Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Mayor Pete Attacks Trump's Faith...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    That's a rather skewed representation of his position regarding "the Billy Graham rule". Those of us who subscribe to this practice don't "refuse" to be alone in a room with a woman not our wives, but make reasonable attempts not to. It's also an over simplification that it's about "not being in the same room" -- I am often "in the same room" with a woman not my wife, but with safeguards like my secretary being in an adjacent room within earshot, or some other practical arrangement.
    It is all about not even allowing for there to be a chance for inappropriate behavior to take place hence avoiding possible scurrilous rumors.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      It is all about not even allowing for there to be a chance for inappropriate behavior to take place hence avoiding possible scurrilous rumors.
      And in this raging age of #MeToo, it just makes sense. I'm amazed that the liberals choose to make this a point of attack.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        And in this raging age of #MeToo, it just makes sense. I'm amazed that the liberals choose to make this a point of attack.
        It has long been said that common sense isn't all that common, but now on the left it is all but nonexistent.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          It has long been said that common sense isn't all that common, but now on the left it is all but nonexistent.
          I've only had ONE WOMAN in 48 years of ministry complain about my "Billy Graham Rule", and she was on her third marriage, having dated her last husband in his office while he was a member of the clergy and she was still married to her previous husband*. And she complained bitterly to my Church Council that I wouldn't meet with her after Church on a Wednesday night in my office when nobody else was around.


          *I didn't know this at the time - it came out when she complained to the Church Council, and one of them knew the minister with whom she fornicated.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            Yes, it is the interpretation of scripture that makes the difference, e.g. the Southern Baptists once interpreted scripture in such a way as to justify slavery, renouncing it officially only in 1995.
            Not surprisingly, this is a rather ignorant statement on a number of levels.

            A) What you're probably referring to, though you're too ignorant to know it, is the "curse of Ham", or, more properly, "the curse upon Ham's son" (In Genesis 9), which was never an official teaching or doctrine of the Southern Baptist Convention.
            2) It was used by SOME churches, and individuals within those churches, to justify the holding of slaves for purely economic, not religious, reasons.
            C) It was an Old Testament scripture which, by any reasonable interpretation, does not justify slavery.
            IV) The sin of racism in the Southern Baptist Church wasn't based on scripture, but greed and economics. It was wrong, and incredibly poor interpretation both then and now.

            On the other hand, you don't have to pervert the scripture to see that there's a problem with Homosexuality: Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:8-10
            It's not "interpretation" that's the problem here, it's essentially quote mining, ignoring those verses that clearly speak against homosexuality, and giving greater emphasis elsewhere.

            In order for a Christian to justify a homosexual lifestyle, they have to abandon exegesis and go to rationalization, assumptions and "feelings".

            Your statement that "the Southern Baptists once interpreted scripture in such a way as to justify slavery" is false.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • Yes, I know it's PJ Media, but this is kinda humorous...

              Meanwhile, Pete Buttigieg faces allegations that racism was the reason for the 2012 firing of South Bend's black police chief, on the strength of tape-recorded conversations with white police officers. A judge may or may not release the tapes, The Hill reports, but in any case, "There is roiling anger in South Bend over the allegations of racism. Black leaders in the city say that if there is evidence of racism, it could call into question scores of convictions that stemmed from white police officers investigating black suspects in a city that is 25 percent black."

              And let's not forget that Joe Biden is a serial groper, whose "long-running apology tour hits the #MeToo era," as Matt Viner wrote in an April 4 Washington Post commentary. "Joe Biden hasn't offered a full-throated apology for his treatment of Anita Hill in the 1990s," the screed begins, and you can imagine the rest. And Bernie Sanders is now a rich white man. "Can he still represent the interests of working-class Americans?" asked another WaPo commentary.

              Let's see if I did my intersectional sums correctly: Feminists like Pelosi are Islamophobes, gays like Buttigieg are racists, blacks are homophobic, and white men like Biden and Sanders are misogynist and classist, as the case may be. Beto O'Rourke is a misogynist, although his ode to cows may win him the bovine vote. I suppose the Democrats will have to nominate Cory Booker, who says he isn't gay but might be, and whose net worth might be as low as $600,000.


              By becoming more and more like the Taliban, the Dems are eating their own.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                You made an ignorant statement - that Mayor Pete's interpretation of scripture was different.
                No, I answered the question, which was not acknowledged in your previous hysterical response.

                So, do you actually have a point? Different doesn't mean correct or better or right or true.
                The point is that Buttigieg’s interpretation of scripture is demonstrably different than yours. Neither is necessarily the “correct or better or right or true” answer.
                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  No, I answered the question, which was not acknowledged in your previous hysterical response.
                  A Drama Queen will always manage to see hysteria where there is none.

                  The point is that Buttigieg’s interpretation of scripture is demonstrably different than yours.
                  He actually has to ignore a number of passages, and do a lot of assuming.

                  Neither is necessarily the “correct or better or right or true” answer.
                  In your little Drama Queen opinion.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    Not surprisingly, this is a rather ignorant statement on a number of levels.

                    A) What you're probably referring to, though you're too ignorant to know it, is the "curse of Ham", or, more properly, "the curse upon Ham's son" (In Genesis 9), which was never an official teaching or doctrine of the Southern Baptist Convention.
                    2) It was used by SOME churches, and individuals within those churches, to justify the holding of slaves for purely economic, not religious, reasons.
                    C) It was an Old Testament scripture which, by any reasonable interpretation, does not justify slavery.
                    IV) The sin of racism in the Southern Baptist Church wasn't based on scripture, but greed and economics. It was wrong, and incredibly poor interpretation both then and now.

                    On the other hand, you don't have to pervert the scripture to see that there's a problem with Homosexuality: Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:8-10
                    It's not "interpretation" that's the problem here, it's essentially quote mining, ignoring those verses that clearly speak against homosexuality, and giving greater emphasis elsewhere.

                    In order for a Christian to justify a homosexual lifestyle, they have to abandon exegesis and go to rationalization, assumptions and "feelings".

                    Your statement that "the Southern Baptists once interpreted scripture in such a way as to justify slavery" is false.
                    I noted you ignored this, Tassman -- and I completely understand why you'd need to.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • Southern Baptist Convention formed because the Northern Convention refused to appoint slave owners as missionaries - 150 years agone. SBC has acknowledged the wrongs of the past and undertaken to make sure that racism doesn't play a part in their activities in the future.

                      So - all this falderol about how the SBC IS somehow responsible for the actions of people whom the current generation never knew is just that.

                      But maybe that is just a Christian thing - not holding people accountable for what other people have done - particularly when the people being held to account have declared - in advance - that they won't engage in similar behaviour.

                      SO FAR

                      I haven't found any records to show that any attempt was made by the founders of the SBC to justify slavery through scripture. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but SO FAR there seems a dearth of evidence.
                      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                      .
                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                      Scripture before Tradition:
                      but that won't prevent others from
                      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                      of the right to call yourself Christian.

                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                      Comment


                      • OK - I found it. Pretty shabby piece of rationalisation involving just two passages of scripture with the first coming no-where near justifying slavery, and the second requesting that a slave be manumitted.

                        Attitudes have certainly changed somewhat over the years. Frederick Douglass was an actual escaped slave:

                        Reviewing the work of the white churches, Frederick Douglass had this to say: “Between the Christianity of this land and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference—so wide that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. To be the friend of the one is of necessity to be the enemy of the other. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ; I therefore hate the corrupt, slave-holding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason but the most deceitful one for calling the religion of this land Christianity.

                        Douglass was a firm believer in the equality of all peoples, whether black, female, Native American, or recent immigrant. He was also a believer in dialogue and in making alliances across racial and ideological divides, and in the liberal values of the U.S. Constitution. When radical abolitionists, under the motto "No Union with Slaveholders", criticized Douglass' willingness to engage in dialogue with slave owners, he famously replied: "I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong
                        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                        .
                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                        Scripture before Tradition:
                        but that won't prevent others from
                        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                        of the right to call yourself Christian.

                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          Southern Baptist Convention formed because the Northern Convention refused to appoint slave owners as missionaries - 150 years agone. SBC has acknowledged the wrongs of the past and undertaken to make sure that racism doesn't play a part in their activities in the future.

                          So - all this falderol about how the SBC IS somehow responsible for the actions of people whom the current generation never knew is just that.

                          But maybe that is just a Christian thing - not holding people accountable for what other people have done - particularly when the people being held to account have declared - in advance - that they won't engage in similar behaviour.

                          SO FAR

                          I haven't found any records to show that any attempt was made by the founders of the SBC to justify slavery through scripture. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but SO FAR there seems a dearth of evidence.
                          Correct, many people in the SBC sadly reflected the values at the time, and the notion that "the Northern Convention refused to appoint slave owners as missionaries", if applied to US government, would mean that nearly all of the prominent political figures at the time would have been disqualified from office.

                          And, NOTE: This in NO WAY justifies, rationalizes or excuses any SBC official, pastor, leader, member or congregant who DID attempt to pervert scripture to rationalize the ECONOMIC 'benefit' of owning slaves, but the notion that the SBC used scripture in any official capacity to justify slavery is a steaming load of horsie poo, of which Tassman seems to be a frequent conveyor.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            OK - I found it. Pretty shabby piece of rationalisation involving just two passages of scripture with the first coming no-where near justifying slavery, and the second requesting that a slave be manumitted.

                            Attitudes have certainly changed somewhat over the years. Frederick Douglass was an actual escaped slave:

                            Reviewing the work of the white churches, Frederick Douglass had this to say: “Between the Christianity of this land and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference—so wide that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. To be the friend of the one is of necessity to be the enemy of the other. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ; I therefore hate the corrupt, slave-holding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason but the most deceitful one for calling the religion of this land Christianity.

                            Douglass was a firm believer in the equality of all peoples, whether black, female, Native American, or recent immigrant. He was also a believer in dialogue and in making alliances across racial and ideological divides, and in the liberal values of the U.S. Constitution. When radical abolitionists, under the motto "No Union with Slaveholders", criticized Douglass' willingness to engage in dialogue with slave owners, he famously replied: "I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong
                            What an absolutely amazing quote. I think it might be my new favorite. Thanks for sharing it!
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                              What an absolutely amazing quote. I think it might be my new favorite. Thanks for sharing it!
                              I was kind of taken with it myself. And I see you have indeed adopted it. Nice touch.
                              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                              .
                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                              Scripture before Tradition:
                              but that won't prevent others from
                              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                              of the right to call yourself Christian.

                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                              Comment


                              • So, what we have here is an interesting juxtaposition, of sorts...

                                Tassman's false allegation that Southern Baptists have misinterpreted scripture to justify slavery relies on some individuals ignoring a vast body of scriptural instruction, digging up an obscure passage or two in the Old Testament, and perverting the meaning to excuse their obvious rebellion to the teachings of Jesus for their own financial gain.

                                Mayor Pete is doing pretty much the same thing. His pitiful attempt to claim that the absence of direct references from Jesus on homosexuality, in spite of numerous other scriptures denouncing homosexuality, is simply his own perversion of the scriptures to justify his rebellion to the teachings of the Bible for his own political gain.


                                Slavery: I want to own slaves even though it's against the principles of God's Word, so I'll invent my own pitiful "biblical" support for my sin, and ignore the rest of the Bible.
                                Homosexuality: I want to live my life in violation of teachings of the Bible, but still call myself a Christian, so I'll simply invent my own version of Jesus, and ignore the Bible.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                234 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                187 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                310 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X