The nominee, Russell Vought (up for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget) made the statement in the context of defending his alma mater Wheaton College, which was under attack because, enforcing its "Statement of Faith," it had suspended a professor for saying that Muslims and Christians "worship the same God." In a blog post, Vought elaborated "the theological issue":
Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God who is fully divine (and became fully human). This matters immensely for our salvation. If Christ is not God, he cannot be the necessary substitute on our behalf for the divine retribution that we deserve....The suspended professor had quoted a theologian whom Vought also quotes:
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....NPR reports:
Ahead of Vought's confirmation hearing, that quote was picked up by advocacy groups concerned about whether Vought could serve all Americans fairly.Quite aside from whether this violates the constitutional rejection of a "religious test," this line of inquiry will take us to hell. If it can be used against Vought, it can be used against many other Christians and also against Muslims:
Sanders brought up the passage, again and again, in the hearing. He asked Vought if he thought his statement was Islamophobic.
"Absolutely not, senator," Vought said
"Do you believe people in the Muslim religion stand condemned?" Sanders asked. "What about Jews? Do they stand condemned, too?"
"I'm a Christian," Vought repeatedly responded.
"I understand you are a Christian," Sanders said, raising his voice. The senator is Jewish and has said he's not particularly religious. "But there are other people who have different religions in this country and around the world. In your judgment, do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?"
"I believe that all individuals are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect regardless of their religious beliefs," Vought said, while also emphasizing "the centrality of Jesus Christ in salvation."
"This nominee is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about," Sanders said, announcing that he'd vote against him.
The Pew Research Center recently found that nearly 60 percent of Americans surveyed believe in hell. And among Christians, 48 percent of Protestants and 56 percent of evangelicals believe Christianity is the only path to eternal life....I find that "yes" hard to believe. It's interesting to shine some light now and then on the big topic of religious believers who go about picturing other people headed for eternal damnation. But imagine a new Sandersesque norm, in which we characterize that belief as bigotry and begin to shun everyone who thinks like that! We'd be shunning an awful lot of people, and another matter that used to be considered part of religious freedom will have been relocated into the category of a social belief where it can be impugned without incurring the accusation that to impugn it is to discriminate based on religion.
The Quran is quite clear that there is a hell, says Mohammad Hassan Khalil, a professor of religious studies at Michigan State University and author of Islam and the Fate of Others. The general view is that those who reject the message of Muhammad are damned, he says....
NPR asked Sanders' office if the senator would have challenged a devout Muslim who believed non-Muslims are condemned to hell, in the same way he challenged Vought. Sanders' spokesman said yes.
Posts
258 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 258 of 258Robert Cook said...What statements has Sanders (or myself) made that would suggest we would possibly promote discriminatory legislation or policies?
Chew on that idea for a bit, everyone: people who might POSSIBLY "promote" discriminatory legislation should be excluded from public office (and, of course, from treatment as full citizens worthy of respect and fair treatment, etc).
I wonder who gets to decide just what "discriminatory legislation" means in practice? JK, JK, LOL--of course it's the Left.
Belief is a choice and as with all choices each individual is 'responsible' for their choices, including what they choose to believe.
I've heard this said by religious people all my life, and I still can't fathom what it means. I believe something when it seems true to me. I don't choose whether or not to find something convincing -- it either appears likely to be true or it doesn't, depending on how it accords with what I think I know about reality.
What you're describing as "belief", I'd call "Let's pretend." Let's act as if we the thing we choose to believe is true, without evaluating whether it actually is or not. If that's what you're doing, fine with me, but I wish you would use a word other than "belief" to describe it.
Jeff, I can relate to your POV having shared it for many years. However, there is a spiritual realm in which are spiritual truths that are spiritually discerned.
Belief is a tenent that an idea is true. But Christian faith is an action
Taken based on that idea being true because it is scripture come to revelation heard
as God's Word.
Throw in ressurection of Jesus from the dead, and men find themselves free from Sin and guilt, much less mere embarrassment for believing it.
Jeff, think in terms of weighing evidence. When there's not absolute proof, but testimony and evidence that can lean different directions, we can look at the evidence and choose how we evaluate it. This isn't the same as a random choice, but it involves an intentionality and rational appraisal.
The word "belief" can have different meanings. In a religious sense, "belief" has more the quality of weighing varieties of evidence (internal experience as well as rational historical analysis), with it primarily reflecting the fact it is not absolutely established without possibility of doubt. I can say "I believe I like chocolate ice cream the most" as a matter of opinion, or "Let's believe we'll be given 100 million dollars by Althouse if we comment 100 times" as a matter of pretend. But I can say, "I believe it will rain tomorrow" as an expression of my reading forecasts and watching the weather. Or "I believe that person will stop at a red light" based on laws and experience. In the latter, we actually take a radical risk in our belief when we are going through an intersection.
Resurrection is a good example of how belief entails different levels of analysis. If you begin by ruling out the very possibility of it happening, that is an assertion, not wholly objective (though a rational one based on experience). If you allow that such a thing can be possible, then look at the historical record and documents, there's a rational reason for believing that Jesus was resurrected. For instance, the development and rise of the early Christian movement makes sense in light of that being a true event. It's not impossible to explain the radicalization of early Christians (willing to face death for the sake of such testimony) without the resurrection, but it's certainly more difficult. The resurrection, if it happened, makes the rest of movement make sense. So, belief here relies on witnesses, historical resonance, and personal experience, not simply being an unfounded assertion of feelings.
Today is the feast of the Most Holy Trinity and is one of the days when in the more traditional Catholic liturgical calendar the Quicumque vult is used, the Athanasian Creed, so called, although St Athanasius wasn't the author. In it, at least two or three times, the point is declared quite expressly, 'This is the Catholic faith, which one must believe fideliter firmiterque or he will not be saved.' Mr Sanders wouldn't vote for any of us, either.
Mockturtle: I don't understand. Are you claiming there's a physical realm, in which ordinary rules of logic and belief apply, and a spiritual realm in which they don't? I think that's an extraordinary claim, which of course requires extraordinary evidence to be believable.
Traditionalguy: Dictionary definition of "tenet" is a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true; especially : one held in common by members of an organization, movement, or profession. So I understand your statement Belief is a tenet that an idea is true to be either a circular statement, or to be agreeing that religious belief is not a really a statement that you find something convincing. Rather it seems to be a way of saying "I'm in this group, rather than some other group." I find everything after your first sentence incomprehensible, words laid out in grammatically correct sentences that have no meaning.
Paddy O: When there's not absolute proof, but testimony and evidence that can lean different directions, we can look at the evidence and choose how we evaluate it. This isn't the same as a random choice, but it involves an intentionality and rational appraisal.
No. In most matters, we don't choose how to evaluate evidence. We just evaluate it. Rational appraisal, sure, but the only intentionality involved is that we intend to learn what we can from the evidence. If we're not really convinced one way or another by some evidence, we just say so. Unless, apparently, when religion is involved. I don't get this.
Blogger mockturtle said...
My point being that baptism, while a show of faith, does not get you into heaven nor does the omission preclude your entry.
I'm not Mormon, so can't speak for what they believe.
However, I don't see how someone could be disobedient to God and still receive salvation. Might as well say everyone receives salvation.
Take Naaman as an example. He was told to go and wash in the Jordan river 7 times and his affliction would go away. He refused. His affliction didn't go away. Finally, he relented and his affliction was cured.
Is there some magical properties in the Jordan river that cured him? Nope.
It was his obedience to God that cured him. God could have told him to do jumping jacks. It's not the jumping jacks that do anything, it's obedience, through faith.
And yet you seem to be saying we can ignore the response to those who asked, "What should we do then?" To which the response was, "Believe, Repent, and be baptized for the remission of your sins."
You seem to be arguing that we can just ignore that and be disobedient.
Paddy O, you are of course not the first to argue that the rise of the early Christian movement and its persistence despite a lot of persecution is strong evidence that Christianity is true. Unfortunately, we live in the age of suicide bombers who willingly sacrifice their lives for a religion that you and I both believe to be false. So that argument has kind of lost its force, don't you think?
You Like your religion; you can keep your religion.
Anyway, I'd rather have someone who fears God handling the nations budget than a secularist with a means-ends morality. At least, who will be looking over the bean-counter's shoulders.
That being said, there is an aspect of diminishing marginal utility to spiritual capital; where the optimal mix point is, is an empirical question. In my limited experience in the rabbinical profession, I have met quite a few scoundrels who ALWAYS quoted the Good Book when they were caught with their hands in the till.
Religion is not the issue; competence is the issue. For Senator Sanders to reject a candidate based on his religious persuasion is bigotry pure and simple. Secular or not, Jews know the bitter root of bigotry. To hear it come out of Senator Sanders is over the top.
Speaking of which, happy feast day of the Holy Trinity.
I'm Lutheran. Missouri Synod.
Which means I'm pretty hardcore.
And I'm warning all of you right now that we have a plan for those of you who aren't hardcore Missouri Synod Lutherans.
It involves a crusade whereby you are all forced to eat jello. Particularly fruit suspended in jello. The way God intended.
We're going to bring a whole new meaning to "Taste The Rainbow".
When you stand in front of the Pearly Gates, it'll be with the taste of lime jello in your mouth. And probably mandarin oranges.
It is not controversial among believers, because it is not true.
Jews believe in the god of the Old Testament.
Christians believe in the god of the Old Testament.
Muslims believe in the god of the Old Testament.
How is that not believing in the same god?
Gahrie: "Jews believe in the god of the Old Testament.
Christians believe in the god of the Old Testament.
Muslims believe in the god of the Old Testament.
How is that not believing in the same god?"
Unbelievable.
In Christianity is irreducibly Trinitarian. Irreducibly. To pretend otherwise is to supplant the actual view of Christians with your own babblings.
In Christianity there is no other path to the Father except thru the Son.
What Gahrie is doing is distorting beyond recognition the Gospel of Christ.
Perhaps that is the precise intent.
Judge a religious/moral/legal philosophy by the contents of its principles. Ideally, it will reconcile moral (i.e. individual dignity, intrinsic value), natural, and personal imperatives. These principles will be internally, externally, and mutually consistent.
A principal cause of progressive corruption and dysfunction is that the twilight fringe (i.e. narcissistic faith) is conflated with logical domains, notably the scientific domain, and the Pro-Choice religion is by design selective, opportunistic, and unprincipled, and cannot be reconciled without fudging (e.g. [class] diversity, female chauvinism, congruence, abortion rites, etc.).
Gahrie asks: Muslims believe in the god of the Old Testament.
How is that not believing in the same god?
Abraham begat both Ishmael and Isaac. To Jews and Christians, Isaac was the 'child of promise'. Muslims believe the other way around. Consider that Muhammed was born in around 570 AD. He didn't want to believe that the Jews and their offspring, Christians, were God's chosen people so he developed his own version of the truth. Even if [a big IF] Muslims worship Yahweh, they do not worship Him 'in spirit and in truth'. They have perverted the Hebrew religion and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob into their own twisted deity.
Jeff asks with incredulity: Mockturtle: I don't understand. Are you claiming there's a physical realm, in which ordinary rules of logic and belief apply, and a spiritual realm in which they don't? I think that's an extraordinary claim, which of course requires extraordinary evidence to be believable.
There are other dimensions, yes. They are not outside the realm of logic or physics, just outside the realm of our understanding.
Hey, look, it's the local troll, stirring up shit.
In this thread, Robert Cook has told us that:
Americans "are and have been since our beginning a violent and aggressive people, internally and externally".
That that's not special, that "we are as savage and murderous as any humans who have lived anywhere".
And, further, that the notion we are all condemned under God's law is "a twisted idea. Obviously created by a self-hating human being (or culture)."
So, apparently it's Cook's assertion that it is "twisted" for a violent, aggressive, savage, and murderous culture to conclude that a nonhuman intelligence able to see it from the outside would condemn its members for being violent, aggressive, savage, and murderous.
"I find that "yes" hard to believe." No kidding. You're so sweet sometimes.
"But imagine a new Sandersesque norm" It's no new norm. Progs have been after Christian faith for a long time, and Muslims have been highest on the Minority Victim Value Index. Impugning a Christian's critique of Islam is a prog double-whammy.
"We'd be shunning an awful lot of people" So? As long as progs win, it's all good.
Progs fight. Nice OMGs from a nice midwestern former law prof, however reasonable, will do no good.
Eric claims: You seem to be arguing that we can just ignore that and be disobedient.
Not at all. Just as ""Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness", so it is our belief that saves us. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life". Our faith is shown by our obedience. And, as the Apostle Paul admonishes us when discussing our salvation by grace: "Shall we keep on sinning that grace may abound? God forbid!"
The reason Christ is called a 'stumbling block' in the Bible is because he saves us by HIS righteousness, not by our own. It has forever been man's practice to develop works-oriented religions, various rituals and laws, believing he can save himself by these methods. Jesus saw fit to demonstrate that no one [other than Jesus, himself] is capable of complete obedience to the Law. The book of Galatians tells us how the law was made to show us our sin not to save us from it.
But yes, we must repent after receiving Christ. This comes about by grace through faith. After becoming a Christian my life did a complete 180-degree turn. Though I am far from a perfect Christian, I have faith and trust in Him. With Him, I have everything I need. Without Him, I have nothing at all.
The entire argument about whether Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the "same" God is, on the object-level, a debate over the meaning of the word "same". Which is stupid, because arbitrary symbols do not have inherent meanings, and can be used to mean different things. The God of each faith has some attributes in common and some that differ, and whether the commonalities mean they are the "same" or the differences mean they're "not the same" depends entirely on one's criteria for the relative importance of the similarities versus the differences, which can have no objective resolution because there's no objective meta-criteria for weighting the differing criteria.
And since it's particularly unlikely anyone is heavily invested in the meta-criteria regarding the definition of sameness, the actual argument is not whether they worship the same God, but a proxy for whether American Christians in general should think of and treat Muslims the way they think of and treat other denominations of Christians, or they way they think of and treat (for example) Scientologists. Which cannot actually be determined by the debate on the sameness of the deity in any case.
Incidentally, C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity is probably the best Christian apologetic ever written. Great book in a very small package. For those of you who want to know more about what Christianity is about, I highly recommend it.
I don't think we can resolve whether Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same God. It involves theories of reference, and we don't have access to the information necessary. Say I point to someone across the room at a party and say "That guy wearing the tuxedo and drinking champagne is Bob." It turns out he's not wearing a tuxedo, he's wearing one of those ridiculous tuxedo t-shirts. And he's not drinking champagne, he's drinking 7-up. But it's still Bob. Does my statement refer to Bob despite attributing false claims to him? Yes. Now say I say the same thing about someone who is wearing a tuxedo and is drinking champagne. But it's not Bob. Does my statement refer to Bob despite attributing true claims about not-Bob? No.
In order to say that Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same God we would have to know that the first case is more parallel rather than the second case. But I don't see how we could know that. I note that the Old Testament frequently refers to idols and false gods rather than inaccurate ideas about the true God (although there such passages: at the end of Job, God tells Job that his friends held false ideas about him, not that they were believing in a different God).
Bernie Sanders is an idiot. Worsex he is also Marxist scum. Screw the Jihad, we can't effectively address that problem until we get rid of these damn parasites. Look what they did to England. You've got victims IN THE MIDDLE OF A TERRORIST ATTACK going out of their way to not offend Islam.
Like the two jews walking into the gas chamber, one says to the other "don't make a fuss, we might get in trouble"
We really need to drag the Marxists out into the street and shoot them dead if we are ever going to turn this country around. I know, I know, something something about moral highground and ends not justifying means, but the Marxists are playing their usual identity politics PCBS, while their neighbors are murdered by cowardly thugs.
As for Christianity, I'm really tired of the super smart enlightened Leftist twats arrogantly and ignorantly lecturing us on valuesm. People like Bernie get hung up on Sin as if the accusation is dehumanizing or marginalizing or whatever other SJW bullshit is in vogue. Sin is much more mundane than that, its simply a warning that you are out of balance, or that you are engaging in self-destructive behaviour. That pack of smoked is sinful. That extra bagel is sin. The blonde twins are sin, because there are only so many to go around.
And calling Muslims fallen is not bigotry. Fuck you Bernie. Everyone knows you are just collecting Indulgences to offset
your hypocrisy of buying a THIRD mansion.
Our faith is shown by our obedience.
Exactly.
And yet, if you refuse to be baptized, what's that called? Certainly not faith. James 2:18 " But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds."
Not sure how anyone can justify direct disobedience to God and still claim to be Christian.
What if you refuse to repent? What if you refuse to believe?
The logical conclusion is obvious.
I will say this though. We can believe wrongly and still be Christians. In other words, it you're baptized, Mockturtle, then it doesn't matter if you're wrong here. Because you've been obedient.
Eric, I never implied that anyone should refuse baptism. I was merely observing that there have been instances where it was not possible and that it is not essential for salvation.
What if you refuse to believe?
What??? If you don't believe, you are not a Christian! A Christian is one who believes in Christ as Lord and Savior.
On a related note, its almost karmic that the same Lefties who mocked and derided moral virtues have now fashioned alternate realities and are no longer capable of discerning Truth. C.S. Lewis was right about people creating their own hell on earth.
Remember that part in The Last Battle, where Asian has come back and the donkey(?) refuses to acknowledge it? I think Aslan created a feast but The Corrupted insisted it was just straw and muddy water or something. He performs a few other magics but donkey et al simply find new ways to ignore reality and cling to their false narratives.
Remind you of anyone? Like the millions of Democrsts chasing Ruskies rather than accept Trump beat that sodden cunt? I bet her life is hell, even with all the blessings she has, she lives as a miserable wretch.
Blogger mockturtle said...
Eric, I never implied that anyone should refuse baptism. I was merely observing that there have been instances where it was not possible and that it is not essential for salvation.
If it's not essential, then anyone can refuse and still be saved. Just like saying Naaman could have refused to dip in the Jordan 7 times and still been saved. But we know that's wrong.
I understand the point that there are instances where it's not possible. I am not sure this is the case, and can't think of any such instance. However, what's the point of saying it's not possible?
What if it is possible? What if you've decided to follow Christ but you refuse to be baptized to demonstrate that such is definitely not needed for salvation. What if you live 50 years, knowing God has commanded us to believe, repent and be baptized for the remission of our sins but you refuse on principle?
Speaking of CS Lewis, I like his approach to salvation and end times in The Last Battle, where he highlights God cares about heart not words. Any good done in the name of Tash is accepted by Aslan, and any evil done in the name of Aslan is accepted by Tash.
I am not sure this is the case, and can't think of any such instance.
The thief on the cross. My original point.
What??? If you don't believe, you are not a Christian! A Christian is one who believes in Christ as Lord and Savior.
I agree. What if you believe, but don't repent?
Blogger mockturtle said...
I am not sure this is the case, and can't think of any such instance.
The thief on the cross. My original point.
I'm not sure I understand your point. As I explained before, Moses, Abraham, and all the rest weren't baptized either. Nor were they ever commanded to be. Was the thief on the cross commanded to be baptized for the remission of his sins? If he was, I missed that.
Paddy O, while I have read much of C.S. Lewis' writings I confess I have never read his Narnia series. I'm not much into fantasy, even when it's allegorical. ;-)
"So that argument has kind of lost its force, don't you think?"
Not really. It's one thing for people to die for a culture/tradition that's centuries old like now. It's another for people to die for something they were apparently witnesses about. And the key too is that the early Christians didn't die proactively, in violence or suicide or such. They were happy to live, but rather they would rather be killed than deny what they said they saw, and die in often horrific ways.
Whether or not the resurrection happened, it is broadly accepted now that the earliest Christians thought it happened. There were a lot of messianic movements in those days, but only Christianity really blossomed.
Having died for it, the Christian communities spread. Which suggests not only did they believe it, there was something unique and attractive about how they were living life in a different way. Unlike Islam which spread through military force and established a broad culture, the early Christians did not have cultural or physical power until about 300 years later. It was transformative from below. Those people experienced a change in their approach to life itself not just their opinions about the afterlife.
Something seemed to have radicalized that first generation so that just about every single one of the earliest leaders died rather than deny what they said they saw. If not the resurrection, then something. If resurrections are possible, then that event explains the earliest church very nicely. If they aren't possible or it didn't happen, then something got a broad mix of people moving in a shared direction.
Paul is sometimes blamed for this, but his influence was nothing near the unitary leader and creator that he's made out to be. Paul himself makes a very potent historical claim in 1 Corinthians 15, not just claiming the resurrection happened, but saying that if it didn't physically happen, then the early Christians are very much wasting their time. And he too died rather than deny it happened. Cult leaders lead people to death, but usually cults die out and don't have a wide swath of people doing the same thing in spreading geographic regions.
Again, it's not an absolute argument, but it is basing the discussion on something other than simply pretending belief. And it follows early Christian discussions of highlighting witnesses not just asserting unsubstantiated claims. Witnesses aren't always right, but it does show a legal/historical apologetic rather than pietistic.
I also wouldn't use contemporary Christian martyrdom to argue for the truth of the resurrection. Though, it's compelling for how much someone believes it's true, just as Islam has compelling elements to foster such belief and to have survived for so long. Partly why I don't agree that Islam and Christianity are talking about different gods.
Mockturtle, it's worth reading especially after reading the rest of his works. I don't know of any other place where he so clearly expresses his views on eschatology, though his Great Divorce expresses another very compelling view of the afterlife.
But if you don't like the style or genre, there's no reason to wade through the Narnia series. His other writings offer a great feast on their own. I suspect he was able to more safely express his view of salvation in the Narnia books, as he would have gotten push back had he talked about that more explicitly and clearly.
Quakers don't believe in baptism nor does the Salvation Army among others.
"I don't read fantasy"
Oh come now, Ann reads us WaPo the NYTs almost everyday.
And Paddy, that part re the faithful Telmarine warrior stuck with me too. Chronicles of Narnia were the first book I ever read. My Grandmother gave me to them as a kid. I remember praying to God "I'll be good and all but could You please send me to Narnia instead of Heaven?"...because the animals could talk.
As an adult looking back, I'm amazed how much of my ethics and principles were founded by those 7 books from my childhood.
I'm with Puddleglum! I'm going to live as a Narnian even if there is no Narnia!
@mockturtle: The Narnia books are a great read. They are books for children of course, but I still reread them from time to time. Usually I do it when I am sick enough to be staying in bed, but not so sick that I am totally wiped out. The stories from those books (like the one that @fen mentioned from the Last Battle) are definitely part of the furniture of my mind.
I agree. What if you believe, but don't repent?
It depends upon what type of Christian you are. In the Catholic Church the only unforgivable sin is not believing in Jesus Christ.
I don't really get hung up on the different religions or denominations. All gods are one and Religion is just mankind's interpretation of God. And men are imperfect creatures, Not letting the destiny of my soul be determined by Man.
In the Catholic Church the only unforgivable sin is not believing in Jesus Christ.
And, I think, most non-Catholic Christian churches. It is--thank God!--what we have in common--Christ the Redeemer.
In Christianity there is no other path to the Father except thru the Son.
True....that's why It's called Christianity after all. But where did I say it didn't?
What Gahrie is doing is distorting beyond recognition the Gospel of Christ.
This post is the first post where I have discussed Christ at all. I have been discussing the god of the Old Testament, known as Yahweh, Jehovah or Allah.
Perhaps that is the precise intent.
Actually, even though I am a Deist, I strongly support Christianity and Judaism. In my opinion Western Civilization requires them.
@mockturtle: The Narnia books are a great read. They are books for children of course, but I still reread them from time to time. Usually I do it when I am sick enough to be staying in bed, but not so sick that I am totally wiped out. The stories from those books (like the one that @fen mentioned from the Last Battle) are definitely part of the furniture of my mind.
Thank you, Clark. Maybe I'll give them a try. Right now I've only just started McMaster's Dereliction of Duty.
Blogger mockturtle said...
In the Catholic Church the only unforgivable sin is not believing in Jesus Christ.
And, I think, most non-Catholic Christian churches. It is--thank God!--what we have in common--Christ the Redeemer.
Does this mean you agree with the statement that one does not need to repent?
The three faiths are called Abrahamic, but it's not really accurate to say they believe in the same God, since the conception of God is considerably different. Christianity in the main has a Trinitarian God foreign to the other two. As far as the Jewish and Islamic faiths go, one of those faiths has been out to conquer in God's name literally since its founding while the other has not made any meaningful attempt to convert outsiders. That's oversimplifying the differences, but theological arguments fill libraries.
Logically, Christianity and Islam make incompatible doctrinal claims. To accept the Christian message (part of which includes that God has revealed all that is necessary with Jesus) necessarily renders Islam at best a fraud, at worst demonic in origin. There really isn't any way to square that they are both from the same God from the Christian point of view, though heavens knows an army of learned fools in divinity departments and pulpits across the land keep trying.
Sanders should know better than to ask a question like this. There is a reason we dumped the idea of having a religious test for employment, but assuming Sanders wants to go down this road and open the box, he should keep in mind that Jews are likely to be the biggest losers in terms of suffering prejudice in hiring given the left's anti-Israel sentiments in general. Future losers to be determined by who has the upper hand in the culture or government.
Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the same God, though they call him different names. All three religions believe they are the only true path to God, and that non-believers will go to Hell.
I don't understand why this is controversial.
Because it's stupid, that's why.
How unintelligent does one have to be not to see that?
And men are imperfect creatures, Not letting the destiny of my soul be determined by Man.
Except for Fen. She is perfect.
The No Religious Test clause prohibits requiring a particular religion, it doesn't mean we can't disqualify a Satanist or a Scientologist or a Muslim for holding objectionable views of other people based on their differing religion. Gimme a break. Do we have to give a pass to a Muslim who believe gays should be killed just because that is part of the doctrine of Islam?
I find that "yes" hard to believe.
Because you are certain that offensive, un-American beliefs can only belong to Islam and can't possibly be claimed by Christianity.
Snark said...
"I wouldn't vote for him either. There is something off in the judgment and reasoning of someone who thinks people of faith who don't believe in Jesus are going to hell to the point that he's wiling to make public pronouncements about it."
And he also believes in doing unto others as he would have them doing unto him.
So it all balances out. No problem.
Or as my friend Carl used to say," God is god. Who the hell are you?"
To be honeat he also used to say, "What do you mean you're drunk? You're not vomiting yet."
John Henry, yesterday at 11:14:
I'm way late to this thread and don't know if you'll see this, but I wanted to address your point:
"That assumes that the term "Holocaust" covers the 6mm non-Jews that were murdered in the National Socialist death camps. Lots of people think "Holocaust" just covers the Jewish victims."
I agree this is a pity.
"We need to remember them all. Never forget.
"Some Jews get really upset about that last paragraph. Somehow they think mentioning the other 6mm diminishes the 6mm Jews who died. I get upset at them for getting upset."
My personal view: You cannot appreciate the enormity of the Holocaust without knowing its whole scope. It is imperative to understand how many non-Jews were murdered as well. It is also crucial to be aware of other mass slaughters, a few of them on larger scale, for perspective and moral appreciation. It's one thing to say Hitler was the most evil national leader in the modern age because you simply aren't aware of what Stalin did; quite another if you're Robert Conquest, asked whether Hitler or Stalin was worse, and you answer after a pause, Hitler. (Why? his interviewer asked. I don't know, he said. I feel it.)
Less firmly, let me venture an opinion as to why "some Jews" get upset with the point you're making, with which I agree as far as it goes. It's in part because some who are hostile to Jews say, Why are Jews always banging on about the Holocaust? It didn't happen only or even mostly to them. It wasn't the largest-scale mass slaughter. We just know so much about it because the Jews have so much influence in the media and in entertainment, and we hear about it over and over because it happened to them. The others, they don't care so much about.
There are several grains of truth here, but I think they're added up wrong and put in the service of an agenda. Put another way, you can believe as I do that the Holocaust edges out other modern mass atrocities, without being a special pleader for Jews (Conquest wasn't); and that it was conceived and executed for the purpose of killing all the Jews, without forgetting or dishonoring the Poles, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, gypsies, Soviet POWs, German political dissidents, and unyielding Catholic priests who were murdered alongside them.
I also think the disproportionate attention to Hitler's crimes over Stalin's or Mao's or Pol Pot's has something to do with the fact that the US Army liberated a number of Nazi camps. We never did liberate Vorkuta, allied as we had been with the nice folks running it.
Responding to other comments is usually not good form. Several comments here are along the lines of "well everyone knows this religion / these religions teach such and such" or "how can he / they say something like that? we all know the simple obvious response". I spent several years studying religion (ancient and modern) at the graduate level - which doesn't mean my every opinion is correct - and it is difficult to witness these sorts of exchanges without respectfully pressing back.
(1) People think they know what religions teach. They are sincere and mean well. They know less than they realize. There is far more diversity among religions and within religions.
(2) They offer simplistic generalizations that don't hold up well. The issue of whether Judaism, Christianity, Islam "worship" (not the best term) the same God is complex and the subject of debate. My response is "depends on what you mean by 'same' and 'God'". At least half of debates and misunderstandings are problems of language. People are understandably confused when the same words or different words are used. My observation is modern people often think reality is largely the interplay of words.
(3) There also is a tendency to opine "how can they profess that belief? here is the obvious rejoinder". Let me don my professor hat for a moment and reply "then do some research - find out more about that belief, what it is, why they profess that". People are sometimes satisfied with "that's so stupid, here's a 5 second rebuttal" responses. I stress upon my students "you don't have to agree with that (whatever that is) but you must first understand it as well as possible and on its own terms". Sanders is not the only person content to engage in casual dismissals of religious convictions.
(4) I would venture that Sanders is at least as guilty as what he accuses. How dare a Mormon "condemn" Muslims to hell! (Mormonism doesn't teach 'hell' but that's another matter.) Some scholars argue that progressive ideologies resemble (? indeed are?) a religion. To what outer darkness do Sanders and his brethren condemn those who don't adhere to their ideological religion?
Rick67: As a Mormon I must tell you that yes, we teach the concept of hell. Very much so.
It's just that as a final destination for eternity, you have to work quite hard to get there. Spending some time in hell? Lots of people do that.
As for the differences between Allah, Jehovah and Christ: most Christian faiths as far as I know explicitly equate Christ and Jehovah as the same Being.
The Old Testament is a funny beast. Pretty much the modern Jewish concept of Yahweh is a product of the Deuteronomy reforms of the time of King Josiah; right before Jerusalem fell and Nebuchenezzer carried off the Jews to Babylon. Prior to that, there's plenty of evidence of multiple; dare I say, 3 divine Beings.
I would also suggest that there is evidence that the Jews practiced a form of baptism (indeed, baptism clearly predates Jesus' mortal life--see John the Baptist; who was baptizing people; people who recognized the ordinance and also their need for it. Where did that come from? )
I think it is highly unfortunate that people have the idea that Christians and Jews worship a different God; because they most certainly worship the same God. The Old Testament is scripture for both faiths.
Islam? Islam does not recognize the Old Testament as scripture, or the New Testament. The core concept of both Judaism and Christianity is that sacrifice cleanses sin: with the Law of Moses for Jews and Christ's sacrifice for Christians. I don't know that Islam even believes in sin, if you are a Muslim. Certainly it rejects the concept of God's atonement for mankind, or a Messiah-- a concept at the center of both Christianity and Judaism.
I'll add that Lewis is a very good Christian writer. Indeed, it may well surprise Mockturtle to know that in the LDS church, C.S. Lewis is the most cited non Mormon author by far. That guy had it together. And I love the Narnia series.
--Vance
I'll add that Lewis is a very good Christian writer. Indeed, it may well surprise Mockturtle to know that in the LDS church, C.S. Lewis is the most cited non Mormon author by far. That guy had it together. And I love the Narnia series.
Not too surprised, Vance. He's the most quoted non-Biblical author of most of the pastors I've know, although I don't know any Mormon pastors.
Bob Ellison said...
A real atheist doesn't just disbelieve, but insists that God doesn't exist. Defend that!
6/11/17, 10:08 AM
That's the distinction between evangelism and pietism.
An evangelical atheist is out to convert others to the non-existence of God. A pietist thinks it's none of my business whatever nonsense you believe.
As long as you aren't evangelical about it.
Post a Comment