|
Mornacale posted:Given the overtly religious nature of the GOP voting base, I find it extremely hard to believe that they would turn out to vote for a non-Christian against a Christian. Except anyone crazy enough to give a poo poo that Romney is a Mormon also believes Obama is a Muslim Manchurian Candidate from darkest Africa who sneaked into the womb of a white woman...
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 07:42 |
|
|
I consider Mormens Christian I just don't consider them protestant. Really I would call them Revelation Christians, as they were founded by someone claiming a new revelation. Same goes for other groups formed at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 15:39
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Except anyone crazy enough to give a poo poo that Romney is a Mormon also believes Obama is a Muslim Manchurian Candidate from darkest Africa who sneaked into the womb of a white woman... Well no because Romney is old enough to have been a Mormon while the Mormon church forbade black people from being members and regarded black people as the descendants of Cain (and fitting slaves, once upon a time) and that is a legit question in need of an answer. Mormon Presidents/Prophets are also regarded as highly authoritative and capable of continued revelation, which poses Catholic-like questions that Kennedy had to answer. So it's probably a good thing that Romney has been obliged to field questions on both, even if it's only to deny they're relevant worries.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Except anyone crazy enough to give a poo poo that Romney is a Mormon also believes Obama is a Muslim Manchurian Candidate from darkest Africa who sneaked into the womb of a white woman... That's quite the solipsistic thought. In theory, he was a Mormon because he claimed to be one. In practice, most Mormons and Christians aren't such because Jesus set impossible standards for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
I asssumed Mornacle was talking about the evangelicals on the right when he talked about people who would never vote for a Mormon over a Christian. Not the people who have some questions about Romney's faith and politics but are satisfied with "no if the church decided black people aren't people again tomorrow, I wouldn't agree".
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:LOL at you taking my one little example from Mormonism and refusing to address any other part of my post. I have to run, but I bolded where your argument is bad at.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 15:57
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I asssumed Mornacle was talking about the evangelicals on the right when he talked about people who would never vote for a Mormon over a Christian. Not the people who have some questions about Romney's faith and politics but are satisfied with "no if the church decided black people aren't people again tomorrow, I wouldn't agree". Well, perhaps. I haven't had too many occasions to agree with Sam Harris but I do sort of agree with this: quote:Mormonism, it seems to me, is—objectively—just a little more idiotic than Christianity is. It has to be: because it is Christianity plus some very stupid ideas. I think it's fairly legit for a Christian (or anyone) to attack from the more conservative perspective of 'are you a cult?' and 'how can you possibly believe the garden of Eden is in Missouri?'. But the latter questions about the authority of the church are relevant just as much to right as to left, and were with the Catholicism question for Kennedy previously. Jastiger posted:People of no faith still find slavery repugnant, and also call for its abolition while not previously endorsing it on secular grounds. No shortage of non-religious slavery apologists. For example: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/cannibal-club-racism-and-rabble-rousing-victorian-england-180952088/?no-ist This alludes to some other British examples, as well as the most notorious one. It quite rightly points out that it was really Darwin's The Descent of Man that finally fucks over the mid-Victorian scientific racists who argue that black people are a separately evolved species to whites, something that was heavily disputed by people like the Christian Duke of Argyll (who was also an amateur biologist, and about whom I wrote my master's thesis, as it happens). See also, for starters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygenism Disinterested fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Feb 16, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
Yeah but there's a difference between wanting him to say on the record that he doesn't think black people aren't people or whatever, and deciding that no matter what he says he must secretly believe it anyway. I don't really see much point in sperging out about how ridiculous it is to believe that an omnipotent God put the Garden of Eden in Missouri. I mean, really? The regular Garden of Eden has immortal people, a woman made from a rib, flash-memory fruit that dumps knowledge into your memory banks when you eat it, a dude who named every animal on earth in an afternoon, and a talking snake, and then you're like "whoa whoa and you're saying this happened in Missouri of all places? Nope, you're not getting anywhere near the nuke button, can we find someone who thinks there were talking snakes in Mesopotamia instead?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah but there's a difference between wanting him to say on the record that he doesn't think black people aren't people or whatever, and deciding that no matter what he says he must secretly believe it anyway. the bible references actually existing rivers when it says where eden is, this is literally canon
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 16:16
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah but there's a difference between wanting him to say on the record that he doesn't think black people aren't people or whatever, and deciding that no matter what he says he must secretly believe it anyway. The Missouri stuff is all supposed to be taken literally, which is why Mormonism already has its reformist movements, because the factual historical claims are many times more implausible than the Biblical ones, and much more capable of disproof. Mormonism is basically theologically regressive to like early-mid-medieval Catholic levels in a lot of ways.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
Miltank posted:I have never read such theology, but I would like to. You are right in saying its not an ORTHODOX Christian church. Its still Christian.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Water can't turn into wine. Wine has organic compounds that aren't present in water, first law of thermodynamics. Checkmate, Obama, you're not fit for office 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Water can't turn into wine. Wine has organic compounds that aren't present in water, first law of thermodynamics. Buuuuuut, he's a Muslim 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 16:24
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Water can't turn into wine. Wine has organic compounds that aren't present in water, first law of thermodynamics. OK so by this logic it's not a problem that Sarah Palin believes the dinosaur bones are there just to test our faith?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:OK so by this logic it's not a problem that Sarah Palin believes the dinosaur bones are there just to test our faith? If you have quotes from Mitt Romney advocating requiring teaching that Roman Jews sailed to America in public school history classes, please share them
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:OK so by this logic it's not a problem that Sarah Palin believes the dinosaur bones are there just to test our faith? She's not fit for office because she's a joke, and was a joke before the Dinosaur Bones comment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Agag posted:I'm not familiar with any regime more repressive that Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, or the DPRK. In the latter two the leaders were worshipped as actual god-like figures. How the gently caress can you say they're atheistic? And you never answered my question: Who What Now posted:No, you said that "New Atheists" are upset that they weren't directly involved with theology changing its interpretations. Where do you see that? Show me this. You made a claim, now back it up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:
Fair enough, and I was using it more as a thought experiment. The point I was making was that secularists had secular reasons for and against slavery, but have an easier time explaining this because they don't claim that their morality is perfect, unchanging, and handed down by the creator of the universe. In effect, they can reason out why they are wrong whereas the theist has to move the goalposts in order to not be horrible people. This is just one example. The original point I was making was that you don't have to be religious to have apologetics effect you. Its simply a fancy way to explain away previously held bad ideas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 17:23
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If you have quotes from Mitt Romney advocating requiring teaching that Roman Jews sailed to America in public school history classes, please share them The goalposts appear to have moved. Though perhaps it would be clarifying to say: I don't think a person who believes that the dinosaur bones are a test of faith is fit for office whether she thinks other people should be taught that in public school or not. CommieGIR posted:She's not fit for office because she's a joke, and was a joke before the Dinosaur Bones comment. I agree, but it's rather revealing.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:In the latter two the leaders were worshipped as actual god-like figures. How the gently caress can you say they're atheistic? Because they were officially atheists, and killed people for (among other things) being religious. quote:And you never answered my question: It was in this thread, pages ago. Jastiger and someone else agreeing that theologians "move goalposts" to assimilate religious beliefs to modernity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Agag posted:Because they were officially atheists, and killed people for (among other things) being religious. This is like the guys who rate socialism based entirely off of the Soviet Union experience. Socialism = Communism = BAD. Somebody abuses their position, and you've tainted the entire thing despite the very useful tools that it could give us. Kind of like how the Tea Party argues that Welfare = Socialism = COMMUNISM  That being said, I want to know what your views on separation of Church and State are?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That is unfortunate, as theological arguments are often used as the justification for actions which affect many people, thus making it extremely pertinent to criticise them. I already tried to explain this to you, they reject one another's premises so no dialog can exist. Theologians "might as well" become atheists to the same extent that atheists "might as well" become theists and start studying theology. If you are concerned about the legal implications of theological arguments they best way to address them is legally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Saying that "history exists" isn't the same thing as justification for theology or apologetics. Even if what you say is true, that somehow life was "better" once Christianity came along, that doesn't mean that Jesus ACTUALLY walked on water, that Noah ACTUALLY built an ark, or that slavery is somehow morally justified then, but not now. Its almost as if secular reasoning brought us to a conclusion and then a few years (or hunred, or thousand) later the religions magically catch up. Its not a surprise that only once the Mormon church was embroiled in legal battle that Black people were "revealed" to be OK to join the church. That was in what, 1965 or so? Goalposts successfully moved. Odd series of objections there. First you tell me that the historical record doesn't prove or disprove any theological claims, which is what I've said from the start. Then you try to argue that Christian abolitionism is a secular idea, despite the historical record being to the contrary, and finally you assert your moral superiority based on nothing, even though my point was that you've shown up at the end of a very long historical process to claim all the fruits as your own. You also repeat the same logical error that we started out this. Atheists and theologians do operate in little vacuums, from a philosophical point of view. Theologians are studying e.g. the Bible, and you loudly and proudly claim that you don't care what's in the Bible or think its any different than any other book. So what do you think a theological response to "I don't believe anything you believe, and I don't have any respect for what you do" should be?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Agag posted:Because they were officially atheists, and killed people for (among other things) being religious. Do you even know what atheism means? I'll give you a hint: you can't have God-like figures and be atheist. quote:It was in this thread, pages ago. Jastiger and someone else agreeing that theologians "move goalposts" to assimilate religious beliefs to modernity. You really think that churches have moved forward on acceptance of homosexuals and especially same-sex marriage without any influence from secular views? Because if so I have a bridge to sell you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:This is like the guys who rate socialism based entirely off of the Soviet Union experience. Socialism = Communism = BAD. Its actually very much like the debate between communists and anti-communists. Both are fighting over this football of Stalin/Mao, one side to exploit it (ALL communists are...) and the other to excuse it (no TRUE communists). Its only relevant at all because some prominent atheists try to argue that religion is the cause of all ills etc, we should be able to quickly dispense of this and move on. I would argue that the separation of church and state is beneficial for both.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:This is like the guys who rate socialism based entirely off of the Soviet Union experience. Socialism = Communism = BAD. You are talking about Christianity yes? Who What Now posted:Do you even know what atheism means? I'll give you a hint: you can't have God-like figures and be atheist. No true atheist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Do you even know what atheism means? I'll give you a hint: you can't have God-like figures and be atheist. Its very funny to me that some people can't let this go. Atheist regimes murder tens of millions, and in order to protect the conceit that atheism is on some different moral plane from the rest of human belief you need to revise history with this No True Atheist claim. "See Mao was like a god, so really all those people were killed by religion. The smashing of temples by Red Guards was incidental." Some churches have moved forward on homosexuality, but not enough. Its a valid criticism of organized religion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Agag posted:Its actually very much like the debate between communists and anti-communists. Both are fighting over this football of Stalin/Mao, one side to exploit it (ALL communists are...) and the other to excuse it (no TRUE communists). Its only relevant at all because some prominent atheists try to argue that religion is the cause of all ills etc, we should be able to quickly dispense of this and move on. I wouldn't argue that religion is the cause of all ills, I more argue from the position that religion didn't really try to stop a lot of ills. Humanity is the cause of all ills, but we are all the solution to all ills. Agag posted:I would argue that the separation of church and state is beneficial for both. That is at least reassuring. Miltank posted:You are talking about Christianity yes? It was more along the lines of his claim that 'All Atheist Regime are Oppressive'
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Agag posted:Its very funny to me that some people can't let this go. Atheist regimes murder tens of millions, and in order to protect the conceit that atheism is on some different moral plane from the rest of human belief you need to revise history with this No True Atheist claim. "See Mao was like a god, so really all those people were killed by religion. The smashing of temples by Red Guards was incidental."c Well the issue, that you don't seem to grasp, is that even if they are atheist regimes, atheism is not a positive-claim belief. Atheism doesn't inform moral decisions, it can't. The only thing it informs is whether or not you believe in a god. It cannot cause those regimes, the cause comes from another belief, like communism or dictatorship. You can't compare "atheist" and "theist" regimes quote:Some churches have moved forward on homosexuality, but not enough. Its a valid criticism of organized religion. Yes, and they did so because of secular influence and pressure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Agag posted:Some churches have moved forward on homosexuality, but not enough. Its a valid criticism of organized religion. Yeah, I'm with Who What Now on this. Popular pressure is what pushed that, while I'm sure a few churches were progressive enough to have a positive stance on homosexuality, cultural changes and pressure is driving this, not theology in general. The same thing happened with slavery, while religion was often cited as the 'reason' for Abolition, in reality society was changing to view slavery as 'inhuman' and religion was adapting and taking sides. Plenty of theologians and religions on both sides advocated for and against slavery, but abolition was largely a sociological factor: Society was done with it, the French and British had already abandoned it, and that view was quickly spreading into the US.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Well the issue, that you don't seem to grasp, is that even if they are atheist regimes, atheism is not a positive-claim belief. Atheism doesn't inform moral decisions, it can't. My point from the Chapel HIll thread exactly. Atheism is a paring-away, not an adding-to. If you strip away any possibility of objective morality, why not murder tens of millions? Which is exactly what atheist regimes have done. While it doesn't mean than any atheist regime MUST do this, it does show that it is at least possible. quote:Yes, and they did so because of secular influence and pressure. I've been to a few gay-friendly churches and it seems to be the driving force was actually gay Christians.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Agag posted:I've been to a few gay-friendly churches and it seems to be the driving force was actually gay Christians. The question being: Did it have more to do with them being gay, or them being Christian?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The same thing happened with slavery, while religion was often cited as the 'reason' for Abolition, in reality society was changing to view slavery as 'inhuman' and religion was adapting and taking sides. Plenty of theologians and religions on both sides advocated for and against slavery, but abolition was largely a sociological factor: Society was done with it, the French and British had already abandoned it, and that view was quickly spreading into the US. Christian abolitionist movements precede all of this. Particularly the Quakers. But you can Google it and quickly learn all the details for yourself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Miltank posted:No true atheist. You have a very inclusive view of atheism despite not being an atheist. But when it comes to Christianity, which you claim, your definitions narrow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Agag posted:Christian abolitionist movements precede all of this. Particularly the Quakers. But you can Google it and quickly learn all the details for yourself. There were Greek Philosophers that were anti-slavery. I mean, if we wanted to, we could go ALLLLL the way back. The idea that it was an original Quaker idea, and not that some humans just realized that holding other humans in captivity for production was abhorrent is kinda a long stretch. Plenty of people and groups realized slavery was wrong. It wasn't a Christian Original Production just like Marriage wasn't a Christian Original.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Agag posted:My point from the Chapel HIll thread exactly. Atheism is a paring-away, not an adding-to. If you strip away any possibility of objective morality, why not murder tens of millions? Which is exactly what atheist regimes have done. While it doesn't mean than any atheist regime MUST do this, it does show that it is at least possible. You're acting as if only theism can instill morals and teach an ethical system, but you're wrong. There's also secular humanism, non-theistic Buddhism, and all sorts of other things. Atheism doesn't take away anything, because the vacuum it leaves will instantly be filled by another philosophy. I really think you need to stop, leave the thread for a bit, and actual go and read about what atheism actually is, because you really have no idea. quote:I've been to a few gay-friendly churches and it seems to be the driving force was actually gay Christians. Oh, well obviously you going to two whole gay-friendly churches you obviously understand all churches and their reasons for becoming more progressive. Don't worry guys, agag has this poo poo on lockdown.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You have a very inclusive view of atheism despite not being an atheist. But when it comes to Christianity, which you claim, your definitions narrow. Naturally there is more variety in a positive claim than a negative one. I believe in God. "What kind of God?" I don't believe in any gods. "Ok."
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:There were Greek Philosophers that were anti-slavery. I mean, if we wanted to, we could go ALLLLL the way back. The idea that it was an original Quaker idea, and not that some humans just realized that holding other humans in captivity for production was abhorrent is kinda a long stretch. There have always been people opposed to slavery, but slavery was only ended (or mostly ended) at the hands of Christian abolitionism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Agag posted:There have always been people opposed to slavery, but slavery was only ended (or mostly ended) at the hands of Christian abolitionism. It took legal appeals, not just theological ones to end slavery. Remember your whole 'Keep it in the legal realm' spiel a page or two back? Its not like they just showed up and prayed, they had to go to court. It took a war to end it in the US, and violent rebellion. Regardless, we've already been over this: Being offended by slavery is not a Christian only thing. You just trumpet your own horn because they were Christian, there is no reason to believe that abolition was ONLY Christian.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 07:42 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:You're acting as if only theism can instill morals and teach an ethical system, but you're wrong. There's also secular humanism, non-theistic Buddhism, and all sorts of other things. Atheism doesn't take away anything, because the vacuum it leaves will instantly be filled by another philosophy. I really think you need to stop, leave the thread for a bit, and actual go and read about what atheism actually is, because you really have no idea. Only theism can provide an objective moral standard because it posits some kind of external origin for morality. Atheism is purely materialistic, and thus all morality is subjective and conditional. quote:Oh, well obviously you going to two whole gay-friendly churches you obviously understand all churches and their reasons for becoming more progressive. Don't worry guys, agag has this poo poo on lockdown. I said it was anecdotal. That's still more evidence than you provided for your claim. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 18:08
|
|