IFA says Bernie Sanders is a threat to religious freedom in america...

[hedrick]

I don't understand can you reword this please.

If you listen to the dialog, Sanders is interested in one specific statement, that all non Christians stand condemned. Catholics, mainline Christians, and even many evangelicals think there’s hope for some non Christians. I think the specific wording that set Sanders off would not be used by a majority of Christians.

The original context was Muslims, but Sanders clearly suspects Voight would apply the same thing to Jews. He never quite gets an answer, but I think that's likely, given that conservative Christianity would say this of all non-Christians.

 

[Speedwell]

How do you know? The statement that 'bernie is not prejudiced against Christians in general.' Is in fact a positive statement that needs evidence.

Let me put it this way: Based on the evidence of his comments during Vought's confirmation hearing it is not reasonable to conclude that Bernie is prejudiced against Christians in general.

 

[createdtoworship]

If you listen to the dialog, Sanders is interested in one specific statement, that all non Christians stand condemned. Catholics, mainline Christians, and even many evangelicals think there’s hope for some non Christians. I think the specific wording that set Sanders off would not be used by a majority of Christians.

The original context was Muslims, but Sanders clearly suspects Voight would apply the same thing to Jews. He never quite gets an answer, but I think that's likely, given that conservative Christianity would say this of all non-Christians.

saying a non christian is not saved is the same as saying someone who rejects Christ is not saved. We cannot be saved apart from Christ according to the Bible. Most Christians I think realize that, that is why they are christian.

 

[createdtoworship]

Let me put it this way: Based on the evidence of his comments during Vought's confirmation hearing it is not reasonable to conclude that Bernie is prejudiced against Christians in general.

Unless he specifically said he was not prejudiced against others like Vought, how can you say you have evidence of non prejudice by his comments?

 

[Speedwell]

saying a non christian is not saved is the same as saying someone who rejects Christ is not saved. We cannot be saved apart from Christ according to the Bible. Most Christians I think realize that, that is why they are christian.

But one hopes that a Christian would take a more evangelistic (small "e") tone than Vought did and any Christian should be ashamed to have his name appear in a filthy rag like The Resurgent.

Unless he specifically said he was not prejudiced against others like Vought, how can you say you have evidence of non prejudice by his comments?

I said that there is no evidence of prejudice, not that there is evidence of non-prejudice.

 

[hedrick]

saying a non christian is not saved is the same as saying someone who rejects Christ is not saved. We cannot be saved apart from Christ according to the Bible. Most Christians I think realize that, that is why they are christian.

Christ is, according to John, the Logos made visible in flesh. But the Logos spoke through the prophets. Rom 1 says he is visible through creation and Rom 2 that some pagans had God's law in their hearts. If Christ is actually the Logos, then all of this is Christ.

The belief that some may encounter Christ in other ways is called "inclusivism." It was taught by Zwingli, Wesley, and some have argued, Luther. The Catholic church currently is inclusivist. So are many Protestants.

For an interesting survey of opinions, see Many Americans Say Other Faiths Can Lead to Eternal Life. The specific form in which this discussion took place involved Muslims. According to the Pew survey, the only Christian group where a plurality thought salvation is impossible for Muslims was evangelicals, and even there it was less than 50%.

 

[Desk trauma]

"The potential for Senator Bernie Sanders to be as a Presidential candidate for a major party, and also therefore to be elected President, is the most serious threat to religious freedom in our nation from the Executive branch we may have ever had. To be sure, I don’t know if God has a plan to continue advancing Bernie supernaturally in order to accomplish His purposes. Either way this is a major matter for prayer. I am surprised how many younger Christians are unaware of his religious views and are actively supporting him. Christians may disagree on policy but Bernie’s views on whether Christians can actively follow Jesus’ claims to exclusivity should be a matter that unites us all.

During a Senate confirmation hearing meeting in 2017, Senator Sanders said Russell Vought, a nominee for Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, was unqualified because Mr. Vought believes Jesus was the only way to God. The Senator’s view was that because Mr. Vought thought Mohammad’s teachings were not an equal way to God, he should not serve in the U.S. government. Sanders’ closing statement is: “This nominee is not what this country is supposed to be about.” (Watch the interchange below.)

This is an extremely dangerous and unconstitutional opinion. The core faith tenet of Christianity is that Jesus is the way, truth, and life, and that no one gets to the Father but through Him (Jesus’ own words in John 14:6). Bernie Sanders basically declared all Christians who adhere to historical, biblical Christianity as unfit to serve in our government. Nothing could be more in opposition to the real life history of our nation’s founders and the grand majority of our nation’s previous governmental leaders than this. Bernie Sander’s views in this matter make him unlike any other major candidate for President in our nation’s history and potentially pose the most serious threat to our First Amendment rights this nation has ever seen from the Executive Branch. It is this one singular view above all others that makes him unfit for office as a Senator or President. He counts on his own right to espouse his openly socialist political policy positions. His desire to strip First Amendment rights of those he disagrees with actually threatens his own right to free speech regarding his socialist views."

above quote from IFA prayer alerts:
HOW BERNIE SANDERS THREATENS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN AMERICA | Intercessors for America

I would be able to take your concern as something other than disingenuous if you were actually a supporter of individual or religious liberty, when your posting history directly contradicts that position.

 

[createdtoworship]

But one hopes that a Christian would take a more evangelistic (small "e") tone than Vought did and any Christian should be ashamed to have his name appear in a filthy rag like The Resurgent.

I said that there is no evidence of prejudice, not that there is evidence of non-prejudice.

so like I said you cannot exclude the possibility of prejudiced behaviour. We simply don't know. But most times by the time a racist comment goes forth, it is from a long line of previous internal prejudices. I do feel trump was racist in some of the things he said. I used to say all illegals are criminals too, then I realized I immigrated from finland, and I am not a criminal. So it's a blanketed assessment, that makes one prejudiced and racist. I admit I used to be that way, and it appears bernie is STILL that way.

 

[createdtoworship]

Christ is, according to John, the Logos made visible in flesh. But the Logos spoke through the prophets. Rom 1 says he is visible through creation and Rom 2 that some pagans had God's law in their hearts. If Christ is actually the Logos, then all of this is Christ.

The belief that some may encounter Christ in other ways is called "inclusivism." It was taught by Zwingli, Wesley, and some have argued, Luther. The Catholic church currently is inclusivist. So are many Protestants.

For an interesting survey of opinions, see Many Americans Say Other Faiths Can Lead to Eternal Life. The specific form in which this discussion took place involved Muslims. According to the Pew survey, the only Christian group where a plurality thought salvation is impossible for Muslims was evangelicals, and even there it was less than 50%.

I care about the bible sir, how the Bible says we are saved. Not luther, not catholic, not zwingli, not wesley or any of the others . I am sure I can find documents that refute what you say here, if I wanted to. But ultimately I don't need to defend man's dogma. We are not saved by religious creed of man. We are saved by faith in Christ alone, that is what makes us christian. So say non christians are not saved, is the same as saying they have rejected the one payment made for their sin. At that point, THEY CANT be saved.

 

[Speedwell]

I care about the bible sir, how the Bible says we are saved. Not luther, not catholic, not zwingli, not wesley or any of the others . I am sure I can find documents that refute what you say here, if I wanted to. But ultimately I don't need to defend man's dogma. We are not saved by religious creed of man. We are saved by faith in Christ alone, that is what makes us christian. So say non christians are not saved, is the same as saying they have rejected the one payment made for their sin. At that point, THEY CANT be saved.

And so the best response is to alienate them?

 

[createdtoworship]

And so the best response is to alienate them?

Sir the guy was verbalizing a religious faith he had, he was not physically alienating anyone. Saying someone is not going to heaven because they believe in Allah versus Christ is not alienating them. Because it's not us that make that decision. God chooses the rules for heaven and hell. And we must accept or reject it, if they reject it then that is their choice.

 

[createdtoworship]

I would be able to take your concern as something other than disingenuous if you were actually a supporter of individual or religious liberty, when your posting history directly contradicts that position.

I am for religious liberty of all people, I have posted some threads of theocracies. But that is a dream for me not reality, so the next step is doing what America did and provide religious freedom, freedom from one religion ruling and freedom from government getting into churches business.

 

[Ophiolite]

Only if your logic is sensible. The logic of what you said isn’t sensible at all.



That logic is true of everyone and anyone as a possibility. Under that logic, no one is fit and proper, since such a possibility exists for everyone and anyone in a “position of power.” It is possible for anyone and everyone in a “position of power” to act prejudicially. The logic that black balls everyone and anyone, since it is “possible” everyone and anyone in the same circumstance of “position of power” can act prejudicially, isn’t rationally persuasive. Unless of course the objective is to make sure no homo-sapiens occupy a “position of power” then that logic becomes very compelling.

The atheist, agnostic, Wiccan, Muslim, Jew, Arab, wealthy, destitute, male, female, transgender, gay, lesbian, Republican, Democrat, Communist, Socialist, Independent, Catholic, Methodist, Caucasian, Black, Latino, Hispanic, Asian, it is possibile anyone one of them and all of them can act prejudicially in a “position of power.”



Yep, I obviously would concur, it does not follow” is right, and because it “doesn’t follow” means it isn’t a “good reason.” A point I made before.



Emotional? Hardly. The premsies you gave do not strongly support your claim and neither do they present themselves as a valid argument. Pointing that out isn’t “emotional.” Yes, the premises are “lousy” as they do not constitute as a valid argument and neither do they strongly support your claim. If you personally find the word “lousy” unpalatable, then the words weak, unsupportive, untenable, insufficient, are m suitable substitutes

The premises you gave are insufficient, untenable, unsupportive.



I did keep the discussion objective. I focused only on how strongly the premsies do or do not support the conclusion and that they do not present themselves as a valid argument. That’s keeping “the discussion objective.” I “stayed on track” by focusing on the premises and conclusion.

You’ve diverted off the path to admonish me personally because you personally objected to the word “lousy.”

I do not perceive your assertion my reply is “valueless” as a riposte. Maybe what I said is indeed valueless. Maybe I’ve espoused a weak refutation. Whether I did so will depend on the strength of my reasoning.

While not ineluctable, my position the premises do not strongly support the conclusion and neither is the argument as constructed a valid argument, is sensible.

You do go on a bit. I imagine you think it makes sense, unfortunately you seem to have missed the point. Let's work through this step by step. Let me know which step you disagree with and why.

1. Bernie Sanders objected to Voight as a nominee for a government position. Agree or disagree?
2. In making this objection there are two possibilities. Sanders may have been correct, or Sanders may have been wrong. Agree or disagree?

Let's straighten out these first two points before moving further. I look forward to your response.

 

[Speedwell]

I am for religious liberty of all people, I have posted some threads of theocracies. But that is a dream for me not reality, so the next step is doing what America did and provide religious freedom, freedom from one religion ruling and freedom from government getting into churches business.

No you're not. You're not even for the religious liberty of all Christians. Your posting history shows us that.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I am for religious liberty of all people, I have posted some threads of theocracies.

Do you not understand the contradiction here?

But that is a dream for me not reality,

You claim to be for religious liberty, but dream of the exact opposite.

You've posted fantasies about repealing the Constitution and proclaiming yourself King... did you think we forgot?

so the next step is doing what America did and provide religious freedom, freedom from one religion ruling and freedom from government getting into churches business.

Not just churches... keep the government out of the mosques' business as well.

And the synagogues as well, of course...
And the temples...
And the Satanic altars...

keep the government out of all the religions' businesses.

 

[createdtoworship]

No you're not. You're not even for the religious liberty of all Christians. Your posting history shows us that.

Do you not understand the contradiction here?



You claim to be for religious liberty, but dream of the exact opposite.

You've posted fantasies about repealing the Constitution and proclaiming yourself King... did you think we forgot?



Not just churches... keep the government out of the mosques' business as well.

And the synagogues as well, of course...
And the temples...
And the Satanic altars...

keep the government out of all the religions' businesses.

Well this is not really a thread for that topic. See my two threads on theocracy. Voting for God aND bible to discuss this topic further

 

[NotreDame]

Let's work through this step by step. Let me know which step you disagree with and why.

1. Bernie Sanders objected to Voight as a nominee for a government position. Agree or disagree?
2. In making this objection there are two possibilities. Sanders may have been correct, or Sanders may have been wrong. Agree or disagree?

Let's straighten out these first two points before moving further. I look forward to your response.

You do go on a bit. I imagine you think it makes sense, unfortunately you seem to have missed the point.

If brevity was a feature of a strong argument, then your advice would slightly edifying.

I answer in the affirmative to the first question.

I agree with the essence of your second question although I’d disagree with the characterization of “correct” or “wrong.” I would agree with the notion Bernie either had a sound, logical argument for his view, he doesn’t, or something in between.

 

[Ophiolite]

If brevity was a feature of a strong argument, then your advice would slightly edifying.

I answer in the affirmative to the first question.

I agree with the essence of your second question although I’d disagree with the characterization of “correct” or “wrong.” I would agree with the notion Bernie either had a sound, logical argument for his view, he doesn’t, or something in between.

Good. We are making progress.

The "something in between" is probably more realistic, but it does complicate the picture. How would you feel about modifying my original statement to this:

Sanders' reasons for believing this were sufficient for him to consider himself correct. Objective observers would view his position proven in a legal sense.
Or,
While Sanders' reasons for believing this were sufficient for him to consider himself correct, objective observers would view his position unproven in a legal sense.

How does that work for you? It retains the original dichotomy, but brings in a "real world" sense of "reasonable doubt.