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 rogue06 View Post
    That's like saying that the adulterer or fornicator isn't living in sin because it's how God made them. The idea is to try to resist our various temptations not to rationalize them or worse claim that God approves of it.
    Only if Buttigieg sees homosexuality as sin and to be resisted. He clearly does not.
    “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 Cow Poke View Post
      One of the very few things at which Jimmy excels is attempting to drag a thread off topic. He's managing to do that here, just as Adrift prophesied*.

      The issue is that Buttigieg is portrayed as a "Practicing Christian" in spite of the fact that he totally ignores (not interprets) scripture that condemns his lifestyle.
      This began with you claiming that Mayor Pete and others just ignore those parts of the bible they don't agree with. I simply showed how you do the same. God commanded that human beings stone and burn to death other human beings. That is inhumane in the first place, never mind the actions of a loving god. You remained silent, or in other words ignored that part of the bible you didn't agree with. Others admitted to it but made excuses for it such as it was a different time and culture as if that would have anything at all to do with a Gods moral nature. Perhaps you think it a moral good and that we should still stone people to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath!
      Last edited by JimL; 05-18-2019, 08:03 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        Only if Buttigieg sees homosexuality as sin and to be resisted. He clearly does not.
        So, now you're a mind reader, too? You can't seem to keep your arguments straight --- YOU claimed the had a different interpretation of the scriptures, yet you keep failing to prove that, Rev Tassman. Have you no shame or decency?
        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
          This began with you claiming that Mayor Pete and others just ignore those parts of the bible they don't agree with.
          Wrong - it began with Reverend Tassman claiming Butigieg had a different interpretation.
          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
            You remained silent, or in other words ignored that part of the bible you didn't agree with. Others admitted to it but made excuses for it such as it was a different time and culture as if that would have anything at all to do with a Gods moral nature. Perhaps you think it a moral good and that we should still stone people to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath!
            There is more than enough evidence to show the probability of these being maximum penalties, not mandatory penalties. And that is even before the variations introduced with the New Covenant are considered. The law is inextricably a component of the covenant - once the Old Covenant became old, and the New Covenant was instituted, the old laws don't apply. Under the new covenant, the maximum penalty that can be imposed is excommunication - aka shunning, banishment, exile.
            sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

            Comment


            • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
              There is more than enough evidence to show the probability of these being maximum penalties, not mandatory penalties. And that is even before the variations introduced with the New Covenant are considered. The law is inextricably a component of the covenant - once the Old Covenant became old, and the New Covenant was instituted, the old laws don't apply. Under the new covenant, the maximum penalty that can be imposed is excommunication - aka shunning, banishment, exile.
              The point remains the same. The Christian god commanded the inhumane, immoral, stoning and burning to death of human beings which christians tend to ignore. The only reason for the New Covenant is because human beings realized the Old Covenant to be inhumane.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                The point remains the same. The Christian god commanded the inhumane, immoral, stoning and burning to death of human beings which christians tend to ignore. The only reason for the New Covenant is because human beings realized the Old Covenant to be inhumane.
                What you're doing is demonstrating your profound ignorance of the Bible.

                A) The Old Covenant (and associated laws) was between God and the Jews
                2) I am not a Jew
                3) The NEW Covenant is in place, and we are no longer "under the law"
                D) We are called CHRIST-ians because we are CHRIST followers, not MOSES AND THE LAW followers

                Your attempt to derail the thread is duly noted.
                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  This began with you claiming that Mayor Pete and others just ignore those parts of the bible they don't agree with.
                  Here's what started this....

                  Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  My argument was that the interpretation of scripture varies e.g. the likes of Buttigieg, as a practicing Christian, interprets scripture in such a way that homosexuality is OK with a loving God.
                  Perhaps you'd like to assist Reverend Tassman in producing the proof that Buttigieg has EVER considered the New Testament (Christian) condemnation of homosexuality and interpreted it "in such a way that homosexuality is OK with a loving God."

                  The argument is so stupid that Reverend Tassman is doing the Kakuki Boogie trying to hide from it:

                  Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  Bur, what’s “in question” is not my argument. The argument is merely that practicing Christians disagree among themselves as to what is acceptable behavior for Christians.
                  "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    The point remains the same. The Christian god commanded the inhumane, immoral, stoning and burning to death of human beings which christians tend to ignore. The only reason for the New Covenant is because human beings realized the Old Covenant to be inhumane.
                    The points that remain the same in this issue are two.

                    Humans don't know what alternatives were available, and cannot predict with any accuracy the courses that history might follow when this or that is or is not done. When the fact that God is not WILLING that any should die is considered, his commands that some (or even a huge number) die would indicate a strong impetus.
                    sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      Only if Buttigieg sees homosexuality as sin and to be resisted. He clearly does not.
                      Yeah, he clearly has decided to do "what was right in his own eyes."


                      And guess what. Regardless of what he sees the adulterer, fornicator or homosexual who is not fighting temptation is indeed sinning.
                      Last edited by rogue06; 05-18-2019, 11:59 AM.

                      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)
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        Only if Buttigieg sees homosexuality as sin and to be resisted. He clearly does not.
                        Which would demonstrate that he ignores the New Testament condemnation of homosexuality, contrary to your oft cited claim that he "interprets" those scriptures differently.
                        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          Wrong - it began with Reverend Tassman claiming Butigieg had a different interpretation.
                          Wrong. With me it began with you saying Butigieg ignored those parts of the bible he didn't agree with. My reply was that, so do you. Or do you believe it moral to stone human beings to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Jesus apparently disagreed with it, and his reasoning had nothing to do with the times, the place, or the culture. Problem is that Jesus and YHWH are said to be one and the same god.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            There is more than enough evidence to show the probability of these being maximum penalties, not mandatory penalties. And that is even before the variations introduced with the New Covenant are considered. The law is inextricably a component of the covenant - once the Old Covenant became old, and the New Covenant was instituted, the old laws don't apply. Under the new covenant, the maximum penalty that can be imposed is excommunication - aka shunning, banishment, exile.
                            There is more than enough evidence that they were the commands from god. Whether the old laws apply any longer doesn't change the fact that stoning and burning human beings to death is immoral and abhorent at any time and in any culture. That should inform you that the immoral, abhorent laws, didn't come from who you believe to be a loving god.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              What you're doing is demonstrating your profound ignorance of the Bible.

                              A) The Old Covenant (and associated laws) was between God and the Jews
                              2) I am not a Jew
                              3) The NEW Covenant is in place, and we are no longer "under the law"
                              D) We are called CHRIST-ians because we are CHRIST followers, not MOSES AND THE LAW followers

                              Your attempt to derail the thread is duly noted.
                              Same god, CP. Moses didn't make the laws, remember, he simply enforced them, right? (Yuk yuk yuk.) You should know that!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                                Wrong. With me it began with you saying Butigieg ignored those parts of the bible he didn't agree with.
                                Nope....

                                Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                My argument was that the interpretation of scripture varies e.g. the likes of Buttigieg, as a practicing Christian, interprets scripture in such a way that homosexuality is OK with a loving God.
                                I had to correct the little Reverend and point out that he had no evidence whatsoever that Buttigieg interpreted the scriptures in any manner whatsoever, and pointed out that he simply ignored them to justify his life of sin. He's been trying to do a kabuki dance away from that ever since.

                                My reply was that, so do you.
                                A) You're wrong, and
                                2) you're about to double down on your profound ignorance of theology.

                                Or do you believe it moral to stone human beings to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Jesus apparently disagreed with it, and his reasoning had nothing to do with the times, the place, or the culture. Problem is that Jesus and YHWH are said to be one and the same god.
                                You seem incapable of understanding that God had a Covenant for the Jews (the OLD TESTAMENT) and Jesus instituted the New Covenant - NEW TESTAMENT - with his blood -

                                Scripture Verse: Mark14

                                22 "And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

                                © Copyright Original Source



                                Jimmy, when it comes to the Bible, you're even dumber than you are about the legal system. It's astonishing!
                                Last edited by Cow Poke; 05-18-2019, 05:42 PM.
                                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Mountain Man, Yesterday, 04:57 PM
                                10 responses
                                67 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Reepicheep, Yesterday, 10:05 AM
                                34 responses
                                215 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seanD
                                by seanD
                                 
                                Started by seer, Yesterday, 06:05 AM
                                23 responses
                                126 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Maranatha, 10-27-2020, 10:58 PM
                                50 responses
                                355 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post kiwimac
                                by kiwimac
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 10-27-2020, 03:56 PM
                                3 responses
                                35 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Working...
                                X