Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

    There is some quote, probably apocryphal, attributed to Mahatma Gandhi that comes in two parts.

    Gandhi: "Jesus Christ is probably the greatest moral philosopher that ever lived."
    -- Then why aren't you a Christian?
    Gandhi: "because so few Christians actually follow the teachings of Jesus."
    "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

    "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

    "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

    "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

    Comment


    • Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

      Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
      There is some quote, probably apocryphal, attributed to Mahatma Gandhi that comes in two parts.

      Gandhi: "Jesus Christ is probably the greatest moral philosopher that ever lived."
      -- Then why aren't you a Christian?
      Gandhi: "because so few Christians actually follow the teachings of Jesus."
      Which is a core issue around how non believers misappropriate Christianity (such as the logic used by UNO).

      Its the Christ message that matters...and its ongoing impact. Others who say or do things contrary to that message are just using it for their own personal means.
      Go Gophers!

      Comment


      • Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

        Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
        There is some quote, probably apocryphal, attributed to Mahatma Gandhi that comes in two parts.

        Gandhi: "Jesus Christ is probably the greatest moral philosopher that ever lived."
        -- Then why aren't you a Christian?
        Gandhi: "because so few Christians actually follow the teachings of Jesus."
        I've always heard it as "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."
        Michigan Tech Huskies Pep Band: There's No Use Trying To Talk. No Human Sound Can Stand Up To This. Loud Enough To Knock You Down.

        Comment


        • Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

          Originally posted by Twitch Boy View Post
          I've always heard it as "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."
          Blame Paul.
          **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

          Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
          Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

          Comment


          • Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

            Originally posted by 5mn_Major View Post
            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.
            Christ never argued against slavery, either -in fact, in several of his parables, God is cast as the slave owner and we are his slaves.

            Sorry, but you walked right into that one.
            If you don't change the world today, how can it be any better tomorrow?

            Comment


            • Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

              No better source for God than God...i.e., Jesus.

              Originally posted by LynahFan View Post
              Christ never argued against slavery, either -in fact, in several of his parables, God is cast as the slave owner and we are his slaves.

              Sorry, but you walked right into that one.
              So straight from himself...what was Jesus' purpose on earth?

              'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour.'
              Go Gophers!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by 5mn_Major View Post
                No better source for God than God...i.e., Jesus.



                So straight from himself...what was Jesus' purpose on earth?

                'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour.'
                Wasn't that Jesus quoting Isaiah? IIRC it got him run out of town.
                CCT '77 & '78
                4 kids
                5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
                1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

                ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
                - Benjamin Franklin

                Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

                I want to live forever. So far, so good.

                Comment


                • Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

                  Originally posted by 5mn_Major View Post
                  {pretty much every line of every statement}
                  We're going to need this.

                  Is the only feedback you have from the Freedom from Religion Society?
                  First link I found, and in any case: Genetic Fallacy. The source of the information does not matter, its truth does.


                  At very minimum, Garrison was in the same neutral camp as Jefferson Davis.
                  Middle Ground Fallacy, but it's worse than that.

                  You are arguing that when Davis uses religion to support slavery we can't take him at his word because he's using political rhetoric. The proof offered for this is that to the extent that someone is Christian they can't support slavery (No True Scotsman), so since there's no proof it has to be a blanket statement that words used in the heat of political battle are inadmissible since they may simply be a ploy. But then you quote Garrison in the heat of the battle and say that contradicts what he writes in hindsight when the battle is over. To the extent that your dismissal of Davis' statement is true, your citation of Garrison as contradicting himself is undone by the same logic. You either have to admit into evidence Davis' statement as supporting the proposition that slavery advocates sincerely believed their stance had God's approval, or you can continue to deny that but then admit that Garrison and others opposed slavery without religious conviction. You can't have both, and either alone is bad for you.

                  Yet nearly a third of the original AASS convention were strict Quakers
                  Begging the Question. Where does "strict" come from? We know 21 members were "Quakers," but we have no idea to what degree they were even observant. Thomas Paine was from a family of Quakers and took pains to distinguish Quakers as people who did not believe the Bible to be the literal word of God. Deists and Quakers are often lumped together in this period as being separate from mainstream Christianity in believing there is an inner light source that trumps ritual and scriptural mandates, which are man-made, and the establishment Christians of the time treated them as an "other" group. Saying they count in your win column is like trying to count Unitarian Universalists as part of the Christian right because they go to something they call a "church." The only way you can argue these were somehow especially observant is by saying "well of course they were since they opposed slavery..." which is circular reasoning.

                  The backdrop for all of this was the Second Great Awakening.
                  You mean this Second Great Awakening?

                  Slavery in the 19th century became the most critical moral issue dividing Baptists in the United States. Struggling to gain a foothold in the South, after the American Revolution, the next generation of Baptist preachers accommodated themselves to the leadership of southern society. Rather than challenging the gentry on slavery and urging manumission (as did the Quakers and Methodists), they began to interpret the Bible as supporting the practice of slavery and encouraged good paternalistic practices by slaveholders. They preached to slaves to accept their places and obey their masters. In the two decades after the Revolution during the Second Great Awakening, Baptist preachers abandoned their pleas that slaves be manumitted.

                  After first attracting yeomen farmers and common planters, in the nineteenth century, the Baptists began to attract major planters among the elite. While the Baptists welcomed slaves and free blacks as members, whites controlled leadership of the churches, their preaching supported slavery, and blacks were usually segregated in seating.
                  Or the fact that in the 40 years between the end of the SGA and the outbreak of warfare, southern Baptists separated themselves religiously because their brand of religious observance and their ownership of other human beings were designed to be mutually reinforcing?

                  The Triennial Convention and the Home Mission Society adopted a kind of neutrality concerning slavery, neither condoning nor condemning it. During the "Georgia Test Case" of 1844, the Georgia State Convention proposed that the slaveholder Elder James E. Reeve be appointed as a missionary. The Foreign Mission Board refused to approve his appointment, recognizing the case as a challenge and not wanting to overturn their policy of neutrality on the slavery issue. They stated that slavery should not be introduced as a factor into deliberations about missionary appointments.

                  In 1844, Basil Manly, Sr., president of the University of Alabama, a prominent preacher and a major planter who owned 40 slaves, drafted the "Alabama Resolutions" and presented them to the Triennial Convention. These included the demand that slaveholders be eligible for denominational offices to which the Southern associations contributed financially. These resolutions failed to be adopted. Georgia Baptists decided to test the claimed neutrality by recommending a slaveholder to the Home Mission Society as a missionary. The Home Mission Society's board refused to appoint him, noting that missionaries were not allowed to take servants with them (so he clearly could not take slaves) and that they would not make a decision that appeared to endorse slavery. Southern Baptists considered this an infringement of their right to determine their own candidates. From the Southern perspective, the Northern position that "slaveholding brethren were less than followers of Jesus" effectively obliged slaveholding Southerners out of the fellowship.

                  A secondary issue that disturbed the Southerners was the perception that the American Baptist Home Mission Society did not appoint a proportionate number of missionaries to the southern region of the US. This was likely a result of the Society's not appointing slave owners as missionaries. Baptists in the North preferred a loosely structured society composed of individuals who paid annual dues, with each society usually focused on a single ministry.

                  Baptists in southern churches preferred a more centralized organization of congregations composed of churches patterned after their associations, with a variety of ministries brought under the direction of one denominational organization The increasing tensions and the discontent of Baptists from the South regarding national criticism of slavery and issues over missions led to their withdrawal from the national Baptist organizations.

                  The southern Baptists met at the First Baptist Church of Augusta in May 1845. At this meeting, they formed a new convention, naming it the Southern Baptist Convention.
                  tl;dr: The Southern Baptist church split off specifically over slavery.

                  Is there anything else from all the evidence I provided?
                  You've now helped to establish that the northerners who had metaphorical as distinct from literalist readings of the Bible founded the abolitionist societies, that southerners defended slavery as being God-ordained, and that Biblical literalists in the south were so serious about the connection between their slavery advocacy and their religion that they split off their religious sects specifically to promote the religious rightness of slaveholding.

                  I'm not sure your argument can take much more of your examples.
                  Last edited by Kepler; 06-19-2014, 02:15 PM.
                  Cornell University
                  National Champion 1967, 1970
                  ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                  Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                  Comment


                  • Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

                    Originally posted by joecct View Post
                    Wasn't that Jesus quoting Isaiah? IIRC it got him run out of town.
                    Gods continuum. The next passage:

                    'To-day hath this scripture been fulfilled in your ears.'

                    The irony is that He was a driving force behind freeing the slaves thousands of years later.
                    Go Gophers!

                    Comment


                    • Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

                      Originally posted by 5mn_Major View Post
                      Gods continuum. The next passage:

                      'To-day hath this scripture been fulfilled in your ears.'

                      The irony is that He was a driving force behind freeing the slaves thousands of years later.
                      Yes, that is ironic, considering that God himself told the Israelites to take foreigners as their slaves (Leviticus 25:44). Or is that not part of the continuum? Either God changes his mind a lot or he's got multiple personality disorder and believes both things at once.
                      If you don't change the world today, how can it be any better tomorrow?

                      Comment


                      • Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

                        Originally posted by 5mn_Major View Post
                        'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour.'
                        Not electable.
                        Cornell University
                        National Champion 1967, 1970
                        ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                        Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                        Comment


                        • Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

                          Originally posted by LynahFan View Post
                          Yes, that is ironic, considering that God himself told the Israelites to take foreigners as their slaves (Leviticus 25:44). Or is that not part of the continuum? Either God changes his mind a lot or he's got multiple personality disorder and believes both things at once.
                          "Vengeful God / loving God..."

                          The way out of this is that the New Covenant changed the rules, or that the Old Testament is a murky prefiguring of the coming of Christ so there's an Uncertainty Principle where you can know either that God's speaking or that he means it but not both. Or the ever popular "the fact that it makes no sense proves it's beyond our human powers of logic."
                          Last edited by Kepler; 06-19-2014, 02:25 PM.
                          Cornell University
                          National Champion 1967, 1970
                          ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                          Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                          Comment


                          • Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

                            Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                            We're going to need this.
                            So what is the logical fallacy for using logical fallacies in order to ignore hard evidence?

                            Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                            First link I found, and in any case: Genetic Fallacy. The source of the information does not matter, its truth does.
                            Refuted in the post. Your quote regarding the Bible in matters not related to slavery was overshadowed by Garrison's own usage of Christianity in his justification for the abolition of slavery.

                            Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                            Middle Ground Fallacy, but it's worse than that.

                            You are arguing that when Davis uses religion to support slavery we can't take him at his word because he's using political rhetoric. The proof offered for this is that to the extent that someone is Christian they can't support slavery (No True Scotsman), so since there's no proof it has to be a blanket statement that words used in the heat of political battle are inadmissible since they may simply be a ploy. But then you quote Garrison in the heat of the battle and say that contradicts what he writes in hindsight when the battle is over. To the extent that your dismissal of Davis' statement is true, your citation of Garrison as contradicting himself is undone by the same logic. You either have to admit into evidence Davis' statement as supporting the proposition that slavery advocates sincerely believed their stance had God's approval, or you can continue to deny that but then admit that Garrison and others opposed slavery without religious conviction. You can't have both, and either alone is bad for you.
                            Refuted in the post. Hmm...seems I did say 'At very minimum, Garrison was in the same neutral camp as Jefferson Davis.'

                            Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                            Begging the Question. Where does "strict" come from? We know 21 members were "Quakers," but we have no idea to what degree they were even observant. Thomas Paine was from a family of Quakers and took pains to distinguish Quakers as people who did not believe the Bible to be the literal word of God. Deists and Quakers are often lumped together in this period as being separate from mainstream Christianity in believing there is an inner light source that trumps ritual and scriptural mandates, which are man-made, and the establishment Christians of the time treated them as an "other" group. Saying they count in your win column is like trying to count Unitarian Universalists as part of the Christian right because they go to something they call a "church." The only way you can argue these were somehow especially observant is by saying "well of course they were since they opposed slavery..." which is circular reasoning.
                            Oh boy...where's those straws. They called themselves out as Quakers...they were called out of a larger group to the public as Quakers...and you're point is that they probably weren't Quakers? When Thomas Paine joined an organization...do you think everyone said 'oh there's a Quaker joining us'?

                            Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                            You mean this Second Great Awakening?

                            I'm not sure your argument can take much more of your examples.
                            What examples? You've dodged facts by using invalid logic tactics...and provided nothing of relevance yourself.

                            In short, show any examples where slavery was extended by applying Christ's principles...rather than showing examples of people who advanced positions contrary to Christ's principles.

                            Wilberforce
                            Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade
                            British Anti-Slavery Society
                            Nat Turner
                            Even John Brown
                            There are dozens of others in the documentation I provided.
                            Go Gophers!

                            Comment


                            • Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

                              Originally posted by LynahFan View Post
                              Yes, that is ironic, considering that God himself told the Israelites to take foreigners as their slaves (Leviticus 25:44). Or is that not part of the continuum? Either God changes his mind a lot or he's got multiple personality disorder and believes both things at once.
                              Christianity is a faith based on Christ. If you want to argue that the old testament trumps the new...go find some Jews.
                              Go Gophers!

                              Comment


                              • Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

                                I know Kepler went to Cornell and I suspect LynahFan did too. 5minmajor?

                                This is reading like a seminar debate forum. Fun to read as each side is marshalling the facts to support their positions. Keep it up, please.

                                One question though - did any of you have a conservative lecturer while you were on campus? Or, had they been all run off by then?
                                CCT '77 & '78
                                4 kids
                                5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
                                1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

                                ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
                                - Benjamin Franklin

                                Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

                                I want to live forever. So far, so good.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X