On blaming religion for Trump

[Salus Maior]

If faith alone is enough, then Hitler slipped through the pearly gates of heaven, considering he was a protestant.

....Hitler wasn't a Protestant. He wasn't even a Christian.

[Outer Acharet]

There's a difference between believing in God and believing that one has sinned in the eyes of God and thus resolving to lessen their sin. If you acknowledge that you've done wrong after learning you have, you're forgiven for that wrongdoing.

If faith alone is enough, then Hitler slipped through the pearly gates of heaven, considering he was a protestant.

I'd imagine the whole "creating a cult of personality glorifying himself" and "sanctioning the mass-murder of people in clear disregard of the whole 'love thy neighbor' thing" prove that he didn't really believe that sort of stuff was a sin.
To look at it from the standpoint of Christian theology, the Devil believes God exists, is he saved?

[Jedi Council]

Again, that's not a justification.

"Oh I'm just too damn busy to not be hypocritical today, let's vote for the guy who is entirely contrary to my beliefs."

That is not an excuse. I am a busy person too, but I am not going to support someone antithetical to my values because of it, even on the off chance they might do something I like.

Alright, so who would you choose if there were only two candidates and both were shit (which is typical imo), but one of them alludes to wanting to do something for policies you care about.

Well, frankly, it's a question of morals vs policy. I do not believe I could vote for someone who I found morally repugnant, even if I agreed with their policies.

What would I do?

Write in a candidate, search for a third party, start advocating for electoral reform, volunteer with a group who lobbies for issues I care about, rather than a political party.

I would certainly do more than sit on my ass saying "Oh well" or vote for someone who I think is an awful human being. Especially if, as you say, said person merely alludes to be aligned with my policy preferences.

[Punainen Suomi]

You seem to think that Christians have to somehow earn their salvation. This is wrong. If we could get saved by works, how MUCH work would be necessary? If we could be saved by works, then Christ's blood was meaningless.

If faith alone is enough, then there are some seriously dubious people who get in.

Not to mention that if works are meaningless, selfishness is encouraged, as one doesn't need to do anything good if they are assured of their place in heaven. It strikes me as an excellent way to justify bad behaviour.

[Salus Maior]

Alright, so who would you choose if there were only two candidates and both were shit (which is typical imo), but one of them alludes to wanting to do something for policies you care about.

Well, frankly, it's a question of morals vs policy. I do not believe I could vote for someone who I found morally repugnant, even if I agreed with their policies.

What would I do?

Write in a candidate, search for a third party, start advocating for electoral reform, volunteer with a group who lobbies for issues I care about, rather than a political party.

I would certainly do more than sit on my ass saying "Oh well" or vote for someone who I think is an awful human being. Especially if, as you say, said person merely alludes to be aligned with my policy preferences.

Alright, so what are you doing for this upcoming election?

[Jedi Council]

Well, frankly, it's a question of morals vs policy. I do not believe I could vote for someone who I found morally repugnant, even if I agreed with their policies.

What would I do?

Write in a candidate, search for a third party, start advocating for electoral reform, volunteer with a group who lobbies for issues I care about, rather than a political party.

I would certainly do more than sit on my ass saying "Oh well" or vote for someone who I think is an awful human being. Especially if, as you say, said person merely alludes to be aligned with my policy preferences.

Alright, so what are you doing for this upcoming election?

Nothing given that I am a Canadian.

If I were an American?

Probably vote for Biden, because I find him neither morally objectionable, nor particularly far from my own political views.

Now, let's say the Democrats nominated Michael Bloomberg, then I would have had a much more difficult cycle and likely would not be voting for either major nominee, and found recourse in the options I mentioned above.

[Ammostan]

If faith alone is enough, then there are some seriously dubious people who get in.

Not to mention that if works are meaningless, selfishness is encouraged, as one doesn't need to do anything good if they are assured of their place in heaven. It strikes me as an excellent way to justify bad behaviour.

No, the whole point is there is nothing that we humans can do to ever be worthy of a place before the throne. That is why Christ died. He paid the price as a living sacrifice for our transgressions.

[Outer Acharet]

If faith alone is enough, then there are some seriously dubious people who get in.

Not to mention that if works are meaningless, selfishness is encouraged, as one doesn't need to do anything good if they are assured of their place in heaven. It strikes me as an excellent way to justify bad behaviour.

Works are meaningless in Christian theology because you could never do enough. The standard one is held to without salvation is no less than perfection, and no human is perfect. Part of salvation is a belief and acceptance of one's own sin. I can say "Oh lawd, I's a sinner", then go out and hit it up at a strip club, not having meant any of what I said, and guess what? I'm no better off in the eyes of God.
It doesn't excuse my bad behavior because I must repent of my sins earnestly for them to be forgiven.

EDIT: I think we're getting off track again, yeah? Sorry about that. My bad.

[Jedi Council]

Not to mention that if works are meaningless, selfishness is encouraged, as one doesn't need to do anything good if they are assured of their place in heaven. It strikes me as an excellent way to justify bad behaviour.

Works are meaningless in Christian theology because you could never do enough. The standard one is held to without salvation is no less than perfection, and no human is perfect. Part of salvation is a belief and acceptance of one's own sin. I can say "Oh lawd, I's a sinner", then go out and hit it up at a strip club, not having meant any of what I said, and guess what? I'm no better off in the eyes of God.
It doesn't excuse my bad behavior because I must repent of my sins earnestly for them to be forgiven.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why I am offended by the idea that morality is inextricably linked to religion, or that the religious somehow have the automatic moral high ground.

[Punainen Suomi]

Not to mention that if works are meaningless, selfishness is encouraged, as one doesn't need to do anything good if they are assured of their place in heaven. It strikes me as an excellent way to justify bad behaviour.

No, the whole point is there is nothing that we humans can do to ever be worthy of a place before the throne. That is why Christ died. He paid the price as a living sacrifice for our transgressions.

Not to mention that if works are meaningless, selfishness is encouraged, as one doesn't need to do anything good if they are assured of their place in heaven. It strikes me as an excellent way to justify bad behaviour.

Works are meaningless in Christian theology because you could never do enough. The standard one is held to without salvation is no less than perfection, and no human is perfect. Part of salvation is a belief and acceptance of one's own sin. I can say "Oh lawd, I's a sinner", then go out and hit it up at a strip club, not having meant any of what I said, and guess what? I'm no better off in the eyes of God.
It doesn't excuse my bad behavior because I must repent of my sins earnestly for them to be forgiven.

Then what are the requirements for being granted entry into heaven? You say that you must 'repent' of your sins, what does this repentance consist of? How does it match up to the weight of the sin?

[Tokora]

It's a religion alright, but whatever bastardization it is today it's not ant Christianity I'd recognize. In America, the Christian Right is neither, and in 2016 they've shown that they don't care.

[Jedi Council]

No, the whole point is there is nothing that we humans can do to ever be worthy of a place before the throne. That is why Christ died. He paid the price as a living sacrifice for our transgressions.

Works are meaningless in Christian theology because you could never do enough. The standard one is held to without salvation is no less than perfection, and no human is perfect. Part of salvation is a belief and acceptance of one's own sin. I can say "Oh lawd, I's a sinner", then go out and hit it up at a strip club, not having meant any of what I said, and guess what? I'm no better off in the eyes of God.
It doesn't excuse my bad behavior because I must repent of my sins earnestly for them to be forgiven.

Then what are the requirements for being granted entry into heaven? You say that you must 'repent' of your sins, what does this repentance consist of? How does it match up to the weight of the sin?

Careful now, I sense looming by the Mods if we continue this particular line of debate in this thread.

[Punainen Suomi]

Then what are the requirements for being granted entry into heaven? You say that you must 'repent' of your sins, what does this repentance consist of? How does it match up to the weight of the sin?

Careful now, I sense looming by the Mods if we continue this particular line of debate in this thread.

Fair enough, this isn't really the place for it.

[Outer Acharet]

No, the whole point is there is nothing that we humans can do to ever be worthy of a place before the throne. That is why Christ died. He paid the price as a living sacrifice for our transgressions.

Works are meaningless in Christian theology because you could never do enough. The standard one is held to without salvation is no less than perfection, and no human is perfect. Part of salvation is a belief and acceptance of one's own sin. I can say "Oh lawd, I's a sinner", then go out and hit it up at a strip club, not having meant any of what I said, and guess what? I'm no better off in the eyes of God.
It doesn't excuse my bad behavior because I must repent of my sins earnestly for them to be forgiven.

Then what are the requirements for being granted entry into heaven? You say that you must 'repent' of your sins, what does this repentance consist of? How does it match up to the weight of the sin?

I would refer you to the Gospel, particularly the Sermon at the Mount, for the answer to this question, if you feel like reading about it. I can't answer fully, especially because I'm not necessarily trained in theology and the study of religious works, but in a nutshell my take on it is that admission into heaven is attained through a lack of sin. Keep in mind that this is attaining "eternal life", not necessarily avoiding eternal torment. This purity is impossible, for numerous reasons, be it Original Sin if you lean that way or simply the fact no one can be kind and giving to everyone. But Christianity's liberation is that we can be forgiven. The death of Christ is held to allow for one to attain forgiveness for sin, if one believes that they have committed wrong in their core, thus replacing the original requirement of purity. Therefore, a Christian is forgiven for their sins, but knows that they are now enlightened as to the fact they have sinned, and must therefore live a life that at least tries to avoid wrongdoing. As Jesus is held to have lived a life without sin, that is achieved by emulating him and following his teachings. The analogy I would use is this: A child breaks a pot because they are bored. The child's mother confronts them about this and scolds them.

If they acknowledge that yes, they have done wrong in breaking the pot, then their mother forgives them and moves on. If they don't acknowledge breaking the pot is wrong, then there is animosity between them, the child is punished, and their relationship is flawed.

You're free to think whatever you want about this. This is just my take on what I know of Christian theology, and my only experience in this field is reading the primary sources.

now, I sense looming by the Mods if we continue this particular line of debate in this thread.

And that's why I won't post regarding this again, thanks!

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

There's a difference between believing in God and believing that one has sinned in the eyes of God and thus resolving to lessen their sin. If you acknowledge that you've done wrong after learning you have, you're forgiven for that wrongdoing.

If faith alone is enough, then Hitler slipped through the pearly gates of heaven, considering he was a protestant.

I'd imagine the whole "creating a cult of personality glorifying himself" and "sanctioning the mass-murder of people in clear disregard of the whole 'love thy neighbor' thing" prove that he didn't really believe that sort of stuff was a sin.
To look at it from the standpoint of Christian theology, the Devil believes God exists, is he saved?

I was just pointing out how Ammostan's logic that "faith alone is enough" doesn't work. NOT the notion that breaking the "divine rules" will prevent you from going to heaven.

Anyways, once again, the idea that religion caused Trump is obviously not true because there were many things that went into Trump's election (like literally any other event in human history).

[Cekoviu]

it's INCREDIBLY dimwitted to think "religion = trump." you totally miss the obvious confounding factor so bad that i dont even think it's worth explaining it; it'd probably fly over your head regardless.

[Cekoviu]

You seem to think that Christians have to somehow earn their salvation. This is wrong. If we could get saved by works, how MUCH work would be necessary? If we could be saved by works, then Christ's blood was meaningless.

If faith alone is enough, then there are some seriously dubious people who get in.

no... you don't earn your salvation. it doesn't matter whether by faith or works (which ammostan is wrong about). it really amazes me how little anti-theists know about the diversity of christian theology and yet how smug they nonetheless manage to be.

the point is, read up on universal reconciliation.

[Jedi Council]

If faith alone is enough, then there are some seriously dubious people who get in.

no... you don't earn your salvation. it doesn't matter whether by faith or works (which ammostan is wrong about). it really amazes me how little anti-theists know about the diversity of christian theology and yet how smug they nonetheless manage to be.

the point is, read up on universal reconciliation.

Well I would merely point out that Universal Reconciliation has not been particularly popular within mainstream Christianity, nor indeed among a majority of Christians.

But again, not the thread for it.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

If faith alone is enough, then there are some seriously dubious people who get in.

no... you don't earn your salvation. it doesn't matter whether by faith or works (which ammostan is wrong about). it really amazes me how little anti-theists know about the diversity of christian theology and yet how smug they nonetheless manage to be.

the point is, read up on universal reconciliation.

Bold of you to assume that Jedi Council is an anti-theist.

Also bold of you to make a group statement like that.

[Cekoviu]

no... you don't earn your salvation. it doesn't matter whether by faith or works (which ammostan is wrong about). it really amazes me how little anti-theists know about the diversity of christian theology and yet how smug they nonetheless manage to be.

the point is, read up on universal reconciliation.

Bold of you to assume that Jedi Council is an anti-theist.

Also bold of you to make a group statement like that.

uhhhhhh
it's very prominently displayed in his sig

[Outer Acharet]

it really amazes me how little anti-theists know about the diversity of christian theology and yet how smug they nonetheless manage to be.

the point is, read up on universal reconciliation.

If my history is correct and current, a large part of the anti-theist movement was inspired by the Christian right of the 1980s and by the concerns they had about it, largely political ones. Their opposition to religion came about by seeing a lot of the worst parts of that community when it was given an opportunity to talk on the national stage. When it did, it presented itself as a monolith, leading many to see it as such. And when places like Westboro Baptist Church are part of that group, which presents itself as a monolith, everyone is colored by it.

Not to mention a majority of popular media in America, which if you don't care to read up on the primary sources for these things, often portrays religions as a monolithic thing- not just Christianity. An American would likely confuse Zen Buddhism as being the entirety of Buddhist thought, when there's also Mahayana Buddhism (which influenced it), Theravada Buddhism (which is entirely divorced from it, I believe), and more, with Zen being a minority.

[Cekoviu]

it really amazes me how little anti-theists know about the diversity of christian theology and yet how smug they nonetheless manage to be.

the point is, read up on universal reconciliation.

If my history is correct and current, a large part of the anti-theist movement was inspired by the Christian right of the 1980s and by the concerns they had about it, largely political ones. Their opposition to religion came about by seeing a lot of the worst parts of that community when it was given an opportunity to talk on the national stage. When it did, it presented itself as a monolith, leading many to see it as such. And when places like Westboro Baptist Church are part of that group, which presents itself as a monolith, everyone is colored by it.

Not to mention a majority of popular media in America, which if you don't care to read up on the primary sources for these things, often portrays religions as a monolithic thing- not just Christianity. An American would likely confuse Zen Buddhism as being the entirety of Buddhist thought, when there's also Mahayana Buddhism (which influenced it), Theravada Buddhism (which is entirely divorced from it, I believe), and more, with Zen being a minority.

yes, i'm aware. my previous atheism was, albeit never really extremely anti-theist, informed by having a background as a mormon and unfairly extending that to be representative of all christianity.

[Jedi Council]

no... you don't earn your salvation. it doesn't matter whether by faith or works (which ammostan is wrong about). it really amazes me how little anti-theists know about the diversity of christian theology and yet how smug they nonetheless manage to be.

the point is, read up on universal reconciliation.

Bold of you to assume that Jedi Council is an anti-theist.

Also bold of you to make a group statement like that.

To be fair, I am an anti-theist, and my sig says as much. My supposed ignorance about the diversity of Christian thought however is in fact an incorrect assumption.

[Outer Acharet]

It's all good, I've done it myself more than once as well. But I think I've kind of gotten the thread off topic now, so that's my bad. To close this tangent, then, I will say this: No matter who you are or what you personally believe, it's chill, we're all on this website by our own choice, so let's just vibe while we're here.

[Cekoviu]

It's all good, I've done it myself more than once as well. But I think I've kind of gotten the thread off topic now, so that's my bad. To close this tangent, then, I will say this: No matter who you are or what you personally believe, it's chill, we're all on this website by our own choice, so let's just vibe while we're here.

oof u totally dont get the vibe of nsg lol
each and every one of us deeply and fundamentally loathes the others here; it's beautiful in a way