Reaping the whirlwind: CT, part 2

[Mountain Man]

I kinda wish they had a place for Comments right there on their Web page, as opposed to just their Facebook page.

Most liberal websites don't allow for open comments. They're cowardly that way.

[Mountain Man]

"So you must also love the foreigner, for you were once foreigners yourselves in Egypt." (Or something to that effect.)

Yes, "or something to that effect".

As soon as you can explain the social and religious context of that verse, who it was addressed to, who it was referring to, and the expectations of both parties, then, and only then can you throw it in our faces. Until then, just shut up.

[oxmixmudd]

Yes, "or something to that effect".

As soon as you can explain the social and religious context of that verse, who it was addressed to, who it was referring to, and the expectations of both parties, then, and only then can you throw it in our faces. Until then, just shut up.

I don't think that is how it works.

And Jesus used similar verses to condemn actions by the Pharisees. The general principle is that we are not to be hostile to foreigners. or the poor. or the suffering. Not only are we not to be hostile to them, we are to help them, care for them, be compassionate to them.

And I don't think that means - "unless its a Donald Trump policy decision, then its ok to in effect hate foreigners, the poor, and the suffering". I've never seen that verse.

[DivineOb]

Fixed. You need new material.

Politics is the art of getting others to do what *you* want for *their* reasons. It's not at all strange to appeal to one's core beliefs to make a point.

Stated differently, I can envision the kind of argument which might convince me that Christianity is true. Let's assume you wouldn't consider it a strong argument if I made it to you. Should you not make it in order to convince me?

[One Bad Pig]

Politics is the art of getting others to do what *you* want for *their* reasons. It's not at all strange to appeal to one's core beliefs to make a point.

Stated differently, I can envision the kind of argument which might convince me that Christianity is true. Let's assume you wouldn't consider it a strong argument if I made it to you. Should you not make it in order to convince me?

There's a blast from the past.

Welcome back, DivineOb.

[Mountain Man]

I don't think that is how it works.

And Jesus used similar verses to condemn actions by the Pharisees. The general principle is that we are not to be hostile to foreigners. or the poor. or the suffering. Not only are we not to be hostile to them, we are to help them, care for them, be compassionate to them.

And I don't think that means - "unless its a Donald Trump policy decision, then its ok to in effect hate foreigners, the poor, and the suffering". I've never seen that verse.

Ignoring the straw man in your last sentence, a proper application of scripture demands that we understand it in its original context, so plucking verses out at random that you think you can use to beat other people over the head with to get your way ain't gonna cut it. So, yes, if Jimmy is going to quote scripture at us, I expect him to be able to explain its original context and how it applies to present circumstances.

[oxmixmudd]

Ignoring the straw man in your last sentence, a proper application of scripture demands that we understand it in its original context, so plucking verses out at random that you think you can use to beat other people over the head with to get your way ain't gonna cut it. So, yes, if Jimmy is going to quote scripture at us, I expect him to be able to explain its original context and how it applies to present circumstances.

If one looks at the entire context of scripture and its admonitions not to neglect the poor and the suffering, it is fairly obvious context does not negate JimL's point.

From this point on till the 26th of December, my only posts on TWEB will be in the Christmas Truce thread.

[Mountain Man]

If one looks at the entire context of scripture and its admonitions not to neglect the poor and the suffering, it is fairly obvious context does not negate JimL's point.

As a general admonition to the individual, you are correct. But as it applies to government policy, no.

[DivineOb]

There's a blast from the past.

Welcome back, DivineOb.

I don't want to derail this thread but yes it is me. Hoping for a fresh start.

[NorrinRadd]

FWIW, here is my comment at CT's Facebook posting of the article:

-------------

I appreciate your linking to the Christian Post article about the letter signed by 200 Evangelicals opposing your view. IMO, at least as significant is the CP article about "Christian Elitism," which provides an illuminating quote from Mr. Galli showing his regard for Trump-voting Evangelicals. One can hardly escape the impression that his brand of Evangelicals sneer down their beaks at the smelly WalMart-shopping irredeemable deplorables they find so totally alien.

It was a very difficult and literally last-moment, in-the-voting-booth decision for me to vote for Bad Orange Man. It is not difficult at all to continue to support him, largely because of the constant attacks *against* him, most of which I find unjustified, unfair, or frivolous.

I understand why many Evangelicals would be unable or unwilling to support Bad Orange Man, though I'm not sure how they would square that with the practical result being preference for a Pro-Choice, anti-religious freedom POTUS. While disagreeing with them, I would not be quick to characterize them as inferior Christians. My biggest objection to anti-Trump Evangelicals is that, whether they intend it or not, most of the ones I've encountered online come across as believing their understanding of how to "do" Christianity is the one and only correct one, and others are necessarily defective.

I'm afraid that by entering this fray, CT has not helped matters, but has instead thrown chum in the waters, inviting a feeding frenzy by various predatory liberals and infidels who are not looking for truth, but only Christians to prey on.

[demi-conservative]

Politics is the art of getting others to do what *you* want for *their* reasons. It's not at all strange to appeal to one's core beliefs to make a point.

Stated differently, I can envision the kind of argument which might convince me that Christianity is true. Let's assume you wouldn't consider it a strong argument if I made it to you. Should you not make it in order to convince me?

His post was either a troll or a cynical manipulation attempt. He's not interested in exegesis and logic, how 'do not mistreat the foreigner among you' does not mean open the borders wide or that you can't punish illegals according to the law.

[demi-conservative]

Taking a cue from The Babylon Bee, perhaps.

The Babylon Bee creates something new as a form of parody or satire.

This is just pointing and laughing like the late "news" shows, without engaging with the argument, targeted at a certain type of audience. 'simplicio' is a fitting name.

[simplicio]

The Babylon Bee creates something new as a form of parody or satire.

This is just pointing and laughing like the late "news" shows, without engaging with the argument, targeted at a certain type of audience. 'simplicio' is a fitting name.

Is it just pointing and laughing? You linked to a thread I started in response to a thread about elites, the "influencers" to use a modern term. The OP used the actual rhetoric (albeit condensed down) used about Moore. And Rogue called it anger and a parody.

But what was dismissed as parody os the faith for some Christians! And I placed the thread on the section for Christians only. Yes it was targeted at a certain type of audience, a Christian audience. I think it fitting discussion for Tweb.

[Starlight]

I understand why many Evangelicals would be unable or unwilling to support Bad Orange Man, though I'm not sure how they would square that with the practical result being preference for a Pro-Choice, anti-religious freedom POTUS.

If Trump is removed from office, Mike Pence would be POTUS. Are you saying he's Pro-choice and anti-religious freedom?

Or are you falsely equating "suck-it-up and vote Trump over Hillary" in 2016 with the notion that one must have ongoing support for Trump years later in 2019 regardless of any wrongdoing in office in the interim? You realize impeaching Trump doesn't put Hillary in office right?

[demi-conservative]

Is it just pointing and laughing?

Have you shown any interest in real discussion? I asked you what was false in post #8, and there's been no reply.