Chauvin. What say you?

33,267 Views | 535 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by Oldbear83
Canon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Canon said:

TexasScientist said:

Canon said:

TexasScientist said:

Canon said:

TexasScientist said:

Canada2017 said:

Canon said:

Jack and DP said:




Incitement to insurrection right there.
Obviously.


Yet the old gal will get a pass......and we all know why .
Yep, the same reason Trump et al got a pass.


Trump didn't get a pass. He just wasn't guilty.
You'r a good example of giving him a pass.


The dictionary is a good example of why he wasn't guilty. But this doesn't matter to you. Hate is powerful.
The cult of personality is powerful.


When others simply don't hate the people you hate, it doesn't mean all those other people worship who you hate. It just means they don't hate who you hate. Your hate blinds you to reason. Your hate inhibits your thinking. Your hate prevents you from reading words accurately and demands you read into them meanings not there.

As I said, the dictionary is a good example of why he wasn't guilty.
Differing view or opinion doesn't = hate. Calling out someone for who or what they are doesn't equate to hate. Go back to the dictionary you're trying to quote.


What you exhibit with regard to anything Trump related is hatred. It's like he broke up with you over text.
Canon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
For anyone out there who thinks left wing violence and intimidation aren't planned to sway the outcome of the trial, this happened this morning:

https://districtherald.com/black-lives-matter-extremists-cover-former-home-of-chauvin-defense-witness-with-animal-blood-leave-severed-pig-head-on-doorstep/

Black Lives Matter Extremists Cover Former Home of Chauvin Defense Witness With Animal Blood, Leave Severed Pig Head on Doorstep

Canon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Also today:

National Guard troops INJURED after being SHOT AT while providing security in Minneapolis ahead of Chauvin verdict

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/18/us/minnesota-national-guard-police-shooting/index.html?ref=upstract.com&curator=upstract.com

This is just shortly after Maxine Waters incited the protesters to violence/insurrection. It's time to arrest Maxine for this insurrection where our National Guard and our very democracy was attacked because of her vile language.
ABC BEAR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Time to resurrect one of the taglines from the 1960's: "It's going to be a long, hot summer."
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canon said:

TexasScientist said:

Canon said:

TexasScientist said:

Canon said:

TexasScientist said:

Canada2017 said:

Canon said:

Jack and DP said:




Incitement to insurrection right there.
Obviously.


Yet the old gal will get a pass......and we all know why .
Yep, the same reason Trump et al got a pass.


Trump didn't get a pass. He just wasn't guilty.
You'r a good example of giving him a pass.


The dictionary is a good example of why he wasn't guilty. But this doesn't matter to you. Hate is powerful.
The cult of personality is powerful.


When others simply don't hate the people you hate, it doesn't mean all those other people worship who you hate. It just means they don't hate who you hate. Your hate blinds you to reason. Your hate inhibits your thinking. Your hate prevents you from reading words accurately and demands you read into them meanings not there.
Social media and 24 hour news channels have generated an extreme amount of hate throughout our society .

Such outlets also generate fear, which intensifies the hate .

TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canon said:

TexasScientist said:

Canon said:

TexasScientist said:

Canon said:

TexasScientist said:

Canon said:

TexasScientist said:

Canada2017 said:

Canon said:

Jack and DP said:




Incitement to insurrection right there.
Obviously.


Yet the old gal will get a pass......and we all know why .
Yep, the same reason Trump et al got a pass.


Trump didn't get a pass. He just wasn't guilty.
You'r a good example of giving him a pass.


The dictionary is a good example of why he wasn't guilty. But this doesn't matter to you. Hate is powerful.
The cult of personality is powerful.


When others simply don't hate the people you hate, it doesn't mean all those other people worship who you hate. It just means they don't hate who you hate. Your hate blinds you to reason. Your hate inhibits your thinking. Your hate prevents you from reading words accurately and demands you read into them meanings not there.

As I said, the dictionary is a good example of why he wasn't guilty.
Differing view or opinion doesn't = hate. Calling out someone for who or what they are doesn't equate to hate. Go back to the dictionary you're trying to quote.


What you exhibit with regard to anything Trump related is hatred. It's like he broke up with you over text.
I don't hate snakes. But I warn people about the danger.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Canon said:

TexasScientist said:

Canon said:

TexasScientist said:

Canon said:

TexasScientist said:

Canon said:

TexasScientist said:

Canada2017 said:

Canon said:

Jack and DP said:




Incitement to insurrection right there.
Obviously.


Yet the old gal will get a pass......and we all know why .
Yep, the same reason Trump et al got a pass.


Trump didn't get a pass. He just wasn't guilty.
You'r a good example of giving him a pass.


The dictionary is a good example of why he wasn't guilty. But this doesn't matter to you. Hate is powerful.
The cult of personality is powerful.


When others simply don't hate the people you hate, it doesn't mean all those other people worship who you hate. It just means they don't hate who you hate. Your hate blinds you to reason. Your hate inhibits your thinking. Your hate prevents you from reading words accurately and demands you read into them meanings not there.

As I said, the dictionary is a good example of why he wasn't guilty.
Differing view or opinion doesn't = hate. Calling out someone for who or what they are doesn't equate to hate. Go back to the dictionary you're trying to quote.


What you exhibit with regard to anything Trump related is hatred. It's like he broke up with you over text.
I don't hate snakes. But I warn people about the danger.
More than half of your 'danger' is made up delusion.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Canon said:

TexasScientist said:

Canon said:

TexasScientist said:

Canon said:

TexasScientist said:

Canon said:

TexasScientist said:

Canada2017 said:

Canon said:

Jack and DP said:




Incitement to insurrection right there.
Obviously.


Yet the old gal will get a pass......and we all know why .
Yep, the same reason Trump et al got a pass.


Trump didn't get a pass. He just wasn't guilty.
You'r a good example of giving him a pass.


The dictionary is a good example of why he wasn't guilty. But this doesn't matter to you. Hate is powerful.
The cult of personality is powerful.


When others simply don't hate the people you hate, it doesn't mean all those other people worship who you hate. It just means they don't hate who you hate. Your hate blinds you to reason. Your hate inhibits your thinking. Your hate prevents you from reading words accurately and demands you read into them meanings not there.

As I said, the dictionary is a good example of why he wasn't guilty.
Differing view or opinion doesn't = hate. Calling out someone for who or what they are doesn't equate to hate. Go back to the dictionary you're trying to quote.


What you exhibit with regard to anything Trump related is hatred. It's like he broke up with you over text.
I don't hate snakes. But I warn people about the danger.
More than half of your 'danger' is made up delusion.
TS is certainly entitled to his 'warnings'.

Even when the arrogance responsible for such pontificating is delusional .
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Canada2017 said:

quash said:

Canada2017 said:

quash said:

Canada2017 said:

robby44 said:

"That's Not A Chip On My Shoulder. That's Your Foot On My Neck" Malcolm X
The fatal bullets lodged throughout Malcolm X's chest and abdomen were put there by blacks....not cops.


Ok.

Now back to that foot on his neck.

I wasn't the one who brought up Malcolm X.

Now back to that double standard .



No, you weren't. You were the one who tried to obfuscate the point.

Now, back to the point.

Not true.

But you have always excelled in lying .

For you its just a way to pass the time .

Year after meaningless year.


And you keep running. Shock.

MLK made a valid point about oppression. Your response was that he was killed by Blacks.

You're a good Sassanach.


That was in reference to Malcolm X, not MLK Jr.

edit - saw the response after my post, but the point is still important.

Pretty weak to confuse Malcolm X with MLK but pretend the other guy is 'racist'.


I did confuse the two.

And I never called Canada a racist. Didn't even imply because I don't think he is one.

Then why use the boot on the neck phrase in response to him?
""That's Not A Chip On My Shoulder. That's Your Foot On My Neck" Malcolm X" was the quote I was referencing.
And why use that phrase?
This is a thread about Chauvin.
Answer the question. Why did you choose that phrase when answering Canada, if you were not implying racism?
I have given you the answer. Use your context skills.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Canada2017 said:

quash said:

Canada2017 said:

quash said:

Canada2017 said:

robby44 said:

"That's Not A Chip On My Shoulder. That's Your Foot On My Neck" Malcolm X
The fatal bullets lodged throughout Malcolm X's chest and abdomen were put there by blacks....not cops.


Ok.

Now back to that foot on his neck.

I wasn't the one who brought up Malcolm X.

Now back to that double standard .



No, you weren't. You were the one who tried to obfuscate the point.

Now, back to the point.

Not true.

But you have always excelled in lying .

For you its just a way to pass the time .

Year after meaningless year.


And you keep running. Shock.

MLK made a valid point about oppression. Your response was that he was killed by Blacks.

You're a good Sassanach.


That was in reference to Malcolm X, not MLK Jr.

edit - saw the response after my post, but the point is still important.

Pretty weak to confuse Malcolm X with MLK but pretend the other guy is 'racist'.


I did confuse the two.

And I never called Canada a racist. Didn't even imply because I don't think he is one.

Then why use the boot on the neck phrase in response to him?
""That's Not A Chip On My Shoulder. That's Your Foot On My Neck" Malcolm X" was the quote I was referencing.
And why use that phrase?
This is a thread about Chauvin.
Answer the question. Why did you choose that phrase when answering Canada, if you were not implying racism?
I have given you the answer. Use your context skills.
The answer is that you will not admit to a cheap shot you tried.

Noted.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No matter what the verdict, it won't be enough. The rat people are going to loot, burn, and destroy anyway. Why? Because that is who they are what they do and they know in this administration, there will be no consequences for their criminal actions.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"

-- Barack Obama
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Canon said:

TexasScientist said:

Canon said:

TexasScientist said:

Canon said:

TexasScientist said:

Canon said:

TexasScientist said:

Canada2017 said:

Canon said:

Jack and DP said:




Incitement to insurrection right there.
Obviously.


Yet the old gal will get a pass......and we all know why .
Yep, the same reason Trump et al got a pass.


Trump didn't get a pass. He just wasn't guilty.
You'r a good example of giving him a pass.


The dictionary is a good example of why he wasn't guilty. But this doesn't matter to you. Hate is powerful.
The cult of personality is powerful.


When others simply don't hate the people you hate, it doesn't mean all those other people worship who you hate. It just means they don't hate who you hate. Your hate blinds you to reason. Your hate inhibits your thinking. Your hate prevents you from reading words accurately and demands you read into them meanings not there.

As I said, the dictionary is a good example of why he wasn't guilty.
Differing view or opinion doesn't = hate. Calling out someone for who or what they are doesn't equate to hate. Go back to the dictionary you're trying to quote.


What you exhibit with regard to anything Trump related is hatred. It's like he broke up with you over text.
I don't hate snakes. But I warn people about the danger.
More than half of your 'danger' is made up delusion.
Yep. kind of like him warning people that snakes can spit fire.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
saykay said:

George Truett said:

D. C. Bear said:

George Truett said:

D. C. Bear said:

George Truett said:

Canon said:

BearN said:

saykay said:

Canon said:

If someone (anyone) decides to take the time to wade through the incoherent word salad above, I'd appreciate both an English interpretation and an executive summary. Thanks in advance.
Since you're 'new' here, I'm generous with my 'first one is free' copy/pastes of an exact excerpt:

The social condition of people is often mentioned in the Bible. For example, the book of Leviticus is all about the law, the right, fair, just living/existence amongst all people on earth. The Bible speaks out against 'corrupt scales' in the market/economy, exploiting the poor by charging exorbitant interest rates/usury, acquiring multiple properties at the expense of the poor/unjust housing, exploiting widows and orphans i.e. misuse of power, welcoming immigrants & treating them well, paying day laborers fairly & quickly and the list goes on, and treating others with love and grace above all else, just to name a few of our responsibilities in the short 80+ years or so we spend on this earth.

So, if the Bible is true, social justice, equality and our role in addressing it, in fact are a concern to God (Hat tip: OldBear & others still questioning that Biblical reference).

And for those not yet convinced, Jesus cared as much as God instructed us to on earth in his reality... He healed people, fed people, embraced the outcast & crossed racial / ethnic barriers, AND he defended women & children in a culture in a time when that was even less popular to do so than it is today on the free boards.


Tying this back to a few posts above, on your prompting, I've been reading thru Leviticus looking for the part where God commands Moses to include healthcare benefits to homosexual spouses for the Children of Israel. Can you tell me what chapter that is in? I only see a few references to homosexuals in Leviticus, but they don't address this topic specifically.
It's enjoyable to see someone with so little to add parroting the arguments they have heard from someone else parroting another person, still. None of them ever reaching an analysis more thoughtful than a puddle at a men's urinal.

These topics have been covered here recently and the twisted left wing vision of 'social justice' has been soundly and roundly dispensed with. As copy and paste is the order of the day...
Quote:


Justice (MISHPAT or MISPAT) and Righteousness (SEDEK or TZEDAKAH or TSEDEQ) are paired so often in the bible precisely because they are not the same thing. Justice is most often a judicial/legal/procedural concept within the Bible, related most often to getting what one deserves. Where it references the poor, it is nearly always referring to equality under that law and delivered as prohibitions on oppression of same. Justice toward the poor as conceived of in the Bible is a negative obligation to not oppress, which includes equal treatment under the law and equal treatment with regard to things like delivering wages on time and so forth. That doesn't differ from the English concept of justice and it doesn't include government-imposed wealth redistribution.

Where charitable giving is prescribed, it's generally under the rubric of Righteousness (SEDEK) or Mercy (HESED) as in Micah 6:8. In any charitable sense, MISHPAT is really only used when referring to what God did for the Hebrews (Deut 10:18) not charity they are to give as individuals. SEDEK is an unusual word because it is more or less a general sense of doing what is right, being right or being in the right. It can refer to actions of kings, weights and measures, speech, being vindicated, being pure, being unblemished and so forth. If pairing is important, it's also very commonly paired with (juxtaposed against) wickedness or sin.

With regard to social justice, we often hear about the Jubilee year and the guidance. If those who used the Jubilee year to justify their views on Social Justice and claims that it is biblical actually read the entirety of the instructions for Jubilee (Leviticus 25:8-55), they would probably think better of using that particular justification.

Ultimately, the Bible doesn't really possess the common modern idea of Social Justice, unless by that you mean the Tribe of Israel condemned and fought against and subdued other tribes, because of their ethnicity and religion, and redistributed those tribes' wealth to themselves by use of force of arms (government). Social Justice is tribalism. It is group justice that expressly denies the individual as an image of God. It has nothing to do with MISHPAT or SEDEK or even HESED. A just society is a society filled with voluntary charitable institutions and a government that doesn't pervert justice by showing favoritism to one group or another, but rather holding to extraordinarily strict equality under the law.

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/83392/replies/2078923


Bubbadog was suddenly and unjustly permanently banned from here, apparently because the moderators are thin-skinned and can't take criticism.

So I'm passing on what he wanted to say in response to Golem, I, II, III Canon:

"Of course, justice and righteousness aren't the same thing. What I claim is that they are inextricably connected to each other. That's why they are so often paired. Like thunder and lightning, which also aren't identical. Where there is lightning, there will be thunder. Where there is no justice, there is no being right with God.

"Golem, this is basic. Why are you so intent on denying the truth of the Bible? Because you fear its implication for our own society?"

I agree with Bubba 100%.

I would add that the quote above takes a modern laissez faire approach and imposes it on the scriptures. First, you can't take laws addressed to monarchies and apply them to democracies. Second, the laws in relation to gleaning, etc., shows that interest in helping the poor goes far beyond not oppressing. Third, even applying the calls to not oppress the poor would be transformative for our country.




What on earth did he say? He's one of the most level-headed thoughtful posters you can find.
Not sure. They never tell you when they ban you. And when you ask them why, you get no reply.

The only thing I can figure is that it was his statement was that if people read the posts on this site, they would think Christianity was a mean and hateful religion. I've seen other people post much worse.

Maybe Brian, Ashley, or someone in charge can jump in here and tell us why this happened to a person who was never abusive to anyone.

Or at least they could do the simple courtesy of letting people know why they were banned.


Maybe someone clicked on the wrong user by accident.
Maybe.
I'll help out here in case it was a mixup... Canon is spelled C-a-n-o-n.
When it's not spelled B-e-a-r-i-t-t-o.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

sombear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

sombear said:

Amy Pagitt said:

Nah, I didn't run away. I'm still here watching you guys do the same stuff you always do: pat yourselves on the back for "winning" an argument when all you actually did was respond in bad faith. You don't care to know my perspective, you don't know anything about me or how I formed my own ideas.

In law school, I learned to think about the policy implications for everything. To me, it's not enough to say "the Bible says this is wrong" and not go further to explore how we can live in the way Jesus taught us without compromising on our beliefs. It's not always easy or comfortable to sit and analyze an issue, but it's worth it (to me).

The Bible talks about homosexuality in a few places, but Jesus talks about looking out for the poor, speaking up for those who can't speak for themselves, and loving our neighbors a lot more. It makes me sad when the school I love so much misses the mark. Baylor of course has the right to continue to "other" gay students and employees, but the simple gesture of extending healthcare benefits even to the "unworthy" was an opportunity to love the "sinner" radically.
This is my first post on this thread and haven't read every post. I venture to guess Amy and I disagree on most political issues. I also agree with those who slam strawmen and twitter arguments. The reason I remain off twitter is it's virtually all strawmen and bumper sticker arguments, on both sides. But, I think Amy and a few others on here raise what to me is one of the most vexing questions for Christians on political/cultural issues. That is, how do we reconcile taking firm positions on things we believe are wrong with the command to love our neighbors. It's not easy. On the conservative side, I'm sympathetic to those who argue that to the left, taking any firm position on a moral/cultural issue is "hate." On the liberal side, I understand the argument that sometime conservatives treat things like homosexuality as "super-sins." One of the issues I've always been more liberal on is gay rights. I supported civil unions before the Clintons and Obamas did. BU benefits for same-sex partners/spouses is a tough one. I probably lean to the love side and providing benefits while at the same time not changing BU's position on homosexuality. But I understand the other side. And I don't think it's helpful for Amy or anyone else on either side to so definitively call-out BU and the other side on a difficult issue where well-intentioned Christians can disagree. Y'all are guilty of exactly what you claim to abhor about this thread.
Why is providing spousal benefits to same sex couples the "love side", exactly? Why is BU giving or not giving these benefits even an issue of loving or not loving one's neighbor? This is a false dilemma/dichotomy. It's the prime straw man in their argument, and despite your distaste for strawmen, you seem to have succumbed to a big one.

BU would similarly deny spousal benefits to an employee's girlfriend or boyfriend. As well as to one who claims multiple wives. If someone tried to claim their maid as their spouse in an effort to provide her much needed health insurance, then once she is discovered not to be his actual wife, BU would cancel it. Would then the "loving" position in all these scenarios be to disregard policy and/or principle, and extend coverage to all? Or to anyone else outside BU who asks, for that matter? Why would NOT giving all of them benefits be not loving, or less loving? What, exactly, makes this about love, and why would a same sex "spouse" deserve this love over all the others? I'm just not understanding. Can you explain?

If you can somehow rationalize this to be an issue of love, then it needs to be asked: is it really loving your neighbor if you validate their sin or delusion, or make them more comfortable in their sin? And what about love for God, which must be above all else? Aren't we to love God with everything, and love others only as ourselves, NOT as we do God? If you compromise what you believe to be true to God in order to "love" others, are you not loving them above God, or as God?
Fair point, I just could not think of a better way to characterize one side of the argument other than "love." I totally understand that love can be tough, and I certainly did not mean to suggest the other side of the argument is not loving. I have no problem telling people I think the Bible is clear on homosexuality, and I think I can do that out of love. But I did not go straw man at all. To me, it is consistent, loving, and still sticking to the Bible to maintain the position that homosexuality and gay marriage are wrong, but still pay benefits to a gay spouse. Wright or wrong (I think wrong based on the law) our Supreme Court ruled gay marriage is a constitutional right. Should we suspend benefits as to a spouse who is cheating? Committing other sin? To take your argument to its logical end, we as Christians should be treating all sinners different and not providing benefits or anything else to them. The problem is, we are all sinners, and many of us are unrepentant sinners because we commit the same darn sins every day . . . . But again, I totally understand your position and do not think you are in any way being un-loving.
I can at least appreciate your point of view. You are homophobic, but not actually hating on the homosexuals. That's a good distinction to make.

I do want to interject that all of this is an extreme watering down of the Bible. If you simply read it without your chosen denomination telling you what to think about it, you'll find that the authors often had conflicting ideas. Even the Gospels tell the story a little differently. Not just from different perspectives, they say different things. When we try to be literalists, when we go through the mental gymnastics necessary to rationalize everything in the Bible to our tiny brains, we've put God in a box. We've told ourselves that the authors must have been able to perfectly understand everything they wrote about. I think the truth is different, that it's not so easy. We won't understand it all, the English, Hebrew, Greek languages aren't sufficient to tell it all to us, we just have a tiny nugget of truth, that pertains to us.

I say all of that, because many things in the Bible were sins in the beginning, and later they were not. Most of our 2021 lives would be considered sinful by most religious leaders of the Old Testament. And when it comes to sin, there is always a reason. We were told to not eat unclean meat, because there can be diseases. With better farming, better technology, it became safe and ok. We were told to reproduce as much as we can, when the survival of humanity was in jeopardy. We generally accept now, that it's ok to not have 12 kids in 2021. There was a reason for all of it. I think homosexuality is much the same way. It's hardly singled out in the NT at all. The Greek word can be interpreted as "homosexual assault," and is by some scholars, in reference to the Romans' male sex slaves they kept.

If the Bible is black and white, you're going to have a hard time, and miss the point. It was very black and white to the people that put Jesus on a cross. Jesus didn't just come to fulfill prophecy, he came to change our understanding of God. If you can accept that you might not know everything about God, and that you're not the final judge of all things, life gets easier. You can be free in that knowledge.
The irony is 100 percent of our 2021 lifestyles would be sinful by a New Testament Christian standard, but because condemning those "guilty" of "sins" most of us won't commit is easier than addressing our own internet search histories, we've decided that the handful of verses that address homosexual promiscuity trump the thousands of verses that are actually applicable to our lives.

We're told in the Bible that we're all hopeless sinners. If we start there, and accept the moral of the story is Christ's radical and sacrificial love and not some moral code we are literally incapable as human beings of keeping, we might spend more time extending that love and grace to others and less time judging them to make ourselves feel better about our own sin.
Robert Wilson
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:


We're told in the Bible that we're all hopeless sinners. If we start there, and accept the moral of the story is Christ's radical and sacrificial love and not some moral code we are literally incapable as human beings of keeping, we might spend more time extending that love and grace to others and less time judging them to make ourselves feel better about our own sin.
That's a good word. We should spend more time remembering the wheat/tares parable and the spec/log verses. "There is no one righteous, not even one." We've got way too many older brothers running around.
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

Porteroso said:

sombear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

sombear said:

Amy Pagitt said:

Nah, I didn't run away. I'm still here watching you guys do the same stuff you always do: pat yourselves on the back for "winning" an argument when all you actually did was respond in bad faith. You don't care to know my perspective, you don't know anything about me or how I formed my own ideas.

In law school, I learned to think about the policy implications for everything. To me, it's not enough to say "the Bible says this is wrong" and not go further to explore how we can live in the way Jesus taught us without compromising on our beliefs. It's not always easy or comfortable to sit and analyze an issue, but it's worth it (to me).

The Bible talks about homosexuality in a few places, but Jesus talks about looking out for the poor, speaking up for those who can't speak for themselves, and loving our neighbors a lot more. It makes me sad when the school I love so much misses the mark. Baylor of course has the right to continue to "other" gay students and employees, but the simple gesture of extending healthcare benefits even to the "unworthy" was an opportunity to love the "sinner" radically.
This is my first post on this thread and haven't read every post. I venture to guess Amy and I disagree on most political issues. I also agree with those who slam strawmen and twitter arguments. The reason I remain off twitter is it's virtually all strawmen and bumper sticker arguments, on both sides. But, I think Amy and a few others on here raise what to me is one of the most vexing questions for Christians on political/cultural issues. That is, how do we reconcile taking firm positions on things we believe are wrong with the command to love our neighbors. It's not easy. On the conservative side, I'm sympathetic to those who argue that to the left, taking any firm position on a moral/cultural issue is "hate." On the liberal side, I understand the argument that sometime conservatives treat things like homosexuality as "super-sins." One of the issues I've always been more liberal on is gay rights. I supported civil unions before the Clintons and Obamas did. BU benefits for same-sex partners/spouses is a tough one. I probably lean to the love side and providing benefits while at the same time not changing BU's position on homosexuality. But I understand the other side. And I don't think it's helpful for Amy or anyone else on either side to so definitively call-out BU and the other side on a difficult issue where well-intentioned Christians can disagree. Y'all are guilty of exactly what you claim to abhor about this thread.
Why is providing spousal benefits to same sex couples the "love side", exactly? Why is BU giving or not giving these benefits even an issue of loving or not loving one's neighbor? This is a false dilemma/dichotomy. It's the prime straw man in their argument, and despite your distaste for strawmen, you seem to have succumbed to a big one.

BU would similarly deny spousal benefits to an employee's girlfriend or boyfriend. As well as to one who claims multiple wives. If someone tried to claim their maid as their spouse in an effort to provide her much needed health insurance, then once she is discovered not to be his actual wife, BU would cancel it. Would then the "loving" position in all these scenarios be to disregard policy and/or principle, and extend coverage to all? Or to anyone else outside BU who asks, for that matter? Why would NOT giving all of them benefits be not loving, or less loving? What, exactly, makes this about love, and why would a same sex "spouse" deserve this love over all the others? I'm just not understanding. Can you explain?

If you can somehow rationalize this to be an issue of love, then it needs to be asked: is it really loving your neighbor if you validate their sin or delusion, or make them more comfortable in their sin? And what about love for God, which must be above all else? Aren't we to love God with everything, and love others only as ourselves, NOT as we do God? If you compromise what you believe to be true to God in order to "love" others, are you not loving them above God, or as God?
Fair point, I just could not think of a better way to characterize one side of the argument other than "love." I totally understand that love can be tough, and I certainly did not mean to suggest the other side of the argument is not loving. I have no problem telling people I think the Bible is clear on homosexuality, and I think I can do that out of love. But I did not go straw man at all. To me, it is consistent, loving, and still sticking to the Bible to maintain the position that homosexuality and gay marriage are wrong, but still pay benefits to a gay spouse. Wright or wrong (I think wrong based on the law) our Supreme Court ruled gay marriage is a constitutional right. Should we suspend benefits as to a spouse who is cheating? Committing other sin? To take your argument to its logical end, we as Christians should be treating all sinners different and not providing benefits or anything else to them. The problem is, we are all sinners, and many of us are unrepentant sinners because we commit the same darn sins every day . . . . But again, I totally understand your position and do not think you are in any way being un-loving.
I can at least appreciate your point of view. You are homophobic, but not actually hating on the homosexuals. That's a good distinction to make.

I do want to interject that all of this is an extreme watering down of the Bible. If you simply read it without your chosen denomination telling you what to think about it, you'll find that the authors often had conflicting ideas. Even the Gospels tell the story a little differently. Not just from different perspectives, they say different things. When we try to be literalists, when we go through the mental gymnastics necessary to rationalize everything in the Bible to our tiny brains, we've put God in a box. We've told ourselves that the authors must have been able to perfectly understand everything they wrote about. I think the truth is different, that it's not so easy. We won't understand it all, the English, Hebrew, Greek languages aren't sufficient to tell it all to us, we just have a tiny nugget of truth, that pertains to us.

I say all of that, because many things in the Bible were sins in the beginning, and later they were not. Most of our 2021 lives would be considered sinful by most religious leaders of the Old Testament. And when it comes to sin, there is always a reason. We were told to not eat unclean meat, because there can be diseases. With better farming, better technology, it became safe and ok. We were told to reproduce as much as we can, when the survival of humanity was in jeopardy. We generally accept now, that it's ok to not have 12 kids in 2021. There was a reason for all of it. I think homosexuality is much the same way. It's hardly singled out in the NT at all. The Greek word can be interpreted as "homosexual assault," and is by some scholars, in reference to the Romans' male sex slaves they kept.

If the Bible is black and white, you're going to have a hard time, and miss the point. It was very black and white to the people that put Jesus on a cross. Jesus didn't just come to fulfill prophecy, he came to change our understanding of God. If you can accept that you might not know everything about God, and that you're not the final judge of all things, life gets easier. You can be free in that knowledge.
The irony is 100 percent of our 2021 lifestyles would be sinful by a New Testament Christian standard, but because condemning those "guilty" of "sins" most of us won't commit is easier than addressing our own internet search histories, we've decided that the handful of verses that address homosexual promiscuity trump the thousands of verses that are actually applicable to our lives.

We're told in the Bible that we're all hopeless sinners. If we start there, and accept the moral of the story is Christ's radical and sacrificial love and not some moral code we are literally incapable as human beings of keeping, we might spend more time extending that love and grace to others and less time judging them to make ourselves feel better about our own sin.

I agree with this 100%.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Canon said:

TexasScientist said:

Canon said:

TexasScientist said:

Canon said:

TexasScientist said:

Canon said:

TexasScientist said:

Canada2017 said:

Canon said:

Jack and DP said:




Incitement to insurrection right there.
Obviously.


Yet the old gal will get a pass......and we all know why .
Yep, the same reason Trump et al got a pass.


Trump didn't get a pass. He just wasn't guilty.
You'r a good example of giving him a pass.


The dictionary is a good example of why he wasn't guilty. But this doesn't matter to you. Hate is powerful.
The cult of personality is powerful.


When others simply don't hate the people you hate, it doesn't mean all those other people worship who you hate. It just means they don't hate who you hate. Your hate blinds you to reason. Your hate inhibits your thinking. Your hate prevents you from reading words accurately and demands you read into them meanings not there.

As I said, the dictionary is a good example of why he wasn't guilty.
Differing view or opinion doesn't = hate. Calling out someone for who or what they are doesn't equate to hate. Go back to the dictionary you're trying to quote.


What you exhibit with regard to anything Trump related is hatred. It's like he broke up with you over text.
I don't hate snakes. But I warn people about the danger.
More than half of your 'danger' is made up delusion.
From the tribe that thinks it needs an arsenal of high-powered rifles to "protect their families."

You can't make this **** up.

It's almost like fear -- even that which is statistically irrational -- is a great motivator for everyone, and not just those who look and think like you. If we start there and try to understand why people have these fears, rather than dismiss them offhand, we might solve some of the substantial problems facing them/us.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.

Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.

Or would that get in the way of your screeding?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.

Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.

Or would that get in the way of your screeding?
No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.

Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

Oldbear83 said:

You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.

Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.

Or would that get in the way of your screeding?
No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.

Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.
There were over 800,000 aggravated assaults in 2019. Is that statistically insignificant?
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

Oldbear83 said:

You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.

Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.

Or would that get in the way of your screeding?
No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.

Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.
Oh cut the crap. The numbers show guns work.

The number of crimes prevented by guns, for example, is well beyond the number of deaths by guns, even when you include suicides and gang violence.

As for the need for guns, only a complete fool would pretend folks in, say, Seattle or Minneapolis can fully expect the police department to protect them from violent criminals.

You can't be anything like honest on this topic, and you don't give a damn about people in urban neighborhoods, when your politics is at stake.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Canon said:

TexasScientist said:

Canon said:

TexasScientist said:

Canon said:

TexasScientist said:

Canon said:

TexasScientist said:

Canada2017 said:

Canon said:

Jack and DP said:




Incitement to insurrection right there.
Obviously.


Yet the old gal will get a pass......and we all know why .
Yep, the same reason Trump et al got a pass.


Trump didn't get a pass. He just wasn't guilty.
You'r a good example of giving him a pass.


The dictionary is a good example of why he wasn't guilty. But this doesn't matter to you. Hate is powerful.
The cult of personality is powerful.


When others simply don't hate the people you hate, it doesn't mean all those other people worship who you hate. It just means they don't hate who you hate. Your hate blinds you to reason. Your hate inhibits your thinking. Your hate prevents you from reading words accurately and demands you read into them meanings not there.

As I said, the dictionary is a good example of why he wasn't guilty.
Differing view or opinion doesn't = hate. Calling out someone for who or what they are doesn't equate to hate. Go back to the dictionary you're trying to quote.


What you exhibit with regard to anything Trump related is hatred. It's like he broke up with you over text.
I don't hate snakes. But I warn people about the danger.
More than half of your 'danger' is made up delusion.
From the tribe that thinks it needs an arsenal of high-powered rifles to "protect their families."

You can't make this **** up.

It's almost like fear -- even that which is statistically irrational -- is a great motivator for everyone, and not just those who look and think like you. If we start there and try to understand why people have these fears, rather than dismiss them offhand, we might solve some of the substantial problems facing them/us.
You confuse fear with being prepared
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

bear2be2 said:

Oldbear83 said:

You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.

Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.

Or would that get in the way of your screeding?
No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.

Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.
There were over 800,000 aggravated assaults in 2019. Is that statistically insignificant?
It depends on what you mean by statistically insignificant. Is that number far too high for a nation with our resources? Absolutely. Is it high enough to justify a fear-based campaign to arm every adult in America? No, it's not. In a country of 330 million people, that issue impacts less than 0.25 percent of the population. We've failed to make policy decisions based on much larger percentage risks on many, many occasions in the past.

I think we can all agree that the United States has a violence problem that needs to be addressed. But stating such does little rationalize the fact that only between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of the roughly 36,000,000 American gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation for gun ownership will actually use that weapon for defense purposes.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"only between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of the roughly 36,000,000 American gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation for gun ownership will actually use that weapon for defense purposes."

Only a moron or a completely dishonest person would claim that someone has to fire their weapon for it to be an effective deterrent.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

ATL Bear said:

bear2be2 said:

Oldbear83 said:

You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.

Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.

Or would that get in the way of your screeding?
No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.

Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.
There were over 800,000 aggravated assaults in 2019. Is that statistically insignificant?
It depends on what you mean by statistically insignificant. Is that number far too high for a nation with our resources? Absolutely. Is it high enough to justify a fear-based campaign to arm every adult in America? No, it's not. In a country of 330 million people, that issue impacts less than 0.25 percent of the population. We've failed to make policy decisions based on much larger percentage risks on many, many occasions in the past.

I think we can all agree that the United States has a violence problem that needs to be addressed. But stating such does little rationalize the fact that only between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of the roughly 36,000,000 American gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation for gun ownership will actually use that weapon for defense purposes.
So if I changed it from guns to masks and Aggravated Assault to Covid deaths how would you feel about the fear and paranoia? Drawing out further, what about the deterrent and reduction factor that occurs because of gun ownership? Like the Covid masks, are we taking the precautions via ownership so that number isn't higher or we're subject to more violence in a nation where deadly weapons are readily available and easily "spread"?
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

bear2be2 said:

ATL Bear said:

bear2be2 said:

Oldbear83 said:

You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.

Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.

Or would that get in the way of your screeding?
No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.

Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.
There were over 800,000 aggravated assaults in 2019. Is that statistically insignificant?
It depends on what you mean by statistically insignificant. Is that number far too high for a nation with our resources? Absolutely. Is it high enough to justify a fear-based campaign to arm every adult in America? No, it's not. In a country of 330 million people, that issue impacts less than 0.25 percent of the population. We've failed to make policy decisions based on much larger percentage risks on many, many occasions in the past.

I think we can all agree that the United States has a violence problem that needs to be addressed. But stating such does little rationalize the fact that only between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of the roughly 36,000,000 American gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation for gun ownership will actually use that weapon for defense purposes.
So if I changed it from guns to masks and Aggravated Assault to Covid deaths how would you feel about the fear and paranoia? Drawing out further, what about the deterrent and reduction factor that occurs because of gun ownership? Like the Covid masks, are we taking the precautions via ownership so that number isn't higher or we're subject to more violence in a nation where deadly weapons are readily available and easily "spread"?
Masks -- even those on the mouths of bad guys -- aren't killing anyone, making this a really stupid -- if predictable -- comparison.
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

ATL Bear said:

bear2be2 said:

ATL Bear said:

bear2be2 said:

Oldbear83 said:

You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.

Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.

Or would that get in the way of your screeding?
No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.

Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.
There were over 800,000 aggravated assaults in 2019. Is that statistically insignificant?
It depends on what you mean by statistically insignificant. Is that number far too high for a nation with our resources? Absolutely. Is it high enough to justify a fear-based campaign to arm every adult in America? No, it's not. In a country of 330 million people, that issue impacts less than 0.25 percent of the population. We've failed to make policy decisions based on much larger percentage risks on many, many occasions in the past.

I think we can all agree that the United States has a violence problem that needs to be addressed. But stating such does little rationalize the fact that only between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of the roughly 36,000,000 American gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation for gun ownership will actually use that weapon for defense purposes.
So if I changed it from guns to masks and Aggravated Assault to Covid deaths how would you feel about the fear and paranoia? Drawing out further, what about the deterrent and reduction factor that occurs because of gun ownership? Like the Covid masks, are we taking the precautions via ownership so that number isn't higher or we're subject to more violence in a nation where deadly weapons are readily available and easily "spread"?
Masks -- even those on the mouths of bad guys -- aren't killing anyone, making this a really stupid -- if predictable -- comparison.
The "bad guys" are the ones who don't wear masks or who are unwitting victims of spread for not having one on. That's the comparison. And people with masks die from Covid just like people with guns are victims of crimes. The question is how much of a macro deterrent one is or isn't.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

"only between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of the roughly 36,000,000 American gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation for gun ownership will actually use that weapon for defense purposes."

Only a moron or a completely dishonest person would claim that someone has to fire their weapon for it to be an effective deterrent.
Only a moron would think easing the availability of guns to the point that the United States has would impact the number of aggravated assaults prevented, but not the number of aggravated assaults committed.

Particularly when the number of total gun deaths and mass shootings are steadily climbing with the proliferation of guns in this country.

The gun lobby has essentially flooded the market with guns, putting many in the hands of bad guys, and then taken credit for preventing crimes by criminals they helped arm. It's a great way to sell guns. You need more guns to protect you from the guns we've sold to bad guys.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You seriously think gang bangers are walking into, say, Walmart, and buying guns?

You can't possibly be that stupid, but you have been that dishonest up to now.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

"only between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of the roughly 36,000,000 American gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation for gun ownership will actually use that weapon for defense purposes."

Only a moron or a completely dishonest person would claim that someone has to fire their weapon for it to be an effective deterrent.


I once rented a mother-in-law apartment in a questionable neighborhood from a guy who told me, "I have a shotgun and everyone knows it." No one bothered that house.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

You seriously think gang bangers are walking into, say, Walmart, and buying guns?

You can't possibly be that stupid, but you have been that dishonest up to now.
I think flooding the market with any product makes that product more easily available to everyone -- good and bad.

"Gang bangers," while more than welcome to buy guns at Wal-Mart as long as they don't have a felony conviction or court order against them, can very easily go into a pawn shop and buy the gun their law-abiding neighbor replaced with a newer model last summer. And even stolen guns were sold to an eligible buyer at some point.

Every gun sold puts another gun in distribution. If you're going to make a case for more guns on the market, you can't only claim those in the hands of law-abiding citizens.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

Oldbear83 said:

You seriously think gang bangers are walking into, say, Walmart, and buying guns?

You can't possibly be that stupid, but you have been that dishonest up to now.
I think flooding the market with any product makes that product more easily available to everyone -- good and bad.

"Gang bangers," while more than welcome to buy guns at Wal-Mart as long as they don't have a felony conviction or court order against them, can very easily go into a pawn shop and buy the gun their law-abiding neighbor replaced with a newer model last summer. And even stolen guns were sold to an eligible buyer at some point.

Every gun sold puts another gun in distribution. You can't only claim those in the hands of law-abiding citizens.
Again with the crock. First off, the odds a career criminal will go to any legitimate business to buy a firearm is about as likely as you putting a MAGA sign in your yard for all of 2022.

If you actually believe that, you are so naive that you should not be allowed to walk to school alone.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
muddybrazos
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

Oldbear83 said:

You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.

Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.

Or would that get in the way of your screeding?
No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.

Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.
Crime rates are increasing across the nation. I don't claim to need an ar15 for home protection bc i have a pistol and a shotgun for that. The ar15 is for fun bc shooting rifles is fun. I just spent a long weekend on a friends ranch and we had a nice array of high powered rifles that we used to shoot targets, tannerite, hogs among other things. Nobody got killed.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Oldbear83 said:

"only between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of the roughly 36,000,000 American gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation for gun ownership will actually use that weapon for defense purposes."

Only a moron or a completely dishonest person would claim that someone has to fire their weapon for it to be an effective deterrent.


I once rented a mother-in-law apartment in a questionable neighborhood from a guy who told me, "I have a shotgun and everyone knows it." No one bothered that house.
Most people whose kids shot and killed themselves or others with their guns likely said -- or at least thought -- something similar at one point. Every single one of those guns has a negative rating on the violent crimes prevented scale.

Anecdotal evidence goes both ways, and is thus pretty worthless to this discussion.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
muddybrazos said:

bear2be2 said:

Oldbear83 said:

You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.

Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.

Or would that get in the way of your screeding?
No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.

Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.
Crime rates are increasing across the nation. I don't claim to need an ar15 for home protection bc i have a pistol and a shotgun for that. The ar15 is for fun bc shooting rifles is fun. I just spent a long weekend on a friends ranch and we had a nice array of high powered rifles that we used to shoot targets, tannerite, hogs among other things. Nobody got killed.
Crime rates aren't increasing. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I refer to irrational fear.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/20/facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/

And I have no problem with the "shooting **** is fun" mentality. I just don't think that's reasonable justification for flooding the market with weapons that (in the wrong hands) can kill dozens of people in minutes.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.