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
    Concern is not the same as fear.
    Agreed, it's not. It is rooted in fear. We fear X might occur, and that gives us cause for concern.

    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    You are free to fear as much as you'd like.
    Well...I'm not sure most of us "like" to fear, though I have to admit that the horror movie genre suggests many of us actually like to experience the full range of human emotion, so long as we can do so safely.

    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    You're certainly entitled to your opinion.
    Gee... ya think?
    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 NorrinRadd View Post
      I do wrestle with this a bit.

      In regard to the "love one another" thing, since that was given at the Last Supper (in John's Gospel) as the "New" Commandment, in the same context in which Jesus in Luke's Gospel initiates the New Covenant, one could arrive at the conclusion that it is "the" Commandment of the New Covenant. And then we have those places in Galatians and Romans where Paul explicitly says that "Love your neighbor as yourself" fulfills the entire OT Law. And the place where Jesus said "Treat others as you wish others to treat you" fulfills the entire Law AND Prophets.

      But then we have the explicit places where Paul denounces homosexual practices, and the places where Jesus affirmed "male and female" unions, with no hint that other options existed.
      Paul was a man of his times, culture, and history. His position is not particularly surprising to me.
      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
        Agreed, it's not. It is rooted in fear. We fear X might occur, and that gives us cause for concern.



        Well...I'm not sure most of us "like" to fear, though I have to admit that the horror movie genre suggests many of us actually like to experience the full range of human emotion, so long as we can do so safely.



        Gee... ya think?
        You're going to be right no matter what, so, you're right!
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
          Look again. It is in every translation I've checked -- NIV, NASB, NET, ISV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV.

          I think you may be thinking of the fact that a few translations -- KJV, NKJV, probably one or two others, also improperly insert it at the end of verse 1.
          I checked - you are right - I misidentified the reference on two counts (v4, not v6), and mistook CPs quote for the piece at the end of verse 1.
          Regarding the King James "improperly" inserting at the end of verse 1, though, it isn't "improper:" both the Byzantine Majority and Textus Receptus (from which KJV translators were working) have that piece closing off verse 1 as well as verse 4.
          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
            I checked - you are right - I misidentified the reference on two counts (v4, not v6), and mistook CPs quote for the piece at the end of verse 1.
            Regarding the King James "improperly" inserting at the end of verse 1, though, it isn't "improper:" both the Byzantine Majority and Textus Receptus (from which KJV translators were working) have that piece closing off verse 1 as well as verse 4.
            Fair point.
            Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

            Beige Federalist.

            Nationalist Christian.

            "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

            Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

            Proud member of the this space left blank community.

            Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

            Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

            Justice for Matthew Perna!

            Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              Paul was a man of his times, culture, and history. His position is not particularly surprising to me.
              I don't see evidence in support - what premises do you have for the conclusion?
              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 Cow Poke View Post
                ...
                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".

                ...
                I realize you are speaking in some quick generalities here. Still, I'm sort of "triggered" to note that we all prioritize some passages over others, and we don't always have a consistent hermeneutical basis for doing so.

                In specific regard to homosexual practice, I think in many cases you are correct, but I'm not prepared to assume it's always so. I think it's possible that in some cases it is a legitimate quandary about how to prioritize passages that appear inconsistent. I'm slightly sensitive to this, because the same sorts of language you're using is often used by patriarchalists toward egalitarians.
                Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                Beige Federalist.

                Nationalist Christian.

                "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                Justice for Matthew Perna!

                Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                  I realize you are speaking in some quick generalities here. Still, I'm sort of "triggered" to note that we all prioritize some passages over others, and we don't always have a consistent hermeneutical basis for doing so.

                  In specific regard to homosexual practice, I think in many cases you are correct, but I'm not prepared to assume it's always so. I think it's possible that in some cases it is a legitimate quandary about how to prioritize passages that appear inconsistent. I'm slightly sensitive to this, because the same sorts of language you're using is often used by patriarchalists toward egalitarians.
                  On the assumption that you are referring to equal status for men and women in particular, with possibilities of other applications.
                  Paul's own writing shows that he does hold to the precept that "in Christ there is neither male nor female," (which he himself stated). His writing shows that the principle is acknowledged in his own interactions - notably the closing greetings in his letter to the Romans. The principle is demonstrated to be valid by reference to the women whom God appoints to positions of authority - Deborah (an Old Testament prophet and Judge), Junia (a New Testament apostle), various deacons who were women (NT), prophets (NT, OT). There is more than enough evidence to show that Paul's comments about women being subordinate are (at least) not intended to be interpreted as a general principle.

                  By contrast, there is no scriptural reference undermining the scriptural prohibitions of homosexual relationships. From that, I must reluctantly conclude that homosexual relationships are incompatible with holiness - but without an explanation of why that should be the case.
                  Last edited by tabibito; 04-21-2019, 10:57 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
                    On the assumption that you are referring to equal status for men and women in particular, with possibilities of other applications.
                    Yes, the "men and women" area is where the term seems to present most frequently here in the U.S., as well as in online discussions.


                    Paul's own writing shows that he does hold to the precept that "in Christ there is neither male nor female," (which he himself stated). His writing shows that the principle is acknowledged in his own interactions - notably the closing greetings in his letter to the Romans. The principle is demonstrated to be valid by reference to the women whom God appoints to positions of authority - Deborah (an Old Testament prophet and Judge), Junia (a New Testament apostle), various deacons who were women (NT), prophets (NT, OT). There is more than enough evidence to show that Paul's comments about women being subordinate are (at least) not intended to be interpreted as a general principle.
                    I agree. But CBMW (Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) types will firmly, if not aggressively, demur.


                    By contrast, there is no scriptural reference undermining the scriptural prohibitions of homosexual relationships. From that, I must reluctantly conclude that homosexual relationships are incompatible with holiness - but without an explanation of why that should be the case.
                    I agree with the conclusion. My discomfort is with the opening sentence of that paragraph. I think one can find some "undermining" in the many passages that assert the overriding, if not singular, importance of the "Love" Command. One must conclude that some passages don't mean quite what they appear to mean, and prioritize some passages above others.
                    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                    Beige Federalist.

                    Nationalist Christian.

                    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                    Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                    Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                    Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                    Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                    Justice for Matthew Perna!

                    Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      Wow, the Southern Baptist foundation involved SLAVERY! Who KNEW!!!! It was not, as you falsely stated, "justified by scripture".
                      It was, actually. Christian slaveholders used the bible to justify slavery.

                      http://time.com/5171819/christianity...-book-excerpt/

                      Slavery came first and scripture was invoked to justify it, as is always the case in justifying the social values of the day, whatever they may be.

                      (Perhaps you're unaware that the American Civil War was ALSO over slavery)
                      Indeed. As the social values of the day changed so scriptural interpretation changed with it…although the SBC resisted.
                      “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
                        It was, actually. Christian slaveholders used the bible to justify slavery.

                        http://time.com/5171819/christianity...-book-excerpt/

                        Slavery came first and scripture was invoked to justify it, as is always the case in justifying the social values of the day, whatever they may be.
                        Or more accurately - the scripture was quote mined to justify slavery after other Christians challenged slavery. Note that John Newton was a slave ship captain, converted to Christianity, attempted to provide just and humane conditions for his cargo in accord with Christian principles, and finally worked out that slavery and Christianity are incompatible whereupon he quit the slave trade. After that, among other works, he wrote "Amazing Grace."



                        Indeed. As the social values of the day changed so scriptural interpretation changed with it…although the SBC resisted.
                        The SBC resisted, in opposition to the Baptist Church of America, and formed its own charter (Southern Baptist Convention.) The test of the group is based on what is, not on what was back in the when. Does the SBC regard slavery as wrongful? is relevant. The historical background where the opposite view was promoted? - the SBC of today has no opportunity to influence those actions.
                        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 seer View Post
                          God would rather have obedience than sacrifice, but sin requires a sacrifice. Without the shedding of blood and all that.
                          I had to come back to this. It seems basic, but it was nagging me.

                          We know that without shedding of blood there was no forgiveness (Heb. 9:22), and in context, that was blood of animals. But Heb. 10:4 said it was impossible for the blood of animals to take away sins. So what was really the point?

                          We know from Hos. 6:6, quoted twice in Matt., that God "desire(s) chesed, not sacrifices."

                          We know from Gal. 3 that no one was justified by the Law -- by its sacrifices, or any part of it. Justification/righteousness has always been by faith.

                          I'd never really wrestled with this before.
                          Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                          Beige Federalist.

                          Nationalist Christian.

                          "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                          Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                          Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                          Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                          Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                          Justice for Matthew Perna!

                          Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                            I had to come back to this. It seems basic, but it was nagging me.

                            We know that without shedding of blood there was no forgiveness (Heb. 9:22), and in context, that was blood of animals. But Heb. 10:4 said it was impossible for the blood of animals to take away sins. So what was really the point?

                            We know from Hos. 6:6, quoted twice in Matt., that God "desire(s) chesed, not sacrifices."

                            We know from Gal. 3 that no one was justified by the Law -- by its sacrifices, or any part of it. Justification/righteousness has always been by faith.

                            I'd never really wrestled with this before.
                            We are justified by faith, faith in the sacrifice of Christ: Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him Rom.5:9. And I believe that animal sacrifice were meant to point to the ultimate Sacrifice.
                            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


                            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              You're going to be right no matter what, so, you're right!
                              When you run out of actual responses...dismount with a personal slam.

                              Nice form...
                              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 NorrinRadd View Post
                                I realize you are speaking in some quick generalities here. Still, I'm sort of "triggered" to note that we all prioritize some passages over others, and we don't always have a consistent hermeneutical basis for doing so.

                                In specific regard to homosexual practice, I think in many cases you are correct, but I'm not prepared to assume it's always so. I think it's possible that in some cases it is a legitimate quandary about how to prioritize passages that appear inconsistent. I'm slightly sensitive to this, because the same sorts of language you're using is often used by patriarchalists toward egalitarians.
                                Your observation here is somewhat refreshing. I seldom hear people who use the bible as their basis acknowledge that there is a balancing act that goes on whenever a person reads and interprets a text, especially one that is being turned to for guidance in behavior or belief. That is further complicated in the case of the bible by the circumstances of the book itself (i.e., multiple authors, multiple times, lack of source materials, etc.). I wish there was a way to run an experiment to uncover how much a person's interpretation and selection of passages is related to their pre-existing ideas and priorities, and simply serves to re-affirm them. Alas, I know of no such experiment or data.
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                163 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                383 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X