Can An Atheist Be President.

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
But so what???? People have a right to their beliefs, right or wrong. Why is it any of your business whether or not someone else looks down on others because their belief systems are different? So long as they don't TREAT them any differently, it is no one's business but their own what they believe.

But that's just it, they DO treat them differently. You've seen quite a few people on this very thread say they would never vote for someone that didn't share their beliefs, with the accusations (implied and otherwise) that atheists could have no moral code to hold to.

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
It seems ridiculous to me to say in one breath that people have the right to practice their religion and then say in the next breath that they don't have the right to believe in the very tenets of that religion.

Could you please explain to me how that works?

Please point out where I said that they don't have the right to believe anything they want.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by caitycaity
i'd like to know what data you are getting this assertion from. i think there are plenty of conservatives out there who do not believe in god. my husband is one of them. the fact is, you don't have to be christian to be a conservative or republican.

Okay. . well, my husband is not an athiest, but he is an agnostic who is also a conservative republican.

I believe there are SOME agnostic or atheist conservatives. Great! I don't think we're in any disagreement here. I believe the moral code is more important than the religious affiliation. I know I have said this a couple of times. I am not a Christian, and yet I'm a Conservative Republican. So, we agree.

However, I haven't met a BUNCH of them. Now I kind of know about your husband and my husband, but I still don't know that there's a BUNCH.

If my husband were running for office, I'd completely trust him to make decisions based on the Conservative platform. Completely. He is the most ethical and principled person I've ever known --which is really is why I am in love with him.

His moral code is in sync with the Judeo-Christian value system--despite the fact he doesn't believe in Christian THEOLOGY, he shares what it means to most Conservative Christians.

 

[Pongo69]

Originally posted by wvrevy
It matters to me because that attitude is one that I think is rampant in this country, and it's one that allows the holder of that belief to "look down upon" anyone that believes differently. It's one that, should, say, a president hold, would make it much easier to ignore the suffering brought upon other people, so long as those people were deemed "less worthy" of "God's" protection.

And it IS germane to this debate, as it represents the underlying (in my opinion) reason people would never vote for an avowed atheist for president. They view those that believe differently as less worthy than themselves, so would never support a candidate that held to such a belief.

WOW what's with all the anger. I swear umm yes swear that every time a thread pops where athiest are concerned YOU go ballistic.

Why is that?

Whatever your problem is... I hope you find "PEACE" rather you believe or not.

Anger is such a waste of energy

 

[AirForceRocks]

But that's just it, they DO treat them differently. You've seen quite a few people on this very thread say they would never vote for someone that didn't share their beliefs, with the accusations (implied and otherwise) that atheists could have no moral code to hold to.

OMG, you've got to be kidding. Choosing not to vote for someone is treating them differently??? Oh man, I just spewed a mouthful of Coke on that one!

You aren't voting for President Bush because his beliefs are different than yours, right? And that's fine, because how you vote is none of my business.

Yet it somehow is your business that some people won't vote for atheists (or other religions than their own) because they hold different beliefs?

I see nothing whatsoever wrong with people basing their votes on whether or not the candidates share the voters' religious beliefs. It isn't something I would do, but I see nothing at all wrong with others doing it.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by wvrevy
It matters to me because that attitude is one that I think is rampant in this country, and it's one that allows the holder of that belief to "look down upon" anyone that believes differently. It's one that, should, say, a president hold, would make it much easier to ignore the suffering brought upon other people, so long as those people were deemed "less worthy" of "God's" protection.

And it IS germane to this debate, as it represents the underlying (in my opinion) reason people would never vote for an avowed atheist for president. They view those that believe differently as less worthy than themselves, so would never support a candidate that held to such a belief.

I completely disagree with this. Christians don't believe that others are less worthy. As I've said before Christianity is of the belief that ALL people have intrinsic worth--no matter what their value system is. Christians do not believe that all cultures or belief systems, however, are of equal value.

I completely disagree with your first paragraph. Suffering is suffering no matter who the person is.

As for the second paragraph, the reason most Conservative Christians wouldn't vote for an athiest is because they don't think they share the same value system. Since MOST avowed athiests are publically supporting much of the liberal platform, this is a conclusion that makes sense. If an athiest was an avowed conservative, I think it would be less of an issue.

As for your comments regarding discrimination, that's unfair. If a Catholic hospital doesn't want to perform abortions, why should they be forced to? There are other hospitals. If a group based on Christian principles doesn't wants their group to remain this way and they don't want to hire gay troup leaders and is PRIVATELY funded, then so what? There are secular groups, religious groups, sect-based groups, Muslim groups, Jewish groups, Girl groups, boy groups, etc. If we want a girls' school to remain all girls, is this an example of sexism? You can make the argument it is, and maybe technically win it. . .but aren't we entitled to surround ourselves with those that share like beliefs and like agendas sometimes?

This is absolutely not an argument for segregation, but to deny certain organizations that were founded out of religious principles to continue to exist because you find them offensive, is actually a very offensive prospect. Do we go into Islamic organizations and force them to hire zionists as their secretaries? Would a Zionist WANT to work for a Muslim organization? Would there be a quota system or if we find a bunch of qualified Zionists or Jews can the Islamic organizations then be 90% run by Jews and Christians? 100%? 5%? Would they have to be self-hating Jews and Christians?

 

[WDWHound]

Originally posted by wvrevy
It matters to me because that attitude is one that I think is rampant in this country, and it's one that allows the holder of that belief to "look down upon" anyone that believes differently. It's one that, should, say, a president hold, would make it much easier to ignore the suffering brought upon other people, so long as those people were deemed "less worthy" of "God's" protection.

I am certain that you have encountered some Christians who behave this way, and I am sad for it, however this is not the beleif of most Christians in my experience, nor do I find this beleif in the Bible. Most Christians don't think they are able to look down on anyone. Jesus taught us that we are all the same and equally loved by God. This means we are called to see everyone as a child of God and to treat them accordingly. NO ONE is more or less worthy of God's love. This concept goes directly against what Christianity is about.

And it IS germane to this debate, as it represents the underlying (in my opinion) reason people would never vote for an avowed atheist for president. They view those that believe differently as less worthy than themselves, so would never support a candidate that held to such a belief.

I am a Christian, and while I prefer to vote for Christians becuase I beleive in the root of their values, I would vote for an Atheist if I felt he was the better candidate. I don't always understand the source of an Athiestic value system (its hard to do when you believe all values come from God), but I recgonize the existance of such and have no problem trusting the values of those who do not share my faith.

For a leader to put Christianity first and foremost in his leadership is not necessarily a bad thing. The trick is to do so without opressing those who disagree.

 

[Abracadabra]

Originally posted by Kendra17
As for your comments regarding discrimination, that's unfair. If a Catholic hospital doesn't want to perform abortions, why should they be forced to? There are other hospitals. If a group based on Christian principles doesn't wants their group to remain this way and they don't want to hire gay troup leaders and is PRIVATELY funded, then so what? There are secular groups, religious groups, sect-based groups, Muslim groups, Jewish groups, Girl groups, boy groups, etc. If we want a girls' school to remain all girls, is this an example of sexism? You can make the argument it is, and maybe technically win it. . .but aren't we entitled to surround ourselves with those that share like beliefs and like agendas sometimes?

This is absolutely not an argument for segregation, but to deny certain organizations that were founded out of religious principles to continue to exist because you find them offensive, is actually a very offensive prospect. Do we go into Islamic organizations and force them to hire zionists as their secretaries? Would a Zionist WANT to work for a Muslim organization? Would there be a quota system or if we find a bunch of qualified Zionists or Jews can the Islamic organizations then be 90% run by Jews and Christians? 100%? 5%? Would they have to be self-hating Jews and Christians?

Therefore, because an organization was founded on the basis of a religion ... in AMERICA ... that makes discrimination in hiring, membership, opportunities OK?

Certainly you or whatever group is entitled to select who is an employee, member, etc. based on legitimate criteria. But what I find questionable is when deciding between two equally qualified candidates, one who is heterosexual and one who is homosexual, the organization uses sexual orientation as the deciding factor. Of course, this would be nearly impossible to prove, but it is just one example of how beliefs can and do negatively impact the world and others. (I also understand this is an extreme example -- it's highly unlikely that this situation would occur because there's hardly ever a situation where people are absolutely equally qualified.)

In America we hold the ideals of equality in many areas of life very high. I believe it is tragic when one allows beliefs to negatively impact life, either of oneself or others.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
OMG, you've got to be kidding. Choosing not to vote for someone is treating them differently??? Oh man, I just spewed a mouthful of Coke on that one!

If you're done being a bad 1950's comedian, you might take into account the fact that the person I was discussing this with stated EXPLICITLY that they would not vote for an atheist. Period. That means that, regardless of that candidates stance on any actual issue that the president deals with, they wouldn't vote for them on that one thing alone.

I've heard people say the same thing about blacks. Doesn't make it respectable.

 

[WDWHound]

Originally posted by wvrevy
If you're done being a bad 1950's comedian, you might take into account the fact that the person I was discussing this with stated EXPLICITLY that they would not vote for an atheist. Period. That means that, regardless of that candidates stance on any actual issue that the president deals with, they wouldn't vote for them on that one thing alone.

I've heard people say the same thing about blacks. Doesn't make it respectable.

Your comparing the deplorable act of judging someone based on their skin color to the act of voting for someone becuase you beleive they share your values and perception of reality based on a common faith. I personally don't agree with voting only for Christians (as I stated earlier), but these 2 cases are completely different.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by Abracadabra
It seems that the first part of this is somewhat idealistic, which is not a bad thing. But it appears to present the ideal (at least based on my understanding of Christian theology) to which someone who is a Christian aspires. It doesn't represent the actual day-to-day experience of everyone who calls themself a Christian.

A president, Christian or not, is not going to be able to make decisions based on their answer of "What would God do?" If I understand Christian theology correctly, God is omniscient and infinite, while humans are not, being finite creations of God. As such we are incapable of fathoming the mind of God, understanding His purposes and plans, and since we are separate from Him, we cannot share His thoughts. (I could be wrong about this and it won't be the first time.)

You make some good points. We can't profess to know how God thinks or feels. I'm talking about living within a moral framework that is derived from the Bible and Christian theology. I'm not sure what you're disputing because, even if you disagree with the decisions that Christians make, it doesn't mean they aren't making those decisions with these thoughts in mind.

When making decisions, a president or any individual for that matter, must consider more options than asking "What would God do?" While that notion is noble and admirable, since we cannot fully understand or know what God is thinking, it would be utterly presumptuous of us to assume to know what He would do in every particular situation.

I don't think that using the guidance that religious background provides precludes what you are saying. All of us have some sort of religious or nonreligious background. We are the sum of all of this, as I've mentioned before to you in another thread. We all make decisions based on our belief systems. What is the disagreement you have with this? Most of us believe that our decisions are correct. This is not disputed. You might believe the Christian Conservative or Christian athiest's decision to be incorrect. Okay. A Conservative might consider a liberal's decision to be incorrect. We both think we're right. This is the way it is and the way it will always be. However, I am personally a Conservative. I don't know what your affiliation is. . .I do know what wvrevy's is for instance. He and I will most likely always think the other is incorrect on certain issues and be certain that we alone are correct. What can I say? One of us is wrong; I think it's him, he thinks it's me.

My understanding of Christianity is that there are general guidelines to follow that help in making the decisions and these are documented in the Bible. However, human beings are not robots and have something called "free will" to make choices. We can choose our own paths and make our own decisions. I am not certain how anyone could be sure that the decision they made to invade Iraq or send troops to Kosovo or bomb an aspirin factory or whether to send foreign aid to the Sudan is exactly what God would do in that situation.

I completely believe we have free will. We are taking about receiving guidance and following our moral codes. There is nothing in this paragraph that we differ on, I think. We ACT, however, in a way we truly believe follows our moral code--whatever that may be. Sometimes, it's a bit of a struggle to decide if sending foreign troops in is the lesser evil than not sending them in, or vice versa. However, I can tell you that if a Christian believes, IMO, that all people have intrinsic worth, the suffering of oppressed Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, etc., all over the world will always be an issue. And, the oppressed party will always have our sympathy. Sometimes we might differ in our thinking of who the oppressed parties truly are.

Conservatives, for instance, rarely think of the Palestinians as oppressed, but we do think that the Iraqis under Saddam's rule and the Cuban's under Castro's rule and the Chinese under Communist China's rule are oppressed. You might look at that as economically free. As a general rule, Christians are pretty much against both Islamofascism, fascism, and communism==among other political systems.

The best that any president can do is consult with knowledgeable, experienced advisors who can consider and present information in a way to allow an informed, intelligent decision. If the president chooses to consult with God, that is his (or her) choice. This, however, would be but one option of many open to anyone serving as president and certainly not a requirement for them to do.

You are correct again. However, if one is a Conservative, one may be delighted that the President chooses to try and figure out the Right thing to do in any given situation. Of course he will consult with other knowledgeable people. His moral code, however, will also guide him. This may matter less to a liberal. Okay.

I disagree with your assessment that atheists have substituted some system of core beliefs for Christian values. As others have stated, it is not essential to maintain a belief in God to be a person who has admirable values, morals and character.

I haven't assessed that. I've assessed that liberals have substituted some system of core beliefs that differ from what Conservatives see as Christian values. I have stated probably 8 times in this post that I think an athiest CAN be conservative. I don't see it as often as I've seen liberal athiests. When someone runs on a Christian conservative platform, however, more Conservatives would most likely be of the opinion that the candidate shares the same viewpoint and same value system.

 

[Abracadabra]

Originally posted by WDWHound
Your comparing the deplorable act of judging someone based on their skin color to the act of voting for someone becuase you beleive they share your values and perception of reality. I personally don't agree with voting only for Christians (as I stated earlier), but these 2 cases are completely different.

I disagree. Both instances are based primarily on the beliefs that the individual voting possesses. In one instance it is a matter of religious beliefs while in the other it is a belief about race, genetics, etc. The individual's beliefs are determining their action (in this case voting). The only difference is the target of those beliefs (religion or skin color).

 

[kpgclark]

The President isn't a religious leader. He is a political one.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by WDWHound
I am certain that you have encountered some Christians who behave this way, and I am sad for it, however this is not the beleif of most Christians in my experience, nor do I find this beleif in the Bible. Most Christians don't think they are able to look down on anyone. Jesus taught us that we are all the same and equally loved by God. This means we are called to see everyone as a child of God and to treat them accordingly. NO ONE is more or less worthy of God's love. This concept goes directly against what Christianity is about.

Umm...no, it is at the very heart of christianity. The poster said that they believed anybody who felt differently about religion than they did was going to go to hell when they die. I'm sorry, but I firmly believe that it is impossible to hold to that belief without also feeling superior to those that you claim are damned. Maybe that's not the christian ideal, but it my experience, it is the reality.

Originally posted by WDWHound
I am a Christian, and while I prefer to vote for Christians becuase I beleive in the root of their values, I would vote for an Atheist if I felt he was the better candidate. I don't always understand the source of an Athiestic value system (its hard to do when you believe all values come from God), but I recgonize the existance of such and have no problem trusting the values of those who do not share my faith.

I can't speak for all atheists (since I'm not even entirely certain I am one...more like an atheist-leaning agnostic), but for me, moral action is ALWAYS going to be the correct LOGICAL choice. Harming another person, be it physically, psychologically, financially, or whatever, is always going to, ultimately, injure society as a whole, and, thus, even myself. I refrain from the urge to cheat or steal because it's the right thing to do when you live in a civilized society, not because some antiquated book tells me it's a no-no.

Originally posted by WDWHound
For a leader to put Christianity first and foremost in his leadership is not necessarily a bad thing. The trick is to do so without opressing those who disagree.

Except for the fact that a large portion of the world disagrees vehemently with that religion, and putting it "first and foremost" is nothing more than a challenge. No matter how much the religious right may wish otherwise, we are a SECULAR nation, and it's a shame that our current leader can't seem to remember that.

 

[totalia]

Yes an atheist can be president. This very question is insulting. An atheist can be president and so can anyone of any religion. Religion and state should ALWAYS be kept separate. The important thing is the person is good for the job, not what religion they are (or even if they have one).

Oh and to the above poster. Very well put. I agree with you completely.

 

[kpgclark]

Sadly though, look at the poll results. 40% wouldn't even give an atheist (and I suspect any non-Christian) a chance.

 

[WDWHound]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Umm...no, it is at the very heart of christianity. The poster said that they believed anybody who felt differently about religion than they did was going to go to hell when they die. I'm sorry, but I firmly believe that it is impossible to hold to that belief without also feeling superior to those that you claim are damned. Maybe that's not the christian ideal, but it my experience, it is the reality.

I understand what you are saying, but in my experience the ideal is the reality for most Christians most of the time (we are human, and all of us fail in this from time to time). I'm not trying to beat you over the head with this, but this is so central to what I and the Christians I know practice that I want to try to be understood. Please be patient with me as I try to communicate just a bit more.

I do believe that Jesus is the one way to God. Does that mean anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus is damned? Well, that’s not for me to say. That’s between them and God. The Bible teaches me that that is none of my business. That’s between God and you. I am responsible for seeking my own salvation, not yours. I will tell you what I have found, but I leave the judging of others to God

Now, IF you were damned and I was not (and again, that’s not for me to say), then am I better than you? No. If you walked off a cliff and I did not because I saw a sign warning about the cliff and you didn't, that would not make me better. It would simply mean that I saw and read the sign. In fact, it might be seen as making me worse than you if I saw the sign, read it, and didn't warn you about the cliff.

I know there are those Christians who treat non-Christians like they are inferior and who are constantly selling hell insurance. Please, please know that they are not the only type of Christians out there, nor are they even the majority. They are merely the most annoying, and therefore the most memorable. There are Christians who believe that we are all equal, even if we might have different fates based on our choices. In fact, my experiences indicate that this type of Christian is in the majority, but I fully recognize that you might have had different experiences..

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by Abracadabra
Therefore, because an organization was founded on the basis of a religion ... in AMERICA ... that makes discrimination in hiring, membership, opportunities OK?

If it's privately funded. . . in AMERICA. . .absolutely not. How can a Muslim group remain Muslim if 100% of it's employees are Jews and Christians. Can the board remain Muslim? How can a girls' school remain a girls' school if the student body is full of boys? You may be against same sex education, but there are benefits to it for some. Are you telling me that if I send my daughter to a private religious school that the teachers there can't be asked to be knowledgeable in the religion? This makes zero sense to me. Let's agree to disagree here, because I don't want to go around in circles with you about this.

Certainly you or whatever group is entitled to select who is an employee, member, etc. based on legitimate criteria. But what I find questionable is when deciding between two equally qualified candidates, one who is heterosexual and one who is homosexual, the organization uses sexual orientation as the deciding factor. Of course, this would be nearly impossible to prove, but it is just one example of how beliefs can and do negatively impact the world and others. (I also understand this is an extreme example -- it's highly unlikely that this situation would occur because there's hardly ever a situation where people are absolutely equally qualified.)

In the public sector, I firmly agree with you. In the private sector, however, I disagree. I also disagree that religious organizations--even if they assist ALL religious groups which they are bound to do when they accept public funds--should be forced to hire people who don't agree with the organization's mission statement. This is my opinion. You disagree and that's okay.

In America we hold the ideals of equality in many areas of life very high. I believe it is tragic when one allows beliefs to negatively impact life, either of oneself or others.

You and I agree on this point, but we come from opposite perspectives. I think one that disallows or disapproves of religious expression in a public forum is the one that is allowing his or her own beliefs to negatively impact the life of others. I understand your view, however--I just disagree with it for the reasons I've stated. It SEEMS to me that many liberals are Anti-religion or even Anti-Christianity exclusively. This is my view on the subject. You may disagree. Everything is okay if one is completely silent about religion. However, like it or not, religion is a very important part of one's makeup. Why should our freedom of expression be infringed upon as long as we aren't forcing someone else to worship and as long as we aren't hijacking airplanes, taking children as hostages, and bombing train stations? To tell people that mentioning their religion "offends" you (and, I'm not saying you said this) is offensive to those that take religion seriously. If you don't want to talk about religion, that's fine. If you want to discuss your religion, that's fine, too. . .but to make it standard that public forums are religion-free is obscene to me, especially when that is an intrinsic part of our belief system, etc.

 

[Abracadabra]

Originally posted by Kendra17
You make some good points. We can't profess to know how God thinks or feels. I'm talking about living within a moral framework that is derived from the Bible and Christian theology. I'm not sure what you're disputing because, even if you disagree with the decisions that Christians make, it doesn't mean they aren't making those decisions with these thoughts in mind.

I understand now. I must have mis-read your previous post -- my apologies.

I don't think that using the guidance that religious background provides precludes what you are saying. All of us have some sort of religious or nonreligious background. We are the sum of all of this, as I've mentioned before to you in another thread. We all make decisions based on our belief systems. What is the disagreement you have with this?

I don't disagree with this at all... in fact, I understand (I think?) and agree with this.

Most of us believe that our decisions are correct. This is not disputed. You might believe the Christian Conservative or Christian athiest's decision to be incorrect. Okay. A Conservative might consider a liberal's decision to be incorrect. We both think we're right. This is the way it is and the way it will always be. However, I am personally a Conservative. I don't know what your affiliation is. . .I do know what wvrevy's is for instance. He and I will most likely always think the other is incorrect on certain issues and be certain that we alone are correct. What can I say? One of us is wrong; I think it's him, he thinks it's me.

OK, again I think I understand what you are saying here. There will always be disagreement in the world, especially in politics. I am not certain, however, that this disagreement is always the result of differences in morals/values, with one side having bad morals and the other side having good ones. While many decisions have moral outcomes, not everything we decide is easily distinguishable in plain black or plain white. Maybe that's where we disagree?

I completely believe we have free will. We are taking about receiving guidance and following our moral codes. There is nothing in this paragraph that we differ on, I think. We ACT, however, in a way we truly believe follows our moral code--whatever that may be. Sometimes, it's a bit of a struggle to decide if sending foreign troops in is the lesser evil than not sending them in, or vice versa. However, I can tell you that if a Christian believes, IMO, that all people have intrinsic worth, the suffering of oppressed Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, etc., all over the world will always be an issue. And, the oppressed party will always have our sympathy. Sometimes we might differ in our thinking of who the oppressed parties truly are.

Conservatives, for instance, rarely think of the Palestinians as oppressed, but we do think that the Iraqis under Saddam's rule and the Cuban's under Castro's rule and the Chinese under Communist China's rule are oppressed. You might look at that as economically free. As a general rule, Christians are pretty much against both Islamofascism, fascism, and communism==among other political systems.

Again, I think I am following your train of thought on this and if I am, I agree with this.

You are correct again. However, if one is a Conservative, one may be delighted that the President chooses to try and figure out the Right thing to do in any given situation. Of course he will consult with other knowledgeable people. His moral code, however, will also guide him. This may matter less to a liberal. Okay.

Umm, I think so, but the next to the last statement bothers me a bit. It seems to leave the impression (and I could and probably am wrong) that someone who is a "liberal" is not going to necessarily follow a moral code. This I would disagree with. I believe that anyone, regardless of their political stance, can have a valid moral code that provides legitimate guidance in decision-making.

I also have a little trouble with the idea of the president deciding the "right" thing to do. In some cases, we may not understand a decision that's made, because all the factors going into it cannot be explained. As Christians sometimes accept acts of God at face value (is that a valid statement?), so Americans must sometimes accept a presidential decision at face value, even though individually we may think it is "wrong."

I haven't assessed that. I've assessed that liberals have substituted some system of core beliefs that differ from what Conservatives see as Christian values. I have stated probably 8 times in this post that I think an athiest CAN be conservative. I don't see it as often as I've seen liberal athiests. When someone runs on a Christian conservative platform, however, more Conservatives would most likely be of the opinion that the candidate shares the same viewpoint and same value system.

OK, one more time, I think the light bulb is dimly burning for me. My apologies for misreading/misinterpreting. I was seeing this as non-conservatives operate with no moral code which you obviously did not say. My apologies for requiring the repetition. For some of us it takes a little longer to sink in.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by WDWHound
I understand what you are saying, but in my experience the ideal is the reality for most Christians most of the time (we are human, and all of us fail in this from time to time). I'm not trying to beat you over the head with this, but this is so central to what I and the Christians I know practice that I want to try to be understood. Please be patient with me as I try to communicate just a bit more.

I do believe that Jesus in the one way to God. Does that mean andone who doesn't beleive in Jesus is damned? The Bible teaches me that that is none of my business. Thats between God and you. I am responsible for seeking my own salvation. I will tell you what I have found, but I leave the judging of others to God

Now, IF you were damned and I was not (and again, thats not for me to say), then am I better than you? No. If you walked off a cliff and I did not because i saw a sign warning about the cliff and you didn't, that would not make me better. It would simply mean that I saw and read the sign. In fact, it might be seen as making me worse than you if I saw the sign, read it, and didn't warn you about the cliff.

I know there are those Christians who treat non-Christians like they are inferior and who are constanmtly selling hell insurance. Please, please know that they are not the only type of Chriustains out there, nor are they even the majority. They are meerly the most annoying, and therefore the most memorable. There are Christians who beleive that we are all equal, evenif we might have different fates based on our choices. In fact, my experiences indicate that this type of Christian is in the majority, but I fully recognize that you might have had different experiences..
.

I just want to add that as a nonChristian, I don't find this belief to be offensive, nor do I believe that he thinks himself to be morally superior to me. He may believe that I might go to hell and so what? His belief is based on faith. My belief is based on faith. We differ theologically. We share other beliefs.

I find most Christians to be like this. I used to have, however, a preconcieved notion that they were not. I have found that notion was wrong--COMPLETELY. Just my opinion.

to abracadabra: I said this: You are correct again. However, if one is a Conservative, one may be delighted that the President chooses to try and figure out the Right thing to do in any given situation. Of course he will consult with other knowledgeable people. His moral code, however, will also guide him. This may matter less to a liberal. Okay.

I could have worded that differently. I should have said "You are correct again. However, if one is a Conservative, one may be delighted that the President chooses to try and figure out the Right thing to do in any given situation. Of course he will consult with other knowledgeable people. His moral code--based on his religious background-- however, will also guide him.

 

[JoeThaNo1Stunna]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Sorry to burst your bubble and use your own words against you but you said:


So, in other words, you think anybody that doesn't believe EXACTLY as you believe is doomed to eternal torment in hell. That means that all the groups I listed (and every other non-Christian in the world) is going to hell, in your opinion.

Sorry, but I find that sad...and certainly not a quality or opinion I would value in a political candidate.

Revy, that is a very narrow-minded post.

While I am not a Christian, I have no problem with a Christian who thinks anyone else is going to hell. It IS in the Bible that only those who have faith in Jesus Christ will have salvation, so obviously most Christians would believe this. To say that their belief is sad, is my opinion, bigoted. Let's be "liberal" here and be open to other views and beliefs.

I have no problem with a Christian saying that I along with 90% of the world is going to hell. That is their belief, and there is nothign sad about it. It is sad that you choose to condemn anyone who has a view different from your own. Shows that the liberal tent is not open to anyone who doesn't share the same views. The Republican Party is the most inclusive party IMHO, I belong to Republican organizations at work and school and they welcome this non-Christian, pro gay marriage, enviromentalist with open arms. You however, condemn anyone who disagrees. Shame shame shame.