Originally Posted By cmpaley >>"I would be to differ" I love this. Such a specific case of picking whatever section of the bible you want and applying that, while ignoring other parts. Judge not, lest ye be judged, buddy. Go look up that quote.<< Oh, the old "judge not" line. How quaint. People who know nothing of Christianity certainly like to pull that one out. Too bad the context is never mentioned: Luke 6:37-46 Jesus said to His disciples: "37 Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not and you will not be condemned; forgive and you will be forgiven; 38 give, and it will be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For the measure you give will be the measure you get back." 39 He also told them a parable: "Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? 40 A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully taught will be like his teacher. 41 Why do you see the speck that is in your brothers eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 42 Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye. 43 For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; 44 for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thorns, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. 45 The good man out of the good treasure of hies heart produces good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. 46 Why do you call Me 'Lord, Lord' and do not do what I tell you?" =================== The context seems to be that you shouldn't go around making RASH judgements about people. My view of Bush's false Christianity is certainly NOT rash.
Originally Posted By DlandJB I gotta go with jonvn on this one, but for different reasons. Evangelicals believe that they are saved when they accept Christ. It doesn't mean they cease being human, fraily, vunerable or (in perhaps our potus' case) not the brightest bulb on the planet and easily swayed by the opinions of others. We have no right to judge him beyond his success or failure as President. And to HyperTyper's thoughts on whether or not a non believer can stay true to "endowed by their creator" I think they can because they can see that the "fruits" (if you will let me borrow that word)of our great experiment are a relatively robust and healthy country where people enjoy great freedoms. Having been a Unitarian for a few years in the past, I think they are attuned to the need for good character and they do feel accountability to humanity. Doesn't quite reach for the same bar as God, I'll grant you, but I have met as many good and moral Unitarians as I have Christians and folks from other faiths. And, per capita, I've proably met fewer untrustworthy Unitarians. So again, I'd consider the whole character of the person. If they were running against someone equally qualified who was a believer, I do believe I'd be inclined to vote for the believer because they better reflect me as a consituent.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Okay, I'll bite - who's done more than bush?> President Lincoln and President Roosevelt, for a start.
Originally Posted By DlandJB Kar2oony has a point. This thread is about an atheist running for or holding office. Agruments about Bush and whether he is a true Christian, etc... should be in another thread.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Evangelicals believe that they are saved when they accept Christ. It doesn't mean they cease being human, fraily, vunerable or (in perhaps our potus' case) not the brightest bulb on the planet and easily swayed by the opinions of others. We have no right to judge him beyond his success or failure as President.<< Does that mean that a person who willfully starts an unjust war of choice, resulting in countless unnecessary death, is not in a state of sin? Once saved, always saved never made any sense to me.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I brought bush up only as an example of how there are no guarantees with christian politicians over athiests. He's relevant to the topic as a glaring example of how you cannot assess a candidate's viability as a political leader based upon their 'stated' religious beliefs.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Does that mean that a person who willfully starts an unjust war of choice, resulting in countless unnecessary death, is not in a state of sin? << And my other example was general pace, who believes that he's doing the lord's work by dropping cluster bombs on remote villages. Yet he's suddenly the arbitor of what is or isn't "morality" based on his personal religious beliefs. To me anyway, if anything, a politican is MORE suspect by being devout.
Originally Posted By DlandJB I brought bush up only as an example of how there are no guarantees with christian politicians over athiests. He's relevant to the topic as a glaring example of how you cannot assess a candidate's viability as a political leader based upon their 'stated' religious beliefs. >>> Fair enough -- but if cmpaley wants to debate Bush as a saved or unsaved Christian, I think this is the wrong thread for that. <<To me anyway, if anything, a politican is MORE suspect by being devout.>> And that isn't surprising based on things you have said in the past. I think I would be concerned about any politician who wore his/her beliefs or lack of beliefs in an "out there" kind of way. If they are politicians then it should be presented only as part of the picture of who they are. Not as the only quality that makes them worth voting for or against.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I think I would be concerned about any politician who wore his/her beliefs or lack of beliefs in an "out there" kind of way. If they are politicians then it should be presented only as part of the picture of who they are. Not as the only quality that makes them worth voting for or against.<< That's the way I see it as well.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka I would vote for an athiest but not specifically because they were an athiest. The more they yap about it the less likely I would be to vote for them.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Oh, the old "judge not" line. How quaint." Yes, it's very "quaint" when you don't want to follow a rule that doesn't go along with your personal preferences. "The context seems to be that you shouldn't go around making RASH judgements about people." You mean like how I know nothing about Christianity? Uh, yeah. Anyway, that quote seems to indicate to me that you simply are not following precisely what it says, by judging others. It's quite plain in its language. Calling out other people on their religious conviction is wrong, but hey, if you want to ignore whichever rules you care to, it really doesn't matter anyway, does it. The rules are made to be broken, after all....
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I would have no qualms about voting for an atheist - I WOULD have concerns about voting for someone who's devoutly religious... his mind is made up based upon his narrow perceptions of right and right, moral and immoral. He's inflexible and righteous about it.<< It isn't just "religious" people who are inflexible and self righteous. (The term "righteous" is a virtue that can be applied to anyone, and should be of some consideration in choosing a leader. Look it up.) As far as "narrow perceptions of right and right, moral and immoral" goes, that applies to certain atheists I have met, whose innate sense of moral and intellectual superiority makes them insufferable. Statements like, "This may pass for a valid excuse among religious sorts, but not among clear thinking individuals" is a good example of reverse bigotry. That said, I would have no qualms voting for an individual of any religious persuasion, or no religious persuasion, as long as they met the basic criteria. Will they uphold the Constitution? Are they qualified to serve? Are they honorable? That really should be the bottom line.
Originally Posted By DlandDug I should add, as a personal side note, that I did not mean to say that I find Gadzuux insufferable.
Originally Posted By jonvn I think anyone who declares himself an avowed athiest takes things on faith, in that they absolutely refute that there can be a god. That is a religion. The more reasonable approach to take is that there may be one, but that there is simply no evidence any god exists.
Originally Posted By gadzuux "Reverse bigotry"? That's a term I don't think I understand. Is that like black people who say "only white people can be prejudiced"? As for my comments about pace, passing off his insensitive comments as "well that's how I was brought up" is a lame excuse, but it carries some weight with religious folks, who nod and smile about what an upright character he is. How can it be defended as anything else?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>"Reverse bigotry"? That's a term I don't think I understand.<< I meant that while decrying the bigotry of Pace, you unwittingly expressed bigotry yourself. The statement, "This may pass for a valid excuse among religious sorts, but not among clear thinking individuals," clearly implies that "religious sorts" are not clear thinking individuals.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Fair enough -- but if cmpaley wants to debate Bush as a saved or unsaved Christian, I think this is the wrong thread for that. << Actually, I simply questioned Bush's Christianity and the usual insipid "judge not" claptrap was thrown at me (out of context as per usual, btw), so I responded. I don't know what the state of Bush's soul is. I can only make a conjecture based on his amoral actions. And I agree, this isn't the thread for that. Frankly, I simply think that we should pray for Bush's conversion. I would also pray that you pray for mine (I consider conversion a lifelong process).
