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

  • Meanwhile, here's another good article (opinion) on Buttigieg's 'faith':


    What Would Jesus Do? Pete Buttigieg Has No Idea


    The Democratic candidate's heartfelt argument on faith is also partisan nonsense.

    Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, is one of the many candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination. But that’s not his only long-shot bid. He also wants to claim Christianity for contemporary progressive politics.

    “Christian faith is going to point you in a progressive direction,” he told USA Today.

    Even in our largely secular press, the coverage of the Buttigieg campaign has been rapturous. A few conservatives have contested the mayor’s version of religious politics by denying that he is truly Christian, citing his support for same-sex marriage (he is in one) and legal third-trimester abortion. Some of those critics have gone so far as to dismiss the Episcopal church, of which the mayor is a member, as no longer Christian.

    Buttigieg’s fans have, naturally, responded to that line of argument with outrage, having apparently missed that the mayor is fine with questioning other people’s faith. “It is hard to look at this president's actions and believe that they're the actions of somebody who believes in God,” he said in that USA Today interview.

    Obviously people who describe themselves as “Christians” disagree with one another, generally sincerely, about what being a Christian entails. There are Protestants who don’t think that Catholics make the cut.

    This type of disagreement is not distinctive to religion. The boundaries of such groupings as “conservatives” and “liberals” are also contested. The debates among Christians will probably be more fruitful if they proceed as inquiries into what followers of Jesus should do than as attempts at expulsion and counter-expulsion.

    For Buttigieg, the basic mistake of conservative Christians is “saying so much about what Christ said so little about, and so little about what he said so much about.” His interviewer, journalist Kirsten Powers, calls it an “insightful formulation” and specifies that abortion is one of those topics Jesus ignored.

    What He did talk about, Buttigieg says, includes “defending the poor, and the immigrant, and the stranger, and the prisoner, and the outcast, and those who are left behind by the way society works.” Hence his claim about how Christianity dovetails with progressivism.

    It is a heartfelt argument. It is also partisan nonsense, a politicized distortion of both the Bible’s words and its silences.


    His clever line about “saying so much about what Christ said so little about, and so little about what he said so much about" ignores the parts where Christ talked about the most important issue if all -- eternal salvation.

    It also necessarily dismisses Paul as any kind of official spokesperson for God.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • "saying so little about what Christ said so much about" slipped right past my radar: that doesn't happen a whole lot (as far as I know - but I don't know the American paradigms.)

      As to "It is a heartfelt argument. It is also partisan nonsense, a politicized distortion of both the Bible’s words and its silences." Does doing have to concur.
      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


      • "saying so little about what Christ said so much about" slipped right past my radar: that doesn't happen a whole lot (as far as I know - but I don't know the American paradigms.)

        As to "It is a heartfelt argument. It is also partisan nonsense, a politicized distortion of both the Bible’s words and its silences." I does doing must concur.
        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 tabibito View Post
          "saying so little about what Christ said so much about" slipped right past my radar...
          That's been his whole shtick. It's part of what the left is fawning over. It's why Tassman loves him. There is, obviously, a whole LOT of what Christ actually said "so much about" that has to be ignored.

          What Buttigieg is obviously doing is trying to sound like a "good Christian" by very selectively citing some things Jesus said, and since those things line up with his progressive agenda, the left falls over over him as the "ideal Christian".

          Liberals apparently see this as a solution to their God Problem...

          Democrats still haven’t faced their God problem

          That imagery is a far cry from the 2012 Democratic convention, when the hall exploded in turmoil as Democrats voted to amend their party’s platform to include the word “God.” The platform initially had dropped previous platform language that referenced God. After an outcry, convention chairman Antonio Villaraigosa returned to the stage to take a floor vote on a motion to reinsert the language.

          The floor vote quite clearly failed as Villaraigosa repeated the roll call. Eventually he declared that “the ayes have it,” and loud boos exploded across the arena.

          The headlines that came out of that debacle — “Democrats boo God” was a common one — ended up making matters worse for those, like Washo and Chism, who would like to see their party counter the perception of its estrangement from people of faith.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            That's been his whole shtick. It's part of what the left is fawning over. It's why Tassman loves him. There is, obviously, a whole LOT of what Christ actually said "so much about" that has to be ignored.

            What Buttigieg is obviously doing is trying to sound like a "good Christian" by very selectively citing some things Jesus said, and since those things line up with his progressive agenda, the left falls over over him as the "ideal Christian".

            Liberals apparently see this as a solution to their God Problem...

            Democrats still haven’t faced their God problem

            That imagery is a far cry from the 2012 Democratic convention, when the hall exploded in turmoil as Democrats voted to amend their party’s platform to include the word “God.” The platform initially had dropped previous platform language that referenced God. After an outcry, convention chairman Antonio Villaraigosa returned to the stage to take a floor vote on a motion to reinsert the language.

            The floor vote quite clearly failed as Villaraigosa repeated the roll call. Eventually he declared that “the ayes have it,” and loud boos exploded across the arena.

            The headlines that came out of that debacle — “Democrats boo God” was a common one — ended up making matters worse for those, like Washo and Chism, who would like to see their party counter the perception of its estrangement from people of faith.
            The democrats are even trying to purge themselves of prolife democrats, claiming that you can't be a democrat if you are against abortion. They are self destructing.

            Democrats who are purging pro-life progressives putting party ‘in jeopardy,’ leader warns


            Democratic leaders are "completely wrong" in their attempts to purge members opposed to abortion from the party, a pro-life Democratic leader told Fox News.

            Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life of America, told "Fox & Friends" Monday that Democratic lawmakers like Rep. Pramila Jayapal, a Washington congresswoman who suggested the Democratic Party should not fund candidates who are pro-life, are hurting the party.

            "Democrats have, historically, tried to protect the underdog, those who need assistance, the vulnerable," Day said. "And again, we hear this over and over again, but who is more vulnerable than an infant in the womb? That baby is so worthy of protection and protection of the Democratic Party, and she's absolutely wrong on that front."

            Day's comments come as the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus called for "strong primary challenges" against pro-life Democrats, telling reporters: "You can't say you're a Democrat...if you're against abortion."

            https://www.foxnews.com/politics/abo...pro-life-party

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              The democrats are even trying to purge themselves of prolife democrats, claiming that you can't be a democrat if you are against abortion. They are self destructing.

              Democrats who are purging pro-life progressives putting party ‘in jeopardy,’ leader warns


              Democratic leaders are "completely wrong" in their attempts to purge members opposed to abortion from the party, a pro-life Democratic leader told Fox News.

              Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life of America, told "Fox & Friends" Monday that Democratic lawmakers like Rep. Pramila Jayapal, a Washington congresswoman who suggested the Democratic Party should not fund candidates who are pro-life, are hurting the party.

              "Democrats have, historically, tried to protect the underdog, those who need assistance, the vulnerable," Day said. "And again, we hear this over and over again, but who is more vulnerable than an infant in the womb? That baby is so worthy of protection and protection of the Democratic Party, and she's absolutely wrong on that front."

              Day's comments come as the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus called for "strong primary challenges" against pro-life Democrats, telling reporters: "You can't say you're a Democrat...if you're against abortion."

              https://www.foxnews.com/politics/abo...pro-life-party
              90% of the cause for Labor's loss in the election on Saturday was due to similar decrees by Labor (though abortion wasn't brought into the arena). "Intolerant of intolerance" seems to have a slight different in application here.
              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 Sparko View Post
                I was asking YOU why it would be immoral, Mr. Agnostic. What reason do you think it is immoral? What's your basis for judging morality?
                And I answered you. The golden rule. In the words of the biblical god Jesus: "So, whatever you wish that others do to you, do also to them, for this is the law of the prophets." Now, that was a moral adage long before Jesus supposedly uttered it, but it is a reasonable rule by which to found a civil community upon. Surely you wouldn't wish others stone or burn you to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, or because you might be homosexual. So, what is moral is to not treat others in such a barbaric fashion either.
                You claim that morals are just a function of a society.
                Not exactly, they are a derivitive of reason first, then a function of an empathic and civil society.

                So if a society decides to give capital punishment for picking up sticks, how is that any different from a society who decides to give capital punishment for selling state secrets to the enemy?
                Perhaps you can figure that out from the above answer.
                Last edited by JimL; 05-20-2019, 06:22 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  As stated, I don't make it an issue. It doesn't define who I am, and I don't manage to work in into every discussion, interview, article, conversation....
                  Well our sexual orientation does define who we are, but being in the majority it’s not the issue it is for a gay politician in a largely homophobic society.

                  In Buttigieg's case, it's the ONLY reason you and others are interested in his "faith"
                  Buttigieg’s refreshing honesty about his sexual orientation vis-a-vis his faith is a reason in that it exhibits a non-judgmental acceptance of ALL citizens…unlike certain Evangelical Christians. But it’s not the only reason.

                  It's the ONLY reason he's an 'acceptable' "Christian" to you, not because he's a "practicing Christian", but because he's a homosexual, a champion of abortion, and pretty much an extreme leftist.
                  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.
                  “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
                    And I answered you. The golden rule. In the words of the biblical god Jesus: "So, whatever you wish that others do to you, do also to them, for this is the law of the prophets." Now, that was a moral adage long before Jesus supposedly uttered it, but it is a reasonable rule by which to found a civil community upon. Surely you wouldn't wish others stone or burn you to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, or because you might be homosexual. So, what is moral is to not treat others in such a barbaric fashion either.

                    Not exactly, they are a derivitive of reason first, then a function of an empathic and civil society.


                    Perhaps you can figure that out from the above answer.
                    But you don't believe in Jesus or the Golden Rule, so you didn't answer me at all. You don't believe God set our morals. You believe society does. So why would a society that decided to stone people for picking up sticks on Saturday be doing anything immoral in your opinion?

                    Stop dodging.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      I could ot care less whether or not Buttigieg is a “practicing Christian”.
                      So you are saying your entire argument so far in this thread was a ruse and doesn't matter at all because you don't even care or believe what you said?

                      Pretty much what we figured anyway. Nobody takes you seriously any more Tassman.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        Well our sexual orientation does define who we are, but being in the majority it’s not the issue it is for a gay politician in a largely homophobic society.
                        No, it does NOT define who we are - that's just jackass stupid. If you allow it to, it can.

                        Buttigieg’s refreshing honesty about his sexual orientation vis-a-vis his faith is a reason in that it exhibits a non-judgmental acceptance of ALL citizens…unlike certain Evangelical Christians. But it’s not the only reason.
                        If he weren't a homosexual, you'd be condemning his "faith", because you're an anti-Christian bigot. Unless, of course, you don't really consider him a Christian.

                        I could ot care less whether or not Buttigieg is a “practicing Christian”.
                        What a load of crap! That's what you've been arguing about, Tassy! Can't you keep your argument's straight?
                        YOUR words....
                        Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        ...Just as the likes of Buttigieg, as a practicing Christian, interpret scripture in such a way that homosexuality is OK with a loving God.
                        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.
                        Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        But he, as a practicing Christian, denies that homosexual conduct a sin.

                        Sheeeeeesh, you're a slippery one!

                        But he claims to be, it appears to be important to him, and he’s been long involved in a faith-community.
                        You have yet to show ANYWHERE that Buttigieg has made the claim that he's a "practicing Christian".

                        So, I see no reason to disbelieve him or condemn him because his Christianity is not of the Evangelical variety.
                        You're so screwed up in the head you can't even keep your stories straight.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          So you are saying your entire argument so far in this thread was a ruse and doesn't matter at all because you don't even care or believe what you said?

                          Pretty much what we figured anyway. Nobody takes you seriously any more Tassman.
                          His only purpose here is to spew forth his anti-Christian bigotry, unless, of course, that "practicing Christian*" is a homosexual.


                          *Oh, wait -- no longer a "practicing Christian"
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Tassman: Argues X.

                            Tassman after getting his butt whooped on the question of X: "I never argued X. In fact, I have never argued for X ever in my entire life. I'm not even I've ever heard of X. Can anyone tell me what X is?"
                            Last edited by JonathanL; 05-21-2019, 08:38 AM. Reason: Changing a no-no word into a yes-yes word

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              Tassman: Argues X.

                              Tassman after getting his butt whooped on the question of X: "I never argued X. In fact, I have never argued for X ever in my entire life. I'm not even I've ever heard of X. Can anyone tell me what X is?"
                              That sizes it up pretty well. I wonder if he's really a used car salesman, and not in the hotel business.



                              (I changed one of your words cause I think it's not allowed)
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                (I changed one of your words cause I think it's not allowed)
                                I'm sorry.

                                I changified it into the same word you used, so now your quotation of me is correct.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                149 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                397 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                113 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                369 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X