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

Do you defend Trump's infidelity?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by whag View Post
    Fascinating that you consider such a small sampling fascinating.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      "an"
      yea, one
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        [Y]ea[h], one[.]
        FIFY

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          FIFY
          yeah dat
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #35


            My finger twitched as I was trying to use the touchpad, so I'm not sure how I voted! I *intended* to vote "No," I do not "condone" his infidelity.

            But I don't think infidelities that occurred prior to his election are relevant to his Presidency. Any that might occur while in office may or may not be relevant on a case by case basis. (For instance, having hookers come in and pee on each other in the Oval Office, or worse, the power imbalance inherent in even "consensual" sex with, say, a young White House intern would be problematic at best.)

            I also suspect he'd engage in shady business practices, which does not thrill me. I think his pal Cohen is a sleazy weasel, and the fact that Trump was delighted to have such a guy as his "fixer" has now come back to sink its teeth firmly into his hindparts.
            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


            • #36
              Originally posted by cow poke View Post
              yeah dat
              aaaaaaaaaaaa!

              [ATTACH=CONFIG]27378[/ATTACH]

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post


                My finger twitched as I was trying to use the touchpad, so I'm not sure how I voted! I *intended* to vote "No," I do not "condone" his infidelity.

                But I don't think infidelities that occurred prior to his election are relevant to his Presidency. Any that might occur while in office may or may not be relevant on a case by case basis. (For instance, having hookers come in and pee on each other in the Oval Office, or worse, the power imbalance inherent in even "consensual" sex with, say, a young White House intern would be problematic at best.)

                I also suspect he'd engage in shady business practices, which does not thrill me. I think his pal Cohen is a sleazy weasel, and the fact that Trump was delighted to have such a guy as his "fixer" has now come back to sink its teeth firmly into his hindparts.
                "Condone" might have been a better choice of word than "defend." The latter reads kind of funny anyway. Oh well.
                I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by whag View Post
                  The rebuke was for the Bathsheba/Uriah incident, not for having a plurality of wives:


                  7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’

                  Moreover, it’d be utterly brazen of David to continue to have sex with multiple different women for decades after he’d specifically been condemned in this verse for polygamy. The context is adultery and murder.
                  You're right, it was brazen, and David paid the price with an extended family full of strife, jealousy, infighting, rape, and murder.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by whag View Post
                    The rebuke was for the Bathsheba/Uriah incident, not for having a plurality of wives:


                    7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’

                    Moreover, it’d be utterly brazen of David to continue to have sex with multiple different women for decades after he’d specifically been condemned in this verse for polygamy. The context is adultery and murder.
                    It appears that you've managed to misread MM here. MM is not alleging that he'd been specifically condemned in this verse for polygamy.
                    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                    sigpic
                    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                      It appears that you've managed to misread MM here. MM is not alleging that he'd been specifically condemned in this verse for polygamy.
                      In that case, it was a non sequitur. There’s no reason to chide me for not knowing the context was a rebuke of some sort. I know it was a rebuke, but the rebuke contains a difficult passage in no way indicating that a multiplicity of wives is evil. They’re described as a gift, just like the other items in the series.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by whag View Post
                        In that case, it was a non sequitur. There’s no reason to chide me for not knowing the context was a rebuke of some sort. I know it was a rebuke, but the rebuke contains a difficult passage in no way indicating that a multiplicity of wives is evil. They’re described as a gift, just like the other items in the series.
                        I see little value in debating scriptural interpretation with you, so I'll decline the implied offer to do so.
                        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                        sigpic
                        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          You're right, it was brazen, and David paid the price with an extended family full of strife, jealousy, infighting, rape, and murder.
                          The passage indicates that the adultery caused the violence (the sword) in his family. I think it’s very odd that David would continue to commit adultery after being specifically condemned in this case, which completely paralyzed David with grief and shame. It makes no sense unless polygamy was an acceptable act that David was comfortable arranging. He didn’t get any subsequent Nathan-like rebukes with each new adulterous incident. Was that just because he stopped murdering?

                          I have heard the argument that God was silent because he was trying to make a point, but that’s veering into eisegesis just to justify the silence. Maybe the simplest answer is the best: polygamy was more acceptable during biblical times than you are comfortable with.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by whag View Post
                            ...polygamy was more acceptable during biblical times than you are comfortable with.
                            Culturally, perhaps, but morally, no, because God explicitly forbade it, and David paid the price for his sin. There's no biblical argument to be made that polygamy is acceptable.

                            You're also arguing from silence, implying that because the Bible doesn't record it, therefore David was never called out on it.
                            Last edited by Mountain Man; 04-13-2018, 06:25 PM.
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              ... abuse ... twitter
                              Redundant.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by whag View Post
                                The passage indicates that the adultery caused the violence (the sword) in his family. I think it’s very odd that David would continue to commit adultery after being specifically condemned in this case, which completely paralyzed David with grief and shame. It makes no sense unless polygamy was an acceptable act that David was comfortable arranging. He didn’t get any subsequent Nathan-like rebukes with each new adulterous incident. Was that just because he stopped murdering?

                                I have heard the argument that God was silent because he was trying to make a point, but that’s veering into eisegesis just to justify the silence. Maybe the simplest answer is the best: polygamy was more acceptable during biblical times than you are comfortable with.
                                Not for nothing, but taking another man's wife in the OT was not the same as having multiple wives.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                160 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
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X