're making valiant arguments, but the reality is, you're failing miserably. If you want to fancy yourself a masterful debater on this topic, then you're going to have to learn some math, definitions, and recognize when you're arguing from an impossible dichotomous position.
First of all, if a Christian such as you describe ever saw an atheist or Muslim get into heaven, he shouldn't believe it! Instead, he should think he was being tricked by the devil. Otherwise, he was never 100% sure, was he?
Luckily, most Christians don't possess the degree of hubris and arrogance you ascribe to them. Most, recognize there are literally billions of people who hold other beliefs and would never assign a 100% probability to them being right.
So my point stands whether it's from an objective viewpoint (which is the correct one to hold if you care about whether or not your beliefs are true), or the subjective viewpoint of a Christian.
Btw- I'm assuming you know what 100% means.
First of all, if a Christian such as you describe ever saw an atheist or Muslim get into heaven, he shouldn't believe it! Instead, he should think he was being tricked by the devil. Otherwise, he was never 100% sure, was he?
Luckily, most Christians don't possess the degree of hubris and arrogance you ascribe to them. Most, recognize there are literally billions of people who hold other beliefs and would never assign a 100% probability to them being right.
So my point stands whether it's from an objective viewpoint (which is the correct one to hold if you care about whether or not your beliefs are true), or the subjective viewpoint of a Christian.
Btw- I'm assuming you know what 100% means.
If you want to change the question to what an "average" Christian would think, then yes, your arguments might apply, depending on the level of doubt vs certainty that Christian would have. Of course millions of Christians do not hold 100% certainty. But this does not appear to be the point of the question. Nor did DS quibble with this. He in fact replied to my post, and did not challenge anything, other than replying to the last sentence, where he says the point is that some Christians are bad people because of what they think God thinks.
Given the above, the point of DS's question is what Christians who truly believe Christian theology would think. And those Christians think their chances of heaven are 100%, or near 100%. They also think that the existence of God is 100%, or near 100%. They may be wrong, but that is their position. "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." There is also a doctrine called "assurance of salvation" that you can look up to understand this further.
Also note that all of this is a total derail from the Vought-Sanders case, and has no bearing on it.
If you want to change the question to what an "average" Christian would think, then yes, your arguments might apply, depending on the level of doubt vs certainty that Christian would have. Of course millions of Christians do not hold 100% certainty.
But most Christians would think their chances for heaven were now at least as high as before.
But this does not appear to be the point of the question. Nor did DS quibble with this. He in fact replied to my post, and did not challenge anything, other than replying to the last sentence, where he says the point is that some Christians are bad people because of what they think God thinks.
Given the above, the point of DS's question is what Christians who truly believe Christian theology would think. And those Christians think their chances of heaven are 100%, or near 100%.
If a christian who is less than 100% sure, sees an atheist enter heaven, then:
1. His beliefs are right, but god also uses other criteria
2. His beliefs are wrong, but god uses other criteria.
Either way, the chances are at least as good for getting into heaven. This is what DS stated.
But if a Christian who is less than 100% sure sees only a Muslim getting into heaven. This is an "Uh, oh" moment because now at the very least we know that belief in Christianity can't be right. And if the Islamic belief is correct, then Christians have been worshiping the wrong prophet! (the uh, oh part).
Do you see why scenario #1 is more hopeful than scenario #2 if you're a Christian who is less than 100% sure?
Of course, if you're 100% sure then you shouldn't believe your own eyes in either scenario and instead believe that the devil is tricking you or that god is putting you to some kind of test.
"Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
There is also a doctrine called "assurance of salvation" that you can look up to understand this further.
Also note that all of this is a total derail from the Vought-Sanders case, and has no bearing on it.
Thats not very fair. If asked he would of said the same about other Christians called Catholics and all people who are not saved though Jesus.
I agree with this. Please note that my post that you are responding to was a reply to DS about a post he made that presumably has no relationship to the Vought-Sanders case. As such, I agree with your statement, but neither your statement nor my hypothetical that you replied to, should imply anything about disqualifying Vought or not.
Except that they kinda are relevant when someone says they believe a large section of earth's population stands condemned. What if we swapped out religion for skin color? What if he wrote his views that all black people stand condemned? Would you be okay with letting that statement slide? Or do you think we might want to question him further on what exactly he meant by that?
Your example illustrates your misunderstanding. Here is the statement again:
Vought:
Stackhouse implies that someone could really “know God” without a focus on Jesus. He explains, “Having a deficient (e.g., nontrinitarian) theology of God…does not mean you are not in actual prayerful and faithful relationship with God. (Having wrong ideas about a person…doesn’t mean that you do not have a relationship with that person.)” This is the fundamental problem. Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned. In John 8:19, “Jesus answered, ‘You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” In Luke 10:16, Jesus says, “The one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” And in John 3:18, Jesus says, “Whoever believes in [the Son] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”
Stackhouse implies that someone could really “know God” without a focus on Jesus. He explains, “Having a deficient (e.g., nontrinitarian) theology of God…does not mean you are not in actual prayerful and faithful relationship with God. (Having wrong ideas about a person…doesn’t mean that you do not have a relationship with that person.)” This is the fundamental problem. Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned. In John 8:19, “Jesus answered, ‘You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” In Luke 10:16, Jesus says, “The one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” And in John 3:18, Jesus says, “Whoever believes in [the Son] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”
Here we can see what is meant by a deficient theology of God - a theology that doesn't recognize the triune nature of God, or the Incarnation of Jesus. Anyone who accepts the Christian idea of God as accurate would say the same about Islam. Islamic theology is, from their perspective, literally deficient in its conception of God in that it views God as a single person rather than as three persons as in orthodox Christian theology (and most pertinently in not recognizing Jesus as God). Vought then refers explicitly to one of the most well-known passages in the Bible, where Jesus refers to his own purpose on earth as bringing eternal life to all who believe in him, and that those who don't believe in him will be condemned.
You ask us to substitute "black" for "Muslim," but this only shows your own misunderstanding. What would it mean to say that black people have a deficient theology of god for Vought? There is no black theology of god (at least, not in the relevant sense). There is a Muslim theology of god, so it makes sense to describe it as deficient. Or, why would Vought describe African-Americans as condemned for rejecting Jesus Christ when African-Americans are more likely to be Christians compared to the rest of the population (83% identify as either Protestant or Catholic, compared to 75% of the total population). Your analogy here simply doesn't work because you are ignoring the specifically religious character of Vought's statement and so treating Muslim and black as interchangeable.
As for questioning him, as I said before, I have no problem with Sanders questioning Vought about his views. My disagreement is with the claim that a public statement of Christian exclusivist beliefs is sufficient to show that someone is bigoted towards people of other religions and so should be disqualified from public office.
It is if their belief system causes them to be biased.
I believe there shall be no religious test. Unless...an individual provides reason to think he may act in a discriminatory manner, which is what I think Vought did here.
That said, I agree that we do not want religious bigotry affecting public policy making, treatment of people, or allocation of funds. As such, I agree with your statement that
"Governments are packed with such people, and people in positions of power generally, which is one of the reasons for continued structural institutionalised racism. The problem extends to cultural / religious bigotry."
So if you want to disqualify Vought specifically for his interpretation of Christian theology, you need to show tangible evidence that he will give unequal treatment to others. As explained previously, belief that some/most/all are condemned/sentenced in the afterlife does not show that. As also shown previously, some Christians in fact take that belief and arguably treat Muslims or other non-Christians better because of it. So if someone holds that belief, you have no way of knowing if that individual will treat others better, worse, or equal due to it. To assume otherwise is wrongful discrimination.
One of the ways this is challenged is to insist on inclusive language. This undermines potential damage caused by prejudices which may still be held by individuals, but which gradually become less relevant.
As you can see, Vought is defending the theological view that in order to know God you must accept Jesus Christ (a common view among Christians). He says, "This is the fundamental problem. Muslims do not simply have a deficient [e.g., non-trinitarian -OrP] theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned...in John 3:18, Jesus says, "Whoever believes in [the Son] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.""
The bold is my quibble. To say, imply, or think, that over 1 billion people stand condemned is in my view discriminatory.
Here we can see what is meant by a deficient theology of God - a theology that doesn't recognize the triune nature of God, or the Incarnation of Jesus.
The bold is my quibble. To say, imply, or think, that over 1 billion people stand condemned is in my view discriminatory.
Here we can see what is meant by a deficient theology of God - a theology that doesn't recognize the triune nature of God, or the Incarnation of Jesus.
I know you (and others) don't have a problem with Sanders' line of questioning. But it seems you do have a problem with his vote of nay for his confirmation. I agree with that vote and would've voted the same.
The derail with patron was to explain the difference between someone who is 100% sure their theology is right and something less. And while I really do appreciate your well thought out attempt at explaining to me why I'm wrong in terms of not understanding the problem, it is not enough to change my mind.
I do not believe in a religious test to hold public office. One could believe in astrology for all I care. But when they start making decisions, or if they show there's even a chance that they'll start making decisions that affect the public based upon their horoscope reading for the day, I do not think they are fit for public office. Notice that this is different from bigotry. But I consider Voghts thoughts on theology to be both bigoted and anti intellectual enough to not be in public service.
As for questioning him, as I said before, I have no problem with Sanders questioning Vought about his views. My disagreement is with the claim that a public statement of Christian exclusivist beliefs is sufficient to show that someone is bigoted towards people of other religions and so should be disqualified from public office.
How so?
If stating a belief in religious exclusivism is ipso facto reason to think someone may act in a discriminatory manner and so disqualified from office, then you do believe there should be a religious test for office.
How so?
If stating a belief in religious exclusivism is ipso facto reason to think someone may act in a discriminatory manner and so disqualified from office, then you do believe there should be a religious test for office.
You mentioned that you wouldn't vote for Kasich, but think he should be allowed to run. Well, I do too. But have you ever heard his comments on the guy who played Harry Potter being an atheist? Ever heard George H.W. Bush say that atheists aren't really U.S. citizens? Neither would ever get my vote just based on those comments. And likewise, Voght would never get my vote based on his comments about Muslims. And if I were a senator, I'd do everything I could to block his nomination. They are allowed to run and be nominated, but I'm allowed to vote no and make fun of their silly (and bigoted) beliefs. I'm sure many will think that I'm bigoted, but they do anyway.
I think I've said all I have to say about this.
Maybe I'd understand this apple/orange thingy and all the reasons I'm in the wrong on this subject if you would just explain some of the virtues that having a confirmed political official who thinks every group of people who doesn't believe what he does all standing condemned, would give to society?
I'm not even interested why I'm wrong anymore. I just want to know what the benefits are to confirming someone like that.
I'm not even interested why I'm wrong anymore. I just want to know what the benefits are to confirming someone like that.
Maybe I'd understand this apple/orange thingy and all the reasons I'm in the wrong on this subject if you would just explain some of the virtues that having a confirmed political official who thinks every group of people who doesn't believe what he does all standing condemned, would give to society?
I'm not even interested why I'm wrong anymore. I just want to know what the benefits are to confirming someone like that.
I'm not even interested why I'm wrong anymore. I just want to know what the benefits are to confirming someone like that.
Just because someone holds that only those saved through Jesus are saved does not mean they could not do their job well.
That is fine for you to point out, as long as we are aware that this is a new point that you are making, and does not appear to be what DS intended, and none of my replies on that topic were meant to apply directly to the Vought-Sanders case.
That said, I agree that we do not want religious bigotry affecting public policy making, treatment of people, or allocation of funds. As such, I agree with your statement that
I am not denying that cultural or religious bigotry exists, or that people with such prejudices are in government, or even that Christians with such prejudices are in government. There are plenty of examples of such people. What I am denying is that the Christian faith, particularly evangelical Protestant theology (which is the context of the college and Vought's interpretation of faith), necessitates such bigotry or prejudice or unequal treatment.
So if you want to disqualify Vought specifically for his interpretation of Christian theology, you need to show tangible evidence that he will give unequal treatment to others. As explained previously, belief that some/most/all are condemned/sentenced in the afterlife does not show that. As also shown previously, some Christians in fact take that belief and arguably treat Muslims or other non-Christians better because of it. So if someone holds that belief, you have no way of knowing if that individual will treat others better, worse, or equal due to it. To assume otherwise is wrongful discrimination.
I agree with this as far as official government language and positions go, and all religious (or non-religious) groups deserve equal treatment and inclusivity as far as government treatment and positions. But you cannot insist upon inclusive language for all religious groups as far as their belief in the afterlife (or several other religious beliefs as well, but those are different topics). You cannot say that the official position of government must be that Christians must include Muslims as going to heaven in the afterlife, or Muslims include Jews in that group, etc. That should be obvious, the government is not in the business of dictating what religious beliefs should be. This extends to people that hold those beliefs, you cannot demand what their personal beliefs should be, or bar them from government positions due to them, if you cannot show that those beliefs necessitate unequal treatment. So if you are seeking to use this point and apply it to the Vought-Sanders case, you are going to need to show how that is the case.
That said, I agree that we do not want religious bigotry affecting public policy making, treatment of people, or allocation of funds. As such, I agree with your statement that
I am not denying that cultural or religious bigotry exists, or that people with such prejudices are in government, or even that Christians with such prejudices are in government. There are plenty of examples of such people. What I am denying is that the Christian faith, particularly evangelical Protestant theology (which is the context of the college and Vought's interpretation of faith), necessitates such bigotry or prejudice or unequal treatment.
So if you want to disqualify Vought specifically for his interpretation of Christian theology, you need to show tangible evidence that he will give unequal treatment to others. As explained previously, belief that some/most/all are condemned/sentenced in the afterlife does not show that. As also shown previously, some Christians in fact take that belief and arguably treat Muslims or other non-Christians better because of it. So if someone holds that belief, you have no way of knowing if that individual will treat others better, worse, or equal due to it. To assume otherwise is wrongful discrimination.
I agree with this as far as official government language and positions go, and all religious (or non-religious) groups deserve equal treatment and inclusivity as far as government treatment and positions. But you cannot insist upon inclusive language for all religious groups as far as their belief in the afterlife (or several other religious beliefs as well, but those are different topics). You cannot say that the official position of government must be that Christians must include Muslims as going to heaven in the afterlife, or Muslims include Jews in that group, etc. That should be obvious, the government is not in the business of dictating what religious beliefs should be. This extends to people that hold those beliefs, you cannot demand what their personal beliefs should be, or bar them from government positions due to them, if you cannot show that those beliefs necessitate unequal treatment. So if you are seeking to use this point and apply it to the Vought-Sanders case, you are going to need to show how that is the case.
The point about inclusive language in this case is that you dont need to negatively reference other religions to follow your own beliefs. It is inherently bigoted to do so. Religious people have to accept that other religions have an equal right to exist and have to be respected, regardless of their personal views.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE