• 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!

An Atheist President?

An Atheist President?


  • Total voters
    46
I'd vote for an atheist candidate, or I would if their political views matched up with mine. I guess it would be better to say I wouldn't NOT vote for a candidate because he was an atheist.

Personally, I don't worry about a president's religious views too much, unless it's obvious that their decision making is extremely dependent on those religious views.
 
How can you have some faith? That's more like fraud or self-delusion. If you think that a god is watching you and judging you, it would be improbable that you could order people to their deaths or many of the other things they do for money and power. God isn't a part-time concept. Particularly a well defined, heavily chronicled god like the major religions offer in modern times. Some of the very early gods were more specialized or more flexible. At best, they might be agnostics.

Maybe.



Well i just believe the Bush duo and Reagan were people of some faith, as twisted as it may have been at times.
 
How can you have some faith? That's more like fraud or self-delusion. If you think that a god is watching you and judging you, it would be improbable that you could order people to their deaths or many of the other things they do for money and power. God isn't a part-time concept. Particularly a well defined, heavily chronicled god like the major religions offer in modern times. Some of the very early gods were more specialized or more flexible. At best, they might be agnostics.

Maybe.

Not so sure about that. Politicians, by and large, are professional liars. Aside from that, human beings are well-equipped to both deceive and allow themselves to be deceived. Telling yourself the same lie over and over is just as effective as telling others the same lie over and over.
 
How can you have some faith? That's more like fraud or self-delusion. If you think that a god is watching you and judging you, it would be improbable that you could order people to their deaths or many of the other things they do for money and power. God isn't a part-time concept. Particularly a well defined, heavily chronicled god like the major religions offer in modern times. Some of the very early gods were more specialized or more flexible. At best, they might be agnostics.

Maybe.

You assume that God would necessarily have to be perceived as a deity that likes good. That Old Testament God was a pretty kick ass, take no prisoners kind of God.
 
You assume that God would necessarily have to be perceived as a deity that likes good. That Old Testament God was a pretty kick ass, take no prisoners kind of God.

You can't really take that as your model if you're Christian. The god of the Old Testament was the god of the covenant. Jesus, to Christians, replaced that with a new covenant.
 
You can't really take that as your model if you're Christian. The god of the Old Testament was the god of the covenant. Jesus, to Christians, replaced that with a new covenant.

But we were not discussing Christianity--just people of faith. Atheist does not mean "all non-Christians".
 
You can't really take that as your model if you're Christian. The god of the Old Testament was the god of the covenant. Jesus, to Christians, replaced that with a new covenant.

God 2.0, as it were.
 
I don't expect my public officials to renounce their religions. I do expect them to govern in a secular manner, however.
 
I'll be the first to admit that I have no idea what I'm babbling about.

Certainly, you can convince yourself of all sorts of things so yes, maybe they are, maybe not.

My impression of the biblical god was that you had to follow the rules or he would smack your ass big-time. OTOH, if you followed the rules, everything would be soft and fluffy. But there were plenty of rules that got overlooked out of convenience.




Not so sure about that. Politicians, by and large, are professional liars. Aside from that, human beings are well-equipped to both deceive and allow themselves to be deceived. Telling yourself the same lie over and over is just as effective as telling others the same lie over and over.

You assume that God would necessarily have to be perceived as a deity that likes good. That Old Testament God was a pretty kick ass, take no prisoners kind of God.
 
I'll be the first to admit that I have no idea what I'm babbling about.

Certainly, you can convince yourself of all sorts of things so yes, maybe they are, maybe not.

My impression of the biblical god was that you had to follow the rules or he would smack your ass big-time. OTOH, if you followed the rules, everything would be soft and fluffy. But there were plenty of rules that got overlooked out of convenience.

Depends on what half of the Bible you're following.
 
The vast majority of American politicians who make public their religious affiliation profess Christianity.

A vast majority politicians of American may "profess christianity",but knowing American politics,I have sneaky suspicion that a vast majority of that vast majority ended up (or will end up) in "The Other Place".I've catered many political events throughout the years (Republican,Democrat,even a couple of Libertarian),gotten to know quite a few politicians myself,and if there is anything I've learned about them,is that if they are around you,keep a close watch on your wallet,your wife ,and your freedoms.
Sorry to let the cat out the bag,my fellow GOP-ers,but Republican politicians are just as sleazy's the Democrat Politicians.Libertarian Politicians are no exception..
 
which half is which?

Oh, that's simple.

The Old Testament is harsh, authoritarian and punitive. The New Testament is all love and sweetness.

For example, when you see in Deuteronomy (20:15): " in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you…" - that's pretty mean.

But when Jesus says "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law" (Matthew 10:34) - read as an invitation to hold hands and sing kumbayah.
 
Please explain more. My Biblical expertise is pretty limited. So which half is which?

There are two halves, the Old and New Testaments.

The Old is pre-Jesus. In it, god is jealous and wrathful. He makes a variety of cameo appearances, and generally terrorizes people when he does. This is also the part of the Bible where The Law is handed down -- rules for everything from diet to slavery to capital punishment.

The New is where Jesus comes in. Jesus, in a nutshell, teaches that everybody is a dirty rotten sinner, everybody needs forgiveness and mercy, and he's the only way to heaven. He challenges the entire socio-political structure of Israel, and the power players end up wanting him dead as a result. Jesus allows himself to be executed as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. This is important because in the Old, animals were sacrificed to cover up the sins of man, whereas in the New the blood of the only truly innocent man was sacrificed to wash away all sins for all time for all those who believe in the power of said sacrifice. This was Jesus replacing the old covenant between man and god.

Everything else in the New consists of what Jesus' Apostles did after that, and then the revelation of how the world will end.

I'm sure I missed a lot, but that's The 5-Minute Bible for Heretics Like Us.

Christians are supposed to stick to the New. Jesus replaced the covenant between man and god in the Old, and made it abundantly clear through his public acts that he was replacing the law, since the new paradigm he was bringing into the world was that man was to be saved by faith in him rather than obedience to the law.

Nevertheless, the Old is often cited by those with a political agenda, especially where homosexuality is concerned. This is where your perception about some laws being ignored and others revered comes in, because these same "Christians" don't hold to the dietary rules or really any of the other rules in the Old (except maybe the Commandments).

Does that clear it up? :)
 
A vast majority politicians of American may "profess christianity",but knowing American politics,I have sneaky suspicion that a vast majority of that vast majority ended up (or will end up) in "The Other Place".I've catered many political events throughout the years (Republican,Democrat,even a couple of Libertarian),gotten to know quite a few politicians myself,and if there is anything I've learned about them,is that if they are around you,keep a close watch on your wallet,your wife ,and your freedoms.
Sorry to let the cat out the bag,my fellow GOP-ers,but Republican politicians are just as sleazy's the Democrat Politicians.Libertarian Politicians are no exception..

Absolutely true.
 
Jesus replaced the covenant between man and god in the Old, and made it abundantly clear through his public acts that he was replacing the law.

And just as clear, through his public speaking, that he was not:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

Nevertheless, the Old is often cited by those with a political agenda, especially where homosexuality is concerned.

But the New Testament is no less "anti-gay".

"...the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity" (Romans 1:27)

"Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire" (Jude 1:7)
 
And just as clear, through his public speaking, that he was not:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

You're talking about what amounts to a legal technicality. This is the language used to prevent anyone from implying that the old law was anything less than perfect. God didn't change and become any more merciful than he is now, har har har. However you phrase it, where the rubber meets the road, faith in Christ took the place of perfect obedience to a long and complicated legal code. Faith in Christ made forgiveness of sins possible, whereas the law was intended to prevent sin in the first place and cover it up when it occurred. Otherwise, there'd be a lot less bacon in America.

But the New Testament is no less "anti-gay".

"...the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity" (Romans 1:27)

"Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire" (Jude 1:7)

It is significantly less anti-gay. The best any homophobe can come up with are a few unrelated quotes (many of which don't even address the subject in any sense that can be reasonably described as direct or specific), none of which are from Gospels, none of which were said by Jesus.
 
Wouldn't an atheist president be the ideal choice to lead the country? In fact, shouldn't we require our elected officials to forsake religion in order to better serve us and uphold the separation of Church and State?

A persons religious beliefs should not be a factor in their ability to be president. I think the country is slowly grasping that opinion, so maybe someday an atheist would be president, but I would not like to see that exclusively and I am an atheist.
 
I'm indifferent because religion or lack thereof is irrelevant to me.

I would never vote for someone like Santorum due to his ideology of trying to force his religion on all of us. Likewise, I wouldn't vote for any Atheist that tried to discredit others beliefs as a presidential candidate (and I am an Atheist).
 
faith in Christ took the place of perfect obedience to a long and complicated legal code.

It spread mostly among the peoples that had no idea about the code in the first place. Jews are still busy elongating and complicating the Law (the Halakha includes rabbinical decrees and tradition). To the Hellenistic world, Christianity brought a whole bunch of irrational (and often harmful) restrictions and prohibitions previously unheard of.

Actual moral codes of real-life Christians had varied greatly, depending on time and place, and never could be reduced to the Bible, whichever part. But it would be very odd to deny the formative influence of the Old Testament: the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the Christian (and Muslim) God, there's no other. Pertaining to morality, it means that whatever God had ordered or advised His Chosen People to do in the OT was "right", "good". Which creates huge problems, if we read the texts literally. The Son (avatar, projection, whatever) of the same God talking about love and forgiveness of our sins does nothing to alleviate those problems.
 
Last edited:
It spread mostly among the peoples that had no idea about the code in the first place. Jews are still busy elongating and complicating the Law (the Halakha includes rabbinical decrees and tradition).

That's because the Jews didn't embrace Jesus as their Immanuel, not because they were familiar with the law.

Actual moral codes of real-life Christians had varied greatly, depending on time and place, and never could reduced to the Bible, whichever part.

Yeah, they never could keep it as simple as Jesus instructed, could they?

But it would be very odd to deny the formative influence of the Old Testament: the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the Christian (and Muslim) God, there's no other. Pertaining to morality, it means that whatever God ordered or advised His Chosen People to do in the OT is "right", "good". Which creates huge problems, if we read the texts literally. The Son (avatar, projection, whatever) of the same God talking about love and forgiveness of our sins does nothing to alleviate those problems.

Well, either it's about what the Bible says, or it's about trying to insert your understanding of the historical context into what the Bible says If we're going with context, then we should remember that at the time homosexuality was scorned, the Jews were trying to survive as a people while enslaved in a foreign land, so sex which didn't result in reproduction was strongly discouraged.
 
Back
Top Bottom