rickyp wrote:By the way, I'm not an atheist.

What religion do you ascribe to?

Again, I do not know your area of expertise, but I know what it ain't.

rickyp wrote:Fate

Every decision he's made that has moral/Biblical implications, he's gone the other way.

According to ?

The Bible.

James 1:26

If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.

What must someone do to get to heaven?

That's a pretty easy question. I'm sure you know--being a Bible scholar and all.

Mathhew 7.1

“Judge not, that you be not judged.

How are you living your life according to these scriptures when you make these judgments/accusations of Obama?

Have you not read in the same context (Sermon on the Mount, just a few verses ahead)?

(Matt. 7:13-23) 13 "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.
14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.
18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.
19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'
23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'

Kinda sounds "judgey."

Fate

1. There is a left/right chasm that has deepened, probably since the Iraq War

Oh for crying out loud.. The deep chasm in America is between religion practiced by fundamentalists and the rest of a secular society.

We disagree. There are precious few "fundamentalists" in the US. Looking through this, there are about 25 % evangelicals. Of those, a sliver would be "fundamentalists." I'd venture to say about 4 or 5% of the population are the kind of "nutty" people you fear--those who believe you cannot go to heaven apart from faith in Christ alone.

Furthermore, after 9/11 there was a great deal of unity in the US . . . until the invasion of Iraq.

The fundamental religious mind is capable of ignoring evidence and espousing any unsupported nonsense. (see Carson) And republican politicians have learned, even when they are not religious, that they don't need to produce substantive policies with evidence that backs them up ...because Jesus...

Yes, yes, quite. Hey, do me a favor, Professor, please explain how the "fundamentalist" party produced Mitt Romney, a candidate for whom many evangelicals would not vote? Please explain how the same party produced John McCain, a cursing Baptist whom many evangelicals would not support? Please explain how Trump tops the polls in spite of the fact that no one believes he is a Christian?

I'll await your keen insights.

If you audience has no idea how to think critically, then all you need to do is appeal to their emotions, and bias. And yes, bigotry.

You sir, are a bigot.

"Christians cannot think critically." That's bigotry. You are a bigot.

You want real evidence of this...watch a republican Presidential debate. They don't even bother engaging in facts... or even in the debate offered them

Did you watch last night's debate?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/11/republicans-have-trouble-making-case-for-change.html#

Yes, when I want keen insight into conservative ideas, I turn to Chait. When I want to know the state of the economy, I turn to Chait.

#thingsneversaid

By the way, I'm not an atheist. And I see the benefits that accrue to people who have an abiding faith. Just so long as it doesn't obscure their ability to reason. Just so long as it doesn't mean they ascribe infallibility to scripture that have both changed over time, and which was never intended as what people centuries later claimed..

How do you know that Scripture was "never intended" to be infallible? Do you know the mind of God?

Fundamental beliefs are at the heart of much human suffering over time. And often deeply at odds with the advancement of mankind. Mostly because it distorts the way the mind should work.

"Fundamental beliefs" is an incredibly meaningless term.

Stalin had "fundamental beliefs."

Mao had "fundamental beliefs."

Manson had "fundamental beliefs."

If you intend to make an argument against Biblical Christianity, the least you could do is be lucid--and try and make a coherent, logical case instead of one built with strawmen and bigotry.

Ricky:

The deep chasm in America is between religion practiced by fundamentalists and the rest of a secular society.

Is there any evidence for this assertion? There certainly are chasms in America, but I would not put this one at the top of the list.

Ricky:

And republican politicians have learned, even when they are not religious, that they don't need to produce substantive policies with evidence that backs them up ...because Jesus...
If you audience has no idea how to think critically, then all you need to do is appeal to their emotions, and bias. And yes, bigotry.

So you think it is ok to condemn an entire political party as stupid and bigoted? Aren't you displaying your own bigotry (and maybe stupidity) in doing so? If others don't agree with you, then they must be unable to think, bigoted, etc. There's no other explanation? And you are okay making this judgment from another country? Wow!

ray

So you think it is ok to condemn an entire political party as stupid and bigoted? Aren't you displaying your own bigotry (and maybe stupidity) in doing so? I

People who are deeply religious think differently.
There's scientific research that supports that.
For instance...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... faith-god/

If all you have to do is appeal to someones faith in an idea, and you don't have to produce evidence...its a lot easier to support bigotry.
Many people used the Bible to support their notions about racial superiority of whites, about the worthiness of segregation, and of course, lately about the evil that gay marriage would be... You could appeal to all kinds of facts, or statistics, or actual experiences of other people but the faith in the printed scripture was all that was needed.
The mind is closed and made up by the directive in the scripture. (Or at least the way they or their sect interpret the scripture.)
There's plenty of evidence how Americans greater religious beliefs make them different then the rest of the word's wealthy nations...
Pew has a number of studies on that ....
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... the-world/

One of the things that is important to note, religious people are happier generally. I suppose critical thinking isn't always a boon.

You know as well Ray, that there is a persistence to ignorance. 43% of republicans STILL think Obama is a Muslim. Now, there may be other reasons for persistent ignorance like this. But one has to be that evidence, and facts don't trump some peoples beliefs.
Now sometimes that's something like the literal truth of the Bible, like the belief in things like Creationism against all scientific evidence... But if you can avoid critical thinking to hold these beliefs, you can hold out against admitting in the fact that Obama is a Christian.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... s-a-muslim

bbauska

What religion do you ascribe to?

Not affiliated with any.

Ricky:

You know as well Ray, that there is a persistence to ignorance. 43% of republicans STILL think Obama is a Muslim.

So, based on that disturbing fact about 43% of Republicans (and I agree it is disturbing), you are going to condemn the other 57% by saying that the

audience has no idea how to think critically

rickyp wrote:ray

So you think it is ok to condemn an entire political party as stupid and bigoted? Aren't you displaying your own bigotry (and maybe stupidity) in doing so? I

People who are deeply religious think differently.

An indirect answer, but a "yes." Imagine this:

Q: So you think it is ok to condemn an entire race as stupid?

A: People of that race think differently.

We would all recognize that as bigotry. It's amazing that you can't see this rickyp.

There's scientific research that supports that.
For instance...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... faith-god/

Here's some of the "science" from your link:

Gervais and Norenzayan’s research is based on the idea that we possess two different ways of thinking that are distinct yet related. Understanding these two ways, which are often referred to as System 1 and System 2, may be important for understanding our tendency towards having religious faith. System 1 thinking relies on shortcuts and other rules-of-thumb while System 2 relies on analytic thinking and tends to be slower and require more effort. Solving logical and analytical problems may require that we override our System 1 thinking processes in order to engage System 2. Psychologists have developed a number of clever techniques that encourage us to do this. Using some of these techniques, Gervais and Norenzayan examined whether engaging System 2 leads people away from believing in God and religion.

For example, they had participants view images of artwork that are associated with reflective thinking (Rodin’s The Thinker) or more neutral images (Discobulus of Myron). Participants who viewed The Thinker reported weaker religious beliefs on a subsequent survey.

So, apparently, the key to a more atheistic society is Rodin.

Now, note well, it is "research based on an idea." That sounds conclusive?

If all you have to do is appeal to someones faith in an idea, and you don't have to produce evidence...its a lot easier to support bigotry.

Which has nothing to do with your link and is also preposterous. What "faith" is being appealed to in the GOP debates? I've not heard one candidate eschew ideas in favor of an appeal to faith.

Many people used the Bible to support their notions about racial superiority of whites, about the worthiness of segregation, and of course, lately about the evil that gay marriage would be... You could appeal to all kinds of facts, or statistics, or actual experiences of other people but the faith in the printed scripture was all that was needed.

I can hardly wait to read your remedy for this. Perhaps you'd like to burn Bibles? Ban them? Segregate people of faith so they don't infect the rest of the population?

The mind is closed and made up by the directive in the scripture. (Or at least the way they or their sect interpret the scripture.)

So sweeping and so bigoted. If you said this about Islam, you would be roundly criticized.

There's plenty of evidence how Americans greater religious beliefs make them different then the rest of the word's wealthy nations...
Pew has a number of studies on that ....
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... the-world/

So what?

One of the things that is important to note, religious people are happier generally. I suppose critical thinking isn't always a boon.

It is clearly not your strong suit.

You know as well Ray, that there is a persistence to ignorance. 43% of republicans STILL think Obama is a Muslim.

You (apparently) believe this is because of ignorance. I think it is because of his words and actions. He consistently is more conciliatory toward members of the Islamic faith than those of the Christian faith. For example, he says precious little about the Christians being beheaded, crucified, and burned alive in the Middle East. Yet, when a school boy is arrested for bringing a clock that looks like a bomb to school, Obama decries stereotypes and invites him to the White House (never mind that there were several problematic issues regarding the young man)

Now, there may be other reasons for persistent ignorance like this. But one has to be that evidence, and facts don't trump some peoples beliefs.

Provide some evidence. You have none--except what the President says. I know what he has said, but his words don't match his actions. There is virtually nothing he has done that would convince anyone he is a Christian--other than what he has said and the fact that he has attended a (liberal) church a few times. Any "Christian" worth his/her title would have a testimony of their conversion. He doesn't. He credits his former pastor, but leaves out every detail one would expect in a testimony.

This is from Pat Robertson's site. It's as close as Obama has ever come to making a genuine profession of faith:

Although he wasn't raised in the church, President Barack Obama says his Christian faith has been a sustaining force for him over the past two years in Washington.

The president offered Americans a personal look inside his prayer life at the National Prayer Breakfast, Thursday.

"The presidency has a funny way of making a person feel the need to pray," Obama said.

It was more than 20 years ago that President Obama signed up to work as a community organizer in Chicago. He said that was when his faith in God developed.

"It was through that experience working with pastors and lay people, trying to heal the wounds of hurting neighborhoods that I came to know Jesus Christ myself and embrace him as my Lord and Savior," Obama said.

A White House official told CBN News the president wanted to deliver a more personal address this year that would give Americans a more intimate look at how he views scripture and approaches prayer.

"This was the most in-depth testimony of his own personal journey. Not only as a young child where he didn't get a lot of formal spiritual training, but now what he does in the White House," Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell said.

Obama said his prayers are sometimes general, but can also get specific.

"Lord, give me patience as I watch Malia go to her first dance where there will be boys," he said playfully.

Obama added that he regularly prays for the ability to help others, for humility, and to walk closer to God.

This was an important speech for the president, as polls continue to reveal many Americans believe he is Muslim.

"When Michelle and I hear our faith questioned from time to time, we are reminded that ultimately what matters is not what other people say about us, but whether we're being true to our conscience and true to our God," Obama said.

The problem is that is not a Christian testimony--no mention of sin, repentance, who Christ is (yes, Lord and Savior, but how about fully God and fully Man), and no mention of the Resurrection. He says nothing about a change in desires or outlook, nothing about his love for Scripture, and nothing about his desire to see others come to Christ. No evangelical church in America would baptize him on the basis of that testimony.

Now sometimes that's something like the literal truth of the Bible, like the belief in things like Creationism against all scientific evidence... But if you can avoid critical thinking to hold these beliefs, you can hold out against admitting in the fact that Obama is a Christian.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... s-a-muslim

So, in your learned opinion, is the evidence that Obama is a Christian equal to or greater than the evidence of evolution?

Fate

How do you know that Scripture was "never intended" to be infallible? Do you know the mind of God?

I admit to not knowing the mind of God. Do you?

I have read many books on the history of the Bible. That is how it came about... How religions evolved since our ancestors were in tribes...
I've read Armstrong and Ehrman, and Boyer and Bellah and others I can't remember off hand..
I'm aware that even the New Testament scriptures have changed over time... Let alone the way various sects interpret them in different ways...
So I have built my opinion that the Scriptures are not meant to be infallible from the evidence of my reading. I'm also aware that the notion that the scriptures are meant to be taken literally is also a fairly recent re-entry into history.And peculiarly American... Moody and his Bible college...
So thats how I came about my opinion.
But if you say the Bible is infallible... the question is why?

ray

So, based on that disturbing fact about 43% of Republicans (and I agree it is disturbing), you are going to condemn the other 57% by saying that the

I think that the number 43%, plus maybe 15% more equals the current polling for Bush. Carson and Cruz and Huckabee..And the others aren't willing to take on the crazy ideas, and the ignorance for fear of losing the consideration of the 43%+

I think the irrational have taken over the party. Rockefeller is rolling in his grave.

rickyp wrote:Fate

How do you know that Scripture was "never intended" to be infallible? Do you know the mind of God?

I admit to not knowing the mind of God. Do you?

As much as He has chosen to reveal, yes.

(1 Cor. 2:11-16) For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.
13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.
16 "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

Thus, you have demonstrated you don't know Scripture.

I have read many books on the history of the Bible. That is how it came about... How religions evolved since our ancestors were in tribes...

Have you read any biographies of some of the people you think are incapable of rational thought?

I've read Armstrong and Ehrman, and Boyer and Bellah and others I can't remember off hand..
I'm aware that even the New Testament scriptures have changed over time... Let alone the way various sects interpret them in different ways...

Truly, I wonder if you might tell us how the NT has changed over time?

So I have built my opinion that the Scriptures are not meant to be infallible from the evidence of my reading.

It is commendable that you've read about Scripture. I cannot find much to commend in the authors, however. I'm familiar with Armstrong and Ehrman. They are quite fanciful. I don't know the others. I wonder if you are familiar with B.B. Warfield? Would you consider him a simpleton? Jonathan Edwards?

Perhaps you might consider actually reading Scripture?

I'm also aware that the notion that the scriptures are meant to be taken literally is also a fairly recent re-entry into history.And peculiarly American... Moody and his Bible college...

This is just erroneous. The only way to possibly support it would be to simply view Fundamentalism as a name--one begun with the Niagara Bible conference and eventually imploding when they began scrapping with each other, and then invested themselves in one Billy Graham.

So thats how I came about my opinion.
But if you say the Bible is infallible... the question is why?

Because it says so.

Do you think maybe calling each other bigots has run it's course and proven to be a really bad idea ? Just sayin...

rickyp wrote:ray

So, based on that disturbing fact about 43% of Republicans (and I agree it is disturbing), you are going to condemn the other 57% by saying that the

I think that the number 43%, plus maybe 15% more equals the current polling for Bush. Carson and Cruz and Huckabee..And the others aren't willing to take on the crazy ideas, and the ignorance for fear of losing the consideration of the 43%+

I think the irrational have taken over the party. Rockefeller is rolling in his grave.

You have yet to tell us how the Party controlled by mindless fundamentalists produced a Mormon for a candidate--one many Christians would not vote for.

A lot of factors went wrong for Mr. Romney. And this is really key. Early on, there was much speculation about whether evangelicals would support Mr. Romney. Number one, Romney was a Mormon which is viewed as a cult within the Christian community. Second, Mr. Romney was the first governor to sign gay marriage into law. Third, Mr. Romney was avidly pro-abortion earlier in the decade and in the decade before that. His conversion didn’t come until he was in his 50’s and mounting a bid for the presidency. He remained pro-abortion in many circumstances. These amounted to huge problems for the Romney campaign which he never quite addressed.

So, how did this happen? How did the party that bypasses reason to appeal to faith nominate a man the Christians would not vote for?

Answer it or admit you are a bigot or an ignoramus.

Sassenach wrote:Do you think maybe calling each other bigots has run it's course and proven to be a really bad idea ? Just sayin...

I would agree, 100%, as soon as people stop pre-judging others because of WHAT they believe or WHO they are. It's the very definition of prejudice or bigotry.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

What religion do you ascribe to?

Not affiliated with any.

Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, what? I am trying to learn about you. Help me understand you more.