Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

Every time I read this thread title I can't help but think of the words:
Larry
Craig
Wide
Very wide

You aren't the only one, I just haven't figured out how to phrase a joke about it yet.

[unofan]

I've been waiting for the 'Hitler was a Christian so Christianity is bad' argument. How much of a Christian was Jefferson Davis? Not much as far as wiki is concerned...no mention of Christianity.

Anti slavery organizations that fed abolition around the world were inherently Christian. On the other hand, anyone who believes that the Confederacy pushed for slavery or fought the civil war because of the Bible knows nothing of history.

Time to be honest...your post is just a smoke screen as you are not capable of addressing any of my points. Not one.

And once again, you can't accept credit for the good while ignoring the bad as not being a True Christian. We've gone round and round on this. You succumb to the no true Scotsman fallacy all the freaking time.

[St. Clown]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

I've been waiting for the 'Hitler was a Christian so Christianity is bad' argument. How much of a Christian was Jefferson Davis? Not much as far as wiki is concerned...no mention of Christianity.

Anti slavery organizations that fed abolition around the world were inherently Christian. On the other hand, anyone who believes that the Confederacy pushed for slavery or fought the civil war because of the Bible knows nothing of history.

Time to be honest...your post is just a smoke screen as you are not capable of addressing any of my points. Not one.

Wait, just because wiki didn't list it, that means it's not true?



Did you just delete it from wiki before making your post here?

[Kepler]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

Let me guess: no TRUE Christian would ever have argued in favor of slavery....

Well, they did have the mark of Cain on them... why do you think they got a separate heaven?

[Kepler]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

Anti slavery organizations that fed abolition around the world were inherently Christian.

In this instance, you are flat out factually wrong. The American Anti-Slavery Society was founded in 1833 by William Lloyd Garrison and Arthur Tappan as an expressly non-religious institution to fight slavery. It included Calvinists (in various states of lapsedness) and Quakers but also atheists, Deists, and all manner of mid 19th century non-Christian seekers. It was one of many movements in the 1830s through 1850s that mixed abolitionism and feminism with criticism, often outright rejection, of Christian dogma.

Garrison's statements about religion in general and the Bible in particular make it clear he was not a fan.

Likewise, Tom Paine was writing anti-slavery jeremiads 50 years earlier, well before the pulpit began to realize that the fact that owning human beings is sanctioned by scripture says a lot more about scripture than slavery.

There were Christian abolitionists, but abolitionism was by no means "inherently" Christian in any sense. The same people who have been gamely fighting to good fight against authoritarianism wrapped in Biblical raiment for all of history were doing it then, too.

[LynahFan]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

I've been waiting for the 'Hitler was a Christian so Christianity is bad' argument. How much of a Christian was Jefferson Davis? Not much as far as wiki is concerned...no mention of Christianity.

Wiki also doesn't mention that he was white or that he breathed oxygen - are those up for debate, too?

Anti slavery organizations that fed abolition around the world were inherently Christian. On the other hand, anyone who believes that the Confederacy pushed for slavery or fought the civil war because of the Bible knows nothing of history.

Time to be honest...your post is just a smoke screen as you are not capable of addressing any of my points. Not one.

You have only one point - that some abolitionist organizations were led by people who said they were doing it because of their sincerely held Christian beliefs - and it doesn't need addressing because nobody freaking disagrees with you. Yet, there you are over in the corner stomping your feet and screaming that water is wet. Congratulations, you got that correct. Have a cookie.

What you are completely blind to is that the abolitionist reform movement existed in the first place because of the policies of the Southern states, which were enacted by people who said that they were doing what they were doing because of THEIR sincerely held Christian beliefs. 150 years later, you've appointed yourself as the judge of who was and who was not a true Christian - not exactly very Christian of you. Matthew 7:1-3.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

Lynah, why are you so bent out of shape about this? You sure come across as one angry dude about this subject.

[geezer]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

And once again, you can't accept credit for the good while ignoring the bad as not being a True Christian. We've gone round and round on this. You succumb to the no true Scotsman fallacy all the freaking time.

Isn't that what Jesus did with the talk about knowing the true Christians by their works and not their words, and the wolves in sheep's clothing pretending to be Christians, the false Christians who cry Lord, Lord (but their heart is far from me), etc? Jeff Davis was a politician who used the language of the time and place to enlist support for his agenda.
The No True Scotsman Fallacy objection is too often pulled out to deny that one can generalize the basic tenets of any political or religious group. Of course you can, otherwise why would they exist?
(saw the quiz but leery of taking it - I don't want to break it and leave a mess of little boxes all over the floor)

[LynahFan]

Isn't that what Jesus did with the talk about knowing the true Christians by their works and not their words, and the wolves in sheep's clothing pretending to be Christians, the false Christians who cry Lord, Lord (but their heart is far from me), etc? Jeff Davis was a politician who used the language of the time and place to enlist support for his agenda.

As did the abolitionists.

The No True Scotsman Fallacy objection is too often pulled out to deny that one can generalize the basic tenets of any political or religious group. Of course you can, otherwise why would they exist?
(saw the quiz but leery of taking it - I don't want to break it and leave a mess of little boxes all over the floor)

All you did was switch from the word "true" to the word "basic." Would Jeff Davis have said that slavery was a true/basic tenet of Christianity? You're looking at events of 150 years ago through the lens of today's Christianity. Slavery is obviously not part of today's Christianity, but who is to say that today's Christianity is the true one? Gay marriage will be embraced by the church within 100 years - perhaps *that* will be the true/basic Christianity, and 5MN_Major's great-great grandkid will be arguing that true/basic Christianity never argued against gay marriage.

[geezer]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

As did the abolitionists.

All you did was switch from the word "true" to the word "basic." Would Jeff Davis have said that slavery was a true/basic tenet of Christianity? You're looking at events of 150 years ago through the lens of today's Christianity. Slavery is obviously not part of today's Christianity, but who is to say that today's Christianity is the true one? Gay marriage will be embraced by the church within 100 years - perhaps *that* will be the true/basic Christianity, and 5MN_Major's great-great grandkid will be arguing that true/basic Christianity never argued against gay marriage.

Probably to judge a collective's aims at a time and place you'd need to have evidence of the predominant views of its membership. You could very well have a better understanding of that than I do. However, if one cherry-picked individual says "this here is now a true tenet for all of us", doesn't make it so. See the examples of Hitler claiming Christianity or Osama claiming Islam.
I'm saying there are always people who have never even been to Scotland claiming to be Scottish. Pointing out that they are not should not be considered a fallacy. There is, however no hard evidence for religious faith so it's easy to muddy the waters.

[unofan]

Isn't that what Jesus did with the talk about knowing the true Christians by their works and not their words, and the wolves in sheep's clothing pretending to be Christians, the false Christians who cry Lord, Lord (but their heart is far from me), etc? Jeff Davis was a politician who used the language of the time and place to enlist support for his agenda.
The No True Scotsman Fallacy objection is too often pulled out to deny that one can generalize the basic tenets of any political or religious group. Of course you can, otherwise why would they exist?
(saw the quiz but leery of taking it - I don't want to break it and leave a mess of little boxes all over the floor)

The southern Baptist church split off from its northern counterpart in great part to the north's increasing advocacy of abolishing slavery. I can guarantee they still believed themselves to be Christian in the fullest sense of the word. It's all well and good to look back on them 150 years later and say they weren't true Christians, but you can't ignore the fact that they believed themselves to be carrying out Christ's word, and had millions of people supporting that assertion, as surely as Bob or any other religious person on this board believes the same today.

[geezer]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

The southern Baptist church split off from its northern counterpart in great part to the north's increasing advocacy of abolishing slavery. I can guarantee they still believed themselves to be Christian in the fullest sense of the word. It's all well and good to look back on them 150 years later and say they weren't true Christians, but you can't ignore the fact that they believed themselves to be carrying out Christ's word, and had millions of people supporting that assertion, as surely as Bob or any other religious person on this board believes the same today.

thanks, IMO this is a much better way to make the argument than "Jeff Davis said so."

[FreshFish]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

I can guarantee they still believed themselves to be Christian in the fullest sense of the word.

based on "doctrine" no doubt.

whatever one's "political" stance, how have we devolved into another "morality good / doctrine bad" debate, again....?

[5mn_Major]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

Did you just delete it from wiki before making your post here?

Yeah...I felt my language was not in line with discussion.

And once again, you can't accept credit for the good while ignoring the bad as not being a True Christian.

Because there is no proof that Christianity itself maintained these post 1700 societal blights...but there is tons of evidence that it helped lead to their elimination

In this instance, you are flat out factually wrong. The American Anti-Slavery Society was founded in 1833 by William Lloyd Garrison and Arthur Tappan as an expressly non-religious institution to fight slavery. It included Calvinists (in various states of lapsedness) and Quakers but also atheists, Deists, and all manner of mid 19th century non-Christian seekers. It was one of many movements in the 1830s through 1850s that mixed abolitionism and feminism with criticism, often outright rejection, of Christian dogma.

Garrison's statements about religion in general and the Bible in particular make it clear he was not a fan.

Likewise, Tom Paine was writing anti-slavery jeremiads 50 years earlier, well before the pulpit began to realize that the fact that owning human beings is sanctioned by scripture says a lot more about scripture than slavery.

There were Christian abolitionists, but abolitionism was by no means "inherently" Christian in any sense. The same people who have been gamely fighting to good fight against authoritarianism wrapped in Biblical raiment for all of history were doing it then, too.

Is the only feedback you have from the Freedom from Religion Society?

Anyways, William Lloyd Garrison supposedly asked 'Who would reference the Bible' in 1854 way after the fact? The answer is that he would.

What justification did Garrison use himself to justify the end of slavery?

Universal emancipation…from the dominion of man, from the thraldom of self, from the government of brute force, from the bondage of sin—and bringing [people] under the dominion of God, the control of an inward spirit, the government of the law of love, and into the obedience and liberty of Christ.

- The Liberator

What else did Garrison have to say?

I have sacrificed all my national, complexional and local prejudices upon the altar of Christian love.

- The Liberator

At very minimum, Garrison was in the same neutral camp as Jefferson Davis. Yet nearly a third of the original AASS convention were strict Quakers that would likely put Christians at over half and nearly all the AA-SS chapters were closely affiliated with one church or another as the organization grew throughout the 1830s. The backdrop for all of this was the Second Great Awakening. Is there anything else from all the evidence I provided?

[5mn_Major]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

5MN_Major's great-great grandkid will be arguing that true/basic Christianity never argued against gay marriage.

I hope my great-great grandkid will be arguing that Christ never argued against gay marriage. And that anyone that argues against gay marriage is doing it for themself.