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 Cow Poke View Post
    (always watch for the * )


    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Excellent uncomparison --- people who are AFRAID of spiders have at least a basis to be.
    People who think homosexuality is wrong, aren't AFRAID of homosexuals.

    I don't fear homosexuals - I have yet to meet a fellow Christian who does.
    I have met very few people who are actually afraid of homosexuals. I have encountered many who are clearly afraid of homosexuality and the threat it (to them) poses to their view of "how the world should run." Homophobia does not have to be about the person - it can be about the concept. Phobias can be about objects, critters, concepts, conditions, and the list goes on.

    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    "Concern" does not equal "fear", Carpe - that's an invention of the left to put Christians on the defensive.

    Like I said.
    Fear isn't a bad thing, CP, and it doesn't make a person a bad person. It's just a human emotion. My impression is that much of the anti-homosexual sentiment I have encountered is rooted in fear. I don't see a significant distinction between "concern" and "fear." When I am concerned about something, I am fearful about the possible outcomes.

    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    I'm weird, we all know that!


    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Or just watch for the "*".
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      Fear isn't a bad thing, CP, and it doesn't make a person a bad person.
      Never said it was, but if it's not fear, it's not fear.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        A Drama Queen will always manage to see hysteria where there is none.
        Look in the mirror, CP.

        He actually has to ignore a number of passages, and do a lot of assuming
        He would no doubt say the same of you.

        In your little Drama Queen opinion.
        Expressing an opinion is not being a “Drama Queen”, CP. You believe your opinion is the “correct or better or right or true” interpretation of scripture, Buttigieg presumably believes the same of his interpretation. Christians have a long history of interpreting scripture to address the social values of the day, e.g. slavery was justified for years on scriptural grounds.
        “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 carpedm9587 View Post
          So god made a mistake?
          Or god failed to foresee what the Isrealites would do?
          Or god was cajoled into acting against his own plan by the Isrealites?

          I'm trying to square any/all of that with a "perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good" god and I have to admit that the circle does not appear to square.

          Am I missing something?
          I'll give you a parable. A few months ago I found a little bloke (named halfpenny), not even half grown - introduced species, beside the road. He had been injured, but nothing life threatening provided that he got a few days care: if he didn't, he would starve to death. He's too weak to escape if I try to catch him. At that point I have sovereignty over his life ... I can kill him outright, leave him to die, or give him the care he needs, at will. I bring him home to care for him, and put him in a cage. I still have complete sovereignty - I can free him or keep him caged, feed him or not, kill him or care for him, at will. So far, he is still completely subject to my sovereignty. Being trapped in the cage (well, a cardboard box, anyway) makes him panic. I take him from the cage and sit him on top of it. A few hours later he jumps down from the cage. I pick him up and put him back on top of the cage. That gets repeated for a second time, and then a third. After that he submits quite happily to my will. [I had, so to speak, given him a law] In the mornings I would take him outside to run free, and bring him back inside (not without having to give chase) in the evening . When I put him on top of the cage, he would stay there without argument. About a week after I found him, he had recovered and left. Now, he will come to me whenever he sees me out walking, and trot along at my left heel. So - it starts with rescue, then continues with a certain amount of coercion, and finally willing "adherence." In the time that he was recovering, does my letting him make his own choices interfere with my sovereignty over him? Sovereignty remained, but did not need to be exercised, and I didn't choose to exercise it. He could have left anytime during the day, he could have jumped off the cage when I wasn't present. He didn't . But now - why does he choose to come to me? ... (I have no illusions, I usually have food, and that draws him.)

          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
          The blue text isn't in any recent translation that I've seen, (nor in the UBS5 or NA28 Koine Greek texts, from memory.) Not that it matters, the concept is stated somewhere around verse 6 (from memory).
          Certainly the bolded section is a factor, but it doesn't account for [Ezekiel 20:25] "they rejected my statutes, profaned my Sabbaths, and worshipped their ancestors’ idols, so I gave them statutes that were not good."
          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
          .
          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
          Scripture before Tradition:
          but that won't prevent others from
          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
          of the right to call yourself Christian.

          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            Look in the mirror, CP.
            I did - I see no drama.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              Christians have a long history of interpreting scripture to address the social values of the day, e.g. slavery was justified for years on scriptural grounds.
              At least you seem to be backing away from your previous idiotic statement:

              Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              Yes, it is the interpretation of scripture that makes the difference, e.g. the Southern Baptists once interpreted scripture in such a way as to justify slavery, renouncing it officially only in 1995.
              Unless you'd actually like to try to back up that steaming load of horsie poo.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                At least you seem to be backing away from your previous idiotic statement:



                Unless you'd actually like to try to back up that steaming load of horsie poo.
                “In 1845, a group of Southern Baptists broke away from the Triennial Convention and the American Baptist Home Mission Society (ABHMS) due to differences on the slavery issue. This particular group of Southern Baptists did not oppose slavery, as the Triennial Convention and the ABHMS had begun to do

                https://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/109

                In short, as with same sex unions or the subjugation of women et al, biblical interpretation has a history of conforming to the social more of the day.
                “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 tabibito View Post
                  I'll give you a parable. A few months ago I found a little bloke (named halfpenny), not even half grown - introduced species, beside the road. He had been injured, but nothing life threatening provided that he got a few days care: if he didn't, he would starve to death. He's too weak to escape if I try to catch him. At that point I have sovereignty over his life ... I can kill him outright, leave him to die, or give him the care he needs, at will. I bring him home to care for him, and put him in a cage. I still have complete sovereignty - I can free him or keep him caged, feed him or not, kill him or care for him, at will. So far, he is still completely subject to my sovereignty. Being trapped in the cage (well, a cardboard box, anyway) makes him panic. I take him from the cage and sit him on top of it. A few hours later he jumps down from the cage. I pick him up and put him back on top of the cage. That gets repeated for a second time, and then a third. After that he submits quite happily to my will. [I had, so to speak, given him a law] In the mornings I would take him outside to run free, and bring him back inside (not without having to give chase) in the evening . When I put him on top of the cage, he would stay there without argument. About a week after I found him, he had recovered and left. Now, he will come to me whenever he sees me out walking, and trot along at my left heel. So - it starts with rescue, then continues with a certain amount of coercion, and finally willing "adherence." In the time that he was recovering, does my letting him make his own choices interfere with my sovereignty over him? Sovereignty remained, but did not need to be exercised, and I didn't choose to exercise it. He could have left anytime during the day, he could have jumped off the cage when I wasn't present. He didn't . But now - why does he choose to come to me? ... (I have no illusions, I usually have food, and that draws him.)
                  An interesting parable - but I'm not sure it conveys the message you were trying to convey. For example, your sovereignty (AFAICT) is rooted in power: you have the power to kill the creature at any point, and are electing to simply not do so. Is that also the root of the sovereignty of the god you believe exists and (presumably) worship? And I would not dismiss the food so blithely. This animal sees you as a being that has something it wants - so it remains devoted to you as a consequence. Do you think that is also the baseline for humans with allegiance to the various gods they worship?

                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  The blue text isn't in any recent translation that I've seen, (nor in the UBS5 or NA28 Koine Greek texts, from memory.) Not that it matters, the concept is stated somewhere around verse 6 (from memory).
                  Certainly the bolded section is a factor, but it doesn't account for [Ezekiel 20:25] "they rejected my statutes, profaned my Sabbaths, and worshipped their ancestors’ idols, so I gave them statutes that were not good."
                  I'll leave this for CP to answer...
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    Never said it was, but if it's not fear, it's not fear.
                    On that, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. I cannot speak for you, obviously, but the language used by most who take this stance is a language of fear. Even you used "concern." Why are we concerned? Because we fear some possible outcome. Fear doesn't mean "quivering under the covers." The definition is "an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat."

                    I would say that describes most of the arguments I have seen about homosexuality.
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      An interesting parable - but I'm not sure it conveys the message you were trying to convey. For example, your sovereignty (AFAICT) is rooted in power: you have the power to kill the creature at any point, and are electing to simply not do so. Is that also the root of the sovereignty of the god you believe exists and (presumably) worship? And I would not dismiss the food so blithely. This animal sees you as a being that has something it wants - so it remains devoted to you as a consequence. Do you think that is also the baseline for humans with allegiance to the various gods they worship?
                      No analogy, or by extension, parable, is so robust that its elastic limited cannot be easily exceeded.

                      Last question first: Not the base-line so much as the start-line. Initially there has to be at least some catering to "what's in it for me?" though there is a wide range of what a person deems personal advantage. On rarish occasions, it might even be an appeal to altruism. Halfpenny does indeed see me as someone who has what he wants. For all that he trusts me (and it would be wholly unreasonable to expect more of a carrier pigeon) it is still the food that draws him. (analogy, Christ was fully aware that no-one would come to him unless the Father drew the person concerned.)
                      As to your first question: How did Halfpenny cajole me into a compromise, allowing him to sit on top of the cage instead of being locked inside? My plan was to give him safe haven until he had recovered enough to return to the flock. There was room for flexibility.

                      The parable was a response to your question:
                      So god made a mistake?
                      Or god failed to foresee what the Isrealites would do?
                      Or god was cajoled into acting against his own plan by the Isrealites?
                      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                      .
                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                      Scripture before Tradition:
                      but that won't prevent others from
                      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                      of the right to call yourself Christian.

                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        On that, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. I cannot speak for you, obviously, but the language used by most who take this stance is a language of fear. Even you used "concern."
                        Concern is not the same as fear.

                        Why are we concerned? Because we fear some possible outcome.
                        You are free to fear as much as you'd like.

                        Fear doesn't mean "quivering under the covers." The definition is "an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat."

                        I would say that describes most of the arguments I have seen about homosexuality.
                        You're certainly entitled to your opinion.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          “In 1845, a group of Southern Baptists broke away from the Triennial Convention and the American Baptist Home Mission Society (ABHMS) due to differences on the slavery issue. This particular group of Southern Baptists did not oppose slavery, as the Triennial Convention and the ABHMS had begun to do
                          Wow, the Southern Baptist foundation involved SLAVERY! Who KNEW!!!! It was not, as you falsely stated, "justified by scripture".

                          (Perhaps you're unaware that the American Civil War was ALSO over slavery)
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            Out of curiosity - why not make the assumption that he believed the other things he put forward - such as "love one another" being the highest law would be interpreted to mean that he didn't think much of OT laws that undermined any form of love for one another - including proscriptions against homosexuality?...
                            I do wrestle with this a bit.

                            In regard to the "love one another" thing, since that was given at the Last Supper (in John's Gospel) as the "New" Commandment, in the same context in which Jesus in Luke's Gospel initiates the New Covenant, one could arrive at the conclusion that it is "the" Commandment of the New Covenant. And then we have those places in Galatians and Romans where Paul explicitly says that "Love your neighbor as yourself" fulfills the entire OT Law. And the place where Jesus said "Treat others as you wish others to treat you" fulfills the entire Law AND Prophets.

                            But then we have the explicit places where Paul denounces homosexual practices, and the places where Jesus affirmed "male and female" unions, with no hint that other options existed.
                            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


                            • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                              The blue text isn't in any recent translation that I've seen, (nor in the UBS5 or NA28 Koine Greek texts, from memory.) Not that it matters, the concept is stated somewhere around verse 6 (from memory). ...
                              Look again. It is in every translation I've checked -- NIV, NASB, NET, ISV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV.

                              I think you may be thinking of the fact that a few translations -- KJV, NKJV, probably one or two others, also improperly insert it at the end of verse 1.
                              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


                              • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                                No analogy, or by extension, parable, is so robust that its elastic limited cannot be easily exceeded.

                                Last question first: Not the base-line so much as the start-line. Initially there has to be at least some catering to "what's in it for me?" though there is a wide range of what a person deems personal advantage. On rarish occasions, it might even be an appeal to altruism. Halfpenny does indeed see me as someone who has what he wants. For all that he trusts me (and it would be wholly unreasonable to expect more of a carrier pigeon) it is still the food that draws him. (analogy, Christ was fully aware that no-one would come to him unless the Father drew the person concerned.)
                                As to your first question: How did Halfpenny cajole me into a compromise, allowing him to sit on top of the cage instead of being locked inside? My plan was to give him safe haven until he had recovered enough to return to the flock. There was room for flexibility.

                                The parable was a response to your question:
                                It's an interesting perspective. Certainly one I have not heard before. Thanks for sharing it. New things are usually fun!
                                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                82 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                278 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                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
                                355 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X