Mayor Pete Attacks Trump's Faith...

[JimL]

But you're holding it back cause you want it to be a special surprise?



Whenever you say "as you usually do", you're about to tell another big'un.



Is that you made a statement you can't support, so you're going to revert to typical drama queen evasion.



That's not what you claimed at all - and you can't even admit you were wrong.

It is what he claimed, you just want to argue semantics. Someone who is a member of a christian church is a self proclaimed christian whether he speaks the specific words you want to hear or not..

[tabibito]

It is what he claimed, you just want to argue semantics. Someone who is a member of a christian church is a self proclaimed christian whether he speaks the specific words you want to hear or not..

True, that. But it does come under the umbrella of whether self-identification should be considered valid.
I could, for example, self-identify as the head of the Liberal Party. Should Liberal Party members be expected to endorse my self-identification as valid?

Or maybe, I could self-identify as an ambulance officer. Or maybe, just as a competing member of a swimming team, for all that the distance I can swim is limited to the depth of the water. Where criteria are set out, and a person does not meet those criteria, self-identification is manifestly invalid.

[One Bad Pig]

It is what he claimed, you just want to argue semantics. Someone who is a member of a christian church is a self proclaimed christian whether he speaks the specific words you want to hear or not..

Perhaps. Ozzy Osbourne is also a member of that church.

[Cow Poke]

It is what he claimed

Never did.

[Tassman]

Whenever you say "as you usually do", you're about to tell another big'un.

So, you are accusing me of being a liar.

[Tassman]

It is what he claimed, you just want to argue semantics. Someone who is a member of a christian church is a self proclaimed christian whether he speaks the specific words you want to hear or not..

Of course "someone who is a member of a christian church is a self proclaimed christian whether he speaks the specific words you want to hear or not". It just doesn't fit with CP's narrative, that's all.

[Tassman]

Which doesn't weaken my point in the slightest. In fact, it strengthens it, because it's only when he's addressing the Hellenistic part of his audience that he feels the need to defend the Jewish prohibition against homosexual relationships, showing that he had no need to address the issue to his Jewish audience.

This is merely second-guessing. You have no actual knowledge about what Philo addressed or to whom.

It wasn't all pervasive in the areas in which he was active.

There is no reason to think that the Romans in Jerusalem and Judea didn’t behave in just the same way they did throughout the rest of the Roman empire. It was the dominate culture.

Just because homosexuality was all pervasive in the Roman empire in general doesn't mean there weren't exceptions in the form of provinces, or areas of the Roman empire where it was not nearly as common as in other parts.

Mere speculation. The Roman culture would inevitably have dominated, it had the power. And this would have included the socially approved homosexual behavior of the Graeco-Roman world. The Jews may not have liked it but they were surrounded by it.

Well, you're correct that it probably wasn't a priority for Him,

Well, considering that Jesus never sees fit to mention homosexuality, I think that’s a fair guess. Paul only briefly mentions it and in such a way that it’s open to interpretation.

The bottom line is that a major Christian denomination, the Episcopal Church, sees no contradiction between homosexuality and the New Testament to the extent that if marries gay couples, consecrates gay bishops and accepts high profile gay congregants such a Pete Buttigieg.

[Chrawnus]

This is merely second-guessing. You have no actual knowledge about what Philo addressed or to whom.

If you're aware of any letters or works of Philo, or sections of his works, addressed to his fellow Jews where he discusses homosexuality you're welcome to present them here.

There is no reason to think that the Romans in Jerusalem and Judea didn’t behave in just the same way they did throughout the rest of the Roman empire. It was the dominate culture.

And if you read the gospels Jesus doesn't seem to have been particularly interested in focusing his ministry on any other people than the Jews, except for a few exceptions at the personal level. We're discussing the view of the Jews in Judea regarding homosexuality, not the Roman's views who lived there, so whatever their behavior was is irrelevant.

Mere speculation. The Roman culture would inevitably have dominated, it had the power. And this would have included the socially approved homosexual behavior of the Graeco-Roman world. The Jews may not have liked it but they were surrounded by it.

Again, not relevant. If the Jews didn't like the socially accepted homosexual behavior of the Graeco-Roman world it explains Jesus' silence on the issue, considering He was mainly preaching to the Jews.

Well, considering that Jesus never sees fit to mention homosexuality, I think that’s a fair guess. Paul only briefly mentions it and in such a way that it’s open to interpretation.

The only way you can read Paul and come away with the notion that he's ok with homosexual behavior is if you decide to completely disregard the actual sense of his words and substitute your own meaning.

The bottom line is that a major Christian denomination, the Episcopal Church, sees no contradiction between homosexuality and the New Testament to the extent that if marries gay couples, consecrates gay bishops and accepts high profile gay congregants such a Pete Buttigieg.

I don't care in the slightest what any Christian denomination believes about an issue if that belief is in clear contradiction with the actual teaching of the New Testament.

[Tassman]

I don't care in the slightest what any Christian denomination believes about an issue if that belief is in clear contradiction with the actual teaching of the New Testament.

Well, the Episcopal Church clearly considers your views on “actual teaching of the New Testament” about homosexuality to be wrong. As do the majority of Christian’s in the US according to Pew Research.

[tabibito]

What churches find acceptable has often been at variance with what Christians find acceptable; notably in Nazi Germany, but only by virtue of recent and prominent history. Currently, Christians in Hong Kong are defying the churches to support the anti deportation law movement. So - pointing to what churches accept as moral won't gain any traction in a debate where Biblical teaching is pivotal. Church morality is too often informed by social mores and a quest for relevance and status in the halls of academe, and secular society.