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 JimL View Post
    You're the one who fell for, and continue to defend, the crooked, treasonous, autocratic, con man, CP. Can't get any wronger than that!
    Bless your heart.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      how do you know how Buttigieg views scripture on homosexuality if you can't cite even one case of his referring to scripture regarding homosexuality?
      I've asked Reverend Tassman that on multiple occasions, but he just reverts to nonsense. I have searched pretty extensively, and I can't find a single HINT of Buttigieg addressing the scriptures regarding homosexuality. Mayor Pete just ignores them, and chooses to live in sin.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        Reverend Tassman, you have NO WAY OF KNOWING how Buttigieg views scripture. NOT A CLUE!
        I don’t give a toss how Buttigieg OR you view scripture. But I acknowledge that you both believe in a scripture-based religion. Why would I think either you OR Buttigieg are lying about your beliefs as you understand them?

        You have been challenged to produce ANYTHING that shows that Buttigieg actually considered the scripture in question, and you have failed repeatedly to do so. It is FAR more likely that he simply ignores the passages that directly address homosexuality.
        You have “NO WAY OF KNOWING how Buttigieg views scripture. NOT A CLUE!”.

        But he says he is a Christian and that his faith has had a strong influence in his life: "I found myself going to services at Christ Church, which happened to be across from my college, Pembroke, at Oxford and found in that very simple liturgy a way to begin to organize my spirituality. So that by the time I came back to the US I felt like I was more-or-less Anglican".

        “When I got back to South Bend and was looking for a church home, I found in (the Episcopal Cathedral of) St. James this faith community that really takes seriously that it's urban, that it's part of a city. And just very quickly felt drawn to that community. And now for about 10 years it's been my faith home”.

        https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/02/o...eck/index.html

        Doesn't sound like someone who plays 'fast and loose' with his religion or the bible to me, but you are free to judge him.

        All you do is spew forth nonsense and obfuscation.

        Perhaps you can show me a copy of the email where Buttigieg has authorized an anti-Christian internet bigot to be his spokesperson?
        So funny.
        “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
          You have a well established habit of being wrong about an incredibly wide range of topics.
          You have a well established habit of evasion. Do you honestly believe that your god commanded people be stoned and burnt to death for things like cursing their parents, or homosexual behavior etc etc.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
            You have a well established habit of evasion.
            Sorry, what did you say?
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              I don’t give a toss how Buttigieg OR you view scripture.
              Then you've been flat out lying all this time, Reverend Tassman?

              That's what you've been saying your argument was about!
              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.
              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.

              Sheeeeesh --- try to get your story straight!
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                Sorry, what did you say?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  You have a well established habit of evasion. Do you honestly believe that your god commanded people be stoned and burnt to death for things like cursing their parents, or homosexual behavior etc etc.
                  I don't recall God commanding anyone be burnt to death. Got any references?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    I don't recall God commanding anyone be burnt to death. Got any references?
                    Maybe he confuses the Christian Martyrs being burned at the stake by his heroes.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      Maybe he confuses the Christian Martyrs being burned at the stake by his heroes.
                      His problem is that he never has actually read the bible. He gets all of his talking points from skeptic websites. JimL never does any original research, whether in politics or religion. He just parrots what other people say indiscriminately.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        His problem is that he never has actually read the bible. He gets all of his talking points from skeptic websites. JimL never does any original research, whether in politics or religion. He just parrots what other people say indiscriminately.
                        Yeah, but he are smarter then us!1!1!!!1!1!!!1!
                        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


                        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          His problem is that he never has actually read the bible. He gets all of his talking points from skeptic websites. JimL never does any original research, whether in politics or religion. He just parrots what other people say indiscriminately.
                          He wants so very badly to be relevant. If I thought he'd read it, I'd send him McGee's book "The Search for Significance".
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            Do you honestly believe that your god commanded people be stoned and burnt to death for things like cursing their parents, or homosexual behavior etc etc.

                            Source: The Book of Leviticus by Gordon J. Wenham

                            If a man curses his father and mother, he must be put to death (v.9). In the Decalog the command to honor one's parents come after religious duties and before responsibilities to neighbors. Here the penal law follows the same order: cursing father and mother is sandwiched between necromancy (v. 6) and adultery (v. 10). All these sins are regarded as meriting the death penalty.

                            "To curse" means more than uttering the occasional angry word. 2 Sam. 16:5ff.; Job 3:1ff. give some idea of the venom and bitter feelings that cursing could entail. It is the very antithesis of "honoring." To honor in Hebrew literally means "to make light of, despicable." That such cursing deserves the death penalty is reiterated elsewhere in Scripture (Exod. 21:17; Prov. 20:20; Matt. 15:4; Mark 7:10; cf. Deut. 21:18ff.). This point is underlined here by the phrase his guilt is his own, literally "his blood is in him." This phrase occurs only in Ezek. 18:33; 33:5 and in this chapter as a coda to several of the laws (vv. 11, 12, 13, 16, 27), apparently in justification of the death penalty in these cases. It seems to be equivalent to the commoner phrase "his blood shall be on his head" (e.g., Josh. 2:19; 2 Sam. 1:16). If a man breaks such a law, he does so knowing the consequences, and therefore cannot object to the penalty imposed.

                            The sanctity of parental authority implied by this law is striking. Whereas in certain respects OT penal law was much more lenient than that of neighboring contemporary cultures, it was more strict with regard to offenses against religion and family life. Cursing father or mother is singled out for special censure, partly out of a determination to maintain the structure of the family, and partly because the parents represent God's authority to the child: to curse them is almost tantamount to blasphemy. Nevertheless, rarely if ever can the death penalty have been invoked for this offense. Like other punishments laid down in in the law, it represents a maximum not a minimum.

                            Other capital crimes listed in vv. 10-16 cover adultery (v. 10; cf. 18:20; Deut. 22:22), incest with close relatives (vv. 11,12, 14; cf. 18:7-8, 15, 17), homosexuality (v. 13; cf. 18:22), and bestiality (vv. 15-16; cf. 18:23; Exod. 22:18 [Eng. 19]). Then follow crimes for which no human penalty is laid down, but instead divine punishment is promised. Cohabitation with a sister (v. 17; cf. 18:9, 11) and intercourse with a woman during her menstrual period (v. 18; cf. 18:19) are punished by "cutting off" (cf. vv. 3, 5, 6 and 17:4). Childlessness will result from cohabitation with an aunt by marriage (v.. 20) or sister-in-law (v. 21; cf. 18:16). An alternative penalty, apparently intermediate between cutting-off and childlessness, is prescribed for intercoures with a blood aunt: they will bear their guilt (v. 19; cf. 18:12-13).

                            © Copyright Original Source




                            Keep in mind that in the rest of the ancient near east, punishment for breaking laws was often far more severe, often involving torture and mutilation of the offender. The reason for the relative harshness for breaking these particular laws was to keep Israel sanctified and purified from the rest of the nations so that Israel could usher in the promised Messiah and bring all of the world, both Jew and Gentile, both you and I, back into communion with the creator of the universe. These laws were created in a heavily collectivist agrarian state that lacked prisons, policing, and the social nets that we take for granted. These laws were created in a pre-Pentecost, pre-Incarnation period when the Holy Spirit was only accessible at limited times to the prophets of Yahweh. They were issued under the shadow of a true theocracy that was hampered by the inaccessibility of the Holy Spirit. A theocracy that, while in power, rarely, if ever, carried out these extreme punishments, and whose power would eventually be usurped under occupation and exile. Under the Christian worldview, humanity now lives under a drastically different set of rules. One where moral failings are still sinful, and to be avoided, but where punishment is doled out by secular authorities, not a theocracy. Christians believe that through Jesus' death and resurrection, we are now under a new administration of grace where rather than punishment, God would rather us all turn from our sin, be filled with the Holy Spirit, and live more than abundant lives today and forever.

                            So, yes, Christian do believe that God proscribed certain max punishments for breaking his laws at a very particular place, period and context within history, and that he was justified for doing so within that place, period and context. And it does not apply to all places, periods and contexts. I'm not sure why no one else answered this question, but if I had to guess it wasn't because they were chicken, but because previous experience has taught them that anything that would take time to explain to you would likely be waved away, or further a sideline discussion that no one in this threads is interesting in engaging. Especially seeing as a lot of this sort of thing has been explained to you before.
                            Last edited by Adrift; 05-16-2019, 02:12 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              Source: The Book of Leviticus by Gordon J. Wenham

                              If a man curses his father and mother, he must be put to death (v.9). In the Decalog the command to honor one's parents come after religious duties and before responsibilities to neighbors. Here the penal law follows the same order: cursing father and mother is sandwiched between necromancy (v. 6) and adultery (v. 10). All these sins are regarded as meriting the death penalty.

                              "To curse" means more than uttering the occasional angry word. 2 Sam. 16:5ff.; Job 3:1ff. give some idea of the venom and bitter feelings that cursing could entail. It is the very antithesis of "honoring." To honor in Hebrew literally means "to make light of, despicable." That such cursing deserves the death penalty is reiterated elsewhere in Scripture (Exod. 21:17; Prov. 20:20; Matt. 15:4; Mark 7:10; cf. Deut. 21:18ff.). This point is underlined here by the phrase his guilt is his own, literally "his blood is in him." This phrase occurs only in Ezek. 18:33; 33:5 and in this chapter as a coda to several of the laws (vv. 11, 12, 13, 16, 27), apparently in justification of the death penalty in these cases. It seems to be equivalent to the commoner phrase "his blood shall be on his head" (e.g., Josh. 2:19; 2 Sam. 1:16). If a man breaks such a law, he does so knowing the consequences, and therefore cannot object to the penalty imposed.

                              The sanctity of parental authority implied by this law is striking. Whereas in certain respects OT penal law was much more lenient than that of neighboring contemporary cultures, it was more strict with regard to offenses against religion and family life. Cursing father or mother is singled out for special censure, partly out of a determination to maintain the structure of the family, and partly because the parents represent God's authority to the child: to curse them is almost tantamount to blasphemy. Nevertheless, rarely if ever can the death penalty have been invoked for this offense. Like other punishments laid down in in the law, it represents a maximum not a minimum.

                              Other capital crimes listed in vv. 10-16 cover adultery (v. 10; cf. 18:20; Deut. 22:22), incest with close relatives (vv. 11,12, 14; cf. 18:7-8, 15, 17), homosexuality (v. 13; cf. 18:22), and bestiality (vv. 15-16; cf. 18:23; Exod. 22:18 [Eng. 19]). Then follow crimes for which no human penalty is laid down, but instead divine punishment is promised. Cohabitation with a sister (v. 17; cf. 18:9, 11) and intercourse with a woman during her menstrual period (v. 18; cf. 18:19) are punished by "cutting off" (cf. vv. 3, 5, 6 and 17:4). Childlessness will result from cohabitation with an aunt by marriage (v.. 20) or sister-in-law (v. 21; cf. 18:16). An alternative penalty, apparently intermediate between cutting-off and childlessness, is prescribed for intercoures with a blood aunt: they will bear their guilt (v. 19; cf. 18:12-13).

                              © Copyright Original Source




                              Keep in mind that in the rest of the ancient near east, punishment for breaking laws was often far more severe, often involving torture and mutilation of the offender. The reason for the relative harshness for breaking these particular laws was to keep Israel sanctified and purified from the rest of the nations so that Israel could usher in the promised Messiah and bring all of the world, both Jew and Gentile, both you and I, back into communion with the creator of the universe. These laws were created in a heavily collectivist agrarian state that lacked prisons, policing, and the social nets that we take for granted. These laws were created in a pre-Pentecost, pre-Incarnation period when the Holy Spirit was only accessible at limited times to the prophets of Yahweh. They were issued under the shadow of a true theocracy that was hampered by the inaccessibility of the Holy Spirit. A theocracy that, while in power, rarely, if ever, carried out these extreme punishments, and whose power would eventually be usurped under occupation and exile. Under the Christian worldview, humanity now lives under a drastically different set of rules. One where moral failings are still sinful, and to be avoided, but where punishment is doled out by secular authorities, not a theocracy. Christians believe that through Jesus' death and resurrection, we are now under a new administration of grace where rather than punishment, God would rather us all turn from our sin, be filled with the Holy Spirit, and live more than abundant lives today and forever.

                              So, yes, Christian do believe that God proscribed certain max punishments for breaking his laws at a very particular place, period and context within history, and that he was justified for doing so within that place, period and context. And it does not apply to all places, periods and contexts. I'm not sure why no one else answered this question, but if I had to guess it wasn't because they were chicken, but because previous experience has taught them that anything that would take time to explain to you would likely be waved away, or further a sideline discussion that no one in this threads is interesting in engaging. Especially seeing as a lot of this sort of thing has been explained to you before.
                              ^^That. It is a waste of time to take JimL serious in my opinion.

                              But hey! Nice to see you Adrift. You have been missed.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                                Source: The Book of Leviticus by Gordon J. Wenham

                                If a man curses his father and mother, he must be put to death (v.9). In the Decalog the command to honor one's parents come after religious duties and before responsibilities to neighbors. Here the penal law follows the same order: cursing father and mother is sandwiched between necromancy (v. 6) and adultery (v. 10). All these sins are regarded as meriting the death penalty.

                                "To curse" means more than uttering the occasional angry word. 2 Sam. 16:5ff.; Job 3:1ff. give some idea of the venom and bitter feelings that cursing could entail. It is the very antithesis of "honoring." To honor in Hebrew literally means "to make light of, despicable." That such cursing deserves the death penalty is reiterated elsewhere in Scripture (Exod. 21:17; Prov. 20:20; Matt. 15:4; Mark 7:10; cf. Deut. 21:18ff.). This point is underlined here by the phrase his guilt is his own, literally "his blood is in him." This phrase occurs only in Ezek. 18:33; 33:5 and in this chapter as a coda to several of the laws (vv. 11, 12, 13, 16, 27), apparently in justification of the death penalty in these cases. It seems to be equivalent to the commoner phrase "his blood shall be on his head" (e.g., Josh. 2:19; 2 Sam. 1:16). If a man breaks such a law, he does so knowing the consequences, and therefore cannot object to the penalty imposed.

                                The sanctity of parental authority implied by this law is striking. Whereas in certain respects OT penal law was much more lenient than that of neighboring contemporary cultures, it was more strict with regard to offenses against religion and family life. Cursing father or mother is singled out for special censure, partly out of a determination to maintain the structure of the family, and partly because the parents represent God's authority to the child: to curse them is almost tantamount to blasphemy. Nevertheless, rarely if ever can the death penalty have been invoked for this offense. Like other punishments laid down in in the law, it represents a maximum not a minimum.

                                Other capital crimes listed in vv. 10-16 cover adultery (v. 10; cf. 18:20; Deut. 22:22), incest with close relatives (vv. 11,12, 14; cf. 18:7-8, 15, 17), homosexuality (v. 13; cf. 18:22), and bestiality (vv. 15-16; cf. 18:23; Exod. 22:18 [Eng. 19]). Then follow crimes for which no human penalty is laid down, but instead divine punishment is promised. Cohabitation with a sister (v. 17; cf. 18:9, 11) and intercourse with a woman during her menstrual period (v. 18; cf. 18:19) are punished by "cutting off" (cf. vv. 3, 5, 6 and 17:4). Childlessness will result from cohabitation with an aunt by marriage (v.. 20) or sister-in-law (v. 21; cf. 18:16). An alternative penalty, apparently intermediate between cutting-off and childlessness, is prescribed for intercoures with a blood aunt: they will bear their guilt (v. 19; cf. 18:12-13).

                                © Copyright Original Source




                                Keep in mind that in the rest of the ancient near east, punishment for breaking laws was often far more severe, often involving torture and mutilation of the offender. The reason for the relative harshness for breaking these particular laws was to keep Israel sanctified and purified from the rest of the nations so that Israel could usher in the promised Messiah and bring all of the world, both Jew and Gentile, both you and I, back into communion with the creator of the universe. These laws were created in a heavily collectivist agrarian state that lacked prisons, policing, and the social nets that we take for granted. These laws were created in a pre-Pentecost, pre-Incarnation period when the Holy Spirit was only accessible at limited times to the prophets of Yahweh. They were issued under the shadow of a true theocracy that was hampered by the inaccessibility of the Holy Spirit. A theocracy that, while in power, rarely, if ever, carried out these extreme punishments, and whose power would eventually be usurped under occupation and exile. Under the Christian worldview, humanity now lives under a drastically different set of rules. One where moral failings are still sinful, and to be avoided, but where punishment is doled out by secular authorities, not a theocracy. Christians believe that through Jesus' death and resurrection, we are now under a new administration of grace where rather than punishment, God would rather us all turn from our sin, be filled with the Holy Spirit, and live more than abundant lives today and forever.

                                So, yes, Christian do believe that God proscribed certain max punishments for breaking his laws at a very particular place, period and context within history, and that he was justified for doing so within that place, period and context. And it does not apply to all places, periods and contexts. I'm not sure why no one else answered this question, but if I had to guess it wasn't because they were chicken, but because previous experience has taught them that anything that would take time to explain to you would likely be waved away, or further a sideline discussion that no one in this threads is interesting in engaging. Especially seeing as a lot of this sort of thing has been explained to you before.
                                SO good to see you, sir!
                                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, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                96 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                282 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                109 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                195 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                356 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X