Recruiting Forum Off-Topic Thread II

Status
Not open for further replies.
#9,426
#9,426
VolsDoc81TX said:
Your interpretation does not necessarily make it infallible TRUTH.
Each should interpret the Bible and come to their own conclusions and interpretations.
There are many ways to get there as long as God and Jesus are the destination.
Click to expand...

I have no clue what you mean by your last sentence.

But I do agree with your first two. It is why we examine what we believe the Bible teaches. We do that through hermeneutics and exegesis. You said earlier that you get the belief that people from other faiths, Budhists, Muslims, and those who have never heard of Jesus, are all saved and innocent, from the Bible. The only way to know if that statement is true is to examine the biblical teaching. I submit to you the Bible does not teach that. But you have not presented any text to support that view or to deny mine. You have just responded emotionally with belittling comments about me. It is why I challenged you on your source of authority. I don't care what you think about me. But if we want to have a serious discussion, it isn't going to happen without actually examining our interpretations to see if they are correct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9,427
#9,427
Bassmaster_Vol said:
I have no clue what you mean by your last sentence.

But I do agree with your first two. It is why we examine what we believe the Bible teaches. We do that through hermeneutics and exegesis. You said earlier that you get the belief that people from other faiths, Budhists, Muslims, and those who have never heard of Jesus, are all saved and innocent, from the Bible. The only way to know if that statement is true is to examine the biblical teaching. I submit to you the Bible does not teach that. But you have not presented any text to support that view or to deny mine. You have just responded emotionally with belittling comments about me. It is why I challenged you on your source of authority. I don't care what you think about me. But if we want to have a serious discussion, it isn't going to happen without actually examining our interpretations to see if they are correct.
Click to expand...

Hey Bass, just a couple of questions,

Do you believe that people can read the Bible and come away with different meanings?

Do you believe that people with other interpretations are wrong?

Do you think others can get to heaven if they don't have the same interpretations as you?
 
#9,428
#9,428
InVOLuntary said:
Hey Bass, just a couple of questions,

Do you believe that people can read the Bible and come away with different meanings?

Do you believe that people with other interpretations are wrong?

Do you think others can get to heaven if they don't have the same interpretations as you?
Click to expand...

1. Of course, but not all meanings are true.

2. We can all be wrong in our interpretations, none of us are infallible. I am sure that I am wrong in some points of doctrine. However, I do believe in the doctrine of the perspicuity of the Scriptures, which teaches that in matters of things which are essential for faith and godliness, the Bible is clear and easy to understand. I.e., the Bible is very clear that's Jesus is the only way John 14:6 and John 8:24, and many others. If words have meaning, those verses and the scores of others teaching the same truth, are easy to understand.

3. No one can go to heaven unless they believe in Christ alone for their salvation. See number 2. Has nothing to do with "my interpretation".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9,429
#9,429
Bassmaster_Vol said:
1. Of course, but not all meanings are true.

2. We can all be wrong in our interpretations, none of us are infallible. I am sure that I am wrong in some points of doctrine. However, I do believe in the doctrine of the perspicuity of the Scriptures, which teaches that in matters of things which are essential for faith and godliness, the Bible is clear and easy to understand. I.e., the Bible is very clear that's Jesus is the only way John 14:6 and John 8:24, and many others. If words have meaning, those verses and the scores of others teaching the same truth, are easy to understand.

3. No one can go to heaven unless they believe in Christ alone for their salvation. See number 2. Has nothing to do with "my interpretation".
Click to expand...

I don't think Doc would disagree with any of that.
 
#9,430
#9,430
I could (or Bass) could counter a diagnosis by doc on a serious medical condition that is in doc's specialty in which he had devoted literally years of deep study. He would already know the likely result of the most successful treatment regimen and the other treatments that were not nearly as successful. Due to his extensive study and experience he would be quite certain he was correct. Essentially I could tell him that any number of people would give me different diagnosis's and resulting treatments that were just as valid. I could state there are numerous ways for me to overcome the medical issue and that his was just one. I could say that doc was just just on his high horse by insisting he was correct on his diagnosis when questioned by me.

It was clear I did not have the personal knowledge necessary to solve the condition on my own, yet, I did not like or disagreed with what doc had to say about it because my thoughts and choices to that point on the issue were different. I may have even consulted sources that told me more what I wanted to hear, had less knowledge than doc, or were selling their understanding as a better way. In other words, were more tolerant of my reasoning and understanding. If the issue was life threatening, I might die. However, regardless of the final result, I would have done it my way despite doc's best efforts in providing the sources and reasoning of his diagnosis.

Same thing. Bass just used scripture as it is written and in context as his authority and asked readers to examine their beliefs in light of it. They don't have to, they can continue on with whatever. However, if you state your Christian beliefs and understanding are based on what the Bible says, be ready to give a defense of same, preferably with the authority of scripture as your source. Peter instructs us to do that very thing in I Peter 3:15.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9,440
#9,440
No need for Sanders to ask any religious questions at a political confirmation hearing, unless that question is "will your faith in any way prohibit you from treating those with different beliefs fairly and carrying out your job as is proscribed by the letter of the law?"

This is no different than if someone tried to grill or shame a muslim/jew/buddhist/atheist for their beliefs at a confirmation hearing. Stick to questions about competency, Bernie.
 
#9,441
#9,441
Darth_Shiveman said:
No need for Sanders to ask any religious questions at a political confirmation hearing, unless that question is "will your faith in any way prohibit you from treating those with different beliefs fairly and carrying out your job as is proscribed by the letter of the law?"

This is no different than if someone tried to grill or shame a muslim/jew/buddhist/atheist for their beliefs at a confirmation hearing. Stick to questions about competency, Bernie.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. Glad to see you say that. That's religious discrimination. He wouldn't do that to another faith or to an atheist.
 
#9,442
#9,442
Bassmaster_Vol said:
Completely agree. Glad to see you say that. That's religious discrimination. He wouldn't do that to another faith or to an atheist.
Click to expand...

It was a purely political move on Sanders' part. He's trying to push the "Trump and everyone associated with him is overtly biased against muslims and unfit for office" narrative.

He just did it in the dumbest way possible.
 
#9,443
#9,443
Darth_Shiveman said:
It was a purely political move on Sanders' part. He's trying to push the "Trump and everyone associated with him is overtly biased against muslims and unfit for office" narrative.

He just did it in the dumbest way possible.
Click to expand...

And it demonizes everyone who agrees with that man. So if you believe like I do and what christians have believed for 2000 years, you're not fit for public office.
 
#9,444
#9,444
Bassmaster_Vol said:
And it demonizes everyone who agrees with that man. So if you believe like I do and what christians have believed for 2000 years, you're not fit for public office.
Click to expand...

Which is what makes it a dumb move, given that the majority of the country agrees with him lol

I get what Sanders wanted to do there, but there just wasn't a way for him to do it without crossing a line you're not supposed to cross (grilling someone for their religious beliefs in a job interview when it has nothing to do with the job itself). He should have just left it alone. If he disagreed with him religiously, write an op-ed afterwards. Leave it out of the political hearing.
 
#9,447
#9,447
Darth_Shiveman said:
Resign? Nah, you PC, brah?

Apologize, yeah.
Click to expand...

He would be calling for the head of any Christian who asked those question of a Muslim or someone of another faith. So yeah, he should resign if he refuses to admit that he violated the constitution and discriminated against him for his Christian beliefs. And no, I'm far from PC. I thought that would've been clear from the past however many pages of conversation.
 
#9,448
#9,448
He would be calling for the head of any Christian who asked those question of a Muslim or someone of another faith.
Click to expand...

Depends on which side of the party line that person was on, really. Democrats and Republicans are always looking for reasons to call for one another's heads.

So yeah, he should resign if he refuses to admit that he violated the constitution and discriminated against him for his Christian beliefs.
Click to expand...

It would be discrimination and despicable, yes. But it's arguable at best wheter or not it's a violation of the constitution. You have to prove that one line of questioning during the course of the confirmation as a whole is equatable to a "test" of his religion. Obviously, it was just an attempt for Sanders to try and make Vought look like a bigot.


You've argued for a very strict interpretation of the constitution in the past in regards to separation of church and state and the 10 commandments in courthouses. You shouldn't pick and choose here just because this time a loose interpretation favors your personal beliefs.

The relevant section of Article VI states:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States
Click to expand...

Is there anywhere there that says someone can't be questioned about their beliefs?

Article VI is about not allowing government someone to be barred from getting a job based on religion alone. It doesn't mean that questions about someone's religion can't ever be asked, if those questions are actually relevant to the job the person is in line for. (I don't think that was the case here).

An example of this point would be this:

A fundamentalist muslim, who proclaims a literal belief in the Quaran, was being confirmed for a position in the Department of Education. It wouldn't be inappropriate to question whether there was a conflict of interest for that person in advancing curriculums of science that teach the heliocentric model of our solar system over the "the sun, earth, and moon all orbiting simultaneously" model of the solar system many fundamentalist muslims believe.

In this type of case, questioning a person about their beliefs can be appropriate because it's relevant to the job they'll have to do and there is legitimate probative value for that question.

And no, I'm far from PC. I thought that would've been clear from the past however many pages of conversation.
Click to expand...

Seems to me like you're not PC until it's a matter of your convictions, then often right in line with the average second semester gender studies major
 
Last edited:
#9,449
#9,449
Darth_Shiveman said:
Depends on which side of the party line that person was on, really. Democrats and Republicans are always looking for reasons to call for one another's heads.



It would be discrimination and despicable, yes. But it's arguable at best wheter or not it's a violation of the constitution. You have to prove that one line of questioning during the course of the confirmation as a whole is equatable to a "test" of his religion. Obviously, it was just an attempt for Sanders to try and make Vought look like a bigot.


You've argued for a very strict interpretation of the constitution in the past in regards to separation of church and state and the 10 commandments in courthouses. You shouldn't pick and choose here just because this time a loose interpretation favors your personal beliefs.

The relevant section of Article VI states:



Is there anywhere there that says someone can't be questioned about their beliefs?

Article VI is about not allowing government someone to be barred from getting a job based on religion alone. It doesn't mean that questions about someone's religion can't ever be asked, if those questions are actually relevant to the job the person is in line for. (I don't think that was the case here).

An example of this point would be this:

A fundamentalist muslim, who proclaims a literal belief in the Quaran, was being confirmed for a position in the Department of Education. It wouldn't be inappropriate to question whether there was a conflict of interest for that person in advancing curriculums of science that teach the heliocentric model of our solar system over the "the sun, earth, and moon all orbiting simultaneously" model of the solar system many fundamentalist muslims believe.

In this type of case, questioning a person about their beliefs can be appropriate because it's relevant to the job they'll have to do and there is legitimate probative value for that question.



Seems to me like you're not PC until it's a matter of your convictions, then often right in line with the average second semester gender studies major
Click to expand...

I don't remember ever talking on here about the Constitution and separation of church and state.

As you said, the question was not relevant to his job. But upon questioning him if he believed that Jesus is the only way to heaven, and whether Muslims who disagree with that are condemned, which is what Christians have believed for 2,000 years, he said that Vaught is not fit for the office for which he is running. I don't think there is any escaping that it was a religious test. If it is required for someone to have public office to deny the Christian faith, then that is absolutely a test, and Bernie would not have accepted anything but a denial of Christ alone from Vaught. There is no other answer that he was looking for than for him to deny the Christian faith and say yes a Muslim can make it to heaven.

I don't know what you mean by your last line, I'm sure it was a cheap shot. But regardless, what Bernie did was a violation of the constitution, it would not be tolerated had it been directed at any other faith, but it is tolerated today because the man being questioned is a Christian. That has nothing to do with political correctness. If anything, Vaught was being grilled because he refused to be politically correct and deny the Christian faith (although he also tried to avoid saying the plain truth that he had said in his article, that Muslims who reject Christ as Lord are condemned).
 
#9,450
#9,450
Bassmaster_Vol said:
I don't remember ever talking on here about the Constitution and separation of church and state.
Click to expand...

Must have gotten you confused with another. Could've sworn you against the establisment clause being relevent to the issue of the 10 commandments in front of court houses a few pages back. My bad.

As you said, the question was not relevant to his job. But upon questioning him if he believed that Jesus is the only way to heaven, and whether Muslims who disagree with that are condemned, which is what Christians have believed for 2,000 years, he said that Vaught is not fit for the office for which he is running. I don't think there is any escaping that it was a religious test. If it is required for someone to have public office to deny the Christian faith, then that is absolutely a test, and Bernie would not have accepted anything but a denial of Christ alone from Vaught. There is no other answer that he was looking for than for him to deny the Christian faith and say yes a Muslim can make it to heaven.
Click to expand...

Here is where you're projecting again (and not looking at the politics involved). I vehemently disagree with his methods, but it's obvious that Sanders was looking for an answer that would indicate bigotry against muslims. Sanders didn't care about his answers in regards to his personal beliefs on salvation. He was grasping at straws to get Vought to admit some personal bias against muslims in hopes of blocking a Trump appointee. Sanders cares much more about making Trump and his appointees look like bigots than he does about their religious beliefs.

Vought didn't deny his faith at all and he still has a good chance to be confirmed since the Senate has a slight Republican Majority. Sanders' dumbassery might even give Vought some backlash votes in his favor.

I don't know what you mean by your last line, I'm sure it was a cheap shot. But regardless, what Bernie did was a violation of the constitution, it would not be tolerated had it been directed at any other faith, but it is tolerated today because the man being questioned is a Christian. That has nothing to do with political correctness. If anything, Vaught was being grilled because he refused to be politically correct and deny the Christian faith (although he also tried to avoid saying the plain truth that he had said in his article, that Muslims who reject Christ as Lord are condemned).
Click to expand...

The last line was just an observation. When it's your beliefs, you get just as swept up in the outrage and demanding resignations as the PC crowd. It's just coming from a different spectrum.

As for violating the constitution...like I said befoere it's not so cut and dry there. Even Fox News, of all places, is calling what Sanders did "pushing the limits of Article VI." You can interpret it that way if you want (I know you LOVE doing that), but it won't change the facts in this case. It would be very, very difficult to prove in any meaningful legal scenario that Sanders' actions actually violated the constitution.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.

VN Store



Back
Top