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 carpedm9587 View Post
    So that doesn't really have much to do with what I observed.

    As for the rest - you're (presumably) taking it from the perspective that "it's all god's word.". I take it as a historical document, recognizing that the later letters were written at least a couple decades after Jesus died, allowing plenty of time for communities to begin interpreting and amending what Jesus actually thought, and plenty of opportunities for charismatic preachers like Paul) to insert their own perspective. Indeed, we don't really have any direct record of what Jesus actually taught; what we have is the writings of the community that sprang up after his death many years after that death - so we are looking at Jesus' teachings through their eyes.

    Presumably, you believe there is an all-powerful being that is speaking through all of that so it is all "the truth." Since I do not share a belief in such a being, I treat them as simple historical documents and hold them to the same standards I believe all historical documents ought to be held.
    No surprise. But I have a lot more respect for that than I do somebody trying to use the Bible to justify their lifestyle.

    Why can't Pete just say "I'm gay, and that's that". After all, the Democrats threw God off their Platform in 2012 (until Obama shamed them into inviting Him back in, which happened over the objections of their majority).
    Last edited by Cow Poke; 04-20-2019, 01:15 PM.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
      With regard to your first question, I'll mull it over for a while - I'd rather give a considered response than an "off the top of the head" response at 3:30 am.
      This question is pre-mulled (and my answer could offend many). The Old Law came out of dickering/compromise. The New Law didn't - it's a from the top command (on a take it or leave it basis). Both Old Testament and New Testament records state that the Old Law was deficient (and in the NT, the OT law is deemed deficient on more than one count ... some of it deemed by God himself to be bad).
      I had not expected this, and have never heard this view expressed before. The "dickering and compromise" were between what agencies?
      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 tabibito View Post
        With regard to your first question, I'll mull it over for a while - I'd rather give a considered response than an "off the top of the head" response at 3:30 am.
        This question is pre-mulled (and my answer could offend many). The Old Law came out of dickering/compromise. The New Law didn't - it's a from the top command (on a take it or leave it basis). Both Old Testament and New Testament records state that the Old Law was deficient (and in the NT, the OT law is deemed deficient on more than one count ... some of it deemed by God himself to be bad).
        Or, as my Aunt Fadie would say, "it's complicated".
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          I had not expected this, and have never heard this view expressed before. The "dickering and compromise" were between what agencies?
          I had actually never heard it put quite that way before, either. Will be interesting to see.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • Between God through his representatives, initially Moses, on the one hand and the people of Israel on the other. I'll try to track down the key references later, but this might do for the interim -
            1/ (God speaking) so I gave them laws that were not good.
            2/ If the first (covenant) had been perfect, there would have been no occasion for the second.
            3/ (God speaking) Did I ask for sacrifice? - no - I asked for obedience. (from memory, twice stated at least), but noting that he gave laws to govern sacrifice anyway

            And then of course

            the laws governing the appointment of kings - which God did not want Israel to have in the first place.

            the last two being examples of "laws that were not good."
            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
              ...The Old Law came out of dickering/compromise. The New Law didn't - it's a from the top command (on a take it or leave it basis)....
              This is the part that I don't understand. The Ten Commandments, for instance, "came from the top command".

              The 5 covenants of the OT, particularly the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, were pretty much God telling them "this is what I'll do for you, and this is what I expect in return" (way oversimplified, of course) but I don't see how they can be characterized as "barter/compromise".

              The "God give us a king" one, I can see as case of "you may get what you want, but you may not want what you get" - not God's first choice, evidently.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                No surprise. But I have a lot more respect for that than I do somebody trying to use the Bible to justify their lifestyle.

                Why can't Pete just say "I'm gay, and that's that". After all, the Democrats threw God off their Platform in 2012 (until Obama shamed them into inviting Him back in, which happened over the objections of their majority).
                I can't speak for Pete. I can only speak for myself. I neither use the bible to defend my own choices or point to the poor choices of others. I don't even waste time trying to make a case that "Christian person X is being inconsistent because they do Y and the bible says Z." Over time, I have found all such discussions to be largely pointless and leave others to them.

                As for what the Dems did - I'm very curious to know exactly what happened to make you think the "Dems threw god off their platform in 2012?" Don't get me wrong. I'll be dancing for joy when/if all parties "throw god off their platform." I'm not a big fan of god-centered politics. I'm just not aware of that happening.
                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 tabibito View Post
                  Between God through his representatives, initially Moses, on the one hand and the people of Israel on the other. I'll try to track down the key references later, but this might do for the interim -
                  1/ (God speaking) so I gave them laws that were not good.
                  2/ If the first (covenant) had been perfect, there would have been no occasion for the second.
                  3/ (God speaking) Did I ask for sacrifice? - no - I asked for obedience. (from memory, twice stated at least), but noting that he gave laws to govern sacrifice anyway

                  And then of course

                  the laws governing the appointment of kings - which God did not want Israel to have in the first place.

                  the last two being examples of "laws that were not good."
                  So god made a mistake?
                  Or god failed to foresee what the Isrealites would do?
                  Or god was cajoled into acting against his own plan by the Isrealites?

                  I'm trying to square any/all of that with a "perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good" god and I have to admit that the circle does not appear to square.

                  Am I missing something?
                  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
                    I can't speak for Pete. I can only speak for myself. I neither use the bible to defend my own choices or point to the poor choices of others. I don't even waste time trying to make a case that "Christian person X is being inconsistent because they do Y and the bible says Z." Over time, I have found all such discussions to be largely pointless and leave others to them.
                    Sure, but that's exactly what Mayor Pete is trying to do -- he's a better Christian as a homosexual than Pence is as a... whatever Pete's beef with Pence is.

                    As for what the Dems did - I'm very curious to know exactly what happened to make you think the "Dems threw god off their platform in 2012?" Don't get me wrong. I'll be dancing for joy when/if all parties "throw god off their platform." I'm not a big fan of god-centered politics. I'm just not aware of that happening.
                    Sure.... Democrats still haven’t faced their God problem

                    That imagery is a far cry from the 2012 Democratic convention, when the hall exploded in turmoil as Democrats voted to amend their party’s platform to include the word “God.” The platform initially had dropped previous platform language that referenced God. After an outcry, convention chairman Antonio Villaraigosa returned to the stage to take a floor vote on a motion to reinsert the language.

                    The floor vote quite clearly failed as Villaraigosa repeated the roll call. Eventually he declared that “the ayes have it,” and loud boos exploded across the arena.

                    The headlines that came out of that debacle — “Democrats boo God” was a common one — ended up making matters worse for those, like Washo and Chism, who would like to see their party counter the perception of its estrangement from people of faith.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      OK, this part....

                      But you kinda are*!
                      How so? I definitely have questions about what Tab thinks - but I don't see anything in my post that says "this passage in the bible means X." Am I missing something?

                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      Interesting. The fact that JimL amen'd this would seem to me to be an indication that he didn't really understand what you were saying. I do note, however, your use of "homophobic" as a pejorative to those of us who aren't really "phobic" at all, but just believe something is wrong. Out of curiosity - does it make you feel better to use this term to somehow make us sound like really bad people?
                      Why does someone being homophobic mean they are "bad?" Is a person who has arachnophobia also bad? People fear things. Such is life. I find a great deal of fear on the right towards the gay community and it is reflected in language like "the gay agenda" and all of the ways those nasty gay people are going to corrupt our youth and destroy our moral fabric.

                      Fear only leads us to evil when we let the fear dictate actions that are evil. The fear itself is not evil, nor is the fearful person.

                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      I've missed you, Carpe.
                      Likewise. I have the impression the sentiment is not shared, however...

                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      *not really - I'm kidding.
                      I have to remember to read your ENTIRE posts before I answer...
                      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
                        How so? I definitely have questions about what Tab thinks - but I don't see anything in my post that says "this passage in the bible means X." Am I missing something?
                        (always watch for the * )

                        Why does someone being homophobic mean they are "bad?" Is a person who has arachnophobia also bad?
                        Excellent uncomparison --- people who are AFRAID of spiders have at least a basis to be.
                        People who think homosexuality is wrong, aren't AFRAID of homosexuals.

                        People fear things.
                        I don't fear homosexuals - I have yet to meet a fellow Christian who does.

                        Such is life. I find a great deal of fear on the right towards the gay community and it is reflected in language like "the gay agenda" and all of the ways those nasty gay people are going to corrupt our youth and destroy our moral fabric.
                        "Concern" does not equal "fear", Carpe - that's an invention of the left to put Christians on the defensive.

                        Fear only leads us to evil when we let the fear dictate actions that are evil. The fear itself is not evil, nor is the fearful person.
                        Like I said.

                        Likewise. I have the impression the sentiment is not shared, however...
                        I'm weird, we all know that!

                        I have to remember to read your ENTIRE posts before I answer...
                        Or just watch for the "*".
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          Why does someone being homophobic mean they are "bad?"
                          It's a game, Carpe, that both sides play, but the liberals are much better at it.

                          • People who are FOR abortion don't wanna be known for that, so they call themselves "pro-choice", even though killing an unborn baby deprives that child of ever making ANY choices, and they want to do their best to make sure their "clients" don't make INFORMED choices, and want to control other choices people make.
                          • People who are FOR family values are called "anti-abortion", as though that's something horrible.
                          • People who believe homosexuality is a sin would prefer to be known as "pro-family", but it fits the leftist agenda (threw that in there just for you) to use the pejorative "homophobe" because it makes us sound full of fear and intolerance.
                          • Liberals used to be all about "free speech", but now they pretty much label anything they don't like as "hate speech" and rail against it.




                          I've come to accept that the liberals and the complicit MSM will always do their best to weaponize language to make them look good and me and my associates look bad. It's life!

                          But this is a whole 'nuther thread.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • It may be that I have overstated the case, and it may be that with regard to the 10 commandments that what I believe to be the case is incorrect, however:
                            Hebrews 8
                            6 However, Jesus has now obtained a more superior ministry, since the covenant he mediates is founded on better promises.
                            7 If the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need to look for a second one,
                            8 but God found something wrong with his people when he said,
                            “Look! The days are coming, declares the Lord,
                            when I will establish a new covenant
                            with the house of Israel
                            and with the house of Judah.
                            that the first commandment was flawed is demonstrated
                            It is then a matter of determining why or how it was flawed, and that information comes piecemeal.
                            The first part of that answer is given by verse 8 ... the people were not keeping their end of the bargain.
                            The New Covenant also expects that people will keep their end of the bargain, but there is a difference:
                            The New Covenant is an individual to God interaction along the lines of liege-lord to liege-man and comes "whole cloth."
                            The Old Covenant was collective - it was a contract between God and the people of Israel as a whole.

                            With regard to the kings, God declares that he doesn't want Israel to have a king - if they insist on having a king they may have one -
                            with the rider that when the king messes up, the nation will be held to account.

                            God never wanted sacrifices - yet laws were instituted for presenting sacrifices. Again, a demonstration that what the people wanted was a factor in developing the law.
                            Last edited by tabibito; 04-20-2019, 06:13 PM.
                            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
                              It may be that I have overstated the case, and it may be that with regard to the 10 commandments that what I believe to be the case is incorrect, however:
                              6 However, Jesus has now obtained a more superior ministry, since the covenant he mediates is founded on better promises.
                              7 If the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need to look for a second one, 8 but God found something wrong with his people when he said,
                              “Look! The days are coming, declares the Lord,
                              when I will establish a new covenant
                              with the house of Israel
                              and with the house of Judah.
                              that the first commandment was flawed is demonstrated
                              It is then a matter of determining why it was flawed. That information comes piecemeal.
                              Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                                God never wanted sacrifices - yet laws were instituted for presenting sacrifices. Again, a demonstration that what the people wanted was a factor in developing the law.
                                God would rather have obedience than sacrifice, but sin requires a sacrifice. Without the shedding of blood and all that.
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                84 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                281 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                109 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                195 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                355 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X