Mayor Pete Attacks Trump's Faith...

[Cow Poke]

But the bible says, thou shalt not, and yet you do, so I guess you're not a christian.

That, Jimmy, is a great example of your spewing forth of profound ignorance concerning things of a Christian nature. We've schooled you on this before, and you have flunked miserably, but somebody else might be interested in the explanation.

When a Christian does something that the Bible says not to do, there's the process of confession and repentance, pretty clearly spelled out in 1 John 1:9 - "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness". And that person most certainly can still be a Christian.

On the other hand, if somebody makes the choice to embrace sin, never confessing or repenting, that's a whole different situation.

Tassman has done an excellent job of throwing Buttigieg under the bus with Trump, in that neither man seems to think confession or repentance is necessary. Trump, on the other hand, appears to have pulled back from his depravity, while Buttigieg embraces his.

[Cow Poke]

The sarcasm escapes you. The context makes it clear that Buttigieg "isn't a REAL Christian" according to you. This has been my argument from the start,

No, Tassman, your argument has been that Buttigieg claims to be a practicing Christian. You have failed to provide any proof whatsoever, so you're trying to conceal your own record.

You can run, but you can't hide.

Here, we can go through it again, for your reading pleasure....

Tassy, honey, YOU are the one who declared over and over and over that HE claimed he was a practicing Christian. All I'm doing is asking you to back it up with FACT instead of drama queen bluster!

Here, let's look at some of your own claims.... First all that unsubstantiated crap about how Buttigieg interprets scripture....

I didn't say it did. But obviously Buttigieg’s interpretation of scripture is different to yours and without an infallible authority to determine which is the one true, correct interpretation, his is just as valid as yours.

The point is that Buttigieg’s interpretation of scripture is demonstrably different than yours. Neither is necessarily the “correct or better or right or true” answer.

You believe your opinion is the “correct or better or right or true” interpretation of scripture, Buttigieg presumably believes the same of his interpretation.

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.

The likes of Mayor Pete seem to sincerely believe they are good Christians and obviously disagree with your interpretation of these texts. Always a problem when one interpretation of scriptural beliefs contradicts another interpretation of scriptural beliefs.

Then your unsubstantiated claim that Buttigieg claims he's a Christian...

Buttigieg claims he’s a Christian and the majority of US Christians believe that a loving God accepts homosexuality, according to Pew Research.

Then you're doubling down on claiming that he interprets scripture differently, when there's no proof of that whatsoever.

Again: “Buttigieg clearly views scripture differently from those who want to condemn homosexuality,...

Then you claim you don't care if he's a "practicing Christian", and, again you make the unsubstantiated statement that he claims he is...

I could ot care less whether or not Buttigieg is a “practicing Christian”. But he claims to be, it appears to be important to him, and he’s been long involved in a faith-community. So, I see no reason to disbelieve him or condemn him because his Christianity is not of the Evangelical variety.

And again....

I don’t care whether or not Buttigieg is a “practicing Christian” but he does, and this is the argument in the face of Evangelical objections that he is not.

And on and on.... Back to Buttigieg supposedly claiming he's a "practicing Christian".

What I’ve been arguing about is Buttigieg’s belief that he is a “practicing Christian” in the face of your Evangelical-based objections that he is not.

And there is one your many lies -- I have NOT claimed he's not a "practicing Christian" -- I'm simply asking you to back up your claims.

Then you try to back away from your original claims...

He may not be a “practicing Christian” according to your narrow definition of what constitutes one but he seems quite certain that he is.

And more backtracking...

That is simply not true, I’ve provided several examples. It's dishonest that you pretend I haven’t, but no surprise there.. Buttigieg claims to be a “practicing Christian”...maybe not as an Evangelical understands that term but as he does.

Your claim that you provided examples is an outright lie. And your accusation that I'm dishonest is absolutely without basis.

Here's a HUGE difference between me and you, Tassman. When I point out your dishonesty, I back it up with proof. Then you get your royal panties in a twist and accuse me of dishonesty with NO proof.

You have claimed over and over that Buttigieg claims to be a practicing Christian.

It shouldn't be too much to ask you to back up your claim, or admit you've been making it up all along.

OPB drastically lowered the bar for you.... all you need to do now is prove that Buttigieg claims to be a Practicing Episcopalian.

Ball's in your court. Full press kabuki dance fully expected, along with some more false statements, false accusations, emotional tripe..... But no proof.

Ball's still in your court, but you keep choking on it.

[Tassman]

The bolded has been part of my point all along. Philo was writing for a Roman/Hellenistic audience, so he would have had reason to mention and defend the Jewish prohibitions against homosexual relationships.

Philo was a Hellenistic/Jewish philosopher writing for both audiences…Jewish and Hellenistic.

The very fact that Jesus never mentions homosexual practices in a positive light

He never mentions homosexuality at all, in either a positive or negative light. Despite it being all pervasive throughout the Greco/Roman world of the Roman empire of which Jerusalem was a part.

If Jesus wanted to He would have had ample opportunity to say something to the effect of condoning same-sex relationships,

Jesus also had ample opportunity to condemn same-sex relationships similar to his explicit condemnation of divorce and remarriage. But he didn’t, which indicates that it was not a priority for him. Even Paul, who shared the Jewish antipathy towards homosexuality lumps it in with other vices, such as envy, gossip, disobedience to parents (Rom. 1: 29), surely common to both heterosexual and homosexual Christians alike.

[Tassman]

So, let's sum things up again.

As to Tassman's claim that Buttigieg, himself, claimed to be a practicing Christian, here's all the evidence so far....





Lemme know if I left anything out.

Well yes, a great deal.

You are, as you usually do in order to score a cheap point, ‘missing the forest for the trees. The larger and more relevant fact is that Buttigieg’s actions and language as reported in a great many media interviews clearly indicate that he self-identifies as Christian, specifically affiliated with the Episcopal church. There is no reason not to accept this as a Prima facie case. Do you have any good reason to think otherwise?

[JonathanL]

Philo was a Hellenistic/Jewish philosopher writing for both audiences…Jewish and Hellenistic.

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.

He never mentions homosexuality at all, in either a positive or negative light. Despite it being all pervasive throughout the Greco/Roman world of the Roman empire of which Jerusalem was a part.

It wasn't all pervasive in the areas in which he was active. 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. And we have no reason to believe that there were as high degree of people engaging in homosexual practices in the province of Jerusalem as there would have been in the Roman empire in general. At the very least people who engaged in such practices would probably not have been very keen on drawing attention to that fact.

Jesus also had ample opportunity to condemn same-sex relationships similar to his explicit condemnation of divorce and remarriage. But he didn’t, which indicates that it was not a priority for him. Even Paul, who shared the Jewish antipathy towards homosexuality lumps it in with other vices, such as envy, gossip, disobedience to parents (Rom. 1: 29), surely common to both heterosexual and homosexual Christians alike.

Well, you're correct that it probably wasn't a priority for Him, but for a completely different reason than you're imagining it. If you're going to rebuke people for their sins it's probably a good idea to rebuke them for sins they're actually committing, such as divorcing your wife and remarrying another woman, instead of sins that aren't a common problem among the people you're preaching to, such as engaging in homosexual relationships.

And your point about Paul is irrelevant. Just because Paul mentions other vices alongside homosexuality it doesn't lessen his view of the severity of engaging in homosexual practices in the slightest. It just means that he thinks the other vices he mentions are serious sins as well.

[carpedm9587]

I think it is, or else you wouldn't have bothered to reply.

I don't believe you. And yes, I am not under your control, and no, I don't believe that you're not concerned. People don't waste time typing up replies to posts they're not concerned about.

I have reviewed the threads. You often don't know what is actually being argued because your eyes are so set on the trees you don't see the forest. seer, for instance, will often grant you that his moral position is "I believe it because the Bible says it" only to move the discussion forward. The reason he does that is because you are so fixated on overstating your case that he wants to see if you'll move past your strawmen so that he can get you back on the main points of contention. He does this often with you, and for whatever reason, you just don't see it. A little digging into his claims reveal that there's far more going on into his actual thinking processes concerning morality and the bible than the strict "I believe it because I'm a zombie Christian" than you seem to think. I pointed that out in this post here, but apparently you missed it once again.

So...why do you complain if you're actually getting something out of all of the abuse you say you suffer through? Why not suffer the slings and arrows silently? After all, they're for your own good, right? No one here likes hearing you whine about it constantly. It makes you out to be the 90 pound weakling you consider yourself to be.

I honestly don't reply to you that often. Often, you reply to me when I'm talking to someone else (as you did here). Unlike you, I have quite a bit in common with the posters here. Certainly not politically, but we share a common faith, so I have good reason to read the posts on this forum, and share my Bible-believing faith with my fellow sisters and brothers in Christ. If it gets to the point that I find your posts a big enough nuisance, I have no problem ignoring them (I ignore the vast majority of your posts anyways), but I don't mind stepping in pointing out your passive-aggressiveness, and out and out false claims from time to time.

But you do argue with Christians who believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, so, as we saw here in your reply to Sparko, it is a problem.

You find them badly logically flawed because you're often not seeing his broad strokes. Granted, that's sometimes on him for purposely skipping past what he thinks is obvious, but more often than not, his arguments are not logically flawed.

Wrong. Most of the books of the Bible we have great knowledge of who the author is. We may not know all of their names (which has never been of great import in ancient historical writings), but we often know where they're from, what sort of education they likely had, what period they're writing in, who their audience is, etc. You're speaking out of ignorance because this is an area outside of your expertise. Pick up the works of noted Biblical scholars like John Walton, Michael Heiser, Richard Hess, Richard Elliott Friedman, Geza Vermes, Raymond Brown, NT Wright, Richard Bauckham, and the social-context scholars like David deSilva, Jerome Neyrey, and Bruce Malina.

So what? We have the LXX, the Peshitta, and the Masoretic which largely agree with the DSS. And the earliest preserved text we have, the Silver Scroll of Ketef Hinnom that dates to as early as the 7th century confirms a number of Biblical passages. Our fragments for the New Testament are even earlier. We have fragments of John that likely date to the early 2nd century. Also, scholars have known for years that earlier doesn't always translate to more accurate. When later texts from very disparate origins agree, we can count on them having very similar origins.

This is where text critical scholarship steps in and evaluates early from late. Scholars have this down to a science at this point, and are working on far more than simply a "best guess." Again, I recommend you read the scholars I cited above. If you don't like reading, listen to Old Testament scholar, Dr. Heiser's Naked Bible podcast. He steps through whole books of the Bible and offers links to resources and peer-reviewed papers on the study and analysis of the Old Testament texts. He will literally pull apart a passage bit by bit so you can see the stages of development (if any exist to begin with).

You type that as though that's a bad thing. In the ancient world that is absolutely outstanding! We have barely any writings that close to the date of the events in the ancient world. It just doesn't exist. Yet, we (as a society, and certainly scholars of all stripes) believe all sorts of things about the ancient world that we have far less manuscript evidence for, or that we do have manuscript evidence for, but that date hundreds if not thousands of years later. When you type stuff like this, everyone can see your hand and can call your bluff. You're making a terrible internet skeptic mistake of thinking that material written decades after an event is a bad thing. It'd be hysterical if it weren't so common.

Well yes, and no. Yes, the books of the New Testament are generally geared towards the community that they're being written to. That's true of any historical source. Even today. If you were writing a biography on President Reagan today, you'd likely frame quite a bit with what's happening right now in the 21st century. It wouldn't mean your biography is necessarily wrong, but that it's geared towards a 21st century audience, and not an audience living through the Cold War. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. No, the New Testament was not largely written by second-generation Christians. Second-generation Christians would be people like Polycarp, Clement of Rome, and Ignatius of Antioch. The New Testament is largely contemporaneous with the 1st generation of Christians.

Name an extant autograph manuscript from the ancient world outside of someone's grocery list. We have earlier extant manuscripts of the New Testament than we have for any other book in the ancient world. No one (certainly no one on this forum) makes a claim "to virtually inerrant 'knowledge.'" I don't even know what that means. For someone who claims to have been a devout Christian, you have some really weird ideas about Christians. Some Christians believe that the original autographs of the books/letters of the Bible are inerrant. And by inerrancy they typically mean something like that found in the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy. Not every Christian believes the Bible is inerrant, however. Plenty of people on this very forum do not hold that position. Outside of weirdo King James-Onlyists, no one believes that the 2nd century fragments or the largely complete Codex Vaticanus dating to 300-305 is inerrant. Furthermore, we have other sources outside of these fragments. We have thousands of quotes from the Bible in the writings of early Jewish, Christian, and pagan sources. Again, historians have repeatedly stated over the years that early does not always equal better. Early is sometimes wrong when it turns out that the earliest variant is largely inconsistent with later texts that originate from disparate sources and places.

It doesn't sound like you understand the history or the mindset that sees the "inerrant word of god" at all.

There was no need to talk of 2500 sects if you agree that there is significant cohesion. Furthermore, what you seem to think is a weakness, I find to be a strength. In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity is a great way for Christianity to spread throughout the world, and speak to people on levels they can understand and relate to. It'll be great when Christ returns and all his followers will return to a single fold, but in the meantime, I think it's phenomenal that I have choice. And comparing Christian diversity with the sciences is completely left-field. What does cohesion in the sciences have to do with anything? First of all, your view of the sciences is ridiculously naive. The sciences are absolutely brimming with diversity and disharmony. Ego and disputes. Nothing would happen at all in the sciences if everyone was constantly on the same page. It's only because people strongly and heavily disagree with one another that the sciences advance at all. Furthermore, you're talking as though science was the only avenue to truth, which is plainly not the case. Some of our greatest philosophers, literary critics, economists, and social scientists disagree radically from one another, and yet, we largely agree that they have something important to say about the areas they have expertise in.

I don't care if you stay on the forum or not, but it make zero sense to stay on a forum where you feel you're constantly being victimized, and where you are debating people who have aligned their worldview with something that you refuse to engage. That's very strange. Normal people don't do that.

And, I'm sorry, while I once enjoyed discussions with you, I really don't think I have since your return. I don't think you're an evil or bad person. I don't think you're dumb. But I think you're very confused. I think you come off more passive-aggressive, and condescending than you think, and as I stated in a previous post, I think you retreat into contradictory arguments when faced with the absurdity of your own logic. As I say above, I typically ignore your posts, because they're just so...I don't know...out there, but every now and then I think it's good to expose your words for what they are. There's a bit of a bully in you that plays the victim in order to get away with it, and I think that's what gets me triggered.

I actually wrote a response to each of the points in here, but then elected to delete the post. Upon reflection, I found I was getting into more "defensive" posturing, which is something I am working on. In general, I'd prefer to focus on the arguments and issues, not my person and what people think about me. I'll read such observations, of course. One never knows where a nugget of truth may surface. But responding to them is just not what I want to do anymore in the context of these forums. If you want to engage in a personal discussion, I recommend we physically get together, meet, and actually get to know one another. I live in Vermont, but I travel fairly widely around the U.S. and am always happy to meet someone I have "gotten to know" online. I can be reached directly at michel@wellspring-learning.com if anyone wants to take me up on that. Seer can attest that I don't bite.

As for the bible, I've reviewed your comments. In some respects we're fairly close. In others we are miles apart. I'm not sure if there is value to be gained by going beyond that. The bible is not exactly the center of my universe. We have differing views of Seer's debate skills, and I doubt those are going to be reconciled.

As for "exposing my words for what they are," if I am making a failed logical argument, or making an incorrect factual statement, I will always welcome having that pointed out and corrected. When someone accuses me of "failed "logic" or "failed facts" without being able to support that claim, then I'll move on. As for being "out there," I consider that somewhat of a compliment. I'm not looking to follow the herd if I think the herd is going in the wrong direction.

[Sparko]

So, "every" is a bit of hyperbole.

I am sure a professional communicator like you recognizes the meaning of the word "nearly" that I prefaced "every" with?

And even in the threads where we do, most of the discussion is about the meta issue of the nature of morality - not particular moral issues.

And in all of those threads you and seer discuss morality and logic, you always cover the very same ground over and over, talking past each other, never making any progress. And yet, you continue this futile argument to this day. If you don't want to engage with futile arguments like "what the bible says" then why do you continue futile debates about morality and logic with seer? It is just as much a waste of time.

As I noted, over the past few weeks (maybe a couple of months) I have become increasingly aware of the futility of engaging on particular moral positions with bible-based moralizers. The last discussion on homosexuality finally opened my eyes a bit.

You are going to find yourself pretty much stuck with that on a THEOLOGY forum.

[Sparko]

But the bible says, thou shalt not, and yet you do, so I guess you're not a christian.

That doesn't even make sense JimL

[Adrift]

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.

Same with Josephus. He's only interested in the subject of homosexuality when arguing the standard Jewish perspective against Apion, a Hellenized sophist Egyptian who hated the Jews,

Source: Against Apion, 2.199

But then, what are our laws about marriage? That law owns no other mixture of sexes but that which nature hath appointed, of a man with his wife, and that this be used only for the procreation of children. But it abhors the mixture of a male with a male; and if any one do that, death is his punishment.

© Copyright Original Source

I get the feeling that Tassman knows that he has no argument here, he's arguing simply to argue. I wouldn't take him too seriously.

[Adrift]

I actually wrote a response to each of the points in here, but then elected to delete the post. Upon reflection, I found I was getting into more "defensive" posturing, which is something I am working on. In general, I'd prefer to focus on the arguments and issues, not my person and what people think about me. I'll read such observations, of course. One never knows where a nugget of truth may surface. But responding to them is just not what I want to do anymore in the context of these forums. If you want to engage in a personal discussion, I recommend we physically get together, meet, and actually get to know one another. I live in Vermont, but I travel fairly widely around the U.S. and am always happy to meet someone I have "gotten to know" online. I can be reached directly at michel@wellspring-learning.com if anyone wants to take me up on that. Seer can attest that I don't bite.

As for the bible, I've reviewed your comments. In some respects we're fairly close. In others we are miles apart. I'm not sure if there is value to be gained by going beyond that. The bible is not exactly the center of my universe. We have differing views of Seer's debate skills, and I doubt those are going to be reconciled.

As for "exposing my words for what they are," if I am making a failed logical argument, or making an incorrect factual statement, I will always welcome having that pointed out and corrected. When someone accuses me of "failed "logic" or "failed facts" without being able to support that claim, then I'll move on. As for being "out there," I consider that somewhat of a compliment. I'm not looking to follow the herd if I think the herd is going in the wrong direction.

I have absolutely no interest in meeting you in person Michel.

[Sparko]

The sarcasm escapes you. The context makes it clear that Buttigieg "isn't a REAL Christian" according to you. This has been my argument from the start,

I was joking with you Tassman. sheesh.

[carpedm9587]

I have absolutely no interest in meeting you in person Michel.

Fair enough. Thanks for the chat.

[Sparko]

Philo was a Hellenistic/Jewish philosopher writing for both audiences…Jewish and Hellenistic.



He never mentions homosexuality at all, in either a positive or negative light. Despite it being all pervasive throughout the Greco/Roman world of the Roman empire of which Jerusalem was a part.



Jesus also had ample opportunity to condemn same-sex relationships similar to his explicit condemnation of divorce and remarriage. But he didn’t, which indicates that it was not a priority for him. Even Paul, who shared the Jewish antipathy towards homosexuality lumps it in with other vices, such as envy, gossip, disobedience to parents (Rom. 1: 29), surely common to both heterosexual and homosexual Christians alike.

because homosexuality IS just like any other sin. That is your biggest problem, you seem to think Christians single out homosexuals as some special sort of depravity and we are bigoted against them. No. We consider homosexuality on the same level as any other sexual sin, such as adultery. And like any sin, it can be forgiven. And those who practice it are no better or worse than any other sinner.

[Cow Poke]

Well yes, a great deal.

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

You are, as you usually do in order to score a cheap point, ‘missing the forest for the trees.

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

The larger and more relevant fact

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

is that Buttigieg’s actions and language as reported in a great many media interviews clearly indicate that he self-identifies as Christian, specifically affiliated with the Episcopal church. There is no reason not to accept this as a Prima facie case. Do you have any good reason to think otherwise?

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

[Cow Poke]

The sarcasm escapes you. The context makes it clear that Buttigieg "isn't a REAL Christian" according to you. This has been my argument from the start,

I was joking with you Tassman. sheesh.

Rather ironic, isn't it? The sarcasm totally escaped him.