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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Christianity Today Op Ed
Collapse
X
-
"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostSorry, man. Gotta call you on that one:
That's absolutely clear in its implication. Can't go farther with this if you're going to deny what you were obviously saying in that retort.
--Sam
I didn't think further explanation was necessary for Charles, who is only here to Nanny "one side".The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Charles View PostI knew someone would go for the ad hominem.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostI'll buy that, Sam. No need to be sorry.
I didn't think further explanation was necessary for Charles, who is only here to Nanny "one side".
--Sam"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostSo your retort to Charles was the implication that Buttigieg is not a legitimate commentator on Scripture by virtue of his same-sex marriage, correct?
--Sam
Is it your believe that Buttigieg IS "a legitimate commentator", and we should accept him as an authority on the Word of God?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostNo. It's because he's only using the scripture to justify his political aspirations and to justify his own lifestyle - and the lost world praises his "refreshing" approach to the Bible. And you left out my reference to his pro=abortion stand, squishy though it may be.
Is it your believe that Buttigieg IS "a legitimate commentator", and we should accept him as an authority on the Word of God?
But, simply: you were implying that Buttigieg is not a legitimate commentator on Scripture, correct?
--Sam"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostNow I don't know Buttigieg but I know people who know Buttigieg and so I know that's not true.
But, simply: you were implying that Buttigieg is not a legitimate commentator on Scripture, correct?
--Sam
I do NOT trust Buttigieg - as a practicing homosexual and an advocate of abortion - to tell me how God's Word should be interpreted.
OK, spring your trap!The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostYou know WHAT's not true, through this second/third hand sourcing of yours?
You're wording that like the crooked lawyer attempting to set a trap, Sam. Do you actually have a point?
I do NOT trust Buttigieg - as a practicing homosexual and an advocate of abortion - to tell me how God's Word should be interpreted.
OK, spring your trap!
And I'm setting no trap -- you caught yourself up in contradictions the moment you made the retort. You assert that Buttigieg is not a legitimate commentator of Scripture because he's a "practicing homosexual" and "an advocate of abortion".
In the first case, my point was that a bevy of people, here and elsewhere, violate much more core aspects of Scripture concerning compassion and cruelty, support to the oppressed vs. support to the oppressor -- always without you and others challenging their legitimacy to use Scripture (Pence comes to mind, as do men like Graham, Huckabee, and any number of Republican politicians).
In the second case, you are even more contradictory: you and others here routinely try to play both sides of fence when it comes to whether the government -- and Christian government officials -- should operate according to Scripture or to secular standards. Buttigieg's platform acknowledges abortion as a constitutional right, a position that remains the law of the land. Now, whenever we talk about Pence and Trump refusing refugees from coming to safety in America or whenever people try to defend the administration for separating children or forcing asylum seekers to wait in dangerous Mexico border towns, y'all immediately jump to how the government isn't the Church and can't be held to Christian strictures or standards. This has been applied not only to "government" as an abstract force but to Christian politicians and officials who are making these policies.
So that's the trap you yourself set: you can't condemn Buttigieg as an illegitimate commentator of Scripture while giving a pass to others when they violate the more foundational principles of the Gospel or even when they violate biblical strictures in similar vein (e.g., remarriage, cohabitation, divorce).
--Sam"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostI know it's not true that Buttigieg is "only using the scripture to justify his political aspirations and to justify his own lifestyle." And that's second-hand but close second-hand knowledge.
And I'm setting no trap -- you caught yourself up in contradictions the moment you made the retort. You assert that Buttigieg is not a legitimate commentator of Scripture because he's a "practicing homosexual" and "an advocate of abortion".
In the first case, my point was that a bevy of people, here and elsewhere, violate much more core aspects of Scripture concerning compassion and cruelty, support to the oppressed vs. support to the oppressor -- always without you and others challenging their legitimacy to use Scripture (Pence comes to mind, as do men like Graham, Huckabee, and any number of Republican politicians).
In the second case, you are even more contradictory:
you and others here routinely try to play both sides of fence when it comes to whether the government -- and Christian government officials -- should operate according to Scripture or to secular standards.
Buttigieg's platform acknowledges abortion as a constitutional right, a position that remains the law of the land.
Now, whenever we talk about Pence and Trump refusing refugees from coming to safety in America or whenever people try to defend the administration for separating children or forcing asylum seekers to wait in dangerous Mexico border towns, y'all
immediately jump to how the government isn't the Church and can't be held to Christian strictures or standards.
This has been applied not only to "government" as an abstract force but to Christian politicians and officials who are making these policies.
So that's the trap you yourself set:
you can't condemn Buttigieg as an illegitimate commentator of Scripture while giving a pass to others when they violate the more foundational principles of the Gospel or even when they violate biblical strictures in similar vein (e.g., remarriage, cohabitation, divorce).
--Sam
You're applying YOUR definition of what's "the more foundational principles of the Gospel" in your goofy attempt to "catch me" in a "trap". You're pretty much making the opposite error I made in my earlier ministry. I thought the "social gospel" was wrong because there wasn't the very foundational principle of REPENTANCE AND SALVATION (I think you ignored that part), and I kinda looked down on those who were involved in the "social gospel". Somewhere, around 20 years ago, I woke up and realized - Hey, we can do BOTH!!!! We can preach the word, including REPENTANCE AND SALVATION, AND minister to the poor, the homeless, the sick, etc..... Either without the other is not "the Gospel".
I have both a lesbian couple attending my church, as well as a man and a woman who are not married to each other but are living together. I treat them the same on Sunday morning as I treat everybody else. I do NOT give them positions of biblical authority, or put them in positions of responsibility within the Church. I am thrilled that they come to hear the preaching of the Word. One of those persons is a city councilman (or woman ) and does NOT use that position to advocate sin or rebellion to the Word.
Buttigieg advocates sin. (Unless, of course, you don't believe living in a homosexual union is sin, which would not surprise me)
Trump and Pence, to my knowledge, are not advocating sin.
What you're doing is looking at the consequences - and I argue unintentional consequences - of their polices and seeing those through the wild-eyed liberal view "TRUMP KILLS BABIES!" (or something like that)
I'm not in a trap, Sam. I'm FREE!The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Let's make it really really simple....
abortion -- every successful abortion results in a dead body. 100% of the time.
immigration - a convoluted screwed up policy that nobody in power seems to want to solve, the unintended consequences of which sometimes results in tragedy for children.
These are not the same.Last edited by Cow Poke; 01-18-2020, 04:17 PM.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostI know it's not true that Buttigieg is "only using the scripture to justify his political aspirations and to justify his own lifestyle." And that's second-hand but close second-hand knowledge.
And I'm setting no trap -- you caught yourself up in contradictions the moment you made the retort. You assert that Buttigieg is not a legitimate commentator of Scripture because he's a "practicing homosexual" and "an advocate of abortion".
In the first case, my point was that a bevy of people, here and elsewhere, violate much more core aspects of Scripture concerning compassion and cruelty, support to the oppressed vs. support to the oppressor -- always without you and others challenging their legitimacy to use Scripture (Pence comes to mind, as do men like Graham, Huckabee, and any number of Republican politicians).
In the second case, you are even more contradictory: you and others here routinely try to play both sides of fence when it comes to whether the government -- and Christian government officials -- should operate according to Scripture or to secular standards. Buttigieg's platform acknowledges abortion as a constitutional right, a position that remains the law of the land. Now, whenever we talk about Pence and Trump refusing refugees from coming to safety in America or whenever people try to defend the administration for separating children or forcing asylum seekers to wait in dangerous Mexico border towns, y'all immediately jump to how the government isn't the Church and can't be held to Christian strictures or standards. This has been applied not only to "government" as an abstract force but to Christian politicians and officials who are making these policies.
So that's the trap you yourself set: you can't condemn Buttigieg as an illegitimate commentator of Scripture while giving a pass to others when they violate the more foundational principles of the Gospel or even when they violate biblical strictures in similar vein (e.g., remarriage, cohabitation, divorce).
--Sam"The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View PostMust be great to be perfect. When can I be perfect too?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostNo. It's because he's only using the scripture to justify his political aspirations and to justify his own lifestyle - and the lost world praises his "refreshing" approach to the Bible.And you left out my reference to his pro=abortion stand, squishy though it may be.
Is it your believe that Buttigieg IS "a legitimate commentator", and we should accept him as an authority on the Word of God?
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ne...ntion-gss.html
But you can comfort yourself as being among the "faithful remnant".
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostI'll answer to mine and you'll answer to the same.
It's funny, though -- in my church conference, at least, the same people who who excoriate gay couples as anti-Scriptural have no concern about those who have remarried, even numerous times. Many don't have any real problem, in practice, with couples who never get formally married and live as boyfriend/girlfriend.
It used to make me wonder. It doesn't anymore. A man like Trump or Pence can get away with serial philandering or tearing children away from their parents and receive high praise; it was never, in the end, actually about Christ.
--SamGeislerminian 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 Mountain Man View PostBut go ahead and keep quoting from a book whose message you ultimately reject if you think it will manipulate me into suddenly agreeing with your politics.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 11:24 AM
|
2 responses
24 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 01:00 PM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, Today, 09:13 AM
|
8 responses
62 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Diogenes
Today, 04:12 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 09:15 AM
|
26 responses
97 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 04:04 PM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, 06-01-2024, 04:11 PM
|
14 responses
99 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 08:11 AM
|
||
Started by seer, 06-01-2024, 03:50 PM
|
2 responses
54 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Yesterday, 06:35 AM
|
Comment