prisonchaplain

Sanders vs Vought = Postmodernism vs Truth

Recommended Posts

Sen. Bernie Sanders grilled Russell Vought, nominee for Deputy Director of the Office of Budget and Management, on his religious beliefs—specifically, that Jesus is the only way for salvation—and then declared he would vote against Vought, because of those beliefs. Law experts say the senator clearly violates the spirit of the U.S. Constitution, which allows for no religious testing of candidates for public office, but that senators may approve or reject whoever they want, for whatever reasons.

Given that Sanders publicly interrogated Vought on his beliefs, and then openly said that he would reject the candidate because of his religious convictions I wonder. I am no lawyer, but to my untrained eyes and ears, Vought was given a religious test, and the senator declared that he had failed it, and so would be rejected.

This is where Social Justice Warriors embrace the postmodernism milieu. If there is no ultimate truth, then all interactions are based on power. It matters not that Islam says God has no son, and whoever says he does is an infidel. Nor is it a concern that the Talmud declares Jesus a false prophet. To Sanders, Muslims and Jews are powerless, while Christians have power. So, it is not inconsistent to condemn and reject Christians, while given minority faith groups a pass on their claims to exclusive truth.

People of faith do well to obey the Apostle Paul’s admonition to pray for those in authority. Spiritual contention in the public square never ends well. God-seekers get divided, pitted against one another, and then ended doing ungodly actions in the name of defending the faith and the faithful. Fast, pray, meditate, and seek ever after God. Perhaps most pertinent during this season where there may be a few winners, but in which there will surely be many losers, remember that vengeance belongs to God.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sanders-vs-vought-postmodernism-religious-faith-truth-tommy-ellis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"People of faith". I think you mean Christians. Everyone has faith, but why would a Muslim, who also are people of faith, do well to obey the apostle Paul's admonition? I mean, the admonition is sound, but I doubt that they would be inclined to follow it because it was stated by the apostle Paul. Then you make some interesting comments which I believe are not quite correct, though they have nothing to do with colonel Sanders and his religious bigotry. I believe you are right. Sanders overstepped his bounds. Good thing he wasn't a popular candidate for president. Let's hope that if he runs again in a future election that people of faith won't forget that.

My understanding of the Muslim belief is that Allah has no NEED for a son. All he has to do is say a thing and it is done. And this is true. Allah doesn't need a son. God's children, however, do need His son. That He doesn't need a son makes no difference. It doesn't mean He doesn't have a son. The latter part of that statement is evidence that if Allah wanted a son, all He would have to do is "say a thing" like, I choose a Son to help the poor Muslims (and everyone else) to get back to me... and it is done. The statement defeats itself. If he is so powerful, he can have a son if he wants.

That we disagree with the Talmud and or that phrase, does not make us infidels. Sure some liberal warmongers, who have an eye on world domination, use the term to identify everyone that isn't a Muslim as an infidel, who preach this, but it is not part of the Muslim religion. It might be helpful to view that minority who do think like that as FLDS. They took some small part of the overall religion, decided that they were right and are now doing their own thing.

I have no idea if Sanders or the government supports the minority religions over mainstream religions. I've seen evidence of this under Obama. But I believe it is wise to know a person's convictions and it is wise to base decisions on whether a person is fit for a job or not based on his convictions. Protestants have always feared Catholics and Mormons having public office (truthfully, I think some don't really give it much notice, but the minority of that group have no problem using it to defeat the opposition). Kennedy had to give a statement of faith, how his beliefs would affect his public service, and so did Romney. I don't think this is going to go away soon.

I don't know if there is any legal recourse for Sander's statement, but based on his stated position, he shouldn't be allowed a vote, either yea or nay as a bare minimum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

"People of faith". I think you mean Christians. Everyone has faith, but why would a Muslim, who also are people of faith, do well to obey the apostle Paul's admonition? I mean, the admonition is sound, but I doubt that they would be inclined to follow it because it was stated by the apostle Paul.

 

Non-Hindus often find added wisdom to quotes by Ghandi.  As a Protestant, I love St. Francis counsel, "Preach the gospel by all means, and if necessary, use words." I used the "people of faith" phrase because even though Vought is an Evangelical Christian, people of almost any faith should feel uncomfortable with the kind of religious interrogation Sanders directed at him. Further, to dismiss a mid-level manager's candidacy for a financial position because of his religious doctrine is off-the-charts crazy, in the American context.

 

Then you make some interesting comments which I believe are not quite correct, though they have nothing to do with colonel Sanders and his religious bigotry. I believe you are right. Sanders overstepped his bounds. Good thing he wasn't a popular candidate for president. Let's hope that if he runs again in a future election that people of faith won't forget that.

My understanding of the Muslim belief is that Allah has no NEED for a son. All he has to do is say a thing and it is done. And this is true. Allah doesn't need a son. God's children, however, do need His son. That He doesn't need a son makes no difference. It doesn't mean He doesn't have a son. The latter part of that statement is evidence that if Allah wanted a son, all He would have to do is "say a thing" like, I choose a Son to help the poor Muslims (and everyone else) to get back to me... and it is done. The statement defeats itself. If he is so powerful, he can have a son if he wants.

 

This from Islamicity.org (quoting the Qur'an): An-Nisa (The Women) - 4:171:  O FOLLOWERS of the Gospel! Do not overstep the bounds [of truth] in your religious beliefs, [180] and do not say of God anything but the truth. The Christ Jesus, son of Mary, was but God's Apostle - [the fulfilment of] His promise which He had conveyed unto Mary - and a soul created by Him. [181] Believe, then, in God and His apostles, and do not say, "[God is] a trinity". Desist [from this assertion] for your own good. God is but One God; utterly remote is He, in His glory, from having a son: unto Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth; and none is as worthy of trust as God. - 4:171

 

That we disagree with the Talmud and or that phrase, does not make us infidels. Sure some liberal warmongers, who have an eye on world domination, use the term to identify everyone that isn't a Muslim as an infidel, who preach this, but it is not part of the Muslim religion. It might be helpful to view that minority who do think like that as FLDS. They took some small part of the overall religion, decided that they were right and are now doing their own thing.

 

The Talmud is Jewish commentary, and is held almost to the same level of authority as scripture. The term infidel is found in Islamic commentary, is often translated as unbeliever. In the Seattle area a Christian clergyperson converted to Islam, but sought to remain a Christian minister. She admitted that the nature of Jesus was a conflict, but somehow believed it could be reconciled. I know of no Muslim or Christian leadership who agree with her.

 

I have no idea if Sanders or the government supports the minority religions over mainstream religions. I've seen evidence of this under Obama. But I believe it is wise to know a person's convictions and it is wise to base decisions on whether a person is fit for a job or not based on his convictions. Protestants have always feared Catholics and Mormons having public office (truthfully, I think some don't really give it much notice, but the minority of that group have no problem using it to defeat the opposition). Kennedy had to give a statement of faith, how his beliefs would affect his public service, and so did Romney. I don't think this is going to go away soon.

I don't know if there is any legal recourse for Sander's statement, but based on his stated position, he shouldn't be allowed a vote, either yea or nay as a bare minimum.

 

The U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits religious testing, yet does not constrain senators in their individual votes. Sanders is a secular Jew, according to his own statements. However, another senator claimed to be a Christian, but agreed with Sanders that anyone who says there is no salvation apart from Jesus should be rejected. That prohibition would cover all of Evangelical Christianity, and much of traditional Christianity, as well. While LDS would not be immediately harmed by such a standard, give not-too-distant history, I doubt many would feel comfortable with government openly using religion as a measure of worthiness for government service--especially in mid-level administrative posts.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2017 at 1:20 PM, prisonchaplain said:

This from Islamicity.org (quoting the Qur'an): An-Nisa (The Women) - 4:171:  O FOLLOWERS of the Gospel! Do not overstep the bounds [of truth] in your religious beliefs, [180] and do not say of God anything but the truth. The Christ Jesus, son of Mary, was but God's Apostle - [the fulfilment of] His promise which He had conveyed unto Mary - and a soul created by Him. [181] Believe, then, in God and His apostles, and do not say, "[God is] a trinity". Desist [from this assertion] for your own good. God is but One God; utterly remote is He, in His glory, from having a son: unto Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth; and none is as worthy of trust as God. - 4:171

After reading more on this and finding yet another translation of the Quran, I am wondering if anyone has more information, the actual dialog between Sanders (who I ignorantly mocked before and shouldn't have) and Vaughn. Having drilled down to the area of question in that dialog, I found the person that Sanders was directing his questions about to be worthy of consideration. If anyone has access to the actual dialog, please, if it is permissible, paste a link to it.

Sanders certainly knew that he was stepping very close to the line so I'm curious if he actually did. 

I still don't see how the above scripture from the Quran is not correct. While it doesn't align with the modern Christian view of the Trinity, it clearly does state that the Father of Christ is Allah, who happens to also be our God. Considering that this was recorded early 600AD, I believe there was a big issue about that time on who was God and who was Lord. Originally, the early church did not see Christ as God, but as Lord and so the Trinity didn't exist until much later. This passage is actually to Christians and not to Muslims.  The "followers of the gospel" are Christians. The fulfillment of God's promise to Mary is exactly that. That He, God, would give Mary a son. Mohammad's words were to the effect, don't call Him, Christ, God. That there is only one God, which Christ Himself said. These parts are true. The passage: "utterly remote is He, in His glory, from having a son" (the alternate translation I have is "Exalted is He above having a son"), are a little archaic which to me doesn't amount to meaning anything, except as I stated, that He doesn't need a son. We do.

Now, as I did a little more research, I discovered that the entire line of questioning resulted over a public rebuttal that Vaughn gave against a Facebook post against a professor at Wheaton University (or is it College??) that sought solidarity with women of the Muslim faith, based on an article by yet another person who addressed the question, in effect, do Muslims and Christians share the same God. In other words: Is Allah the Father of Christ?

I was very impressed with the Facebook post. I didn't finish the article which the professor linked too. I saw that Sanders was particularly upset that Vaughn's published rebuttal specifically stated that she was entirely incorrect and that Muslims, by their faith are, already condemned. I can see how someone's judgment on a group of people based on his religious beliefs could be a problem for public office, but it depends on how Sanders addressed it. One article stated that Sanders flirted with the religious test issue, basically stating, in so many words, that he may not have crossed the line.

I was surprised to find out that Sanders was Jewish. I don't like his socialist position so I wouldn't vote for him, but it is interesting to see where his mind is at on the Muslim vs Christian issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

I still don't see how the above scripture from the Quran is not correct. While it doesn't align with the modern Christian view of the Trinity, it clearly does state that the Father of Christ is Allah, who happens to also be our God.

Did I miss the clear statement that Allah is the father of Christ? Jesus is "a soul created by Him" but not any sort of son (except in a most euphemistic sort of way).

Quote

Considering that this was recorded early 600AD, I believe there was a big issue about that time on who was God and who was Lord. Originally, the early church did not see Christ as God, but as Lord and so the Trinity didn't exist until much later. This passage is actually to Christians and not to Muslims.  The "followers of the gospel" are Christians. The fulfillment of God's promise to Mary is exactly that. That He, God, would give Mary a son. Mohammad's words were to the effect, don't call Him, Christ, God. That there is only one God, which Christ Himself said.

You might want to check your timeline. "The most likely time frame [for the Athanasian Creed] is in the late fifth or early sixth century AD" and "is firmly rooted in the Augustinian tradition, using exact terminology of Augustine's On the Trinity (published 415 AD)." The Nicene Creed went through some drafts as early as 325.

Both of these creeds affirm that Jesus was "begotten" of the Father, and affirm that Jesus is God ("very God of very God" says the Nicene Creed).

Quote

These parts are true.

Not from an LDS perspective. The Living Christ describes Jesus as " the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah of the New," and "the Only Begotten Son in the flesh." Our modern revelation has Jesus say that suffering in Gethsemane "caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit". And the revelations describe Jesus as "begotten" throughout.

Quote

The passage: "utterly remote is He, in His glory, from having a son" (the alternate translation I have is "Exalted is He above having a son"), are a little archaic which to me doesn't amount to meaning anything, except as I stated, that He doesn't need a son. We do.

Both may be archaic renderings, but that doesn't change the meaning: having a son is beneath God. Compare with Sura 112:

"Say, 'He is Allah, [who is] One, Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born, Nor is there to Him any equivalent.'"

Run it through whatever translation you want. Allah did not beget Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

If anyone has access to the actual dialog, please, if it is permissible, paste a link to it.

The full video is supposed to be here, but I couldn't get it to play.

I did find this blog that has both video and transcript, but it's truncated to just the relevant questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To give a little more background on the Wheaton controversy:  A couple of years ago a professor at Wheaton, who happened to be an African-American female, wore a hijab to class, as a sign of solidarity with Muslims, whom she believed were being unfairly treated in the U.S. The controversy arose when she declared that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.  She was asked by the university to recant, given that all faculty sign a Statement of Faith, agreeing to the Trinitarian view of God. She refused, and was fired.

It is important to note that Wheaton is a strongly Evangelical Christian college, with a robust spiritual environment. It's goal is not to bring a broadly Christian education to whoever comes, but rather to train and raise up Evangelical Christian leadership.

In that light, some liberals have chastised the school for violating the traditions and practices of protecting tenured professors--ensuring their academic freedom. However, such criticisms fail to also recognize that religious schools have equally strong rights to maintain their religious convictions, instruction, and practices.

So--Vought defended his school, by insisting that Muslims and Christians do NOT worship the same God, since traditional Christians worship Jesus as God the Son. I believe the same is true of LDS.  In saying that Muslim theology is deficient, he specifically mean that it denies Christ's deity and Sonship. Likewise, in saying that Muslims "stand condemned," he was referencing in a very direct way John 3:18, where Jesus says that apart from him, we stand "condemned already."

Vought did clarify, in a very gracious way (imho) that Christians see all human persons as created in the image of God, and all should be treated with dignity and respect.

Sanders responded by insisting that John 3:18 is disrespectful and Islamophobic (and anti-Semitic).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Did I miss the clear statement that Allah is the father of Christ? Jesus is "a soul created by Him" but not any sort of son (except in a most euphemistic sort of way).

It is my interpretation which I think I spelled out. The vague reference that "God has no need of a son" that really doesn't quite say that in the above translation, is in fact, true. God doesn't need a son. Why is that a problem?

13 hours ago, mordorbund said:

You might want to check your timeline. "The most likely time frame [for the Athanasian Creed] is in the late fifth or early sixth century AD" and "is firmly rooted in the Augustinian tradition, using exact terminology of Augustine's On the Trinity (published 415 AD)." The Nicene Creed went through some drafts as early as 325.

Both of these creeds affirm that Jesus was "begotten" of the Father, and affirm that Jesus is God ("very God of very God" says the Nicene Creed).

Mohammed was much closer to that time frame that we are. Presentism is not going to solve the issue. I realize that these creeds stated that Jesus was God, but those are not the early Christians to which I was referring and while the creeds were in place, the notion that Christ was God was not as firm then as it is now. 

We recognize that Christ is God, but we worship only one God, unlike most modern Christian organizations.

13 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Not from an LDS perspective. The Living Christ describes Jesus as " the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah of the New," and "the Only Begotten Son in the flesh."

This is presentism. I know what we state now. The apostles didn't say anything about Jesus being God. They called him Lord and that there was one God which Christ also stated. Even after the resurrection, Christ commanded us to pray to the Father, though He accepted the prayer offered to him by the disciples after his resurrection. 

Which one of these isn't true:

"The Christ Jesus, son of Mary"
"was but God's Apostle", messenger in the other translation. I might remind you that Paul called Christ an angel, which also is a messenger.
"[the fulfilment of] His promise which He had conveyed unto Mary"
"and a soul created by Him." (I might point out here, that this is an odd statement in its form since none of us are created by God. God created Adam and Eve and Christ. He didn't really have much to do with human creations after those three - speaking in explicit terms).

In the translation I used, the word Christ is translated as Messiah. Christ is the Greek word for it. One cannot, or should not, miss the significance of Mohammed's use of it. Nothing in the passage states that passage address who Christ was outside of his mortal existence. It is not fair to bring that identity to bear in what Mohammed did say. It's clear to me that Mohammed was only stating that it was overstepping our religion to state that Jesus was God which at that time in history, it was in question. He was basically saying the creeds are false even though we don't like the way he said it.

These are only my opinions. I don't think Mohammed was off base. Further, to state that He was will only alienate Muslims who must also, eventually, hear the word of God, which; apparently, Vaughn appeared to believe was a complete waste of energy and effort since Muslims are already condemned. That, as with my statements in another thread, is the wrong approach.

13 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Both may be archaic renderings, but that doesn't change the meaning: having a son is beneath God. Compare with Sura 112:

"Say, 'He is Allah, [who is] One, Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born, Nor is there to Him any equivalent.'"

Run it through whatever translation you want. Allah did not beget Jesus.

I disagree with the way you read it. I have already stated the passage that where I believe Mohammed clearly states that Allah did beget Jesus.

I realize that Muslims will also disagree with me. And I wouldn't argue it with them. I strictly go with the idea that Jesus was not created for Allah. He was created for us by Allah. The Muslim concept of heaven seems to me that it would be ridiculous to claim that Allah couldn't produce a son if He so chose. The idea behind all of these statements is only that Allah is alone, God. And I am fine with that definition of Allah. I believe that describes God, the Father, just fine. It's shaky, but when dealing with Muslims, I am agreeable to that definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

It is my interpretation which I think I spelled out. The vague reference that "God has no need of a son" that really doesn't quite say that in the above translation, is in fact, true. God doesn't need a son. Why is that a problem?

Mohammed was much closer to that time frame that we are. Presentism is not going to solve the issue. I realize that these creeds stated that Jesus was God, but those are not the early Christians to which I was referring and while the creeds were in place, the notion that Christ was God was not as firm then as it is now. 

We recognize that Christ is God, but we worship only one God, unlike most modern Christian organizations.

This is presentism. I know what we state now. The apostles didn't say anything about Jesus being God. They called him Lord and that there was one God which Christ also stated. Even after the resurrection, Christ commanded us to pray to the Father, though He accepted the prayer offered to him by the disciples after his resurrection. 

Which one of these isn't true:

"The Christ Jesus, son of Mary"
"was but God's Apostle", messenger in the other translation. I might remind you that Paul called Christ an angel, which also is a messenger.
"[the fulfilment of] His promise which He had conveyed unto Mary"
"and a soul created by Him." (I might point out here, that this is an odd statement in its form since none of us are created by God. God created Adam and Eve and Christ. He didn't really have much to do with human creations after those three - speaking in explicit terms).

In the translation I used, the word Christ is translated as Messiah. Christ is the Greek word for it. One cannot, or should not, miss the significance of Mohammed's use of it. Nothing in the passage states that passage address who Christ was outside of his mortal existence. It is not fair to bring that identity to bear in what Mohammed did say. It's clear to me that Mohammed was only stating that it was overstepping our religion to state that Jesus was God which at that time in history, it was in question. He was basically saying the creeds are false even though we don't like the way he said it.

These are only my opinions. I don't think Mohammed was off base. Further, to state that He was will only alienate Muslims who must also, eventually, hear the word of God, which; apparently, Vaughn appeared to believe was a complete waste of energy and effort since Muslims are already condemned. That, as with my statements in another thread, is the wrong approach.

I disagree with the way you read it. I have already stated the passage that where I believe Mohammed clearly states that Allah did beget Jesus.

I realize that Muslims will also disagree with me. And I wouldn't argue it with them. I strictly go with the idea that Jesus was not created for Allah. He was created for us by Allah. The Muslim concept of heaven seems to me that it would be ridiculous to claim that Allah couldn't produce a son if He so chose. The idea behind all of these statements is only that Allah is alone, God. And I am fine with that definition of Allah. I believe that describes God, the Father, just fine. It's shaky, but when dealing with Muslims, I am agreeable to that definition.

I think we may be rebutting points the other isn't making. And although a scarecrow murdered my parents in cold blood, I do my best not to pummel a strawman. In that spirit, let me summarize the points I think you are making and you tell me if I'm putting words in your mouth. @prisonchaplain let me know if I'm representing you properly as well.

PC: [PC1] Vought wrote an article stating, and in a hearing with Sanders reaffirmed, that it was his Christian belief that Muslims stand condemned before God because they don't believe in the same Christ as Christianity. [PC1.1] Here is a verse in a Surah that describes Muslim belief on Christ. Specifically, Christ is not God. [PC2] Sanders is out of line, violating the spirit of the Constitution regarding religious tests.

BoJ [PC1 rebuttal]: Vought is incorrect to assume that Muslims stand condemned because [BoJ1] modern Christianity does not believe in the same Christ of early Christianity and [BoJ2] Muslims don't believe that Christ was NOT God's son; they are agnostic in that belief. [BoJ1.1] by 600AD, when the Quran was compiled, Christianity was still debating the Trinity. [BoJ 1.2] Early Christianity (as shown in the Bible) thought of Jesus as Lord, not God. [BoJ 1.3] The Quran weighs in on the subject and affirms that Christ is Lord, not God.

[BoJ2.1] The proof text of PC1.1 is in fact true. That is, there is no statement in it that is false. [BoJ2.2] There is nothing in the Quran that claims that Jesus is NOT God's son, only that he doesn't NEED a son (I don't need a degree to do my job, but that doesn't mean I don't have one).

Is this an accurate summary?

One point I'm fuzzy on: For [BoJ2], Muslims are agnostic on the sonship of Christ, is this what you think Muslims believe, or do you think this is what Mohammed believed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@mordorbund You did a fine job of summarizing my statements. My challenge to @brotherofJared, and anyone who believes that Vought was somehow extremist and non-representative of mainstream traditional Christian thinking, is to find for me a recognized Muslim leader or scholar who would allow for the belief that Jesus is the capital-S Son of God. I offer an interesting, and open-minded set of scholarly observations by a Reform Jewish rabbi, who is respectful of Christianity and Islam, even as he continues to adhere to Judaism:  http://www.religioustolerance.org/muslim-jewish-views-of-jesus-as-son-of-god.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

 

Mohammed was much closer to that time frame that we are. Presentism is not going to solve the issue. I realize that these creeds stated that Jesus was God, but those are not the early Christians to which I was referring and while the creeds were in place, the notion that Christ was God was not as firm then as it is now. 

We recognize that Christ is God, but we worship only one God, unlike most modern Christian organizations.

This is presentism. I know what we state now. The apostles didn't say anything about Jesus being God. They called him Lord and that there was one God which Christ also stated. Even after the resurrection, Christ commanded us to pray to the Father, though He accepted the prayer offered to him by the disciples after his resurrection.

This is not true.  There are plenty of passages in the New Testament including the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters that unequivocally state Jesus is God.  The doubting Thomas himself touched Jesus' wounds and declared, "My Lord and my God!".  All throughout what the Mormons refer to as the state of great apostasy, early Church fathers continue to teach Jesus as God - very popular teachings in the pre-council early church from Ignatius and Justin Martyr all declare Jesus as God.

Jesus' diety is not the main issue on the table that resulted in the Nicene and Anastasian creeds.  Majority believe in the diety of Christ.  The issue on the table was the ONE GOD controversy.  If the Father is God and Jesus is God, then how can they be One God?  This is the question that resulted in the heresy of the Arian churches.  The early Roman churches believed that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost - all God - are One God through one substance (ousia).  All 3 persons proceeds from the other - Jesus proceeds from the Father, the Holy Ghost proceeds from Jesus - but they are all One God because of that God substance and therefore, Father, Son, Holy Ghost all have no beginning, no end, none subordinate to the other.  The heresy that the nicean council struck out was the Arian teaching that because there can only by one God, then Jesus Christ was created by the Father (his existence begins at Bethlehem) and is God only because of his perfect obedience to the Father.  He is a "lesser God" so he should not be called God (as this conflicts with One God) but should be called Lord/Master.  The council of Nicea declared this Arian teaching as heresy as it opposes the teachings of the "true Church" (considered to be the seat of Rome at that time).

So, as you can see - the diety of Christ has always been taught in the early Church even as Arius tried to challenge it which is the main reason that Constantinople called the first ecumenical council in the first place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

These are only my opinions. I don't think Mohammed was off base. Further, to state that He was will only alienate Muslims who must also, eventually, hear the word of God, which; apparently, Vaughn appeared to believe was a complete waste of energy and effort since Muslims are already condemned. That, as with my statements in another thread, is the wrong approach.

This, especially the bolded phrase,  is also not true.

And to me, Sanders crossed the line because Vaughn did not defend himself properly.  This would have been a simple non-issue if only Vaughn had the courage to defend his faith and fight against its politicization.  But no, he, like most politicians, caved to the rules of political correctness and political valuation and opted for evasion - which only compounds the problem because if there's anything we learn from Democrats it's that they're like dogs after a bone regardless if the bone is Fake News if they think they can politically bludgeon you with it... the better route would be to squash the politicization of one's religious convictions.

Yes, Vaughn - like most Christians including Mormons - believe that it is only through Christ that we are saved.  Or in other words, those who do not accept Christ as their Savior stands condemned.  This is a simple declaration of religious belief.  Sanders politicized the belief and made the word CONDEMN stand against political correctness... that is, the implied meaning to his line of questioning is - you believe Muslims are condemned, therefore, you must believe that it is okay to <discriminate, hurt, maim, kill> Muslims.  Vaughn should have seen that implied politicization and addressed it through his religious convictions.  It is a very easy answer - "Yes, they are condemned, but we also believe as strongly on repentance and that every person is a child of God.  Therefore, we, as Christians, are obligated to help our Muslim brothers and sisters feel the love of our Savior through our love for them.  It is my religious conviction as a Christian to save this Muslim from an early demise as death takes away the hope for repentance."  End stop.  Sanders' argument has no more leg to stand on.

Now, I think you were wondering why Sanders/Democrats support Muslims.  This support has nothing to do with religiousity and everything to do with politics.  The American Left decided that they can't win the white majority's vote.  Therefore, they decided to make a coalition of voting minorities - because if you take all the minorities in the entire country, especially if you take away from the white voter demographics by making minorities out of them - white females can be made a minority through feminist grievances, white hispanics, white jews, white gays, white Muslims, etc. can be made a minority through their specific minority grievances - they can build a big enough coalition of minorities that will surprass the white majority.  Therefore, Obama made it a policy not to call terrorists Islamic - they don't want to alienate that minority in that coalition.  Because, this house of cards would crumble if the feminist and LGBT grievances would focus their attack on Muslims - they want to focus that attack on the white voter because that's the voting block they can't win in.

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vought chose a wise course in deflecting Sander's direct questioning, and getting to the heart of his real question. In responding to a third or fourth-time repeated ask of, "Are Muslims condemned?" he replied, "Thanks for drilling down on that question. My faith teaches me that we are all created in the image of God, and that I must treat every human person with dignity and respect." (my paraphrase)  Some felt this was a dodge, but yet, it answered the claim of many critics that those of us with exclusive truth-claims in our theology cannot possibly treat others fairly. The answer to that is that we are commanded by God to do so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Vought chose a wise course in deflecting Sander's direct questioning, and getting to the heart of his real question. In responding to a third or fourth-time repeated ask of, "Are Muslims condemned?" he replied, "Thanks for drilling down on that question. My faith teaches me that we are all created in the image of God, and that I must treat every human person with dignity and respect." (my paraphrase)  Some felt this was a dodge, but yet, it answered the claim of many critics that those of us with exclusive truth-claims in our theology cannot possibly treat others fairly. The answer to that is that we are commanded by God to do so. 

A better answer, and an imagined conversation following:

Sanders: Are Muslims condemned?
Vought: Condemned by whom, Senator?
Sanders: Condemned by God.
Vought: You're asking me if God condemns Muslims.
Sanders: Yes.
Vought: You want me to speak for God?
Sanders: No, I [blubbering idiot-speak, stammering because he realizes everyone sees he is a fool], I want to know what you think. Does God condemn Muslims?
Vought: I'm here for Senate confirmation hearings, Senator. If you want to know what God thinks, perhaps you should ask him.
Sanders: No! I want to know what YOU think!
Vought: I think US citizens deserve full protection of their rights, regardless of their religion.
Sanders: Quit dodging the question! Are Muslims condemned?
Vought: You need to ask God about that, Senator. As a politician you admire once said, that's above my pay grade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
15 minutes ago, Vort said:

A better answer, and an imagined conversation following:

Sanders: Are Muslims condemned?
Vought: Condemned by whom, Senator?
Sanders: Condemned by God.
Vought: You're asking me if God condemns Muslims.
Sanders: Yes.
Vought: You want me to speak for God?
Sanders: No, I [blubbering idiot-speak, stammering because he realizes everyone sees he is a fool], I want to know what you think. Does God condemn Muslims?
Vought: I'm here for Senate confirmation hearings, Senator. If you want to know what God thinks, perhaps you should ask him.
Sanders: No! I want to know what YOU think!
Vought: I think US citizens deserve full protection of their rights, regardless of their religion.
Sanders: Quit dodging the question! Are Muslims condemned?
Vought: You need to ask God about that, Senator. As a politician you admire once said, that's above my pay grade.

If only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mordorbund said:

I think we may be rebutting points the other isn't making.

That's possible. I wasn't trying to rebut Sander's actions. Politically, his question is flammable, even though I agree with Sanders' accusation. I believe it is wrong for anyone to condemn anyone simply because of what their faith teaches them. Depending on which modern Christian denomination they belong too, some seem to believe that God made Muslims to be condemned from the beginning.

6 hours ago, mordorbund said:

One point I'm fuzzy on: For [BoJ2], Muslims are agnostic on the sonship of Christ, is this what you think Muslims believe, or do you think this is what Mohammed believed?

1

Mohammed believed. Muslims, like Christians, without the proper guidance, have gone far astray from Mohammed's teachings. They are a religion of performances, but; from my observations, those performances hardly do anything for them. Same as did the performances the Jews were ladened with.

Again, I wasn't trying to rebut. I was just offering my observations. I personally disagree with the assertions made and I gave my reasons I don't really expect anyone to agree with me. I know my position is unpopular, probably on both sides. The Muslims won't agree with me and the Christians won't agree with me. I would think that the Mormons would. There is very little difference between Mohammed and Joseph Smith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

anyone who believes that Vought was somehow extremist and non-representative of mainstream traditional Christian thinking

Oh. I think Vaught represented mainstream Christians just fine. I disagree with mainstream Christians on a daily basis. Now. It appears that I also disagree with Mormons on a daily basis. I feel like a snow ball in hell.

Edited by brotherofJared

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

That's possible. I wasn't trying to rebut Sander's actions. Politically, his question is flammable, even though I agree with Sanders' accusation. I believe it is wrong for anyone to condemn anyone simply because of what their faith teaches them. Depending on which modern Christian denomination they belong too, some seem to believe that God made Muslims to be condemned from the beginning.

 

Sanders asserted that Vought condemned Muslims and could not serve them equitably. Vought made it clear that he believed everyone is created in the image of God, and should be treated with dignity and respect. His alleged condemnation was in quoting John 3:18--without Christ, we stand "condemned already." So... are you agreeing with Sanders, that Vought, because of his belief in John 3:18, cannot possibly treat Muslims equitably--that anyone endorsing John's gospel is not worthy of service in any federal position??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW ...I was pleased to discover that the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League had called upon Sen. Sanders to clarify his opposition to Vought. In their view, Vought should not be disqualified for his theological views.  http://www.christianpost.com/news/jewish-group-puzzled-concerned-bernie-sanders-criticism-trump-appointee-christian-views-187687/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

This is not true.  There are plenty of passages in the New Testament including the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters that unequivocally state Jesus is God.

 

I've been through this with modern Christians many times. I really don't want to argue it again. It is my belief that there are NO verses in the Bible that state that Jesus is God. He is always the Lord and the Father is God. That is my belief. Now, if you want to show me a verse, one verse, that you feel unequivocally disproves my statement, then, by all means, show it. By acquiesce, I mean I'm not going to waste a bunch of time disputing that one issue. I've stated my belief. 

BTW, Ehrman has written quite a few articles on how the apostles and early Christians didn't think of Jesus Christ as God initially and that it developed over time. He used the New Testament and many secular studies to present that theory. For all I know, Ehrman might also disagree with me, but it is his comments on the subject that got me to think about it.

It is questions such as this that lead me to this site. The question I had was about the cherubim and who does the voice from between the cherubim represent, actually; who is it suppose to be. I recognize Jesus as God and I realize that we do also, but I believe that idea developed. It was not immediate. Even with Peter's statement... Thou art the Son of God, doesn't really define Jesus as God, but instead, the Son of God. He was the Messiah, who I don't believe the Jews ever believed was God. The problem that we have is that as the Jews were being exiled, the Old Testament went through a rewrite to eliminate references to a heavenly Mother and a Son of God, both of whom were getting "undo" attention in worship. What we have now is a morphed Old Testament that often times makes it confusing about who was speaking? Jesus, the Son of God or His Father and so frequently, we say that Jesus was speaking as the Father.

We are viewing the past and ancient scripture through a haze of intentional obfuscation in order to present a new order of belief that did not exist before these people who exerted a powerful influence on what we have today.

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

The doubting Thomas himself touched Jesus' wounds and declared, "My Lord and my God!".

Very good. I think if someone had come from the dead, I would have said something similar. Some might even conclude that Thomas was a Freemason. The problem with this teaching, that Jesus is God, is the immediate question, among monotheists, is, who then is the Father? The Trinity, as it became known through the creeds, was not ever defined in the Bible. Declaring that Jesus is God is a monotheistic catastrophe. Only through modern revelation do we come to understand that they are all three Gods, even though our worship is solely confined to the Father.

These are just my thoughts. I had no intention of arguing who Christ is. I know who He is, but many here will take umbrage with my position, make fun, claim I'm apostate and the abuse will go on and on. Oh well.

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

believe that it is only through Christ that we are saved.  Or in other words, those who do not accept Christ as their Savior stands condemned

These two statements are not equal. As far as I know, Mormons believe that it is entirely up to God who is condemned and who is not. Because, as far as we know, Muslims don't accept Christ as the Son of God, they are condemned? To where? The idea that we can decide what people know, what they believe and if they are condemned or not is ludicrous. We are not in a position to condemn anyone. And, frankly, the issue with Vaugh? is his condemnation of a fellow Christian because she sought solidarity with Muslims. This is getting out of control fast. Pretty soon, the modern Christians will be condemning Mormons. Heaven help anyone who tries to extend a helping hand to them, especially with Vaughn doing the judging...

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Now, I think you were wondering why Sanders/Democrats support Muslims.

No. I don't really care. Your explanation is interesting, but; attacking the white vote by supporting a minority is not really the way to win an election. True politics would be to either talk a lot and say nothing, support both sides or support neither side while leaving the door open to escape at any moment to the winning side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

Sanders asserted that Vought condemned Muslims and could not serve them equitably. Vought made it clear that he believed everyone is created in the image of God, and should be treated with dignity and respect.

He also made it equally clear, in public dissertation, that he didn't really believe that when he supported the stand Wheaton took to fire a fellow Christian. So, not only does he show a propensity to judge people who are not of his faith, he also appears to be willing to judge those of his faith when they disagree with him or his views. It's fine to claim to treat people equally, but when they don't treat people equally, especially when someone is stepping out to treat people equally, which he claimed God commanded that Christians do, then obviously Sanders has a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now