63% of Biden voters reject that God is 'perfect and just' creator - The Christian Post
Category: News & Politics
Via: drakkonis • 3 years ago • 151 commentsBy: Ryan Foley, Christian Post Reporter Follow (ChristianPost)
About what I expected from the left but I'm disappointed by the numbers from the right. We are losing our foundation. We're becoming more and more adrift and I don't know how that can work as a basis of holding together as a country.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
63% of Biden voters reject that God is 'all powerful,' 'perfect and just' creator: survey
By Ryan Foley, Christian Post Reporter Follow | Tuesday, February 23, 2021 FacebookTwitterEmailPrintImgNo-imgMenuWhatsappGoogleRedditDiggStumbleuponLinkedinCommentPresident Joe Biden walks along the Colonnade of the White House Thursday, Jan. 28, 2021, en route to the Oval Office. | White House/Adam Schultz
A new post-election survey reveals that a majority of those who voted for President Joe Biden don't believe "God is the all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect and just creator" who rules over everything in Heaven and Earth today.
The Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University released the fourth in-depth report about its 2020 Post-Election Survey last week. The survey was conducted between Nov. 4 and 16, 2020. The latest installment of the survey focuses on the views of Biden's voters as compared to the views of Americans who voted for former President Donald Trump as well as voters and adults as a whole.
More votes were counted in the 2020 presidential election than any other in U.S. history. Former Vice President Joe Biden got over 81 million votes, the most votes for any presidential candidate, to President Trump's 74 million, the second-most votes in an election. Their totals also broke the record of votes cast for former President Barack Obama, who received 69.5 million votes in 2008.
Biden voters make up a plurality of those surveyed by the Cultural Research Center, accounting for 426 of the 1,000 respondents. Measured at 387, Trump voters were slightly less represented in the sample.
While 65% of Biden voters describe themselves as Christian, most (56%) said they see themselves as "spiritual but not religious" and 57% said they were not "deeply committed to practicing" their religion. Additionally, most of the Biden voters held views that were at odds with the teachings of Christianity.
For example, 68% of Biden voters believe that "The Holy Spirit is not a living entity but is a symbol of God's presence, power, or purity."
Sixty-three percent of Biden voters rejected the notion that "God is the all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect and just creator of the universe who rules that universe today" and 72% said that they believe that "a person who is generally good, or does enough good things for others, will earn a place in Heaven."
Only 30% agreed that the Bible "is the actual or inspired Word of God and contains no errors."
Seventy-five percent of Biden's voters cite something other than the Bible as their most trusted source of moral guidance. Most Biden voters who fit into this category identified their feelings, experiences, friends and family as their sources of moral guidance.
Biden voters were more likely than adults in general to believe that "having faith matters more than which faith you have," with 79% of Biden voters and 74% of all adults agreeing with that statement. Biden voters were less likely to identify as Christian than adults as a whole and Trump voters.
Seventy-five percent of Biden voters believed that "identifying moral truth is up to each individual; there are no moral absolutes that apply to everyone, all the time." Among all adults, 67% said the same.
When asked if they believe that "all religious faiths are of equal value," 68% of Biden voters answered in the affirmative compared to 62% of all adults and 56% of Trump voters. On social issues, Biden voters held divergent views from the adult population as a whole as well as their Trump-voting counterparts.
Regarding the issue of abortion, a supermajority (60%) of Biden voters believe that the Bible is ambiguous on the matter, along with a narrow majority of adults as a whole (51%) and a minority of Trump voters (41%).
Forty-two percent of Biden voters agree that "the marriage of one man to one woman is God's only acceptable plan for humanity, for all cultures on earth" while majorities of all adults (54%) and Trump voters (69%) believe that God's plan for humanity requires the upholding of traditional marriage and the nuclear family.
The idea that only those who have confessed their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior will go to Heaven when they die has 15% support among Biden voters, compared to 24% of all adults and 34% of Trump voters.
Thirty-seven percent of Biden voters see God as "the all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect and just creator of the universe who rules that universe today" while 47% of all adults and 60% of Trump voters hold the same view of God.
It also found that 31% of Biden voters are active in a Christian church compared to 42% of Trump voters.
The share of those who identify as theologically conservative stands at 25% among Biden voters and 42% among Trump voters. One-quarter (25%) of Biden's voters accept the teaching that "absolute moral truths exist and are defined in the Bible," as opposed to 43% of Trump voters.
The report also included data about the religious demographics of the supporters of the two major presidential candidates.
A plurality of Biden's voters (29%) "don't believe in God/care about God/think God's existence is knowable" while 27% attend a Protestant church, 21% attend a Catholic church, 13% "attend a Christian church, type undetermined" and 9% are non-Christians.
Meanwhile, those who attend a Protestant church constitute 42% of Trump's supporters, while Catholics made up 21%, and those who "attend a Christian church, type undetermined" were 13%, non-Christians were 7%, and those who "don't believe in God/care about God/think God's existence is knowable" comprised the rest of his voters at 18%.
Overall, Protestant voters surveyed favored Trump over Biden by a 14-point margin (47% to 33%), while the so-called "Don'ts" faith segment preferred Biden to Trump 45% to 25%.
George Barna, the director of the Arizona Christian University's Cultural Research Center who conducted the study, warned: "If our government denies the core principles on which it was founded — which were originally derived from the Bible — in favor of an inconsistent patchwork of modern philosophical preferences, the result will be chaos, constant disputes, and widespread dissatisfaction."
According to Barna, "A strong and thriving society requires a stable foundation of truth on which to make just and appropriate decisions. The more the United States puts distance between itself and its moral and spiritual moorings, the less likely we are to have an effective vibrant government and a healthy and vibrant way of life."
Tags
Who is online
453 visitors
Be nice.
Be nice.
You pulled the pin and tossed the grenade...... May your God help you!
Get your mud here.....! By the bucket..... Get your mud here! Free delivery if you order now!
Nah.... I'm just a capitalist looking to make a profit on the never-ending shit show of those that can't understand that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.
That and I find religious faith as intellectual laziness. Math=good. Beliefs=a joke.
I don't give a damn if a person prays or doesn't. Just leave it out of government. We were better off without it.
AMEN
Truly! What's this nonsense about 'god is a perfect and just creator? and what does it have to do with President Biden and those who voted for him?
When I see a title like this, I just dismiss anything else that might be said in the article, as pure garbage.
No need to read any further.
Would a perfect and just creator create disease and death? God is an engineer and the engineers I know create things to break...so they can create something to take its place
I don't have a problem with politicians and others praying on government sites; just be honest and sincere people at all times (or at least 99.99 percent of the time). I realize that there are governmental gray areas of essential levels of secrets, confidentials, and For Official Use Only.
According to them it is....
A perfect Gods creation used the free will he gave us to do evil and bad things. That being caused the fall of humanity when our original human parents chose to go along with the deception and rebellion. God is perfect and He created a perfect world for us and we messed it up. And He forever fixed the sin problem 2000 years ago. God has won and Satan has lost and we are all now choosing sides.
That is such a ridiculous fable. A perfect God creates a perfect world and creates two human beings. He then instructs them to not eat from a particular tree. Now this God is also omniscient so He knows exactly what will happen. He knows they will eat from the tree. And when they do He condemns them and all of their progeny.
Seems to me (and to anyone thinking rationally) that there is no possible way for human beings to not screw things up. If the entire species is punished for mortal eternity due to a single disobeying by two naive human beings then clearly, even if they had obeyed, they or their progeny would screw up in some other way. God knowingly and purposely created imperfect human beings and then punished them for being imperfect. And this supposedly is a loving God. What utter bullshit.
How can anyone, seriously considering the logic, buy this nonsense?
Can somebody please explain to me how a poll of 1000 people can determine that the 63% stated above actually constitutes the 63% that actually voted for Biden?
That describes most religious fables. What's that say about adherents to those fables?
I cannot. A sampling of 1,000 people out of a nation of 230+ million eligible voters turns out to be 0.00047% of the eligible population. The sampling policy had better be spectacular to accurately reflect such a large body of voters.
Therein lies the fallacy of political polling in DC, but people still insist on accepting poll results like they are God's honest truth. I stopped believing in such polls many years ago.
I don't know how religious fanatics missed it, but the candidate best representing xtian conservative values, in both word and deed, lost the last election.
I'm sorry I can't participate in this much at the moment. I work 12 hour days which doesn't allow me much time until my weekend gets here. I will say that I'm surprised at the response to this post. This wasn't intended to poke anyone in the eye. It wasn't intended to ruffle feathers. It wasn't a poke at the left. In fact, the main reason I posted it was the disappointing, to my mind, numbers on the right.
Yet you led off with a poke" at the :eft" before expressing your disappointment with the "right".
Um, no. I just indicated that I wasn't surprised by the left's numbers. I said it wasn't a poke but if you want to take it as one I can't stop you and I'm not going to bother arguing about it. So, have fun.
So, it's a disappointing statistic in your opinion from the right, but holds no negative connotation in your eyes from the left? Tell us how that works, please.
So yes it is a poke at the left.
We may be becoming more adrift as a nation, but I would suggest that the extremists on both sides tack back to the middle politically and spiritually to better compensate and repair the breaches they are creating! A bunker mentality is its own reward with more hunkering down.
You want to remember peace and union? Start remembering our Prince of Peace is more than a bit moniker!
That is, Jesus could not be a warmonger or battle scarred warrior who healed a severed ear and forgave liars, while at the same time 'schizotic" enough to lop off heads while lying about doing so!
I’ll take his word for it. That’s all that needs said here.
Yeah, but you believe Trump actually won the election, so...
I am not even slightly surprised by that finding.
So what?
So what?
So what?
So what?
Religions are human creations. That doesnt make them bad, one can still believe in God and even believe that God is the source of all good and all morality, but also believe that religions are expressions of a perceived connection to The Creator. How can an eternal God whose realm spans eternity and infinity have been only represented through one religious tradition, and not the others than arose on the same planet ? It makes no sense. After one realizes that religions are human creations it is easy to accept them all as expressions of a divine influence.
That's how I feel about this bogus article. So what?
Another case of the religious cult minority wanting dominance over anything and everything else. If they didn't care, they wouldn't have run the poll.
JR, this is one topic you and I agree on.
When I did my research paper on religions and what they're really trying to say, I found out Hindu is the oldest major religion that's still widely recognized today (not counting sub-sects or not widely recognized).
And there are those who claim it to be a "false" religion. Such a declaration is quite arrogant and sanctimonious.
Did you all have the same feelings or lack there of in 2016 when Trump won and those numbers were reversed?
Greetings and salutations.
You said:
I do not think that we are losing our foundation, I think that it is becoming broader. What exactly do you mean by saying that?
Historically, what held a village, region or country together was shared basic principles and values. They were all on the same page, in other words. Today, what you call becoming broader is a discarding of those things that used to keep us on the same page for what is called "diversity." The problem with that is it can't work when a bunch of people are trying to share the same space and still live peacefully. Each of those diverse groups wants to impose their principles and values on all the others. It can't be any other way.
Agreed. At some point we all want to live and get along with our neighbors. I have found that even when there is nothing to fight over, some people will make something to fight over. Boredom, I guess. The question seems to be at what level of difference do we all the sudden become "Others" ?
People tell me everyday of reasons that this or that is not "Right." My old and somewhat flippant answer was ,"Define "Right"." This at least gave me time to make my escape. This question was designed to make the person stop and think, and hopefully realize that right is not an arbitrary concept, nor is it etched in stone somewhere, but it exists somewhere in between the rigid concept and the flighty will of man. As such, IMO, it is not the duty of people or governments to define what is right for anyone else.
Given that, there are some things that we can all agree are wrong by definition: Murder and theft are the large ones. And there are certain things that one should not do like lie and cheat. Once you get beyond those basics, the rest is figuring out how strict to be about these things. The rest has (or should have) no bearing on how we go about our daily lives.
I feel there is one important deterministic question that must be asked: Is what I am planning on doing going to impact any other persons rights? For the most part, our daily activities will not infringe or impose on others rights. (If you haven't figured out yet, I am a social libertarian.)
You Said:
Well, bully on them. They can want in one hand and shit in the other. Look at the question above. That is the most basic question that we all need to answer. I do not see different principles and values as a threat as long as we keep that question in mind.
Which led to many, many wars....
What you are describing is "tribalism."
What our mutual constitution aspires to (has not 'more perfected') is homogenization of the races of humankind. You can see it in the Biden "doctrine" of a diversity across every area of his cabinet; government offices, and even down to vaccine distribution patterns. Gelling.
Let's be clear, the Constitution can be enhanced, modified, or depleted from through modern states coming together in appropriate numbers. The issue is, conservatives, nearly all, want the constitution to stay stuck in the past. Even wanting to remove anything outside of the Bill of Rights (The first ten former amendments.)
Why support such actions? Because it goes to intent - that certain states in the union have never truly intended to integrate, commune, or ingratiate their tribes to a country of diversity, where all are considered as equals. That is, conservatives want largely White Majority Rule nation as it was in the beginning (they contend).
The sad truth is there are "Americans" in our country who do not want to "live and get along" - they desire to not budge one iota from their worldview to respect the worldviews of others though they are safe and sound ideologies.
It is nothing more than aggression. We have tribes in our country (mostly conservative) who do not plan to gell with other people. Such people want to rule, dominate, and control all the sources of wealth, power, privilege—as an inheritance.
This is why they resent diversity. It means sharing what they call "Me-Mine-Tribe" with others. This they can not bring themselves to wish well to accomplish.
So what do they do? They demonize, ostracize, minimize, and at the end of the day: create so-called "alternative realities" to inhabit inside their individual and collective minds. Even though they surely know that doing so is dangerous and damaging to a life, and a new-next generation.
What's pathetic and yet food for thought is this:
Tribalism does not allow people to get to really know others. As a new generation of tribal members come 'online,' each one is a fresh head to be given the experiences of the minds which came before their birth. A sharing of the same loves and, of course, the same hates. People become a running mystery to each other. Even going so far as becoming 'monsters' or demonized based on separate tribal rules and cultures.
It is easy to hurt, dismiss, ruin, destroy, and ultimately kill people you don't ever allow or bother to understand or know or feel something real deep down inside.
You can still have principles and values and not think that god is all powerful. In fact, I would say that it is a common mechanism not to lose faith in everything.
Read the book, "When bad things happen to good people", which was written by a rabbi.
True True True
Not to mention that as individual human beings we do have freedom of our will.
I'm not sure what to make of that. Are you saying that not having shared principles and values would not lead to wars? And, how do you avoid people who share principles and values from coming together?
People through willful or accidental misapprehension, have consumed propaganda that tells them there are "others" within society who, for whatever reason, should be made to change some aspect of their life or societal stature based upon some perceived difference. If that perceived difference is great enough, it can lead to terrible consequences.
Rush - Witch Hunt
Well, Thomas, I don't know what do say except that was weirdly an excellent pictograhy communication and a sound 'eargasm!' I love me some Rush. Admittedly, I missed this song back in the day!
This is what is wrong with conservatism today forthright and especially under Donald Trump. These people are deluding themselves into thinking they are on some crusade to serve God's purposes by calling and literally, yes literally, seeing liberals as monsters trapped in skin.
Be warned! These conservatives in congress who are setting themselves up as "frenemies" to liberals are not that. They are sworn to our destruction. It is time to realize that they are going to "string us up" politically and even worse if they can see their way to do more. That is, Trump conservatives concede nothing, if they apologize (they do not but if) it is a ploy, and we need to hit them hard between the eyes with drenching, overpowering 'buckets' of truth over and over and over again!
I am done pussyfooting around with these dangerously delusional some conservatives who hate me without a cause.
This is exactly why the move away from mythology is beneficial to our society.
This is exactly why the move away from mythology is beneficial to our society.
AMEN!!!!
Away from mythology and closer to science, education, thinking skills, ect..
Morals, values and ethics do not exist only in the Christian people. If people adhered to those three things our foundation would be fine and our country strong. Has nothing to do with the Christian god or any god or goddess - it is people that make the country.
Perfect Veronica!
Thank you.
Thank You, well said!
I agree completely.
This is like would be like taking a poll on the religious beliefs and values of Trump voters; which was done several times, and using it as a basis to hate.
I am an atheist, and a fiscal conservative, I hold social views that are far more moderate (for the most part).
People should be judge as individuals by who they are. Not what religion or god they do or don't believe in.
Indeed. But I've heard certain christians make the claim that it does. Something along the lines that a person can only be moral if they have religion/God.
Yes. But unfortunately, blind partisanship (among other things) is what is weakening us.
I am with you on that point.
You are most wise.
It's really destroying the Democrat party..
No, it's destroying the country as a whole.
That’s for sure!
This is true, as far as it goes. However, a society that claims diversity in these things is a good thing can't stand for long. That is because one can't have several competing groups of morals, values and ethics without conflict. History has shown that well enough. And that is what we are going through today. Post-modernism has it that there is no fundamental truth and what each believes about those three things are valid for each individual. So what we end up with is a bunch of blind people trying to describe an elephant by the part they happen to be standing next to. I'm sure you've heard the story.
So, again, any society can have morals, values and ethics not based on Christianity. We see that all over the world. The point is that we are abandoning the idea that we all must share, more or less, the same morals, values and ethics in order to survive as a nation. Right now we have incompatible ideas about those things that go beyond just right and left. There's so many competing ideas about it out there that we can't rally around just one. The foundation on which this country grew is almost gone and there is nothing valid to replace it. Rather, just a bunch of ideas that basically claim that what one wishes to be true, is. That can't work.
All it really takes is for people to truly believe, "If it harms none, do as you will."
And who gets to decide which morals, values & ethics are to be hard wired into the people of varying cultures in our country? Christians? NO THANK YOU!!! As a whole the Christian community is a wonderful idea...BUT many of the members are hypocritical asses that shouldn't be followed down a slide.
I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? "The foundation on which this country grew. . . ." Are you talking about the "foundation" or some select foundation you romanticize about our country?
There have always, always, always, been oppressed, repressed, hurting, miserably outcasted people in the United States - for hundreds of year it was acceptable as par for the course.
What offends you about the changes today? That you won't be able to look across to the 'horizon' in our country and not see someone being happy who offends your moral individual realities?
A thought: Let other people have a chance legally, politically, and socially to live - yes live - without snarl or hindrance when they do you no real harm.
You've obviously enjoyed "the fat" of this land enough to think its slipping away from your grasp incrementally.
The good news is it does not have to end bad; no one who really matters wants to hurt "the Masters," we just want like to finally work for everyone. For the "more perfect union" to get on with it by us all doing a part to make it happen.
I am so glad that you said that. I know, being Indian (indigenous), that these are very much part of our belief system.
I'd be curious to know the percentages in the same categories for those that either voted for the opposition of Biden or didn't vote at all.
Did anyone stop to consider if maybe the non- Christians i.e. Buddist, Pagans, Wiccans ETC may have voted for Biden?
Did anyone stop to consider if maybe the non- Christians i.e. Buddist, Pagans, Wiccans ETC may have voted for Biden?
That's precisely making their point though DH.... They want to prove that Biden is a goddess individual bent on destroying Christianity in order to further justify their vote for Trump.
[removed "connect the dots" books removed]
Not my problem that the same sort of mindset that perceives "Wild-Ass Conspiracy Theory Wholly Unsupported By Any Evidence" is the same one that most likely one that would argue the lies that: The earth is flat..... it's only 6000 years old, we didn't land on the moon, Trump is the best president ever, Obama wasn't American, and the the 2020 election was stolen.
[removed]
Buddhist, Pagans, Wiccans, etc all have a moral code. That doesn't make them "godless" ie "evil" as some here would spout.
Exactly Trout. I've experienced way too many "Christians" that think that because they go church on Sunday, believe that everything they do counter to the teaching of Christ the other six days of the week is just fine...
Everyone has a moral code or they are removed from society. Not killing and stealing are basic social survival methods.
Too bad we cant add greed to that general moral code. Society would be much better off.
It's there to a certain extent, but I'm sure we could find someone to teach a whole anthropology and/or phycology class on hows and whys of "those who hold all the gold make all the rules."
Ain't that the truth EG..... Ain't that the truth!
Yes, I agree. I was trying to make a point that Christians don't have a monopoly on morality or ethics
It's all good TG. I got your point. I just wanted to add that those with no god are no different is all.
When I was about 18 I worked at a McDonalds' and worked a lot of Sunday mornings. Right after church a lot of the folks would come in for coffee. Some of them were some of the nastiest jerks you could meet.
the fucking church mice can keep their tight asses to chikfila as far as I'm concerned. oops, too bad they're not open on sunday to serve their prime demographic.
I would have to deal with the after church crowd at a pizza joint I worked at. They could be demanding, mean, and poor tippers.
The worst place to work on Sunday was a diner I waitressed at. Same type of people but more of them
holy fuck, they did suck at tipping. did you ever get left what looked like folded up currency only to find it was a scripture verse thing when it was unfolded?
free coffee refills is like flypaper to them...
And I won't go to a Chick-fil-a no matter what.... just because..... ( Besides, the one standard sandwich I had there was lousy anyway)
Very true Giggles. I, and many other of my Tribe, so not belong to any organized religious group, and we are not Christians. But, we are Spiritual, and practice the religious beliefs of our Cherokee ancestors. We do believe in a Supreme/Superior being, but, we also have other lower level deities that we hold ceremonies for throughout the year.
However, that does not make us ungodly wicked, 'evil' or 'demons' which Native Americans have been accused of being since the Christian Europeans landed on North America shores, and having been accused as such by them, complete extermination by the Europeans was deemed necessary to save the world from such evil and demonic beings.
Pagans, Wiccans and similar beliefs are also deemed ungodly demons and necessary to eradicate. The Christian thinking that anyone who is not a Christian is evil and have no place in their world is not only related to Native Americans and the other non-Christian beliefs, they also include skin color and where and how they live. That means anyone who is not a Christian was, and in many areas of America and the world, still are looked upon as being fodder for eradication.
I wouldn't go because their food sucks. The best part of the chicken sandwich is the packet of sauce you can get with it.
I have never eaten at Chik'fil-a.... Used to drive by one all the time. One day I was coming back from Missouri and we got hungry about Fayetteville, there's a Chik-fil-a, pulled over... It was closed because it was Sunday. I never bothered stopping there again.
Don't waste your time, money, or health. Not worth it. Chicken is bland. The bun is soggy. Any topping looks like it's been sitting out for a while. [insert nausea smiley here]
Personally, I prefer Subway. You get fresher food and more bang for your buck.
So? What's your point? I'm not arguing the success of fast food restaurants. I think Chic sucks and I will not patronize them. Merely my opinion of them. So consider me a detractor of them.
Exactly what I said. Just go back and read it. I'm not going to play this game.
I second that. I worked weekend mornings at BK and McDs.
Around here, the only good Chick-fil-A's are in the "hood".
Just the words Pagan and Wiccan freak people out because they just don't understand what that really means.
The only thing destroying Christianity is Evangelical Christians. There is nothing Christ-like about them. Hell they can't even obey Christ's 1 Commandment, at least Jewish people can obey 10 of them.
If you'll notice, my post was in reply to Texan 8.1.24.
I know some people are absolutely convinced that it's devil worship. Tell them that Wiccans don't believe in Satan, and they just dig in their heels, because they believe only what their preachers tell them.
That's just a cheap bastard right there. "Messing up" is completely subjective.
Absolutely! It astonishes me really.
We are getting our first local Chik fil a here in Redding on Thursday March 11. I can’t wait.
Personally, I support not blindly adopting the beliefs of ancient men. I see nothing wrong with a person being spiritual (e.g. holding a belief in a sentient creator) and holding the Bible, the Qur'an, etc. as simply books written by ancient men for their own purposes.
These 'holy' books are an important part of our various cultures and I support people becoming familiar with them so as to understand how these beliefs have shaped our societies. But it is dangerous to go to the next step and consider these books to be the divine word of the grandest possible entity. It is dangerous to take these words as absolute truth and act on same.
I find the Bible to be a horrible foundation for morality. It condones slavery, is entirely misogynistic, supports brutality, murder, etc. It is also a terrible explanation of the nature and origin of our planet and of life itself. It gives us a glimpse at the minds of ancient men with all their flaws and ignorance. We should leave it at that and not adopt -wholesale- their words as if divine.
What is wrong with the Spinoza approach? What is wrong with believing that a sentient creator exists but that we know nothing about this creator other than through investigation of that which it created? What is wrong with discovering how reality works in order to get closer to the 'mind' of the creator? People can still hold true to cultural mores. Sure, there is no absolute arbiter of morality under this way of thinking, but I would prefer following the mores of modern society rather than simply adopting what ancient men wrote in books.
I totally agree TiG.
There is an emphasis - in the poll and in the analysis - on some aspects of faith and belief that I think are overdone or just wrong. It is so hard to discuss these things sometimes because a lot of people who would side with the writer's thesis seem to feel that the world is going to Hell in a handbasket, and if you don't agree with them 100%, you are part of the reason.
In spite of the political nature of the poll, the issues have very little to do with public policy. For example:
Politically, who cares? Theologically, it shouldn't even be that high. Look, not even the Bible claims to be the word of God. This idea comes from an expansive interpretation of Paul's second letter to Timothy:
Instead of "inspired" some translations go with "God-breathed" as that would be a more literal translation. The idea, very generally, is that something about God or man's experience of God has motivated, guided, or inspired the writing of scripture. But "inspired by God" is not "word of God."
And anyway, what is Paul referring to? I would guess it's mainly the Torah, but he can't be referring to his own writings. Christian scripture, as such, hadn't even been conceived of when Paul was writing his letters and he had no reason to know they would someday be collected, preserved, and called "The Bible."
Much of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible is content that doesn't even come close to something coming from God. It's written as history or poetry or prayers (the entire book of Psalms, for example). The New Testament - with the arguable exception of Revelation - is entirely and explicitly self-declared to be the words of people. They are chronicles of witnesses to events (the Gospels) and letters from Paul (a human). Old Testament or New, these are thoughts expressed by people , not God. That doesn't mean they lack value, of course. They are the product of people who have some kind of experience of God, but they are still not "the word of God."
Not even. The Bible is silent on abortion as it is generally practiced today. It doesn't even come up. Most Biblical arguments against abortion are indirect. They appeal to the value of life, which is fine, or God knowing or making us in the womb, but nothing in scripture directly addresses a prohibition on abortion.
This should actually be 0% for anyone who has even skimmed the Bible. How can a person who has read about Abraham, David, Esau, Jacob, or Solomon claim that God's only plan for marriage is one man and one woman? At least for the wealthy or powerful, polygamy in the ancient world seems to be almost the rule, rather than the exception.
Even though the New Testament does not mention it, non-biblical sources indicate that this was practiced by some Jews and Christians for centuries after Jesus.
I don't think that the whole conservative/liberal dichotomy is appropriately grafted on to religious belief or biblical interpretation. Some people are just uptight and like to imagine that the Bible supports them being uptight. That doesn't make you "theologically conservative." If anything, many self-described "religious conservatives" support their beliefs by adding things to the Bible that just aren't there. For example:
I almost made it halfway through the video before I could not restrain my laughter when he said," There are about 50 kinds of dinosaur."
Some people think everything has to be explainable through the Bible or it's fake. But that's not really what it's for.
Although Ham as a whole is a complete nut, there is logic to his reasoning, at least at the core.
Ham reasons that no human being should try to interpret the Bible since we are all flawed. He reasons that God knew this and wrote the Bible to be literally interpreted by everyone. Thus Ham 'interprets' the Bible literally. Further, he holds that God is perfect. Thus anything that seems out of whack with reality means that our understanding of reality is wrong. Ergo, the Earth is 6,000 years old and dinosaurs were on the arc and coexisted with human beings. Among other things.
Nutty, but actually logical at the foundation and consistently applied.
Ina Bizzaro sort of way.
Well, if some people pass off the bible as fact or truth, like Ken Hamm does, then they better be able to explain it. Otherwise, such tales are pretty much fake.
That's not necessary. You can have a perfectly valid story. That doesn't mean the story needs to explain everything that ever happened.
What then if that story directly contradicts well-established modern knowledge?
Really? What's valid about the story?
As I said,
So your question addresses something different.
Totally not the point
Well the story is the topic of this thread (your video of Ham). So one would expect the you were referring to that story.
If all you are saying is that it is possible to have some (unspecified) valid story that does not explain everything then you did not really say anything other than the obvious and your comment has nothing to do with the topic.
I assumed you were being topical and that you were imparting something more than the obvious. That you were suggesting this story (by Ham) might be valid yet not explain everything.
I was not. That should be obvious. I clearly posted it as an example of something that I disagree with, not something I endorse. No honest reading of my post can conclude that I think anything Ken Ham says is valid.
Well at this point then your point, if any, is not clear at all.
My point - without starting a debate about the validity of any particular Bible story - was that you can start with a perfectly reasonable story, and it may even be a really wonderful story. We can even agree that it's totally true. That's the starting point - generally.
In the case of the Bible, we have a fantastic rich collection of writings for a culture. Those writings say and reveal many important things. For centuries, for hundreds of millions of people, they have provided important truth and guidance.
But just because people can find truth in scripture, that doesn't mean that those stories need to provide the answers to all questions. The Bible is not - and was never intended to be - the source of all truth. It's not the Bible's job to explain dinosaurs, or the solar system, or evolution, or LGBT issues, or other people's religions, or a whole host of other things. Those writings aren't actually about any of that stuff.
What is really going on - in my opinion - is a scam as old as people coming together. Some person finds himself in a position of influence or authority. Sometimes it's a chieftain. Sometimes it's a priest. Ham is - sort of - the latter.
People like him start out as someone who studies the Book and can probably explain some of it in a scholarly way. But then, in the face of difficult questions, he is unwilling to risk his position of influence by simply saying "I don't know" to a question. He is really unwilling to say "The Bible is silent on that issue."
So he makes some shit up and claims it's in the Bible. And if you disagree with him, it's because you just don't understand scripture as well as he does - and also Satan is probably whispering in your ear.
Guys like Ham can literally find the answer to any question in the Bible. That doesn't make him a biblical scholar. It makes him a flim-flam man.
Well said.
Then why claim the story is valid? How is it valid?
They can reveal morality lessons and the like, much like Aesops Fables do. But as a source of factual information, that's a different matter.
Tell that to those who think it is.
On that, we can agree.
Please try to read the whole comment. I never said any particular story was valid. And I specifically said debating the validity of any particular story was beside the point. There is a much more important topic here, and you're missing it. Just read.
What are you talking about it? I put it here for everyone to read. Are you suggesting I send out personal messages to specific people?
Your statement implies the validity of the stories.
I have read it and my statement stands!
Not at all. You said, "The Bible is not - and was never intended to be - the source of all truth." I happen to agree with that statement. But I also said there are those who do think the bible is the source of all truth (or fact). They're the ones who need to be reminded of your statement. That's all I said.
It has already been explained to you that I have not claimed - and am not claiming - that any particular story is valid. It has already been explained to you that such was not the point of my comment. You got it wrong. It was clarified for you. It should be over. So please stop with this sealioning.
I didn't say you claimed. Only that your statement implies.
How hard is it to just drop something this dumb?
Sounds like more Democrats watched 'The Family' than Republicans did.
The country will be fine. Why? Because the alternative is so much worse. Stop driving division and confusion conservatives, stop trying to hold back civil liberties (and personal wealth for millions) and come learn what is true cohesion.
Then Christians, conservative and liberals should fix their 'house' together! It is such BS to think that one side attempting to dominate and roost is going to make life work in the nation. This, what we currently have, is a direct result of people questioning what exactly it means to be spiritually loving when they don't feel the love emanating back and flowing.
Indeed. They should start by not spreading false information like, "If our government denies the core principles on which it was founded — which were originally derived from the Bible."
Pretty smart folks considering perfection is an impossibility. And just? Not if we are talking about the Jewish god of the Bible.