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 One Bad Pig View Post
    The point is that Tassman can't seem to back up his assertion with evidence. Would you care to help him on that?
    It's like this whole "faith thing" was a trial balloon - the media fell all over themselves pronouncing Buttigieg as 'the right kind' of Christian, but that seems to have quickly died down.

    I'm thinking maybe their focus groups came to the conclusion it wasn't so smart to declare Buttigieg a 'practicing Christian' because there appears to be very little to back that up, as we have seen from failed attempts here to produce anything substantial.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      Well, he doesn't do "but the bible says" arguments...
      Which is strange since you'd think you'd run into a "the bible says" argument once in awhile on a Christian forum.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        There are those who do not view these passages as condemnatory of loving homosexual relations. Obviously, the Episcopal Church doesn’t. It performs gay marriages and has consecrated at least one gay bishop to my knowledge. The fact is that homosexuality was commonplace in Jesus’ time and yet he never saw fit to mention it let alone condemn it.
        Homosexuality was not commonplace in the areas where Jesus Himself was active, and was already roundly condemned by the people to which He was sent, so there would have been no need for Jesus to mention or condemn that which was already an obvious sin to the Jews. The fact that Jesus never mentions homosexuality in the New Testament doesn't mean a thing. We would only expect Jesus to have mentioned anything about it if He would have lived in one of the cultures (Roman/Greek) where homosexual relationships was an accepted practice, or if the Jews amongst which he lived would have decided to stray from the teachings of the Old Testament on this matter and started pursuing homosexual relationships in clear violation of the Law.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
          Homosexuality was not commonplace in the areas where Jesus Himself was active, .
          This is not so. It was commonplace throughout the entire ancient world…including the Roman Province of Jerusalem.

          “Homosexuality in ancient Rome was a large part of society and of sexuality in general. Sex in the ancient world was considered a casual day-to-day practice with no emotional attachment, which is very different from the views of sex in modern day society”. “The ancient Romans also had a very different understanding of homosexuality than we do in modern society. There was no real concept of homosexuality or of heterosexuality”

          https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Roman_.../Homosexuality
          “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 JimL View Post
            Yeah, so my question is, why do y'all want such evidence since you wouldn't accept that evidence any more than any of the other evidence that was given you? You don't believe he is a Christian regardless. So, you don't believe he's a christian. We get it! What's the point you are trying to make?
            Yes exactly. Buttigieg can't be a REAL Christian no matter what his worship habits are, because he's a practicing homosexual unashamedly participating in his sin. This despite the fact that the Episcopal Church doesn’t see it this way. It performs gay marriages and has consecrated at least one gay bishop to my knowledge.
            “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 Tassman View Post
              This is not so. It was commonplace throughout the entire ancient world…including the Roman Province of Jerusalem.

              “Homosexuality in ancient Rome was a large part of society and of sexuality in general. Sex in the ancient world was considered a casual day-to-day practice with no emotional attachment, which is very different from the views of sex in modern day society”. “The ancient Romans also had a very different understanding of homosexuality than we do in modern society. There was no real concept of homosexuality or of heterosexuality”

              https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Roman_.../Homosexuality
              Nothing in the article you linked to backs up your claim that homosexuality was commonplace in the province of Jerusalem, so I'm not even sure why you bothered linking to it.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                Nothing in the article you linked to backs up your claim that homosexuality was commonplace in the province of Jerusalem, so I'm not even sure why you bothered linking to it.
                “Homosexuality in ancient Rome was a large part of society and of sexuality in general." Jerusalem had been a Province of Rome since it was conquered by Pompey in 63 BCE. The Roman Empire cast a vast shadow over the world of the New Testament, despite the freedom of worship granted to the Jews. Overall, what applied to the Roman Empire culturally applied to Jerusalem as well. After all, Jesus wasn't just preaching to the Jews, but to the whole world.
                “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 Tassman View Post
                  “Homosexuality in ancient Rome was a large part of society and of sexuality in general." Jerusalem had been a Province of Rome since it was conquered by Pompey in 63 BCE. The Roman Empire cast a vast shadow over the world of the New Testament, despite the freedom of worship granted to the Jews. Overall, what applied to the Roman Empire culturally applied to Jerusalem as well.
                  I'm sorry, but to go from "Homosexuality in ancient Rome was a large part of society and of sexuality in general." to "[Homosexual relationships were] commonplace throughout the entire ancient world…including the Roman Province of Jerusalem. " using the justification of "what applied to the Roman Empire culturally applied to Jerusalem as well" is one of the most disingenious distortions of reasoning I've seen in a while. Surviving Jewish literature (Philo, Josephus, Rabbinical writings) of the time overwhelmingly criticize same-sex relationships and while it might have been practiced by some people in Judaea, we have no reason to think it would have been socially accepted by the Jewish population in the province.

                  Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  After all, Jesus wasn't just preaching to the Jews, but to the whole world.
                  And for you to actually have a case of Jesus' being tolerant of homosexual practices you would need an example of Jesus stating that homosexual practices were acceptable, silence on the issue isn't enough. In fact, Jesus' silence on the matter is nothing more than a tacit acknowledgement/acceptance about the prohibitions on homosexual relationships written down in Leviticus and the negative view of homosexual practices by his contempary Jewish authors and religious leadership.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                    I'm sorry, but to go from "Homosexuality in ancient Rome was a large part of society and of sexuality in general." to "[Homosexual relationships were] commonplace throughout the entire ancient world…including the Roman Province of Jerusalem. " using the justification of "what applied to the Roman Empire culturally applied to Jerusalem as well" is one of the most disingenious distortions of reasoning I've seen in a while. Surviving Jewish literature (Philo, Josephus, Rabbinical writings) of the time overwhelmingly criticize same-sex relationships and while it might have been practiced by some people in Judaea, we have no reason to think it would have been socially accepted by the Jewish population in the province.



                    And for you to actually have a case of Jesus' being tolerant of homosexual practices you would need an example of Jesus stating that homosexual practices were acceptable, silence on the issue isn't enough. In fact, Jesus' silence on the matter is nothing more than a tacit acknowledgement/acceptance about the prohibitions on homosexual relationships written down in Leviticus and the negative view of homosexual practices by his contempary Jewish authors and religious leadership.
                    Not to mention - Jesus did not normally preach to outsiders. By his own account, his brief was to preach to Israel. Occasional encounters with Romans, Samaritans, Syro-Phoenicians are documentation of exceptional actions. Prior to the crucifixion, even his disciples were instructed to go to Israel, and not to the gentiles.
                    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 Chrawnus View Post
                      Surviving Jewish literature (Philo, Josephus, Rabbinical writings) of the time overwhelmingly criticize same-sex relationships and while it might have been practiced by some people in Judaea, we have no reason to think it would have been socially accepted by the Jewish population in the province.
                      And yet homosexuality obviously existed in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus (which you queried) for the very reason that Philo was an exact contemporary of Jesus with family in Jerusalem and Judea. Certainly, Philo shares the contemporary Jewish revulsion at what was not merely usual but socially approved male behavior in the Graeco-Roman world. And yet Jesus never mentions it.
                      “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 Tassman View Post
                        And yet homosexuality obviously existed in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus (which you queried) for the very reason that Philo was an exact contemporary of Jesus with family in Jerusalem and Judea. Certainly, Philo shares the contemporary Jewish revulsion at what was not merely usual but socially approved male behavior in the Graeco-Roman world. And yet Jesus never mentions it.
                        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. For Jesus, who would have been primarily "preaching to the choir" on this issue, there would have been no need what so ever for Him to mention anything against it. The very fact that Jesus never mentions homosexual practices in a positive light when the prevailing opinion was against it in the areas where He was active is most reasonably seen as tacit support for the prohibition, especially in view of the fact that He had such a high regard for the Jewish Law, and never mentioned anything about taking exception to the prohibitions about homosexual relationships in that very same Law.

                        If Jesus wanted to He would have had ample opportunity to say something to the effect of condoning same-sex relationships, but unfortunately for your unstated position that Jesus might have been fine with having sex with people of the same gender such affirmations are noticeably absent.
                        Last edited by JonathanL; 06-20-2019, 05:30 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          Yes exactly. Buttigieg can't be a REAL Christian no matter what his worship habits are, because he's a practicing homosexual unashamedly participating in his sin.


                          Tassman finally got it right and admitted that Buttigieg isn't a "REAL Christian!"

                          Thread over.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post


                            Tassman finally got it right and admitted that Buttigieg isn't a "REAL Christian!"

                            Thread over.
                            No, actually Tass had it right all along, i.e. that Buttigieg isn't a real christian according to you, which really is all that you have been arguing.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              No, actually Tass had it right all along, i.e. that Buttigieg isn't a real christian
                              If you say so.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                                Which is strange since you'd think you'd run into a "the bible says" argument once in awhile on a Christian forum.
                                Unless, of course, you just wanna make up your very own sissified version of Christ, which is what Tass is doing.
                                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
                                120 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                321 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                111 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                196 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                360 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X