How Pete Buttigieg found God

8,627 Views | 101 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by Florda_mike
fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tommie said:

cinque said:

Florda_mike said:

Pretty typical xile, Tom and crew back this Buttguy fella

Gay man president? Gimme a break
Ignorant cultural Christians like to defend their intolerance of Christian homosexuals by focusing on what they believe to be a refusal on the part of these people to conform to Biblical norms. You'll use your completely self imputed righteousness to ridicule and demean in the name of a God who would never cosign your actions.
The easiest way to get a sense of the kind of relationship one has with God is to look at how they treat other people who love God and are loved by God.

That said, why are ignorant cultural Christians not as bothered by Trump's refusal to conform to Biblical norms?


Nope. The new trend is "Christianity a la carte". Or even better, "a la party."


How would you prefer a Christian approach the subject of homosexuality? As a Christian, I simply refer people back to the Bible. If they persist and ask my opinion, I simply say that my opinion is of no consequence. I am not their jury nor their judge.
Salute the Marines - Joe Biden
Mitch Blood Green
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fadskier said:

tommie said:

cinque said:

Florda_mike said:

Pretty typical xile, Tom and crew back this Buttguy fella

Gay man president? Gimme a break
Ignorant cultural Christians like to defend their intolerance of Christian homosexuals by focusing on what they believe to be a refusal on the part of these people to conform to Biblical norms. You'll use your completely self imputed righteousness to ridicule and demean in the name of a God who would never cosign your actions.
The easiest way to get a sense of the kind of relationship one has with God is to look at how they treat other people who love God and are loved by God.

That said, why are ignorant cultural Christians not as bothered by Trump's refusal to conform to Biblical norms?


Nope. The new trend is "Christianity a la carte". Or even better, "a la party."


How would you prefer a Christian approach the subject of homosexuality? As a Christian, I simply refer people back to the Bible. If they persist and ask my opinion, I simply say that my opinion is of no consequence. I am not their jury nor their judge.


Because you can see homosexuality as a sin but the Bible outlines many others. It speaks of greed and gluttony and adultery and dishonesty. All traits of the current White House occupant.
fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tommie said:

fadskier said:

tommie said:

cinque said:

Florda_mike said:

Pretty typical xile, Tom and crew back this Buttguy fella

Gay man president? Gimme a break
Ignorant cultural Christians like to defend their intolerance of Christian homosexuals by focusing on what they believe to be a refusal on the part of these people to conform to Biblical norms. You'll use your completely self imputed righteousness to ridicule and demean in the name of a God who would never cosign your actions.
The easiest way to get a sense of the kind of relationship one has with God is to look at how they treat other people who love God and are loved by God.

That said, why are ignorant cultural Christians not as bothered by Trump's refusal to conform to Biblical norms?


Nope. The new trend is "Christianity a la carte". Or even better, "a la party."


How would you prefer a Christian approach the subject of homosexuality? As a Christian, I simply refer people back to the Bible. If they persist and ask my opinion, I simply say that my opinion is of no consequence. I am not their jury nor their judge.


Because you can see homosexuality as a sin but the Bible outlines many others. It speaks of greed and gluttony and adultery and dishonesty. All traits of the current White House occupant.
Who said that Trump wasn't a sinner? Who said that homosexuality is a greater sin than any other?
Salute the Marines - Joe Biden
william
How long do you want to ignore this user?
his twerking his BF onstage in st louis - I think it was - was the last straw for me.

- BUmma

Dale?
Thee University
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He needs to change his name. I keep thinking Buttplug for some strange reason.

Barry changed his name.
"The education of a man is never completed until he dies." - General Robert E. Lee
william
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thee University said:

He needs to change his name. I keep thinking Buttplug for some strange reason.

Barry changed his name.
a man of infinite wit, boundless aplomb and temperate humility has suggested, most wisely and with a brevity suggesting a super-refined diamond-edged intellect:

bootyfudge.

- BUmma

Dale?
cinque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fadskier said:

tommie said:

fadskier said:

tommie said:

cinque said:

Florda_mike said:

Pretty typical xile, Tom and crew back this Buttguy fella

Gay man president? Gimme a break
Ignorant cultural Christians like to defend their intolerance of Christian homosexuals by focusing on what they believe to be a refusal on the part of these people to conform to Biblical norms. You'll use your completely self imputed righteousness to ridicule and demean in the name of a God who would never cosign your actions.
The easiest way to get a sense of the kind of relationship one has with God is to look at how they treat other people who love God and are loved by God.

That said, why are ignorant cultural Christians not as bothered by Trump's refusal to conform to Biblical norms?


Nope. The new trend is "Christianity a la carte". Or even better, "a la party."


How would you prefer a Christian approach the subject of homosexuality? As a Christian, I simply refer people back to the Bible. If they persist and ask my opinion, I simply say that my opinion is of no consequence. I am not their jury nor their judge.


Because you can see homosexuality as a sin but the Bible outlines many others. It speaks of greed and gluttony and adultery and dishonesty. All traits of the current White House occupant.
Who said that Trump wasn't a sinner? Who said that homosexuality is a greater sin than any other?
Oh good grief.
MoneyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tommie said:

MoneyBear said:

contrario said:

MoneyBear said:

contrario said:

Johnny Bear said:

contrario said:

Gold Tron said:

contrario said:

whiterock said:

yes, God loves alcoholics, but I rather suspect he expects them to come to church sober.

it's not that one has sin in one's life.
it's that one should not revel in one's sin.

come to church sober.
The church I know would want people to comes as they are, sins and flaws and all.
Would they not try to encourage and help you fight your addictions? If you come to Church repeatedly intoxicated, I think you might not be sincere.
That's not my place to decide. I know many Christians like to act as if they are God's judges on earth, but that isn't the case. Only one can make judgements about the actions of humans, and it's no one posting on this message board.

If a sinner continues to show up at church in sin, it seems to me that would be the one God, and us, should be most interested in helping because they are there for a reason. I'm absolutely shocked that so called Christians on here would suggest a sinner should be denied access to God's house when that is the complete opposite of what Jesus taught.
Who is suggesting anyone should be "denied access to God's house"??
Whiterock said "come to church sober", which would imply "come to church sober, or don't come at all." And the entire tone of many of the posters on here is that Pete isn't a Christian and/or shouldn't be allowed to claim he is a Christian because he is a sinner. That's not what Jesus taught


Correct. Jesus taught that we ought to be changed by our knowledge of His words. He claimed that sinners were "sick", "lost", "dead", etc. He told the woman caught in adultery to go he way and sin no more. He said if we loved Him we would keep His commandments.

The Bible is clear that God loves all people but hates sin. He wants us to stop sinning and not wallow in it. Somewhere along the way we decided that the love and grace of God was so great that we could behave however we want and a sinful lifestyle would be acceptable before Him...take a look at Romans 6:1-2. How can we who DIED TO SIN live any longer in it?
I'm not going to get in a theological debate with you. You will likely dominate me, and that's fine. My point is that to love the sinner, one must allow them into God's house. There are probably many scriptures that agree with me, and there are probably many that could disagree with me. That's what's so great about the Bible, is one verse it says to love everyone and another verse says it's ok to do things that our modern world finds reprehensible. One verse says one group of people saw Jesus first after his resurrection, another says another group saw him first. The ambiguity is great fodder for those that want to make excuses for actions. I would prefer to live my life in a loving and accepting way, especially for "self-inflicting" sins.
I would never argue against the part in bold. I would not only "allow" a sinner into church but I would welcome them in and even drag them if I must (this is called hyperbole for those of you already prepping a hate-filled response).

My contention is that once sinners are in our worship services, we do a disservice to them, ourselves, and God by telling them that their sinful lifestyle is fine and they shouldn't change a thing. Not even saying you said this but it's the leap that a lot of "christians" want to take in the name of "loving sinners"...


We're not holding the current sinner in the WH to that standard. Gluttony is a sin. Lying is a sin. Adultery is a sin.

We pick and choose what we will hold a person to account for.

I believe Buttigeg has a punchers chance if he can get past Biden and Warren and American give him more credit for his intelligence, his service and his character then care that he's gay.

Especially with Trump on the other side. This is a choice between Trump and Trump.
I'm not sure which "we" you are talking about. Trump's personal life is a disaster and that's not really debatable. The point I was making was that anyone should be welcomed at church but told the truth when they arrive...if Trump walked into the church I attend this week, we'd welcome him but we wouldn't avoid talking about lying, arrogance, adultery, etc to appease him...

If this is an attempt to get Christians not to vote for Trump, I'll remind you that our election system today is a binary choice and that choice is two options that suck but only one of them runs on anti-Christian values and promotes anti-Christian policy...that's why we vote for Trump.
Sic'em
contrario
How long do you want to ignore this user?
To sum up the opinions of the republicans in this thread: Pete is a sinner and they can't vote for him because of that. Trump is also a sinner, but they can vote for him because he was the best of the binary choices. So if "sin" doesn't really matter as long as the politician checks enough political boxes, why even bring up sin? It makes you look hypocritical. Why not just stick with issues?

By the way, one person In this thread said in one post he didn't like Pete because his homosexuality speaks to his moral character and he couldn't vote for someone with poor moral character, but then said he voted for Trump, despite his poor moral character, because he was the better of the two choices. Talk about mental gymnastics.
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
contrario said:

To sum up the opinions of the republicans in this thread: Pete is a sinner and they can't vote for him because of that. Trump is also a sinner, but they can vote for him because he was the best of the binary choices. So if "sin" doesn't really matter as long as the politician checks enough political boxes, why even bring up sin? It makes you look hypocritical. Why not just stick with issues?

By the way, one person In this thread said in one post he didn't like Pete because his homosexuality speaks to his moral character and he couldn't vote for someone with poor moral character, but then said he voted for Trump, despite his poor moral character, because he was the better of the two choices. Talk about mental gymnastics.


Well whatever, I just would rather have someone that preferred chasing women vs someone that chases men in White House running our country

I'm sure there's other countries in the world whose leaders feel the same as me and that matters to me

Has that ever crossed your mind

Again, people like you that love going down middle of road get run over in today's turbulent political climate
BaylorBJM
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Florda_mike said:

contrario said:

To sum up the opinions of the republicans in this thread: Pete is a sinner and they can't vote for him because of that. Trump is also a sinner, but they can vote for him because he was the best of the binary choices. So if "sin" doesn't really matter as long as the politician checks enough political boxes, why even bring up sin? It makes you look hypocritical. Why not just stick with issues?

By the way, one person In this thread said in one post he didn't like Pete because his homosexuality speaks to his moral character and he couldn't vote for someone with poor moral character, but then said he voted for Trump, despite his poor moral character, because he was the better of the two choices. Talk about mental gymnastics.


Well whatever,


Hahaha. This quote of your pretty much sums up all your posts Mikey.

Almost every poster on this site: "Mike, there's no logic behind your posts. You've contradicted yourself at almost every turn. Could you please kindly explain yourself in posts X, Y and Z."

Mike: "Well, whatever" <insert some nonsensical nonsense>
Prairie_Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MoneyBear said:

The Bible does not create some grey area about homosexuality no matter how hard our society wants to read into it.


I don't disagree, what bothers me is the hypocrisy pick/choose nature of the outrage.

Last church service I attended 50% +/- of the congregation was obese. In over 35 years of going to church I don't recall ever hearing the outrage of living in sin via gluttony/obesity as I hear regarding homosexuality.

Every church service there is a parade of new trucks/suburbans/luxury vehicles parking up front or making sure to be seen in the drop off line and there is no way everyone of those families have the financials to afford those (debt dictates life choices) while enticing envy in others. Nobody is routinely calling them out for living in sin/greed.

Etc.

I suspect this issue has much more to do with the % of offenders as it has to do with the "sin". Not a lot of homosexuals in the congregation (but will get a lot of self affirming "amens" from congregation). However, you start offending too many people and the offering plate/business gets a little light.
MoneyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Prairie_Bear said:

MoneyBear said:

The Bible does not create some grey area about homosexuality no matter how hard our society wants to read into it.


I don't disagree, what bothers me is the hypocrisy pick/choose nature of the outrage.

Last church service I attended 50% +/- of the congregation was obese. In over 35 years of going to church I don't recall ever hearing the outrage of living in sin via gluttony/obesity as I hear regarding homosexuality.

Every church service there is a parade of new trucks/suburbans/luxury vehicles parking up front or making sure to be seen in the drop off line and there is no way everyone of those families have the financials to afford those (debt dictates life choices) while enticing envy in others. Nobody is routinely calling them out for living in sin/greed.

Etc.

I suspect this issue has much more to do with the % of offenders as it has to do with the "sin". Not a lot of homosexuals in the congregation (but will get a lot of self affirming "amens" from congregation). However, you start offending too many people and the offering plate/business gets a little light.
I won't deny that there are plenty of churches that pick & choose. I'm not a preach, btw, but I filled in as one for about 3 months at a small church not too far from Waco and we talked a lot about issues that actually pertain to that group. Too many churches want to preach on temptations that are never going to come at their members or issues that don't really matter because it is safe. Churches should talk about things like "giving God what's right, not what's left" or the notion that just because you've ordered doesn't mean you can't check the menu is still adultery according to Matthew 19...just a couple examples.
Sic'em
MoneyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
contrario said:

To sum up the opinions of the republicans in this thread: Pete is a sinner and they can't vote for him because of that. Trump is also a sinner, but they can vote for him because he was the best of the binary choices. So if "sin" doesn't really matter as long as the politician checks enough political boxes, why even bring up sin? It makes you look hypocritical. Why not just stick with issues?

By the way, one person In this thread said in one post he didn't like Pete because his homosexuality speaks to his moral character and he couldn't vote for someone with poor moral character, but then said he voted for Trump, despite his poor moral character, because he was the better of the two choices. Talk about mental gymnastics.
Relatively poor summary, but carry on.

I'd summarize it like this: we don't care who or what you put your pen!s in...we are much more concerned with whether you demand our approval and are willing to use the government to get it. Furthermore, we care whether you are asking us to sign on with a bunch of other proposals like the slaughter of millions of unborn children, for example.

EDIT: What any person does in their own lives, is none of my business until you make it my business. When your platform demands my approval or takes my tax dollars to support it, it becomes my business. I don't really care that Pete is gay. If he asked my opinion, I'd give it. But his intentional misuse of the Bible and the platform that he runs on are things that I care about and things I will stand up against vocally. When did Trump ask for our approval of his affairs?

Also, some on here who think that Pete has a legit shot at the nomination are likely to be sorely disappointed. I think the only reason he ever got any traction at all was that he's a gay guy with the last name "BUTT-GIG" and thus Trump would play on that in nicknaming him...apparently that trap was too obvious even for Trump.
Sic'em
Golem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MoneyBear said:

contrario said:

To sum up the opinions of the republicans in this thread: Pete is a sinner and they can't vote for him because of that. Trump is also a sinner, but they can vote for him because he was the best of the binary choices. So if "sin" doesn't really matter as long as the politician checks enough political boxes, why even bring up sin? It makes you look hypocritical. Why not just stick with issues?

By the way, one person In this thread said in one post he didn't like Pete because his homosexuality speaks to his moral character and he couldn't vote for someone with poor moral character, but then said he voted for Trump, despite his poor moral character, because he was the better of the two choices. Talk about mental gymnastics.
Relatively poor summary, but carry on.

I'd summarize it like this: we don't care who or what you put your pen!s in...we are much more concerned with whether you demand our approval and are willing to use the government to get it. Furthermore, we care whether you are asking us to sign on with a bunch of other proposals like the slaughter of millions of unborn children, for example.

EDIT: What any person does in their own lives, is none of my business until you make it my business. When your platform demands my approval or takes my tax dollars to support it, it becomes my business. I don't really care that Pete is gay. If he asked my opinion, I'd give it. But his intentional misuse of the Bible and the platform that he runs on are things that I care about and things I will stand up against vocally. When did Trump ask for our approval of his affairs?

Also, some on here who think that Pete has a legit shot at the nomination are likely to be sorely disappointed. I think the only reason he ever got any traction at all was that he's a gay guy with the last name "BUTT-GIG" and thus Trump would play on that in nicknaming him...apparently that trap was too obvious even for Trump.


I imagine republicans also take a minor issue with a guy preaching that sucking another dude's schlong is a Christian act of 'love'.
contrario
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GolemIII said:

MoneyBear said:

contrario said:

To sum up the opinions of the republicans in this thread: Pete is a sinner and they can't vote for him because of that. Trump is also a sinner, but they can vote for him because he was the best of the binary choices. So if "sin" doesn't really matter as long as the politician checks enough political boxes, why even bring up sin? It makes you look hypocritical. Why not just stick with issues?

By the way, one person In this thread said in one post he didn't like Pete because his homosexuality speaks to his moral character and he couldn't vote for someone with poor moral character, but then said he voted for Trump, despite his poor moral character, because he was the better of the two choices. Talk about mental gymnastics.
Relatively poor summary, but carry on.

I'd summarize it like this: we don't care who or what you put your pen!s in...we are much more concerned with whether you demand our approval and are willing to use the government to get it. Furthermore, we care whether you are asking us to sign on with a bunch of other proposals like the slaughter of millions of unborn children, for example.

EDIT: What any person does in their own lives, is none of my business until you make it my business. When your platform demands my approval or takes my tax dollars to support it, it becomes my business. I don't really care that Pete is gay. If he asked my opinion, I'd give it. But his intentional misuse of the Bible and the platform that he runs on are things that I care about and things I will stand up against vocally. When did Trump ask for our approval of his affairs?

Also, some on here who think that Pete has a legit shot at the nomination are likely to be sorely disappointed. I think the only reason he ever got any traction at all was that he's a gay guy with the last name "BUTT-GIG" and thus Trump would play on that in nicknaming him...apparently that trap was too obvious even for Trump.


I imagine republicans also take a minor issue with a guy preaching that sucking another dude's schlong is a Christian act of 'love'.
And I would imagine many republicans would take a minor issue with a guy being sexually promiscuous and committing adultery, but they don't have a problem with Trump. So again, if you can turn a blind eye to personal sins in the name of getting a political agenda across, then you can't be critical of someone else for having personal sins and attacking them because they disagree with you politically. Not if you want to remain intellectually consistent. If you disagree with Pete on his political issues, great. That's what you should focus on. Where he puts his dck should be the least of your concerns if you can ignore what Trump does with his dck.
fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
contrario said:

GolemIII said:

MoneyBear said:

contrario said:

To sum up the opinions of the republicans in this thread: Pete is a sinner and they can't vote for him because of that. Trump is also a sinner, but they can vote for him because he was the best of the binary choices. So if "sin" doesn't really matter as long as the politician checks enough political boxes, why even bring up sin? It makes you look hypocritical. Why not just stick with issues?

By the way, one person In this thread said in one post he didn't like Pete because his homosexuality speaks to his moral character and he couldn't vote for someone with poor moral character, but then said he voted for Trump, despite his poor moral character, because he was the better of the two choices. Talk about mental gymnastics.
Relatively poor summary, but carry on.

I'd summarize it like this: we don't care who or what you put your pen!s in...we are much more concerned with whether you demand our approval and are willing to use the government to get it. Furthermore, we care whether you are asking us to sign on with a bunch of other proposals like the slaughter of millions of unborn children, for example.

EDIT: What any person does in their own lives, is none of my business until you make it my business. When your platform demands my approval or takes my tax dollars to support it, it becomes my business. I don't really care that Pete is gay. If he asked my opinion, I'd give it. But his intentional misuse of the Bible and the platform that he runs on are things that I care about and things I will stand up against vocally. When did Trump ask for our approval of his affairs?

Also, some on here who think that Pete has a legit shot at the nomination are likely to be sorely disappointed. I think the only reason he ever got any traction at all was that he's a gay guy with the last name "BUTT-GIG" and thus Trump would play on that in nicknaming him...apparently that trap was too obvious even for Trump.


I imagine republicans also take a minor issue with a guy preaching that sucking another dude's schlong is a Christian act of 'love'.
And I would imagine many republicans would take a minor issue with a guy being sexually promiscuous and committing adultery, but they don't have a problem with Trump. So again, if you can turn a blind eye to personal sins in the name of getting a political agenda across, then you can't be critical of someone else for having personal sins and attacking them because they disagree with you politically. Not if you want to remain intellectually consistent. If you disagree with Pete on his political issues, great. That's what you should focus on. Where he puts his dck should be the least of your concerns if you can ignore what Trump does with his dck.
1. What evidence do you have that many Republicans "don't have a problem with Trump" and his sins?
2. How have I or anyone else turned a blind eye to his sins? What should we have done? What should we do?
3. Both parties ignore the flaws in their candidate...Dems wanted to hang Kavanaugh out to dry...Bill Clinton? Not so much..

Again, what do you want me to do about Trump's personal life?
Salute the Marines - Joe Biden
cinque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fadskier said:

contrario said:

GolemIII said:

MoneyBear said:

contrario said:

To sum up the opinions of the republicans in this thread: Pete is a sinner and they can't vote for him because of that. Trump is also a sinner, but they can vote for him because he was the best of the binary choices. So if "sin" doesn't really matter as long as the politician checks enough political boxes, why even bring up sin? It makes you look hypocritical. Why not just stick with issues?

By the way, one person In this thread said in one post he didn't like Pete because his homosexuality speaks to his moral character and he couldn't vote for someone with poor moral character, but then said he voted for Trump, despite his poor moral character, because he was the better of the two choices. Talk about mental gymnastics.
Relatively poor summary, but carry on.

I'd summarize it like this: we don't care who or what you put your pen!s in...we are much more concerned with whether you demand our approval and are willing to use the government to get it. Furthermore, we care whether you are asking us to sign on with a bunch of other proposals like the slaughter of millions of unborn children, for example.

EDIT: What any person does in their own lives, is none of my business until you make it my business. When your platform demands my approval or takes my tax dollars to support it, it becomes my business. I don't really care that Pete is gay. If he asked my opinion, I'd give it. But his intentional misuse of the Bible and the platform that he runs on are things that I care about and things I will stand up against vocally. When did Trump ask for our approval of his affairs?

Also, some on here who think that Pete has a legit shot at the nomination are likely to be sorely disappointed. I think the only reason he ever got any traction at all was that he's a gay guy with the last name "BUTT-GIG" and thus Trump would play on that in nicknaming him...apparently that trap was too obvious even for Trump.


I imagine republicans also take a minor issue with a guy preaching that sucking another dude's schlong is a Christian act of 'love'.
And I would imagine many republicans would take a minor issue with a guy being sexually promiscuous and committing adultery, but they don't have a problem with Trump. So again, if you can turn a blind eye to personal sins in the name of getting a political agenda across, then you can't be critical of someone else for having personal sins and attacking them because they disagree with you politically. Not if you want to remain intellectually consistent. If you disagree with Pete on his political issues, great. That's what you should focus on. Where he puts his dck should be the least of your concerns if you can ignore what Trump does with his dck.
1. What evidence do you have that many Republicans "don't have a problem with Trump" and his sins?
2. How have I or anyone else turned a blind eye to his sins? What should we have done? What should we do?
3. Both parties ignore the flaws in their candidate...Dems wanted to hang Kavanaugh out to dry...Bill Clinton? Not so much..

Again, what do you want me to do about Trump's personal life?
Pray for his conversion.
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GolemIII said:

MoneyBear said:

contrario said:

To sum up the opinions of the republicans in this thread: Pete is a sinner and they can't vote for him because of that. Trump is also a sinner, but they can vote for him because he was the best of the binary choices. So if "sin" doesn't really matter as long as the politician checks enough political boxes, why even bring up sin? It makes you look hypocritical. Why not just stick with issues?

By the way, one person In this thread said in one post he didn't like Pete because his homosexuality speaks to his moral character and he couldn't vote for someone with poor moral character, but then said he voted for Trump, despite his poor moral character, because he was the better of the two choices. Talk about mental gymnastics.
Relatively poor summary, but carry on.

I'd summarize it like this: we don't care who or what you put your pen!s in...we are much more concerned with whether you demand our approval and are willing to use the government to get it. Furthermore, we care whether you are asking us to sign on with a bunch of other proposals like the slaughter of millions of unborn children, for example.

EDIT: What any person does in their own lives, is none of my business until you make it my business. When your platform demands my approval or takes my tax dollars to support it, it becomes my business. I don't really care that Pete is gay. If he asked my opinion, I'd give it. But his intentional misuse of the Bible and the platform that he runs on are things that I care about and things I will stand up against vocally. When did Trump ask for our approval of his affairs?

Also, some on here who think that Pete has a legit shot at the nomination are likely to be sorely disappointed. I think the only reason he ever got any traction at all was that he's a gay guy with the last name "BUTT-GIG" and thus Trump would play on that in nicknaming him...apparently that trap was too obvious even for Trump.


I imagine republicans also take a minor issue with a guy preaching that sucking another dude's schlong is a Christian act of 'love'.


You do have a way with words, don't you?
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Florda_mike said:

Funny thread

Pretty judgmental
that's what breaks out when the social justice warriors show up
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

cinque said:

It appears Pete has a more coherent, articulable credo than most people posting in this forum.


Pete has zero chance to become POTUS.


He could be a"heartbeat away"with the oldest POTUS in history in the Oval Office
Mitch Blood Green
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MoneyBear said:

tommie said:

MoneyBear said:

contrario said:

MoneyBear said:

contrario said:

Johnny Bear said:

contrario said:

Gold Tron said:

contrario said:

whiterock said:

yes, God loves alcoholics, but I rather suspect he expects them to come to church sober.

it's not that one has sin in one's life.
it's that one should not revel in one's sin.

come to church sober.
The church I know would want people to comes as they are, sins and flaws and all.
Would they not try to encourage and help you fight your addictions? If you come to Church repeatedly intoxicated, I think you might not be sincere.
That's not my place to decide. I know many Christians like to act as if they are God's judges on earth, but that isn't the case. Only one can make judgements about the actions of humans, and it's no one posting on this message board.

If a sinner continues to show up at church in sin, it seems to me that would be the one God, and us, should be most interested in helping because they are there for a reason. I'm absolutely shocked that so called Christians on here would suggest a sinner should be denied access to God's house when that is the complete opposite of what Jesus taught.
Who is suggesting anyone should be "denied access to God's house"??
Whiterock said "come to church sober", which would imply "come to church sober, or don't come at all." And the entire tone of many of the posters on here is that Pete isn't a Christian and/or shouldn't be allowed to claim he is a Christian because he is a sinner. That's not what Jesus taught


Correct. Jesus taught that we ought to be changed by our knowledge of His words. He claimed that sinners were "sick", "lost", "dead", etc. He told the woman caught in adultery to go he way and sin no more. He said if we loved Him we would keep His commandments.

The Bible is clear that God loves all people but hates sin. He wants us to stop sinning and not wallow in it. Somewhere along the way we decided that the love and grace of God was so great that we could behave however we want and a sinful lifestyle would be acceptable before Him...take a look at Romans 6:1-2. How can we who DIED TO SIN live any longer in it?
I'm not going to get in a theological debate with you. You will likely dominate me, and that's fine. My point is that to love the sinner, one must allow them into God's house. There are probably many scriptures that agree with me, and there are probably many that could disagree with me. That's what's so great about the Bible, is one verse it says to love everyone and another verse says it's ok to do things that our modern world finds reprehensible. One verse says one group of people saw Jesus first after his resurrection, another says another group saw him first. The ambiguity is great fodder for those that want to make excuses for actions. I would prefer to live my life in a loving and accepting way, especially for "self-inflicting" sins.
I would never argue against the part in bold. I would not only "allow" a sinner into church but I would welcome them in and even drag them if I must (this is called hyperbole for those of you already prepping a hate-filled response).

My contention is that once sinners are in our worship services, we do a disservice to them, ourselves, and God by telling them that their sinful lifestyle is fine and they shouldn't change a thing. Not even saying you said this but it's the leap that a lot of "christians" want to take in the name of "loving sinners"...


We're not holding the current sinner in the WH to that standard. Gluttony is a sin. Lying is a sin. Adultery is a sin.

We pick and choose what we will hold a person to account for.

I believe Buttigeg has a punchers chance if he can get past Biden and Warren and American give him more credit for his intelligence, his service and his character then care that he's gay.

Especially with Trump on the other side. This is a choice between Trump and Trump.
I'm not sure which "we" you are talking about. Trump's personal life is a disaster and that's not really debatable. The point I was making was that anyone should be welcomed at church but told the truth when they arrive...if Trump walked into the church I attend this week, we'd welcome him but we wouldn't avoid talking about lying, arrogance, adultery, etc to appease him...

If this is an attempt to get Christians not to vote for Trump, I'll remind you that our election system today is a binary choice and that choice is two options that suck but only one of them runs on anti-Christian values and promotes anti-Christian policy...that's why we vote for Trump.


Me? I'm not trying to get Christians to not vote for Trump. People are free to vote for whomever they choose for whatever reason they choose.

I just find "values voters" showing themselves to not really believe what they sell fun.
Golem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
contrario said:

GolemIII said:

MoneyBear said:

contrario said:

To sum up the opinions of the republicans in this thread: Pete is a sinner and they can't vote for him because of that. Trump is also a sinner, but they can vote for him because he was the best of the binary choices. So if "sin" doesn't really matter as long as the politician checks enough political boxes, why even bring up sin? It makes you look hypocritical. Why not just stick with issues?

By the way, one person In this thread said in one post he didn't like Pete because his homosexuality speaks to his moral character and he couldn't vote for someone with poor moral character, but then said he voted for Trump, despite his poor moral character, because he was the better of the two choices. Talk about mental gymnastics.
Relatively poor summary, but carry on.

I'd summarize it like this: we don't care who or what you put your pen!s in...we are much more concerned with whether you demand our approval and are willing to use the government to get it. Furthermore, we care whether you are asking us to sign on with a bunch of other proposals like the slaughter of millions of unborn children, for example.

EDIT: What any person does in their own lives, is none of my business until you make it my business. When your platform demands my approval or takes my tax dollars to support it, it becomes my business. I don't really care that Pete is gay. If he asked my opinion, I'd give it. But his intentional misuse of the Bible and the platform that he runs on are things that I care about and things I will stand up against vocally. When did Trump ask for our approval of his affairs?

Also, some on here who think that Pete has a legit shot at the nomination are likely to be sorely disappointed. I think the only reason he ever got any traction at all was that he's a gay guy with the last name "BUTT-GIG" and thus Trump would play on that in nicknaming him...apparently that trap was too obvious even for Trump.


I imagine republicans also take a minor issue with a guy preaching that sucking another dude's schlong is a Christian act of 'love'.
And I would imagine many republicans would take a minor issue with a guy being sexually promiscuous and committing adultery, but they don't have a problem with Trump. So again, if you can turn a blind eye to personal sins in the name of getting a political agenda across, then you can't be critical of someone else for having personal sins and attacking them because they disagree with you politically. Not if you want to remain intellectually consistent. If you disagree with Pete on his political issues, great. That's what you should focus on. Where he puts his dck should be the least of your concerns if you can ignore what Trump does with his dck.


In your homosexual zeal to draw moral equivalence, you failed to note that I said republicans probably take issue with him PREACHING false doctrine about Christianity. You probably missed that. You'll no doubt now see that since Trump does NOTHING of the sort, republicans probably don't find his behavior such an issue since he isn't using the campaign trail as a PULPIT to PREACH AT THEM that it's an act of Christian love to rail a porn star OR polish another gay dude's knob.
contrario
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fadskier said:

contrario said:

GolemIII said:

MoneyBear said:

contrario said:

To sum up the opinions of the republicans in this thread: Pete is a sinner and they can't vote for him because of that. Trump is also a sinner, but they can vote for him because he was the best of the binary choices. So if "sin" doesn't really matter as long as the politician checks enough political boxes, why even bring up sin? It makes you look hypocritical. Why not just stick with issues?

By the way, one person In this thread said in one post he didn't like Pete because his homosexuality speaks to his moral character and he couldn't vote for someone with poor moral character, but then said he voted for Trump, despite his poor moral character, because he was the better of the two choices. Talk about mental gymnastics.
Relatively poor summary, but carry on.

I'd summarize it like this: we don't care who or what you put your pen!s in...we are much more concerned with whether you demand our approval and are willing to use the government to get it. Furthermore, we care whether you are asking us to sign on with a bunch of other proposals like the slaughter of millions of unborn children, for example.

EDIT: What any person does in their own lives, is none of my business until you make it my business. When your platform demands my approval or takes my tax dollars to support it, it becomes my business. I don't really care that Pete is gay. If he asked my opinion, I'd give it. But his intentional misuse of the Bible and the platform that he runs on are things that I care about and things I will stand up against vocally. When did Trump ask for our approval of his affairs?

Also, some on here who think that Pete has a legit shot at the nomination are likely to be sorely disappointed. I think the only reason he ever got any traction at all was that he's a gay guy with the last name "BUTT-GIG" and thus Trump would play on that in nicknaming him...apparently that trap was too obvious even for Trump.


I imagine republicans also take a minor issue with a guy preaching that sucking another dude's schlong is a Christian act of 'love'.
And I would imagine many republicans would take a minor issue with a guy being sexually promiscuous and committing adultery, but they don't have a problem with Trump. So again, if you can turn a blind eye to personal sins in the name of getting a political agenda across, then you can't be critical of someone else for having personal sins and attacking them because they disagree with you politically. Not if you want to remain intellectually consistent. If you disagree with Pete on his political issues, great. That's what you should focus on. Where he puts his dck should be the least of your concerns if you can ignore what Trump does with his dck.
1. What evidence do you have that many Republicans "don't have a problem with Trump" and his sins?
2. How have I or anyone else turned a blind eye to his sins? What should we have done? What should we do?
3. Both parties ignore the flaws in their candidate...Dems wanted to hang Kavanaugh out to dry...Bill Clinton? Not so much..

Again, what do you want me to do about Trump's personal life?
Start threads about his sinning lifestyle and any positive spin that is put on his personal life should be immediately shot down.

And I agree both parties do it. That was my point. This thread just happens to be a bunch of republicans hypocritically calling Pete a sinner while ignoring the sins of their guy. That's all. If you reread what I've said in this thread, my point is we should be sticking to the issues because neither side has a leg to stand on when it comes to casting judgement on personal moral issues.
fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
contrario said:

fadskier said:

contrario said:

GolemIII said:

MoneyBear said:

contrario said:

To sum up the opinions of the republicans in this thread: Pete is a sinner and they can't vote for him because of that. Trump is also a sinner, but they can vote for him because he was the best of the binary choices. So if "sin" doesn't really matter as long as the politician checks enough political boxes, why even bring up sin? It makes you look hypocritical. Why not just stick with issues?

By the way, one person In this thread said in one post he didn't like Pete because his homosexuality speaks to his moral character and he couldn't vote for someone with poor moral character, but then said he voted for Trump, despite his poor moral character, because he was the better of the two choices. Talk about mental gymnastics.
Relatively poor summary, but carry on.

I'd summarize it like this: we don't care who or what you put your pen!s in...we are much more concerned with whether you demand our approval and are willing to use the government to get it. Furthermore, we care whether you are asking us to sign on with a bunch of other proposals like the slaughter of millions of unborn children, for example.

EDIT: What any person does in their own lives, is none of my business until you make it my business. When your platform demands my approval or takes my tax dollars to support it, it becomes my business. I don't really care that Pete is gay. If he asked my opinion, I'd give it. But his intentional misuse of the Bible and the platform that he runs on are things that I care about and things I will stand up against vocally. When did Trump ask for our approval of his affairs?

Also, some on here who think that Pete has a legit shot at the nomination are likely to be sorely disappointed. I think the only reason he ever got any traction at all was that he's a gay guy with the last name "BUTT-GIG" and thus Trump would play on that in nicknaming him...apparently that trap was too obvious even for Trump.


I imagine republicans also take a minor issue with a guy preaching that sucking another dude's schlong is a Christian act of 'love'.
And I would imagine many republicans would take a minor issue with a guy being sexually promiscuous and committing adultery, but they don't have a problem with Trump. So again, if you can turn a blind eye to personal sins in the name of getting a political agenda across, then you can't be critical of someone else for having personal sins and attacking them because they disagree with you politically. Not if you want to remain intellectually consistent. If you disagree with Pete on his political issues, great. That's what you should focus on. Where he puts his dck should be the least of your concerns if you can ignore what Trump does with his dck.
1. What evidence do you have that many Republicans "don't have a problem with Trump" and his sins?
2. How have I or anyone else turned a blind eye to his sins? What should we have done? What should we do?
3. Both parties ignore the flaws in their candidate...Dems wanted to hang Kavanaugh out to dry...Bill Clinton? Not so much..

Again, what do you want me to do about Trump's personal life?
Start threads about his sinning lifestyle and any positive spin that is put on his personal life should be immediately shot down.

And I agree both parties do it. That was my point. This thread just happens to be a bunch of republicans hypocritically calling Pete a sinner while ignoring the sins of their guy. That's all. If you reread what I've said in this thread, my point is we should be sticking to the issues because neither side has a leg to stand on when it comes to casting judgement on personal moral issues.
Agreed.
Salute the Marines - Joe Biden
xiledinok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tommie said:

MoneyBear said:

tommie said:

MoneyBear said:

contrario said:

MoneyBear said:

contrario said:

Johnny Bear said:

contrario said:

Gold Tron said:

contrario said:

whiterock said:

yes, God loves alcoholics, but I rather suspect he expects them to come to church sober.

it's not that one has sin in one's life.
it's that one should not revel in one's sin.

come to church sober.
The church I know would want people to comes as they are, sins and flaws and all.
Would they not try to encourage and help you fight your addictions? If you come to Church repeatedly intoxicated, I think you might not be sincere.
That's not my place to decide. I know many Christians like to act as if they are God's judges on earth, but that isn't the case. Only one can make judgements about the actions of humans, and it's no one posting on this message board.

If a sinner continues to show up at church in sin, it seems to me that would be the one God, and us, should be most interested in helping because they are there for a reason. I'm absolutely shocked that so called Christians on here would suggest a sinner should be denied access to God's house when that is the complete opposite of what Jesus taught.
Who is suggesting anyone should be "denied access to God's house"??
Whiterock said "come to church sober", which would imply "come to church sober, or don't come at all." And the entire tone of many of the posters on here is that Pete isn't a Christian and/or shouldn't be allowed to claim he is a Christian because he is a sinner. That's not what Jesus taught


Correct. Jesus taught that we ought to be changed by our knowledge of His words. He claimed that sinners were "sick", "lost", "dead", etc. He told the woman caught in adultery to go he way and sin no more. He said if we loved Him we would keep His commandments.

The Bible is clear that God loves all people but hates sin. He wants us to stop sinning and not wallow in it. Somewhere along the way we decided that the love and grace of God was so great that we could behave however we want and a sinful lifestyle would be acceptable before Him...take a look at Romans 6:1-2. How can we who DIED TO SIN live any longer in it?
I'm not going to get in a theological debate with you. You will likely dominate me, and that's fine. My point is that to love the sinner, one must allow them into God's house. There are probably many scriptures that agree with me, and there are probably many that could disagree with me. That's what's so great about the Bible, is one verse it says to love everyone and another verse says it's ok to do things that our modern world finds reprehensible. One verse says one group of people saw Jesus first after his resurrection, another says another group saw him first. The ambiguity is great fodder for those that want to make excuses for actions. I would prefer to live my life in a loving and accepting way, especially for "self-inflicting" sins.
I would never argue against the part in bold. I would not only "allow" a sinner into church but I would welcome them in and even drag them if I must (this is called hyperbole for those of you already prepping a hate-filled response).

My contention is that once sinners are in our worship services, we do a disservice to them, ourselves, and God by telling them that their sinful lifestyle is fine and they shouldn't change a thing. Not even saying you said this but it's the leap that a lot of "christians" want to take in the name of "loving sinners"...


We're not holding the current sinner in the WH to that standard. Gluttony is a sin. Lying is a sin. Adultery is a sin.

We pick and choose what we will hold a person to account for.

I believe Buttigeg has a punchers chance if he can get past Biden and Warren and American give him more credit for his intelligence, his service and his character then care that he's gay.

Especially with Trump on the other side. This is a choice between Trump and Trump.
I'm not sure which "we" you are talking about. Trump's personal life is a disaster and that's not really debatable. The point I was making was that anyone should be welcomed at church but told the truth when they arrive...if Trump walked into the church I attend this week, we'd welcome him but we wouldn't avoid talking about lying, arrogance, adultery, etc to appease him...

If this is an attempt to get Christians not to vote for Trump, I'll remind you that our election system today is a binary choice and that choice is two options that suck but only one of them runs on anti-Christian values and promotes anti-Christian policy...that's why we vote for Trump.


Me? I'm not trying to get Christians to not vote for Trump. People are free to vote for whomever they choose for whatever reason they choose.

I just find "values voters" showing themselves to not really believe what they sell fun.
I agree. They just try to create the illusion they have values because in the end it's really about their wallets.
cinque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Stranger still, is how the values voters posting in this thread seem to be less interested in Pete finding God than they are with what he does sexually. Why is that values voting Christians?
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cinque said:

Stranger still, is how the values voters posting in this thread seem to be less interested in Pete finding God than they are with what he does sexually. Why is that values voting Christians?
Hate to break this to you, but it's Democrats who are obsessed with his sexuality. In fact, it's what they like most about him.

If he was straight, nobody would know his name.
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tommie said:

Florda_mike said:

tommie said:

Canada2017 said:

cinque said:

It appears Pete has a more coherent, articulable credo than most people posting in this forum.


Pete has zero chance to become POTUS.


Not zero. I can see him in the final 3 with Warren and Biden.


Pretty biased opinion


My bias along with his fundraising and poling leads me to believe he has a chance.

You could argue he's more attractive than Biden. He's younger and less gaff prone.
He is better than Biden or Warren imo, but it doesn't seem to matter as he continues to trail far behind them in the polls.

That said if he were a heterosexual christian he wouldn't be liked at all, because he gets pretty preachy and somewhat condemning if you disagree with him and he uses his religion to throw down the preachiness.

Mitch Blood Green
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Forest Bueller_bf said:

tommie said:

Florda_mike said:

tommie said:

Canada2017 said:

cinque said:

It appears Pete has a more coherent, articulable credo than most people posting in this forum.


Pete has zero chance to become POTUS.


Not zero. I can see him in the final 3 with Warren and Biden.


Pretty biased opinion


My bias along with his fundraising and poling leads me to believe he has a chance.

You could argue he's more attractive than Biden. He's younger and less gaff prone.
He is better than Biden or Warren imo, but it doesn't seem to matter as he continues to trail far behind them in the polls.

That said if he were a heterosexual christian he wouldn't be liked at all, because he gets pretty preachy and somewhat condemning if you disagree with him and he uses his religion to throw down the preachiness.




Are you suggesting Christians COULD vote for him as an alternative to Trump?

If Biden washed out, ( he could and he looks aged) Buttigeg seems like a more reasonable alternative for mainstream democrats then Sanders or Warren.
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tommie said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

tommie said:

Florda_mike said:

tommie said:

Canada2017 said:

cinque said:

It appears Pete has a more coherent, articulable credo than most people posting in this forum.


Pete has zero chance to become POTUS.


Not zero. I can see him in the final 3 with Warren and Biden.


Pretty biased opinion


My bias along with his fundraising and poling leads me to believe he has a chance.

You could argue he's more attractive than Biden. He's younger and less gaff prone.
He is better than Biden or Warren imo, but it doesn't seem to matter as he continues to trail far behind them in the polls.

That said if he were a heterosexual christian he wouldn't be liked at all, because he gets pretty preachy and somewhat condemning if you disagree with him and he uses his religion to throw down the preachiness.




Are you suggesting Christians COULD vote for him as an alternative to Trump?

If Biden washed out, ( he could and he looks aged) Buttigeg seems like a more reasonable alternative for mainstream democrats then Sanders or Warren.

Well people do say they don't care about Trumps morals, just his leadership or policy positions, Pete seems pretty reasonable, even if they morally have issue with him, I would think voting for him wouldn't be an issue if folks agree with his legislation.

I think Biden's age and mental decline become a huge issue if he is elected. He is on the down slope.
william
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Here come da Fudge!

- KKM

Still waiting on the ISE.

Each day that passes draws us closer.........

D!

Diaper up, Petey!
Dale?
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
william said:

Here come da Fudge!

- KKM

Still waiting on the ISE.

Each day that passes draws us closer.........

D!

Diaper up, Petey!


You're a pretty weird dude

Hope you develop better social skills

Just saying

Geez dude
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.