politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
No True Christian
I totally get your point, but I think there is validity in calling into question your right to identify as a member of a given religion when you go directly against your religion's teachings.
Except what are the "real" teachings? How do you know? Who is the authority? Where is the solid evidence. The god of the Bible is silent on the matter of our interpretations over the centuries (if he even exists).
The Bible seems to condemn homosexuality in a few places and condemns "sexual immorality". But interpretations of these passages and how they relate to many other passages are numerous, each person claiming to have it all figured out. Some think the OT doesn't count anymore. Some think it still does but Jesus is essentially a get out of jail free card, some think Jesus is all about love, some define love to include various levels punishment, some believe God creates pre-damned people. Some think homosexuality is fine but the passages refer to sexual abuse. So we come back to the question: which interpretation is "correct"?
These books are translated from content written millennia ago. The gospels were written a generation after Jesus and we don't have the sources. The oldest version of books in the OT dates centuries after the originals. Thus, evidence is weak that the originals said the same thing as the current version. We have insufficient evidence for divine inspiration in the writing, copying or translating of said materials.
When evidence is lacking then the only alternative, belief (faith) provides a very unreliable source of information.
How is anti lgbt sentiment anti Christian? It's very Christian.
Jesus talked very little about LGBT and a lot more about not forcing your beliefs onto other and not being a dick to people simply because they do things differently from you.
Not to mention that their stance on God hating gays is literal blasphemy, because again, there isn't much said about being gay by Jesus
To add on, the parable of The Good Samaritan also highlights his opinions on how Christians should treat people that are of a different, "reviled" culture than their own (Samaria in the story) by defining who a "neighbor" is and emphasis on loving your neighbor as yourself.
People do some wild backflips to try to wriggle out of accepting the good Samaritan story. They'll say it's an elaborate metaphorically for blah blah instead of a simple story that shows the point in plain text.
But a lot of alleged christians don't really follow the texts. Don't pray in the closet. Don't treat the least among them well.
Most things Christians believe have absolutely zero to do with Jesus. It's a big book.
That's like saying most of the things people like about Lord of the Rings has nothing to do with Frodo, no shit, but he's still the main character.
From the modern viewpoint of secularists, sure it is. But if we take the values or Christianity on face value, they don't say that.
The fact that so many Christians are hateful towards LGBT+ does present a difficult bind though: is true Christianity the writ values, or the modern zeitgeist? The pope himself ran into this very question recently when he started firing Catholic priests for not towing the progressive line that he has drawn. Who is right, the pope or his flock?
(Also, see the great answer that someone gave on No True Scotsman in this same comment tree)
In the case of the Catholics, at least, the doctrine of papal infallibility decrees that, at least on paper, the Pope as the successor to Peter and Paul is always correct on matters of doctrine. In practice, if the flock disagrees they can always schism again. shrugs
There is no such thing as a religion having objective "teachings."
It's always been subjective.
Normal people are Jews and Muslims, and extremists like the genocidal Israeli colonizers, and the similarly genocidal Wahhabist/Salafi terrorists are still Jews and Muslims.
There is no "true" understanding of these religions.
"No True Scotsman" is when you attempt to protect your generalized statement by placing counterexamples outside the bounds of the statement. But in the case of Christianity, people who don't love are self-selecting out of that group by the words of the founder himself, who said "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."
I'm not saying they aren't a Christian, and the OP isn't saying that either. The person who is hateful is saying that they aren't a Christian, as surely as a person who kicks puppies for fun is saying that they aren't a dog lover. They could swear up and down later that they can't be a puppy kicker because they're a dog lover, but the fact that they're kicking puppies self-selects them out of that group.
Incidentally, the wording of the fallacy here is an important point to observe. The qualifications for being a Scotsman are that someone is geographically or genetically connected to Scotland; and while there are fiddly gray areas at the edges, no one can say that you're not a Scotsman because of a thing you do because the qualification is a connection to a place.
But the qualifications for being a Christian are explicitly a thing you do. Well, a thing you do and a thing you believe, but those two things are inherently linked by the fact that the object of belief (Jesus) commands the action (love).
Incorrect. Anyone who says they are a Christian is a Christian, at least in Protestantism. You don't have to do good works or anything of the kind to be a Christian. You just have to admit that you are a sinner, profess to regret those sins, and "accept Jesus into your heart". That's it.
In theory, accepting Jesus into your heart is supposed to improve your behavior, but it isn't a requirement (obviously, with all of those rapey priests!!). As I'm sure you know, you can be the worst kind of sinner all of your life, but as long as you accept Jesus and confess your sins to Him before you die, you're all good!
Ah Christianity...the ultimate get-out-of-hell-free card, and no one can gain-say you. It is just between you and your Saviour. It is just so darn convenient, like a drive-thru. No wonder it is so popular.
No. Anyone who believes in and follows Jesus is Christian; we just usually only have someone's word to go by.
True, but a lack of love and good works proves that the repentance was a sham. "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit." Seasons of rebellion and momentary mistakes happen, but if a person's life is marked by constant, unrestrained evil, they're showing a lack of fruit that probably means they aren't repentant.
Yeah, that's not Christianity. Not historically speaking, at least. It's a shockingly new development and almost entirely centered on American individualism, and Christians from longer ago than the 1700s wouldn't recognize any of that. Scripturally and historically, Christianity requires belief and repentance; which look, superficially and in the moment, like admitting you're a sinner and accepting Jesus into your heart, but prove themselves to be something different over time.
Actually, it is. The writer of Hebrews says (13:12) equates sanctification with salvation. Historically, believing that one can happen without the other is just a bizarre idea because they were considered synonymous.
Indeed, they aren't repentant, and are thus not Christians.
Again, historically and theologically, this is unrecognizable as Christianity.
In America, at least. But the Church has, throughout the ages, excommunicated people for being horrible and "showing their faith to be a shipwreck." We hear about unrepentant, non-Christian people (particularly among the puritans) who used excommunication as a weapon against those they didn't like (particularly women), but it has been used correctly throughout history as well; to get the wolves away from the sheep.
Individualism is popular now, to our great shame, but a community of faith urging one another toward sanctification is in the Bible, in the early church, and in the continuing line of Christianity throughout history.
Incidentally, the "drive-thru" analogy is pretty close to what Luther was "protesting" against in the first place. I think there's another Reformation coming, and this one is going to be about the people who value and respect and love breaking away from the people who don't.
The qualification for being a Christian is that you believe in Christ. That is literally it. You can be the worst person ever and be a Christian.
In fact, most Christians believe that everyone is a sinner, so being horrible is basically expected and accepted. You just need to repent eventually.
No, the qualification for being a Christian is that you follow Christ. The Biblical writer James actually addresses this very thing ad absurdum by showing that, if the qualification is only to believe in Jesus, even the demons are Christians. Repentance is the first act of selecting into the group of "Christian."
No, you can have been the worst person ever and be a Christian. Repentance begins the journey and remains a constant throughout; as Martin Luther said in the first of his 95 Theses, "When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, 'Repent,' he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance."
I'm so sorry that you've been given such a twisted view of this, though I totally understand why (I've seen this argument being made, particularly about Trump in 2016). Being horrible is explicitly not expected or accepted; Jesus himself causes people who claim faith but do awful things "vipers" and weaves a whip to use on them to prove he's serious. The biblical writer Paul asks rhetorically, "shall I continue sinning so that grace may abound? God forbid!" And theologian after theologian for 2,000 years has said the same. If you're gleefully continuing in being horrible, you're proving that you aren't a Christian; and Christians since the first century have affirmed that definition of the faith.
Finally... someone who knows what the fuck they're talking about around here. It's so refreshing to see someone who is actually familiar with the texts in question and the historicity of these claims.
It's people like you that keep me wading through all this sewage and garbage.
No, being horrible is not expected or accepted. The Puritans (read: Evangelicals) like to interpret it that way, and in fact they do that because it absolves them of personal responsibility. "Well, I don't do that one really terrible thing, therefore I can feel secure and not worry about my behavior."
In reality, sin just means error, imperfection. It's an acknowledgement that no human can be perfect the way that God is perfect, no matter what. The correct response to this should be ongoing self-evaluation, humility, and caution against slipping into the many easy faults of humanity. We should all be repenting constantly because obviously we make mistakes all the time, and all we can do is keep trying to be better, do better. This is what you find in classical literature like Thomas Kempis's The Imitation of Christ.
If you see someone (and I know this is common) running around claiming absolute security in their righteousness with God, then you're seeing a person who is quite literally actively sinning.
The knock on effect of this whole situation is that Christians who don't believe they know all and speak for God (another sin: taking the Lord's name in vain) don't get public attention because we don't run around shouting at people about our religious beliefs.
A rare, great explanation of NTS!
Technically, yes. It's a fallacy to call all of the hateful christians "not real". Since there's just so many that identify and are identified as christians that are hateful, it's mostly an academic distinction.
It IS interesting that so many christains don't follow their own faith. For it is true that to be an overtly hatefuly or bigoted person is to ignore the core teachings of christianity.
And yet the history of Christianity is filled with hatred, and bloodshed. It's almost like the "core teachings" are a smoke screen for the accumulation and abuse of power.