Mayor Pete Attacks Trump's Faith...

[JonathanL]

As I noted, Chrawnus, I have no problem with calling out what a person does. And I don't disagree with most of what you said above. My comments were about the differences reflected in:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness.

You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred?

and



The latter names a problem and does so clearly and without name calling and ridicule. It focuses on the actions and why they are wrong (to Jesus). It calls the people involved out for what they are doing. The first three do not do this. They resort to ridicule and name calling. Brood of vipers? Whitewashed tombs? Full of bones? Blind fools? Jesus is not depicted here as "calling a thing for what it is" but rather is resorting to ridicule and name calling. How would anyone judge the truth of "full of bones" (setting aside the medical reality). How would someone assess the truth of whether or not a group of people is a "brood of vipers?"

You're claiming that Jesus is not "calling a thing for what it is" but is resorting to "ridicule and name calling", but in doing so you're begging the question in two different ways. First of all you're assuming that the examples you've provided (one of which is something John the Baptist said, not Jesus, but that's beside the point), are examples of ridicule, instead of scathing critiques. Ridicule to me implies a certain tone of writing or voice that I don't see in the text itself when I read it. Exasperation, perhaps even anger. But ridicule? There's an example of that in the Bible in the story about Elijah and the prophets of Baal, but I don't see any ridiculing in the examples you provide, only anger, or indignation about what Jesus perceived to be hypocritical and evil behaviour by the scribes and the pharisees.

Secondly, even if you're correct about the examples above depict Jesus as ridiculing his enemies you're begging the question that "calling a thing for what it is" and "ridicule and name calling" are incompatible with each other, which I disagree with you about.

As for how you assess the truth of Jesus calling the scribes and pharisees "whitewashed tombs", "brood of vipers" and so on? You recognize that they're idioms (The whole thing about "whitewashed tombs" and "full of bones" for example was an idiom for hypocrisy) and that it's perfectly possible to compare the actions and words of the scribes and pharisees to see if it fits with the kind of quality that the idiom is trying to depict.

Then you have his apparent instructions,

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and

The two highlighted passages are pretty glaringly in opposition. As far as I can see, they reflect a man who has an ideal, but doesn't always meet his own ideal.

That's assuming that Jesus considered the scribes and the pharisees to be his "brothers", which is debatable, and it also assumes that the words are used in the same sense in both instances, which is even more doubtful. In the passage about calling your brother (i.e fellow disciples) a fool it seems to be the kind of "moral" fool described in the book of proverbs, who's walking on the path to perdition, but when Jesus called the scribes and pharisees "blind fools" he's talking about their intellectual acuity, wisdom or insight.

But, as I write this, I realize I have just wandered into a biblical discussion, which I general eschew. There will always be explanations for each of these things to resolve these conflicts to the satisfaction of the reader from the perspective of their beliefs. The preceding use of "brother" will perhaps be used to narrow the scope of application to only those "in the fold," or something of that ilk. That is the nature of basing a belief on a book. I have seldom found it to be useful to engage in these discussions for exactly that reason.

Well, of course it will be used to narrow the scope of application. That's what words, whether spoken or written, are supposed to do. If Jesus, or the writer of the gospel of Matthew (depending on whether you believe the author faithfully preserved the meaning of Jesus' words or not), didn't want to narrow the scope of Jesus words to only "brothers" then he wouldn't have used the word "brother". It has nothing to do with basing a belief on a book, it's a natural facet of all kinds of communication.

Also, I do not believe the success in resolving these conflicts are dependent on the "perspective of the [reader's] beliefs". You don't need to be a believer to realize that Jesus is using the word "fool" in two different ways in the verses you cited above for example. If a resolution for a conflict in the biblical text exists it exists independently of the reader's beliefs, and is accessible to anyone who is willing to engage the text honestly.

I'll leave the final observation to you, with my thanks for a civil discussion.

Thank you as well.

[seer]

Mayor Pete's very own me too moment? He has arrived...


Pete Buttigieg Sexually Assaulted Me

https://medium.com/@realHunterKelly/...e-1a5c0aebae6d

[Cow Poke]

Mayor Pete's very own me too moment? He has arrived...


Pete Buttigieg Sexually Assaulted Me

https://medium.com/@realHunterKelly/...e-1a5c0aebae6d

Interesting...

On Twitter, the account @realHunterKelly shared a link to the Medium post. On his Twitter profile he shares his location as Grand Rapids, Michigan. The account was opened in April 2019 and has 60 followers as of Monday morning.
Hunter Kelley Buttigieg accuser

2019-04-29_15-02-02.jpg

[seer]

Interesting...

Yeah, I do wonder if this is true, if it is...

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, I do wonder if this is true, if it is...

That's why I was looking for other sources for it -- so far, it appears to be real...

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, I do wonder if this is true, if it is...

So far, LBGTQ Nation is suspecting it's right wing fake news.

[Tassman]

You're doing that thing where you

How about actually addressing my response, instead of resorting to a mini-rant?

A) make a really stupid statement due to your anti-Christian bigotry

2) can't back up that claim with any kind of actual evidence

C) do your best to twist things as your argument has collapsed.

My argument has not been addressed.

[Cow Poke]

How about actually addressing my response

I have, REPEATEDLY, you just tend to respond by going on mini-rants.

[Cow Poke]

Aside from your improper use of possessives instead of plurals, pretty much, you're almost there. The FACT is that the Northern churches would not allow missionaries to be commissioned if they owned, or had owned, slaves.

The reason being according to you, was solely because of the economic necessity for the South to retain slaves.

That was the PRIMARY reason, yes. Or are you going to propose that these men simply wanted to own slaves "just because"?

Correct. And there's not a shred of evidence that "the SBC", as a body, ever attempted to rationalize or justify slavery based on scripture - THAT, sir, was your claim.

In my opinion, slavery is sinful, yes.

So the SBC was inaugurated in "sin". Have I got that right?

Did you actually read the Resolution from 1995? By the way, in your profound ignorance of all things Southern Baptist, you had originally claimed...

The Southern Baptist Convention was founded in 1845 in the Southern United States for the very purpose of maintaining slavery. .

That was false.

The Resolution in 1995 at Atlanta (I was there, and voted in the affirmative) said, and I quote...

Therefore, be it RESOLVED, That we, the messengers to the Sesquicentennial meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, assembled in Atlanta, Georgia, June 20-22, 1995, unwaveringly denounce racism, in all its forms, as deplorable sin;...

Got that? "Deplorable sin".

My argument has not been addressed.

It has. Over and over and over and over and over.....

[Cow Poke]

Mayor Pete's very own me too moment? He has arrived...


Pete Buttigieg Sexually Assaulted Me

https://medium.com/@realHunterKelly/...e-1a5c0aebae6d

back on topic....

Traverse City Native at Center of False Sexual Assault Accusations Involving Pete Buttigieg

[Sparko]

back on topic....

Traverse City Native at Center of False Sexual Assault Accusations Involving Pete Buttigieg

Interesting.

So if Kelly was just a pawn, why him? Why would two conspiracy guys pick him as the front man and fly him to Washington DC? How would they even know who he was and why would they risk using his name when it (obviously) is so easy to deny?

What if they are all in on it and Buttigieg is behind it all and set up the whole thing as a fake attack on himself so that he could come out on top, be the victim while at the same time making it look like conservatives are out to get him? Shades of Jussie!!!

[carpedm9587]

Amazing... just amazing...

[Cow Poke]

Amazing... just amazing...

That I presented a case that the sexual allegations against Mayor Pete are false?

OR are you trying to remember the words... Grace, how sweet the sound....

[carpedm9587]

That I presented a case that the sexual allegations against Mayor Pete are false?

OR are you trying to remember the words... Grace, how sweet the sound....

No. I am just stunned at how hard people work to hold on to their positions, even in the face of no evidence or evidence to the contrary.

[Tassman]

. The FACT is that the Northern churches would not allow missionaries to be commissioned if they owned, or had owned, slaves.

Exactly, because the Northern Baptists, unlike their colleagues in the South, considered slavery to be morally wrong.

That was the PRIMARY reason, yes.

You seem indifferent to the moral bankruptcy of starting a Christian denomination based primarily on economic necessity rather than biblical injunctions. What happened to the maxim: "Let justice be done though the heavens fall"?

Correct. And there's not a shred of evidence that "the SBC", as a body, ever attempted to rationalize or justify slavery based on scripture - THAT, sir, was your claim.

Many have

In my opinion, slavery is sinful, yes.

Does this mean you would not have supported the split by the slave-owners from the Northern Baptist Church?

Did you actually read the Resolution from 1995?

The Resolution in 1995 at Atlanta (I was there, and voted in the affirmative) said, and I quote...

Therefore, be it RESOLVED, That we, the messengers to the Sesquicentennial meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, assembled in Atlanta, Georgia, June 20-22, 1995, unwaveringly denounce racism, in all its forms, as deplorable sin;...

Got that? "Deplorable sin".

It took 150 years to get there and has nothing to do with the origins of the SBC. Values have changed. What is a"deplorable sin" in 1995 was not that in 1845...at least not for the SBC. Unless you're suggesting the the SBC wantonly split from their brethren in the North in full knowledge of their "deplorable sin".