Pence says Buttigieg bringing 'attacks on my Christian faith'

[Angra Mainyu]

Yes, but it is not Pence's Christianity that Buttigieg would object to, so characterizing a disagreement about hamartiology as an "attack on Christianity" is at best overly dramatic, if not outright deceitful. And I get tired of people trying to silence gay Christians, especially when the silencers aren't conservative or Christian themselves and really shouldn't have a dog in the fight.

I disagree. I think Buttigieg would probably disagree with Pence's Christianity. Now, Pence's Christianity is not Buttigieg's Christianity. These are two different religions that go by the name "Christianity". Buttigieg would probably object to Pence's. Now, Buttigieg would not say he objects to Pence's Christianity. He might even believe he does not object to Pence's Christianity. But it seems pretty probable that he does.


The really, really big problem with Pence's reply is not that he says that Buttigieg objects to his Christian faith. Rather, the big problem is this:

I'm a Bible-believing Christian. I draw my truth from God's word.

It is both epistemically irrational and immoral to attempt to draw the truth from the Bible. He should assess whether the Bible is a good guide of moral truth, for which he has to use other means (including both his sense of right and wrong and assessment of other biblical claims), and conclude that it is not a good guide at all. But to make it worse, he believes that the Bible is the word of an omniscient morally perfect agent. He has no good reason to believe that, and decisive reasons to believe otherwise. Yes, Pence's religion is the problem. It's both irrational and immoral.

One is not born a "cheater-at-cards" in the same sense that one is born a homosexual.

How about a pedophile?
I do not mean a child molester, of course, but a pedophile (i.e., predominantly or exclusively attracted to pre-pubescent individuals). Regardless of what causes pedophilia, pedophiles generally have not chosen to be pedophiles. They just are pedophiles.

Leaving that aside, one is not born a homosexual. Babies aren't homosexual. A person may be born with a predisposition for becoming gay as an adult. However:

1. It is probably not genetically determined that a person will be gay or straight: there are identical twins, one gay, one straight, and it's improbable that the tiny genetic differences between identical twins make the difference.
2. Also, it's not at all clear that it's determined at birth.

 

[J842P]

And I get tired of people trying to silence gay Christians, especially when the silencers aren't conservative or Christian themselves and really shouldn't have a dog in the fight.

Who are you referring to?

 

[Politesse]

And I get tired of people trying to silence gay Christians, especially when the silencers aren't conservative or Christian themselves and really shouldn't have a dog in the fight.

Who are you referring to?

Anyone who exclusively defines Christianity the way bigots would prefer it to be defined, and dismisses or contradicts LGBT voices whenever they are heard. Repeating propaganda is endorsing propaganda. Calling bigotry "normal" is empowering bigotry.

 

[braces_for_impact]

The problem as I see it is that neither "faction" of Christianity has a leg to stand on as far as showing who is right. For this, secular-based ethics are needed. As example slavery: one of the easiest moral questions to answer. Should human beings be allowed to own other human beings as property? Even on this question, we had religions on both sides of the issue.

 

[ronburgundy]

And I get tired of people trying to silence gay Christians, especially when the silencers aren't conservative or Christian themselves and really shouldn't have a dog in the fight.

Who are you referring to?

Anyone who exclusively defines Christianity the way bigots would prefer it to be defined,

The bigots define Christianity the way the Bible itself, including it's character of Jesus defined it, and the way the way the earliest Christians and Church leaders defined it for centuries. IOW, the bigots are being honest about their religion, b/c their religion was created by bigots for bigots. IOW, accepting the bigots definition is to accept historical reality and to accept the logical implications of the foundational doctrines of the religion.

and dismisses or contradicts LGBT voices whenever they are heard.

The only ones who doing that are the bigots who endorse the bigotry inherent to the Bible, and those (like yourself) who try to silence the majority of LGBT voices who recognize the bigotry inherent to Christianity, which is why most LGBTs in the US are not Christian. The non-conservative/non-Christians who acknowledge the inherent bigotry of Christianity are not "silencing gay Christians" or "dismissing LGBT voices wherever they are heard."

They are rationally disagreeing with the claim, whoever makes it, that bigotry is not foundational to the Christian faith. They are also listening to the majority of LGBT voices that recognize this fact and thus reject Christianity as the immoral tripe that it is.
Those LGBTs who try to pretend that Christ and the Abrahamic ideas "he" (his fictional Character) endorsed were not homophobic, racist, and sexist are engaged in self-delusion and creating their own faith that has no meaningful correspondence to Christianity while trying to retain the label b/c they lack the courage to admit that are rejecting the faith of their parents and dominant culture.

Just b/c someone has emotional reasons to want to retain a label and slap it onto some fundamentally different thing, doesn't change the inherent nature of the thing they took that label from. Naziism would not stop being antisemitic just b/c a person raised as a Nazi deciding to reject the ideology but keep calling himself a Nazi.

Repeating propaganda is endorsing propaganda.

Calling recognition of objective facts "propaganda" is anti-intellectual propaganda.

Calling bigotry "normal" is empowering bigotry.

Denying the inherent bigotry of "normal" mainstream Christianity is empowering religions that inherently empower bigotry (not to mention authoritarianism and anti-reason.

Calling Christianity inherently bigoted does not imply that it is bigotry is morally acceptable, it implies that Christianity and the Bible it is founded upon is unacceptable b/c it is bigoted.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

And I get tired of people trying to silence gay Christians, especially when the silencers aren't conservative or Christian themselves and really shouldn't have a dog in the fight.

Who are you referring to?

Anyone who exclusively defines Christianity the way bigots would prefer it to be defined, and dismisses or contradicts LGBT voices whenever they are heard. Repeating propaganda is endorsing propaganda. Calling bigotry "normal" is empowering bigotry.

There are different versions of Christianity. One version of Christianity is the one Pence adheres to. That is Christianity. Another one is the one Buttigieg adheres to. Those are different religions that go by the same name "Christianity". If Pence were to change his beliefs and adhere to the same religion as Buttigieg, he would have converted, even if he would deny that he converted.

And it is not the case that people should not have a dog in the fight for what is true when it comes to religions. That has a significant social impact.

 

[Politesse]

Anyone who exclusively defines Christianity the way bigots would prefer it to be defined, and dismisses or contradicts LGBT voices whenever they are heard. Repeating propaganda is endorsing propaganda. Calling bigotry "normal" is empowering bigotry.

There are different versions of Christianity. One version of Christianity is the one Pence adheres to. That is Christianity. Another one is the one Buttigieg adheres to. Those are different religions that go by the same name "Christianity". If Pence were to change his beliefs and adhere to the same religion as Buttigieg, he would have converted, even if he would deny that he converted.

And it is not the case that people should not have a dog in the fight for what is true when it comes to religions. That has a significant social impact.

And if that is the case, what is the likely outcome of suporting the claims of bigots?

 

[Politesse]

Anyone who exclusively defines Christianity the way bigots would prefer it to be defined,

The bigots define Christianity the way the Bible itself, including it's character of Jesus defined it, and the way the way the earliest Christians and Church leaders defined it for centuries. IOW, the bigots are being honest about their religion, b/c their religion was created by bigots for bigots. IOW, accepting the bigots definition is to accept historical reality and to accept the logical implications of the foundational doctrines of the religion.

and dismisses or contradicts LGBT voices whenever they are heard.

The only ones who doing that are the bigots who endorse the bigotry inherent to the Bible, and those (like yourself) who try to silence the majority of LGBT voices who recognize the bigotry inherent to Christianity, which is why most LGBTs in the US are not Christian. The non-conservative/non-Christians who acknowledge the inherent bigotry of Christianity are not "silencing gay Christians" or "dismissing LGBT voices wherever they are heard."

They are rationally disagreeing with the claim, whoever makes it, that bigotry is not foundational to the Christian faith. They are also listening to the majority of LGBT voices that recognize this fact and thus reject Christianity as the immoral tripe that it is.
Those LGBTs who try to pretend that Christ and the Abrahamic ideas "he" (his fictional Character) endorsed were not homophobic, racist, and sexist are engaged in self-delusion and creating their own faith that has no meaningful correspondence to Christianity while trying to retain the label b/c they lack the courage to admit that are rejecting the faith of their parents and dominant culture.

Just b/c someone has emotional reasons to want to retain a label and slap it onto some fundamentally different thing, doesn't change the inherent nature of the thing they took that label from. Naziism would not stop being antisemitic just b/c a person raised as a Nazi deciding to reject the ideology but keep calling himself a Nazi.

Repeating propaganda is endorsing propaganda.

Calling recognition of objective facts "propaganda" is anti-intellectual propaganda.

Calling bigotry "normal" is empowering bigotry.

Denying the inherent bigotry of "normal" mainstream Christianity is empowering religions that inherently empower bigotry (not to mention authoritarianism and anti-reason.

Calling Christianity inherently bigoted does not imply that it is bigotry is morally acceptable, it implies that Christianity and the Bible it is founded upon is unacceptable b/c it is bigoted.

Calling your opinions "objective" does not make them so, and there is nothing remotely "honest" about the way Evangelicals chop up the Scriptures to support their political ends. Their approach to the Bible is one of carefully cherry-picking certain verses and "explaining" what they mean without any recourse to real study of the context or audience for which they were produced. They say "Scripture should interpret Scripture", then ignore Jesus' central teachings of universal love and fidelity to God and one's neighbor. How is that "honest"?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

And if that is the case, what is the likely outcome of suporting the claims of bigots?

Their true claims, or their false claims?

In general, it depends on the claim. Which claim do you have in mind? That Buttigieg attacks Pence's Christianity? I do not know. It probably won't have a significant impact if I say so. If a lot of people said something like:

I disagree. I think Buttigieg would probably disagree with Pence's Christianity. Now, Pence's Christianity is not Buttigieg's Christianity. These are two different religions that go by the name "Christianity". Buttigieg would probably object to Pence's. Now, Buttigieg would not say he objects to Pence's Christianity. He might even believe he does not object to Pence's Christianity. But it seems pretty probable that he does.

, and

The really, really big problem with Pence's reply is not that he says that Buttigieg objects to his Christian faith. Rather, the big problem is this:

I'm a Bible-believing Christian. I draw my truth from God's word.

It is both epistemically irrational and immoral to attempt to draw the truth from the Bible. He should assess whether the Bible is a good guide of moral truth, for which he has to use other means (including both his sense of right and wrong and assessment of other biblical claims), and conclude that it is not a good guide at all. But to make it worse, he believes that the Bible is the word of an omniscient morally perfect agent. He has no good reason to believe that, and decisive reasons to believe otherwise. Yes, Pence's religion is the problem. It's both irrational and immoral.

that might have an impact in setting the debate straight, and actually help others realize that this is in part a debate about the rationality of acquiring beliefs. Would it help Pence get elected? Only if enough people go the irrational way on the matter, which might or might not happen. Regardless, in the long run, I think standing for truth is overall better than tactical lies or silence, though it depends on the case of course. In particular, my telling the truth in this particular venue I think has overall better consequences than lying or remaining silent would have, though I usually choose to remain silent due to other things to do with my life, which is permissible behavior. But when I do speak, I think it's better if I go for truth than lies.

Now, when bigots make false claims, also I think going for the truth is generally the best policy. For example, when they claim that same-sex sex is always wrong and they support their claim on the Perverted Faculty Argument, a philosophical reply to their philosophical argument may be a good idea. My reply is here. On the other hand, when they support their claim with the Bible, or Catholic Doctrine, etc., then going against the Bible and Biblical Christianity, or Catholicism, or some of the forms of Christianity the vast majority of Christians adhere to and which condemn same-sex behavior, a good idea is to argue against their religions. My reply is here.

Still, I consider the impact of my words largely insignificant in the sense they will almost certainly not change any trend in politics, religion, moral beliefs, etc., at any large social level. At most, some of my arguments might have a significant local impact (i.e., on the beliefs of a few readers).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Calling your opinions "objective" does not make them so, and there is nothing remotely "honest" about the way Evangelicals chop up the Scriptures to support their political ends. Their approach to the Bible is one of carefully cherry-picking certain verses and "explaining" what they mean without any recourse to real study of the context or audience for which they were produced. They say "Scripture should interpret Scripture", then ignore Jesus' central teachings of universal love and fidelity to God and one's neighbor. How is that "honest"?

The Bible is of course inconsistent. Different people wrote different books, contradicting each other (and sometimes themselves in previous parts). So, anything can be derived from it. But you should not think that Evangelicals, Catholics and others do not believe what they claim they believe. Maybe Pence is a fraud. I do not know. But in my experience, most of them believe their claims, and that their interpretation is correct. And in fact, part of it is. But of course, they need to ignore parts or radically misinterpret them on pain on contradiction - which, by the way, applies just as much to Buttigieg -; that does not mean they're not sincere in their interpretation - which also applies to Buttigieg. It does mean they're being epistemically irrational, or that they haven't seen the other passages (in which case, they almost certainly are still being epistemically irrational for other reasons).

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The fact of the matter is, modern Near East archaeologists have demonstrated the supposed history of Israel in the old testament is not true, it is faux history. There was no Egyptian captivity, no exodus. No wandering in the wilderness for 40 years. No bloody invasion of Canaan. It is all faux history written by some lying priest many years later after the true history of Israel was long forgotten. And thus no Moses on the mount getting 613 laws from God. Thus the claims God condemns homosexuality is the ancient bigotry of some old lying priest that reaches down some 2,700 years to inflict suffering and hatefulness. And it also means the idea that God commanded murders, massacres and genocides is also false. if there is in fact a God, this lying priest slandered God 2,700 years ago.

Maybe it is time for Americans to be aware of what modern Near East archaeologists have demonstrated and drop this entire faux history for being false and untrue. And stop harassing gays and slandering God if God exists with these puerile ancient tall tales

 

[J842P]

And I get tired of people trying to silence gay Christians, especially when the silencers aren't conservative or Christian themselves and really shouldn't have a dog in the fight.

Who are you referring to?

Anyone who exclusively defines Christianity the way bigots would prefer it to be defined, and dismisses or contradicts LGBT voices whenever they are heard. Repeating propaganda is endorsing propaganda. Calling bigotry "normal" is empowering bigotry.

Bigotry against homosexuals is normal in Christianity. Or are you claiming historically Christianity has been tolerant of alternative sexualities? Perhaps it has? I'm open to learning about that. But at least as it seems to me, Christianity can only honestly be characterized as anti-LGBT.

In any case, that isn't propaganda, that is a proposition, and it is isn't empowering bigotry. That doesn't follow at all. In fact, I would say that your statement is almost entirely propagandistic. It is ripped straight from a particular set of political narratives that come from [the progressive activist](https://www.moreincommon.com/hidden-tribes/) wing of the left. I'll be frank, a statement like that doesn't seem to be based on any serious reasoning, just a reflexive regurgitation of politically motivated framing.

To me, you seem to be smarter than that.

 

[Politesse]

Calling your opinions "objective" does not make them so, and there is nothing remotely "honest" about the way Evangelicals chop up the Scriptures to support their political ends. Their approach to the Bible is one of carefully cherry-picking certain verses and "explaining" what they mean without any recourse to real study of the context or audience for which they were produced. They say "Scripture should interpret Scripture", then ignore Jesus' central teachings of universal love and fidelity to God and one's neighbor. How is that "honest"?

The Bible is of course inconsistent. Different people wrote different books, contradicting each other (and sometimes themselves in previous parts). So, anything can be derived from it. But you should not think that Evangelicals, Catholics and others do not believe what they claim they believe. Maybe Pence is a fraud. I do not know. But in my experience, most of them believe their claims, and that their interpretation is correct. And in fact, part of it is. But of course, they need to ignore parts or radically misinterpret them on pain on contradiction - which, by the way, applies just as much to Buttigieg -; that does not mean they're not sincere in their interpretation - which also applies to Buttigieg. It does mean they're being epistemically irrational, or that they haven't seen the other passages (in which case, they almost certainly are still being epistemically irrational for other reasons).

Of they believe the things they say, that's not in doubt. But let's not go crowning them as "objective", "honest" witnesses to what is, in truth, a diverse community capable of hosting what is, at its best, actually quite an active and fruitful conversation about what one's moral convictions should lead one to do in and for one's society.

 

[Politesse]

Bigotry against homosexuals is normal in Christianity. Or are you claiming historically Christianity has been tolerant of alternative sexualities? Perhaps it has? I'm open to learning about that. But at least as it seems to me, Christianity can only honestly be characterized as anti-LGBT.

It's a bit more complicated than you are suggesting. Tolerant, decent, Christians have never had a numerical majority or anything like it, but they have also always been around; and in any case, even orthodox-minded Christians have taken some views over the centuries that would surprise or offend modern conservative sensibilities. If you're interested in the subject, there are any number of excellent surveys of the history of homosexuality in Europe ie "Christendom", and the general theme of most is that the flexibility of social life in any given moment tends to exceed the historiographic caricatures that come later.

In any case, that isn't propaganda, that is a proposition, and it is isn't empowering bigotry. That doesn't follow at all. In fact, I would say that your statement is almost entirely propagandistic. It is ripped straight from a particular set of political narratives that come from [the progressive activist](https://www.moreincommon.com/hidden-tribes/) wing of the left. I'll be frank, a statement like that doesn't seem to be based on any serious reasoning, just a reflexive regurgitation of politically motivated framing.

To me, you seem to be smarter than that.

The problem is that they thrive on the idea that they are the arbiters of what should or shouldn't be considered Christianity. It is optional whether or not to endorse this claim of authority, and indeed I think it is extremely dangerous to do so. If I said, "I don't support Republicans, but I do think they are the true Americans with the most honest interpretation of the Constitution", I might well mean that I want America to die and the Republicans with it. But the effect of my saying so, often and publically, would be more likely a bolstering of their own propaganda and public claims than the downfall of they or their country.

As for whether I am politically biased and motivated, hell yes I am. This isn't an abstract question for me, whether or not my rights as a citizen are recognized hangs on the outcome. Of course I am biased. And not because I encountered social Progressivism on Pinterest or something. If someone were trying to abuse federal powers to annul your marriage or impinge on your livelihood, you'd be politically motivated to stop them also.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Of they believe the things they say, that's not in doubt. But let's not go crowning them as "objective", "honest" witnesses to what is, in truth, a diverse community capable of hosting what is, at its best, actually quite an active and fruitful conversation about what one's moral convictions should lead one to do in and for one's society.

I did not and would not call them "objective". As to whether they're honest, that's an interesting question. On one hand, they are sincerely expressing their beliefs, so they do seem to be honest about that. On the other hand, they are failing to properly consider counter arguments, contrary evidence, and so on. Is that dishonesty? It's not deliberate, so in a sense no. But on the other hand, they could if they so chose make an effort to keep a cool head so that they can read what people who oppose their views have to say without misreading it, and just as importantly, try to pick the strongest among their opponents, not the average. So, in a sense, they aren't honest. In general, I would say they are to some degree being honest, though not entirely so. However, they are not aware of their not being fully honest - though to a persistent vice in their reasoning, rather than a deliberate choice.

A caveat: What I said above applies to nearly all Christians (in any of their varieties), but it does not apply to all.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The fact of the matter is, modern Near East archaeologists have demonstrated the supposed history of Israel in the old testament is not true, it is faux history. There was no Egyptian captivity, no exodus. No wandering in the wilderness for 40 years. No bloody invasion of Canaan. It is all faux history written by some lying priest many years later after the true history of Israel was long forgotten. And thus no Moses on the mount getting 613 laws from God. Thus the claims God condemns homosexuality is the ancient bigotry of some old lying priest that reaches down some 2,700 years to inflict suffering and hatefulness. And it also means the idea that God commanded murders, massacres and genocides is also false. if there is in fact a God, this lying priest slandered God 2,700 years ago.

Maybe it is time for Americans to be aware of what modern Near East archaeologists have demonstrated and drop this entire faux history for being false and untrue. And stop harassing gays and slandering God if God exists with these puerile ancient tall tales

I think you've got ye old cart ahead of ye old horse.

If I'm a supremacist I'm going to find a way to express that. This is what christianity and other religions do very well. It isn't that christianity taught these people to be supremacists, it's that the supremacists invented things like christianity and other religions to institutionalize their supremacism. I'll even invent stories to show how my religious ancestors earned their supremacist credentials. None of it has to be true for me to believe it, it's good because it says what I want it to say.