'You are engaged in some sort of false religion'

[cbayer]

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/09/23/20663355-you-are-engaged-in-some-sort-of-false-religion

By Steve Benen - Mon Sep 23, 2013 4:07 PM EDT



Associated Press

Republican E.W. Jackson, Virginia's stupefying candidate for lieutenant governor, made some headlines over the weekend by disagreeing with Pope Francis on issues related to the culture war. But the news hardly came as a surprise -- the pope endorsed more inclusive and tolerant attitudes on homosexuality, while Jackson has condemned gay people as "sick" and "perverted."

And then yesterday morning, Jackson went just a little further.

At a morning sermon Sunday in Northern Virginia, Republican lieutenant governor candidate E.W. Jackson, a Chesapeake pastor, said people who don't follow Jesus Christ "are engaged in some sort of false religion."

Jackson offered that view while describing a list of the "controversial" things he believes, and that must be said, as a Christian.

"Any time you say, 'There is no other means of salvation but through Jesus Christ, and if you don't know him and you don't follow him and you don't go through him, you are engaged in some sort of false religion,' that's controversial. But it's the truth," Jackson said, according to a recording of the sermon by a Democratic tracker. "Jesus said, 'I am the way the truth and the light. No man comes unto the Father but by me.'"

more at link

[dgibby]

1. It's people like this idiot

that drove me out of the church. Didn't want to be labeled as guilty by association. He gives gawd a bad name.

[cbayer]

3. He is really outrageous, isn't he.

And, I agree, he gives religious people a bad name. It is not surprising that so many have become unaffiliated with any specific religion, be they believers or not.

[skepticscott]

4. His interpretation of what "god" wants or expects

is every bit as valid as yours or anyone else's.

[dgibby]

6. Not if it's not Bibically correct (and it's not).

YMMV.

[Act_of_Reparation]

7. It isn't?

Seems to me in Matthew and Luke, Jesus instructs his followers to keep to the laws of the Old Testament. Sure is a lot hating in there, that's for sure.

[dgibby]

8. He makes the Old Testament look like a Pacifist's manifesto.

He also cherry picks what parts of the Bible he choses to follow. He and his fellow travelers seem to think it's an a la carte menu.

[skepticscott]

19. Don't look now

but you do the exact same. And neither you nor he really know what "god" wants or expects, so you just project what you want.

[dgibby]

21. I don't believe in "god",

so guess that doesn't apply to me, but please proceed with your judgemental pronouncements and projections (did you see what I just did there?). You're really good at it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. Why did you say that an interpretation that is not 'Biblically correct' is not as valid

as one that is? If you don't believe in god, why grant that book a special place in deciding the validity of religion?

[dgibby]

26. It's in reference to

Jackson's stated beliefs. He says he's a Christian. If he's not following Christ's stated admonitions, then he's not Biblically correct. It's his holy book and his religion, not mine(although it was for many years). What I said was in the context of his Christian beliefs. In that respect, he's not correct, imo.

[Act_of_Reparation]

40. You really should read up on your Bible before making statements like that.

If the laws established in the Torah admonish homosexuality as an abomination for which God has prescribed the death penalty, and if Christ, in the books of Matthew and Luke, commands his followers to keep to said laws, then Jackson is more of a Christian than those who preach tolerance towards homosexuals, if "Biblical accuracy" is your metric in determining such things.

The fact of the matter is the bible is so rife with contradictory commandments and moral messages that no person looking to derive an ethos from the book can do so with total fidelity. Everyone--right or left--cherry picks the passages that fit within their preexisting moral framework, so trying to credit or discredit one's beliefs based on such practices is a wholly fruitless and patently dishonest endeavor.

[skepticscott]

24. I'm not the one

who started this thread by calling someone else an idiot, now am I? Nor was I the one pontificating about what was and was not "biblically correct". Seems like that was you. So spare me your snark about "judgmental pronouncements".

[dgibby]

25. Not only did I read "Games People Play",

but I also understood it. Trying to have a discussion with you is a colossal waste of time and energy, but it's also obvious that that wasn't your intention in the first place.

Yes, I did call him an idiot, which he is, imo. He's also dangerous and will bring great harm to my state and the people I love if he or his fellow travelers get elected.

As for Biblical correctness, if, as he states, he is a Christian, then he should be following Christ's admonitions. If not, then he's not Biblically correct.

Trust me, I won't "spare" you anything, so put your big boy/girl pants on and deal with it or better yet, put me on ignore. I didn't go after you personally. You're the one who started that.

We're done here.

[skepticscott]

28. Does ANY Christian follow all of Christ's admonitions?

Every single one? Of course not. For you to even imply that someone has to to be a "Christian" is laughable. Everyone cherry picks, and then uses their own arbitrary standards to label others as "not Biblically correct" or "not real Christians".

You can splutter and bluster and pretend all you want that this is not directly related to the issue at hand, and try to dismiss and insult me instead. And no, the personal snark started with you, but it seems you want to take your ball and go home when you get as good as you give.

[dgibby]

30. Whatever floats your boat.n/t

[skepticscott]

31. Apparently we weren't as done as you promised

And I know you have neither the intention nor the ability to debate the issue here, or to admit you started with a bankrupt argument and got worse from there, but I can see you learned from your precious book the need to get the last word in, so I'll let you have it.

[skepticscott]

15. Who determines

what is "Biblically correct"? It usually ends up being a matter of cherry picking what you like, and pretending that the rest doesn't exist. What specifically has he says that contradicts the Bible completely (not just the way you want the Bible to be)?

[hrmjustin]

39. You havve a point. Anyone can interpret scripture anyway they want and it is a matter of opinion.

[Warpy]

5. He's maximizing your company, I think

Intolerant jackasses like this one are only trying to maximize their tithes. Instead, they do tend to drive Christians away.

[tanyev]

2. "Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong..."

[Fumesucker]

11. There's a protest singer singing a protest song

[cbayer]

12. I don't know about that. Here in SoCal, lots and lots of men say they are Jesus.

[No Vested Interest]

9. Does the lt. Gov nominee run in tandem with the Gov. nominee

in VA? Or do they run separately?
I can't imagine any level-headed person taking Rev. Jackson for a serious candidate for political office.

Cuccinelli is bad enough, this guy is unbelievable.

[cbayer]

10. They run separately.

[longship]

13. So say the Sunnis about the Shias.

So say the Hindus about the Muslims.

So say the Protestants about the Catholics.

So say the Muslims about the Hindus.

So say the Catholics about the John Frum Cargo Cult.

And, and , and, and, and, etc.

Religion poisons everything.

[cbayer]

14. He takes it a bit further, though.

Religion also sweetens some things.

[longship]

16. Before they take the sweeties, they have to accept the hind side.

I have no sympathy for the "religion does some good" argument while there is so much religiously based mayhem on the planet. If they own up to the hind side, I'll start listening about their benefits.

Atheists argue about lots and lots and lots of things. If you put a dozen atheists in a room you'll likely have 13 different and contradictory opinions.

But we don't start killing one another over it.

It's not what theists believe that pisses me off. It's their behavior when their beliefs are challenged. They don't have a very good record on that.

Meanwhile atheists continue their epistemological and rhetorical arguments, often with passion, but never with homocide (that I know of).


Sorry, my good friend. This stuff raises my passions.

[skepticscott]

18. Religion sweetens nothing

that can't be sweetened in other ways, without the associated bitterness, violence, bigotry, hatred, and destruction of the human mind, body and spirit that religion brings with it.

Name one good thing that can only be accomplished by religion and in no other way, cbayer. One.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

44. Further than whom?

Compared to much of the Islamic world, in particular, this guy is a model of liberal ecumenical tolerance.

[cbayer]

45. Not saying he's the worst, but I don't think he is a model of liberal ecumenical tolerance

by any stretch.

[LostOne4Ever]

20. So he thinks all other religions are false huh?

People living in glass houses and all that.

[Mariana]

32. I think most religious people believe that

although most of them will not say so publicly. Why would anyone align themselves with a particular religion if they didn't believe it was true? And if their religion is true, doesn't that mean the others must be false?

[LostOne4Ever]

33. You are right

BUT, usually people are aware of the very real possibility that they are practicing a false religion themselves, and that there is a possibility that the other person could be right. And of course, there is the possibility all religions are wrong.

Generally, people try to be respectful of other beliefs because of this, thus my statement about people living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[cbayer]

34. Some people believe that there are many ways to heaven or to god.

So, no, it is not necessarily true that if one holds a certain set of beliefs, all the others must be false. Some feel that this is the truth for them personally, but that others may hold a truth that is different but equally valid.

Those are the "one-wayers", and while they certainly exist, they are not everyone.

[skepticscott]

35. A rather silly straw man

Last edited Tue Sep 24, 2013, 06:30 PM - Edit history (1)

Holding a certain set of beliefs does not make all others false, obviously. That's not even worth refuting. But if certain beliefs are true, then beliefs that contradict them must be false. The belief that homosexual sex is sinful and the belief that homosexual sex is not sinful cannot both be true, no matter how much you want everyone to be right and every belief to be as true and valid as every other one, cbayer.

[Mariana]

36. Of course you're right.

That is why I said "most believers" and not "all believers".

[cbayer]

37. And you are most likely right about it being most.

I was raised in a tradition that really respected all kinds of belief systems, looking for the similarities instead of the differences.

It came as a surprise to me when I began to see that others really held the perspective that they had the only way and felt the need to convince others to follow them.

It still puzzles me. If one believes in something as utterly incomprehensible as a god, then the possibilities are wide open.

[uriel1972]

47. If a god is incomprehensible...

How do you tell it exists? Then if it exists, how do you tell what it wants? Maybe worship is exactly the thing it doesn't want, but there would be no way of telling. Does it take pleasure in our triumphs or revel in our torments, who can say?

Perhaps the people it tries to communicate with are driven insane, or only the insane can communicate with it, "Touched by the Gods". Which brings up the dangerous possibility of having to trust the insane to impart the truth, but there would be no way of knowing if they do or not.

An incomprehensible god may be worse than a malicious god. May as well be an athiest.

[cbayer]

48. I can't answer those questions, but there are those who do.

There are those that believe that others have communicated in some way or been instilled with some knowledge. There are those who believe that a god has acted through or communicated through humans, like Jesus.

Interestingly, psychotic people frequently have religious ideation and feel they can communicate in some way. But it's not exclusive to people who are diagnosed with psychiatric illnesses. So the issue of "trusting the insane" is really not a valid argument, imo.

What an individual gets from their personal understanding of a god may of great value to them and sometimes to others as well.

But you are right. If it is of no value to you, you might as well be an atheist.

I suspect that for most people, whether there is in fact a god doesn't make much difference. They would probably behave the same regardless of the answer to that unanswerable question. So you might as well be a theist.

[uriel1972]

22. How do you tell a "Real" religion for a "False" one?...

Beats me

[dimbear]

41. Good question. In false religions, God is all powerful, but still needs a few bucks.

Dead giveaway, as the saying goes.

[uriel1972]

42. Hmmm...

Doesn't that make most if not all religions "False" I haven't seen a religion without a collection plate, or a fundraiser of some kind. "Donations kindly accepted."

[dimbear]

43. The FSM isn't making many demands, but come to think of it the only religion that pays you instead

of you pay it is Devil worship. Even that is sort of a reverse mortgage deal where eventually you're sorry you signed up.

[Locrian]

27. biblically correct?

Isn't that an oxymoron? How can you be biblically correct if the bible contradicts itself?



Captain Kirk: Everything Harry tells you is a lie. Remember that. Everything Harry tells you is a lie.

Harcourt Fenton Mudd: Now listen to this carefully, Norman. I am... lying.

Norman: You say you are lying, but if everything you say is a lie, then you are telling the truth, but you cannot tell the truth because everything you say is a lie, but you lie... You tell the truth but you cannot for you lie... illogical! Illogical! Please explain! You are human. Only humans can explain their behavior! Please explain!

[skepticscott]

29. A very good point, which some here

seem to be completely oblivious to.

[struggle4progress]

38. ... A new Washington Post/Abt-SRBI poll finds a tight race for lieutenant governor, with

likely voters split 45 percent for Northam and 42 percent for Jackson ...

E.W. Jackson faces key test in debate with Democratic opponent for lieutenant governor
By Michael Laris
Published: September 23

[Leontius]

46. Just like in too many states people don't read, listen or really pay attention to what a

candidate is saying they just see (D) is good/bad (R) is good/bad.