• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans: Obama must defend Christian values

Grant said:
Those who were for racial inequality were proven wrong and were not supporting the idea of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". This is a very old idea but an example of how many can still forget it.
It's the 'at least to a point' where the differences begin. And some people never have. They can live in their immediate environment in which they were raised but once removed they can not cope on their own.
CC Lewis asked why man has a conscience, and it's an interesting question. Why do we have one and where did it come from? Did evolve just as our thumbs did? Or was it placed there by God, as Lewis suggests.
Click to expand...

But just that someone was proven wrong was not the initial assertion. You said that the younger generations are eventually proven wrong when they are on the cutting edge of social change/thought. The ones pushing for equality were those on the cutting edge of social change/thought, not those who were for inequality. We weren't talking about "do unto others" with that conversation. You are attempting to steer it away.

Those pushing for racial equality are similar to those pushing for sex/gender equality within marriage or equality in how different sexualities are treated. Those who are for treating the genders/sexes differently when it comes to marriage or the different sexualities different when it comes to other issues are the ones who are not following the Golden Rule. You cannot possibly say that trying to legally prevent people from being allowed to legally marry or adopt/raise children just because someone believes it is a sin, despite not doing the same thing to others who sin, is "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you".

It doesn't matter if it is only a little bit, the ability to reason is still found in our DNA.

Wrong. Every person has some ability to reason, even if it is very limited, unless they had some environmental issue take that ability away from them, which would have them living a life which required someone else to do things for them. In order to learn very basic tasks, such as feeding ourselves or getting dressed or even communicating with each other, a person must have some very basic reasoning skills.

We don't know. It could have been either of those. That is a question people have been asking themselves for a long time and has very little to do with the OP, since no one knows what caused us to have a conscience, and even if it were a god/higher power, that does not mean that it has to be the God/higher power that certain groups of people believe in.
 
Grant said:
The customs of the Church may differ but the similarities tend to compensate for these differences. Certainly atheists can have ideals but they tend t coincide with the teaching of Jesus rather than the teachings of Mohammed, or any other religion. And of course in a Christian influenced country we can freely have this conversation, which is not so in many other parts of the world.
Click to expand...

First of all, we aren't talking about the customs of churches. We are talking about the values of people. Atheists have values that are diverse as well. As do Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and people from basically every major religion on this planet. It is only when you get to really small groups that the values become very similar, but even then, individuals will have values that still differ from their church. And we can't really know every single one of Jesus's values.

And Muhammad valued a lot of things that many Christians value, including family, faith, life, mind, wealth, and justice or liberty. Whether you want to believe it or not, Muslims are not that different than either Christians or Jews in their beliefs, especially when you look at individual, every day Muslims, rather than judging them by the acts of the extremists. There are some great similarities between faithful Muslims and many Christian religions. Even in their customs.

Christianity is not why we can "freely have this conversation", freedom of speech is. The ideal belief in liberty is why we can speak our minds and discuss controversial matters. There are plenty of Christians that have, and even some who still try to, tried to prevent people from being different or teaching different ideas or faiths. The fact that our (as in Americans') ancestors left England because they weren't free to practice their faiths freely is why. But that doesn't mean that even all those who came here believed that everyone should be free to practice whatever faith they wanted to. Not everyone was for freedom of religion in the US (even now, there are those who believe that the government should enforce a religion, Christianity mainly, or at least the beliefs of a religion, within the US).
 
Grant said:
How many people has the Westboro Church killed when compared with Muslim fanatics? Any idea?

Have you done any research of how many Christians are keeping women subservient compared with Muslims? Snake handlers? I doubt that was inspired by the teachings of Jesus.
Click to expand...

Those Christian faiths believe that they have been inspired by Jesus. You don't get to tell them they are wrong just because they view the teachings of Jesus differently than you. That is committing the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.
 
TheNextEra said:
No Chrisitians are not under attack. What is under attack is the discrimination that Christians want to do.

What I find hilarious is the same backery that wouldn't make a cake for a gay wedding because thy said the SANCTITY of marriage was too important, made a cake for a dog wedding. That's the type of BS that gets called out on Christians.
Click to expand...
Question for you on that. Does a private business have the right to refuse service?
 
Ryan5 said:
The same thing that frightens me about Muslims, Hindus and all others whom take Peter Pan fairy tales seriously.

xktE1m5.jpg
Click to expand...
Really? Hmmm...sounds irrational.
 
roguenuke said:
Those Christian faiths believe that they have been inspired by Jesus. You don't get to tell them they are wrong just because they view the teachings of Jesus differently than you. That is committing the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about Westboro Baptist, which is comprised of 50+ people, I would tell them that their distortion of Christianity is a delight to their real author. Oh, and I would call them heretics, which is what they are.
 
nota bene said:
If you're talking about Westboro Baptist, which is comprised of 50+ people, I would tell them that their distortion of Christianity is a delight to their real author. Oh, and I would call them heretics, which is what they are.
Click to expand...

Not just them. There are plenty of different groups of Christians out there who believe women should be subservient to men according to the Bible (heck, passages in the NT can even be found to support this notion) or that faith can allow a person to handle snakes without getting bitten or that it can make people talk in tongues or expel demons. There are also Christians that would kill people in accordance with what they believe are their beliefs. America does not have the only Christians in the world. And even here in America, there are at least some Christians who believe people should be put to death for various "sins" even for actions which do not cause harm to others. Other Christians may not go as far as to want to condemn a person to die for something like homosexuality or adultery or fornication, but there are still plenty who would like to incarcerate or exile or physically punish people who commit these and even other sins. Such as those two preachers just in the last couple of years who made the news for preaching about putting gays behind fences to allow them to die out or slapping little boys who were "too feminine", and more than just 50 or even 100 people agreed with them. Not only were these sermons accepted pretty well by their congregations, but others around the country voiced support for their ideas as well (although yes, they are a small minority, but so are Muslim extremists, despite some popular beliefs by some).
 
j-mac said:
Question for you on that. Does a private business have the right to refuse service?
Click to expand...

In some cases yes in some cases no. I don't believe a business should have the right to refuse service to someone because they are black. Do you believe a business should be able to refuse service based on color of skin?
 
roguenuke said:
But just that someone was proven wrong was not the initial assertion. You said that the younger generations are eventually proven wrong when they are on the cutting edge of social change/thought. The ones pushing for equality were those on the cutting edge of social change/thought, not those who were for inequality. We weren't talking about "do unto others" with that conversation. You are attempting to steer it away
Click to expand...
. That's not quite what I said, or perhaps I phrased it poorly. There are some truths that 'ring eternal', and the Golden Rule is one of them. What I was referring to was more like the sexual revolution, or acid rain concerns, or ideas such as The Lost Generation, the Beat Generation, and so on, which eventually tend to fall out of fashion while Christianity survives
.
Those pushing for racial equality are similar to those pushing for sex/gender equality within marriage or equality in how different sexualities are treated. Those who are for treating the genders/sexes differently when it comes to marriage or the different sexualities different when it comes to other issues are the ones who are not following the Golden Rule. You cannot possibly say that trying to legally prevent people from being allowed to legally marry or adopt/raise children just because someone believes it is a sin, despite not doing the same thing to others who sin, is "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you".
Click to expand...
I'm all for sexual equality just as I support gender equality. To not be for either is, I believe, anti Christian. I can understand those who argue about traditional marriage but since divorce was made easier traditional marriage itself has crumbled, making their argument less viable. Western culture is still learning to deal with this new phenomenon but, overall, I think it's doing okay.

It doesn't matter if it is only a little bit, the ability to reason is still found in our DNA.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but this ability to reason will not necessary lead to the right conclusions.

Wrong. Every person has some ability to reason, even if it is very limited, unless they had some environmental issue take that ability away from them, which would have them living a life which required someone else to do things for them. In order to learn very basic tasks, such as feeding ourselves or getting dressed or even communicating with each other, a person must have some very basic reasoning skills
Click to expand...
Yes, we learn from our environment and we are taught our 'reasoning skills' through that. The bascis may be there but the outcome isn't a certainty. We have the ability to learn but that learning might also not be 'reasonable'.

We don't know. It could have been either of those. That is a question people have been asking themselves for a long time and has very little to do with the OP, since no one knows what caused us to have a conscience, and even if it were a god/higher power, that does not mean that it has to be the God/higher power that certain groups of people believe in.
Click to expand...
I don't identify God with any religion and I used that example as something to reflect upon. Of course CC Lewis went into greater and more thoughtful detail than i was able to do.

C.S. Lewis and Conscience | Ark and Architecture
Click to expand...
 
roguenuke said:
First of all, we aren't talking about the customs of churches. We are talking about the values of people. Atheists have values that are diverse as well. As do Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and people from basically every major religion on this planet. It is only when you get to really small groups that the values become very similar, but even then, individuals will have values that still differ from their church. And we can't really know every single one of Jesus's values.

And Muhammad valued a lot of things that many Christians value, including family, faith, life, mind, wealth, and justice or liberty. Whether you want to believe it or not, Muslims are not that different than either Christians or Jews in their beliefs, especially when you look at individual, every day Muslims, rather than judging them by the acts of the extremists. There are some great similarities between faithful Muslims and many Christian religions. Even in their customs.

Christianity is not why we can "freely have this conversation", freedom of speech is. The ideal belief in liberty is why we can speak our minds and discuss controversial matters. There are plenty of Christians that have, and even some who still try to, tried to prevent people from being different or teaching different ideas or faiths. The fact that our (as in Americans') ancestors left England because they weren't free to practice their faiths freely is why. But that doesn't mean that even all those who came here believed that everyone should be free to practice whatever faith they wanted to. Not everyone was for freedom of religion in the US (even now, there are those who believe that the government should enforce a religion, Christianity mainly, or at least the beliefs of a religion, within the US).
Click to expand...

It seems to me that those who try to stifle free speech, quite common now in the Universities and among the PC, are less likely to be Christian. The concept of "Hate Speech" being introduced into law in some of the democracies has also not been lobbied by Christians.
 
roguenuke said:
Those Christian faiths believe that they have been inspired by Jesus. You don't get to tell them they are wrong just because they view the teachings of Jesus differently than you. That is committing the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

It's easy enough to see whether or not they are following the teachings of Jesus by watching them in action and then deciding if it related to anything Jesus said, did or taught. The 'No True Scotsman' argument doesn't apply here, by the way.
 
roguenuke said:
Not just them. There are plenty of different groups of Christians out there who believe women should be subservient to men according to the Bible (heck, passages in the NT can even be found to support this notion) or that faith can allow a person to handle snakes without getting bitten or that it can make people talk in tongues or expel demons. There are also Christians that would kill people in accordance with what they believe are their beliefs. America does not have the only Christians in the world. And even here in America, there are at least some Christians who believe people should be put to death for various "sins" even for actions which do not cause harm to others. Other Christians may not go as far as to want to condemn a person to die for something like homosexuality or adultery or fornication, but there are still plenty who would like to incarcerate or exile or physically punish people who commit these and even other sins. Such as those two preachers just in the last couple of years who made the news for preaching about putting gays behind fences to allow them to die out or slapping little boys who were "too feminine", and more than just 50 or even 100 people agreed with them. Not only were these sermons accepted pretty well by their congregations, but others around the country voiced support for their ideas as well (although yes, they are a small minority, but so are Muslim extremists, despite some popular beliefs by some).
Click to expand...

So, briefly put, there are a variety of beliefs among Christians.
 
roguenuke said:
Those Christian faiths believe that they have been inspired by Jesus. You don't get to tell them they are wrong just because they view the teachings of Jesus differently than you. That is committing the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can point out which lesson you're referring to and then we can look at to see how it's being interpreted and by whom. Otherwise this leads nowhere.
 
Grant said:
A good way to test your theory would be to look at countries not based on Christian values and see if you can spot any differences.
Click to expand...

You mean countries like Colombia? Mexico? El Salvador? Nicaragua? Venezuela? Guess what all those countries have had within the last 30 years.
 
Hatuey said:
You mean countries like Colombia? Mexico? El Salvador? Nicaragua? Venezuela? Guess what all those countries have had within the last 30 years.
Click to expand...

You almost got the idea but I said countries NOT based on Christian values. Why not try again?
 
Grant said:
You almost got the idea but I said countries NOT based on Christian values. Why not try again?
Click to expand...

Here is nuke's statement:

The problem with this argument is that it assumes that our most important values are Christian. They aren't. Even if you can show that Christianity shared some of our most important values, it does not prove that they are solely Christian values. That those values would not exist without Christianity or Christian influence.
Click to expand...

Colombia, Mexico, Nicaragua, El Salvador etc. were founded by Christians. Yet they couldn't be further from the US in terms of politics, culture and economy. Why is that?
 
Grant said:
That's not quite what I said, or perhaps I phrased it poorly. There are some truths that 'ring eternal', and the Golden Rule is one of them. What I was referring to was more like the sexual revolution, or acid rain concerns, or ideas such as The Lost Generation, the Beat Generation, and so on, which eventually tend to fall out of fashion while Christianity survives
.
I'm all for sexual equality just as I support gender equality. To not be for either is, I believe, anti Christian. I can understand those who argue about traditional marriage but since divorce was made easier traditional marriage itself has crumbled, making their argument less viable. Western culture is still learning to deal with this new phenomenon but, overall, I think it's doing okay.

Perhaps, but this ability to reason will not necessary lead to the right conclusions.

Yes, we learn from our environment and we are taught our 'reasoning skills' through that. The bascis may be there but the outcome isn't a certainty. We have the ability to learn but that learning might also not be 'reasonable'.

I don't identify God with any religion and I used that example as something to reflect upon. Of course CC Lewis went into greater and more thoughtful detail than i was able to do.

C.S. Lewis and Conscience | Ark and Architecture
Click to expand...

Those things you mentioned have not been "proven" wrong though. There is nothing wrong with the "sexual revolution". It has had good consequences along with some bad. But just because you feel that the bad might outweigh any good does not mean that it has been "proven wrong". Not everyone agrees with you. And acid rain is a concern. Not sure why you think it wouldn't be. Just because some may have overblown such things, does not mean that the majority of those concerns about acid rain are unfounded. Plus, that really wasn't something that I can think of any younger generation embracing completely. Most people were more like "oh acid rain causes bad things to happen to buildings, and can have negative consequences in other things, got it". It really wasn't some major concern by a majority of any generation that I know of.

Christianity adapted, just as many religions do. There are over 41000 different denominations of Christianity. That means that it didn't just survive, it adapted, just as cultures adapt to changes. You are attempting to compare fads of eras to religious beliefs. They really aren't comparable. Religions aren't fads (not most of them anyway).

I believe one of the problems is that you view there as being a "right" solution to something that possibly doesn't have a "right" answer. What is "right" in a moral sense is subjective. Until/unless a god or higher power reveals him/her-self to us in a way that is provable, not simply "well God inspired me/him/her", then we, as individuals, determine our own morality. Most of it will come from things we learn, a lot of that will be from what we learn early in life. But it doesn't make any of those morals objectively wrong. It is like asking "is it wrong to kill". Many people will almost automatically say "yes". I wouldn't. I would say it depends on the circumstances, the reason for why you are killing. Most people have circumstances that they see as morally "okay" to kill. We kill other animals and plants all the time for sustenance. Most people see no issue in killing bacteria, fungus, or viruses to protect themselves. In fact, self-defense from anything trying to kill you is generally an accepted reason to kill without it being viewed as morally wrong. But there could be some people out there who disagree. (Although it would be really hard to never kill anything.)
 
Grant said:
So, briefly put, there are a variety of beliefs among Christians.
Click to expand...

I think it would be most accurate to say that there is a massive variety of beliefs among Christians. Hence the 41000 denominations of Christianity, and probably as many varying beliefs or more beyond those base denominational beliefs.
 
Grant said:
How many people has the Westboro Church killed when compared with Muslim fanatics? Any idea?

Have you done any research of how many Christians are keeping women subservient compared with Muslims? Snake handlers? I doubt that was inspired by the teachings of Jesus.
Click to expand...

Christianity thru the centuries has probably kill more people than all other religions put together so I'd get off that high horse.

And as for treatment of women....only very very recently has that changed...even our American laws made women subservient...and some STILL do. However just like in Islam, most of those women do so willingly to follow their religion. I feel that in both cases the women are misguided but in the majority of cases on both sides it is done by ignorance and indoctrination, not force.
 
Grant said:
Perhaps you can point out which lesson you're referring to and then we can look at to see how it's being interpreted and by whom. Otherwise this leads nowhere.
Click to expand...

Why? It doesn't matter where they get their beliefs from. One good example is Mormons. They believe that Jesus gave additional lessons to other people after his resurrection. Should other Christians discount them as Christians just because they don't believe that Jesus's death and the immediate few days after were the ending of his teachings? Another is the beliefs of those in UCC churches and other churches that believe homosexuality as not sinful. There are Christians who believe that the passages in the Bible referring to homosexuality were translated wrong and/or have been interpreted to be against homosexuality when they are really against ritual sex. There are Christians who interpret Jesus saying that wives should submit to their husbands as meaning that wives should always do what their husbands ask of them and their husbands have final say in their decisions.

Then there is the belief that the Bible, not just those words that are believed to be from Jesus, is inspired by God. Many Christians believe this. So if these Christians believe that the entire Bible is inspired by God, then that would mean that they accept more than just Jesus's teachings as how they should live their life, especially in areas where Jesus's teachings may have been vague or when they feel that they are not violating Jesus's teachings, even if others feel they are.
 
Grant said:
It seems to me that those who try to stifle free speech, quite common now in the Universities and among the PC, are less likely to be Christian. The concept of "Hate Speech" being introduced into law in some of the democracies has also not been lobbied by Christians.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any evidence of true attempts to stifle free speech, at least none directed specifically at Christians or other religions.

I'm not aware of any specific "hate speech" laws being introduced into the US. I do know that many Christian nations (as in those that are or have been run by Christian religions) usually have laws against blasphemy, which is a law against speaking against a religion or certain parts of a religion. Now, there are some countries now that are banning hate speech by anyone. But this should also include hate speech against Christians. I don't really agree with such laws, but they are not being used (or shouldn't be) against just Christians. Everyone is subject to those laws.
 
Grant said:
It's easy enough to see whether or not they are following the teachings of Jesus by watching them in action and then deciding if it related to anything Jesus said, did or taught. The 'No True Scotsman' argument doesn't apply here, by the way.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. Because your interpretation of what Jesus put out is not necessarily the same as other people's interpretation. Your belief as to what exactly Jesus said or believed isn't going to be the same as someone else's belief.
 
Grant said:
If you are old enough to use a computer you should be able to determine what Christian values are. Do you know what "The Golden Rule" is?
Click to expand...


the golden rule is not exclusively Christian
 
shrubnose said:
Leading Republicans on Thursday insisted that America's leaders must do more to defend Christian values at home and abroad, blaming President Barack Obama for attacks on religious freedom as they courted religious conservatives expected to play a crucial role in the next presidential contest.

Read more of this article here: http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-obama-must-defend-christian-values-192212780




If these guys had said that Obama must defend America's 1st Amendment values they would have had my and a lot of other peoples support.

I don't believe that this will win many elections for them.

BTW: if anyone can point out where it says in the U.S. Constitution that defending Christian values is the presidents job, I'd like to see it.

This sounds like a bunch of far right religious malarkey to me.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP
Click to expand...

It's not the presidents job to advance the interests of any religion! **** Christianity!!
 
Hatuey said:
Here is nuke's statement:Colombia, Mexico, Nicaragua, El Salvador etc. were founded by Christians. Yet they couldn't be further from the US in terms of politics, culture and economy. Why is that?
Click to expand...
I've mentioned spending most of the past 20 years in Central America and had the same attitude as many here about Christianity before arriving. I learned that there are very corrupt cultures in Latin America with one to several families controlling each country, and laws quite distant from the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Because of police incompetence and corruption religion is the only thing that keeps people from turning on each other because police laziness and lack of training will assure you get away with murder. But the fear of Hell and the love of God has a profound effect on the people and they are able to endure hardships that many in the more consistent democracies, with a free media, would not accept.

Christianity, like any religion, is easy to criticize, and deservedly so, but sometimes perspective is required rather than the cliche of all priests being child molesters, etc. I've met a few down there and they were all good people, just like most of us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom