Liz Cheney: The GOP is at a turning point. History is watching us

55,854 Views | 1080 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by Oldbear83
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canon said:

Mothra said:

bear2be2 said:

Mothra said:

bear2be2 said:

Calling conclusions drawn and decisions made by the scientific community "unscientific" without a science background or any expertise whatsoever on this subject reeks of hubris IMO.

And play the semantics game all you want, but the WHO has made and announced the decision to drop gender dysphoria as a mental disorder. The organization no longer views it as such, as you suggested above. That 2022 date merely provides a deadline for noncompliant member countries to make the necessary changes. Neither the research nor the conclusions have changed since that 2019 announcement and nor will they between now and Jan. 1. If having seven more months to pretend the science is on your side makes you feel better, knock yourself out.

To your last paragraph, My belief is that we're all (largely unrepentant) sinners who live immoral lifestyles. Every last one of us. And we will be until the day we die because we were born flawed and our nature guarantees it. Acknowledging that, I'll focus on the love and grace part of the gospel. You can keep your judgment. Let me know how many souls you save.
You're smarter than your first paragraph suggests. Can you tell me what science changed in 2019 that caused the WHO to make the decision to say transgenderism is no longer a mental disorder? You and I both know the science has not changed.

As for the last paragraph, unfortunately it appears you only focus on part of the Gospel message, instead of focusing on the entire Gospel, including why love and grace are necessary. In so doing, you unwittingly distort the Gospel, and it's call to Christians.



I focus on the parts of the gospel Christ did. I have little use for much else.
So Christ was not focused on since and repentance?


Marxists like him suggest that if Christ didn't say it, He didn't care. They think pedophilia and homosexuality are fine because Christ didn't say anything about either directly. They ignore that Christ is God's son and didn't change what constitutes a sin.
We don't really know what Christ said about anything. Violating Jewish laws was sin. Lot supposedly offered his daughters for pedophile acts with God's angels' blessing, and upon the mob's refusal of the daughters, God's angels struck the mob blind for their refusal. (Tells me all you need to know about the god of the OT).
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We do know that within a generation of the execution of Christ, the Christian movement was growing fast enough to concern both Jewish and Roman authorities.

I leave it to the reader to decide what caused that rapid growth, but I doubt it was confusion or a vague message.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

We do know that within a generation of the execution of Christ, the Christian movement was growing fast enough to concern both Jewish and Roman authorities.

I leave it to the reader to decide what caused that rapid growth, but I doubt it was confusion or a vague message.
No need for the Constantine's First Council of Nicaea then. I guess he was wrong about the need.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

We do know that within a generation of the execution of Christ, the Christian movement was growing fast enough to concern both Jewish and Roman authorities.

I leave it to the reader to decide what caused that rapid growth, but I doubt it was confusion or a vague message.
No need for the Constantine's First Council of Nicaea then. I guess he was wrong about the need.
When exactly do you think Constantine was Emperor, TS?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Guy Noir said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

Canon said:

Sam Lowry said:

Canon said:



If there are two choices (which, realistically, is all there are) and you condemn one choice, in metered verse using backup singers (which you have), you are supporting the remaining choice. One cannot come to a crossroads, claim 'there be monsters' to the right and not accept the defacto support for going left.

You and every other never Trumper supported and continue to support socialist policies and politicians. Just own it.
Thank you. It's BS, but at least it's honest BS. Hopefully the cowards will take a lesson.


RINOs have indeed always been cowards...far more afraid of upsetting the left than of upsetting conservative voters. The only policies you lot fight tooth and nail against are conservative policies, whilst capitulating to virtually ever left wing power grab for decades.
Well, congratulations. You've just replaced a conservative leader with one who resisted Trump's legislative efforts but supported his temper tantrum.

Policy before personality, indeed.
We replaced a conservative leader who lost the confidence of her caucus because she was unable to get past her own gargantuan egocentrism and represent the overwhelming sentiments of her district and caucus. Churchill crossed the aisle when he found himself at odds with the rest of his caucus; Cheney should do the same. If she's not ready to do that, she should at minimum have resigned her leadership position rather than use it to undermine an otherwise united caucus. But she didn't do that. And in so doing became the megalomaniac she accuses Trump to be.

The new leader, on the other hand, had no problem balancing the task of representing her district on policy AND playing team ball with her caucus on partisan issues. She was willing to fight for a man who's policies she was not always able to support. And she fought very well, too. Gained my respect, even though I occasionally disagree with her on policy positions. She earned this promotion.

Lost in the debate is the reality that the Conference Chairmanship is often filled by a moderate, for balance within the caucus....to give moderates in the GOP caucus a stake in leadership. So this change actually enlarges the tent, so to speak.

The virtue posture is a hard habit to break. But if you keep trying, you might be able to shake it.
And here we go again. Churchill crossed the aisle for policy reasons. You would have Cheney switch parties over what you consider a personality conflict.

Cult is gonna cult.
The cult would be the Democrats, who never seem to have anyone with the kind of moral crisis that Cheney is experiencing, much less someone in leadership who is actively and very publicly working to undermine the direction the clear majority of the party has chosen to take.

If you let a personality conflict get in the way of doing your job, it's gone well beyond a personality conflict.

She could have just kept her mouth shut and voted the interests of her constituents. She could have kept her mouth shut and helped Republican congressmen raise money, write & pass legislation, etc....you know, serve....serve the people of Wyoming and the members of her caucus. If she feels so strongly about Trump that she's willing to use her own political leadership position to publicly undermine the direction the party (in Wyoming, in Congress, and the nation at large) has chosen to take, yeah, she should switch parties. I mean, she either believes Trump is an existential problem, or not. Put up or shut up.

She will have a hard time winning her primary in WY.
Because she can't play team ball.
That's the way politics works, friend.

Liz Cheney was not undermining the direction of the Republican Party. She was merely voting against Trump's behavior on Jan 6th. MAGA people are playing the same Cancel methodology that the left has been using.


Only thing MAGAs did wrong on Jan 6 was a few of em followed the lead into the Capitol of the shipped in BLM gestapo buses

MAGAs were set up and it sux the truth never gets out
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

We do know that within a generation of the execution of Christ, the Christian movement was growing fast enough to concern both Jewish and Roman authorities.

I leave it to the reader to decide what caused that rapid growth, but I doubt it was confusion or a vague message.
No need for the Constantine's First Council of Nicaea then. I guess he was wrong about the need.
When exactly do you think Constantine was Emperor, TS?
Early fourth century. My point is there were many aspects of Christianity, the nature and divinity of Christ, and even God that were unsettlled for centuries, all the way to Nicaea. Constantine wanted to resolve the conflicts. Even the council couldn't obtain complete resolution and uniformity. And yet, and even today there isn't uniformity of belief.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Florda_mike said:

Guy Noir said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

Canon said:

Sam Lowry said:

Canon said:



If there are two choices (which, realistically, is all there are) and you condemn one choice, in metered verse using backup singers (which you have), you are supporting the remaining choice. One cannot come to a crossroads, claim 'there be monsters' to the right and not accept the defacto support for going left.

You and every other never Trumper supported and continue to support socialist policies and politicians. Just own it.
Thank you. It's BS, but at least it's honest BS. Hopefully the cowards will take a lesson.


RINOs have indeed always been cowards...far more afraid of upsetting the left than of upsetting conservative voters. The only policies you lot fight tooth and nail against are conservative policies, whilst capitulating to virtually ever left wing power grab for decades.
Well, congratulations. You've just replaced a conservative leader with one who resisted Trump's legislative efforts but supported his temper tantrum.

Policy before personality, indeed.
We replaced a conservative leader who lost the confidence of her caucus because she was unable to get past her own gargantuan egocentrism and represent the overwhelming sentiments of her district and caucus. Churchill crossed the aisle when he found himself at odds with the rest of his caucus; Cheney should do the same. If she's not ready to do that, she should at minimum have resigned her leadership position rather than use it to undermine an otherwise united caucus. But she didn't do that. And in so doing became the megalomaniac she accuses Trump to be.

The new leader, on the other hand, had no problem balancing the task of representing her district on policy AND playing team ball with her caucus on partisan issues. She was willing to fight for a man who's policies she was not always able to support. And she fought very well, too. Gained my respect, even though I occasionally disagree with her on policy positions. She earned this promotion.

Lost in the debate is the reality that the Conference Chairmanship is often filled by a moderate, for balance within the caucus....to give moderates in the GOP caucus a stake in leadership. So this change actually enlarges the tent, so to speak.

The virtue posture is a hard habit to break. But if you keep trying, you might be able to shake it.
And here we go again. Churchill crossed the aisle for policy reasons. You would have Cheney switch parties over what you consider a personality conflict.

Cult is gonna cult.
The cult would be the Democrats, who never seem to have anyone with the kind of moral crisis that Cheney is experiencing, much less someone in leadership who is actively and very publicly working to undermine the direction the clear majority of the party has chosen to take.

If you let a personality conflict get in the way of doing your job, it's gone well beyond a personality conflict.

She could have just kept her mouth shut and voted the interests of her constituents. She could have kept her mouth shut and helped Republican congressmen raise money, write & pass legislation, etc....you know, serve....serve the people of Wyoming and the members of her caucus. If she feels so strongly about Trump that she's willing to use her own political leadership position to publicly undermine the direction the party (in Wyoming, in Congress, and the nation at large) has chosen to take, yeah, she should switch parties. I mean, she either believes Trump is an existential problem, or not. Put up or shut up.

She will have a hard time winning her primary in WY.
Because she can't play team ball.
That's the way politics works, friend.

Liz Cheney was not undermining the direction of the Republican Party. She was merely voting against Trump's behavior on Jan 6th. MAGA people are playing the same Cancel methodology that the left has been using.


Only thing MAGAs did wrong on Jan 6 was a few of em followed the lead into the Capitol of the shipped in BLM gestapo buses

MAGAs were set up and it sux the truth never gets out
That's the most irresponsible thing you've ever said. There is no evidence BLM had anything to do with 1/6 other than circulating social media conspiracy theorists' wild speculation. More than a few of them followed other MAGA people who are on video breaking out windows and doors, assaulting police officers, and forcing their way into the Capitol. Those same MAGA people have been arrested, and not a single one of them professes to be BLM, but they all admit to being MAGA.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Florda_mike said:

Guy Noir said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

Canon said:

Sam Lowry said:

Canon said:



If there are two choices (which, realistically, is all there are) and you condemn one choice, in metered verse using backup singers (which you have), you are supporting the remaining choice. One cannot come to a crossroads, claim 'there be monsters' to the right and not accept the defacto support for going left.

You and every other never Trumper supported and continue to support socialist policies and politicians. Just own it.
Thank you. It's BS, but at least it's honest BS. Hopefully the cowards will take a lesson.


RINOs have indeed always been cowards...far more afraid of upsetting the left than of upsetting conservative voters. The only policies you lot fight tooth and nail against are conservative policies, whilst capitulating to virtually ever left wing power grab for decades.
Well, congratulations. You've just replaced a conservative leader with one who resisted Trump's legislative efforts but supported his temper tantrum.

Policy before personality, indeed.
We replaced a conservative leader who lost the confidence of her caucus because she was unable to get past her own gargantuan egocentrism and represent the overwhelming sentiments of her district and caucus. Churchill crossed the aisle when he found himself at odds with the rest of his caucus; Cheney should do the same. If she's not ready to do that, she should at minimum have resigned her leadership position rather than use it to undermine an otherwise united caucus. But she didn't do that. And in so doing became the megalomaniac she accuses Trump to be.

The new leader, on the other hand, had no problem balancing the task of representing her district on policy AND playing team ball with her caucus on partisan issues. She was willing to fight for a man who's policies she was not always able to support. And she fought very well, too. Gained my respect, even though I occasionally disagree with her on policy positions. She earned this promotion.

Lost in the debate is the reality that the Conference Chairmanship is often filled by a moderate, for balance within the caucus....to give moderates in the GOP caucus a stake in leadership. So this change actually enlarges the tent, so to speak.

The virtue posture is a hard habit to break. But if you keep trying, you might be able to shake it.
And here we go again. Churchill crossed the aisle for policy reasons. You would have Cheney switch parties over what you consider a personality conflict.

Cult is gonna cult.
The cult would be the Democrats, who never seem to have anyone with the kind of moral crisis that Cheney is experiencing, much less someone in leadership who is actively and very publicly working to undermine the direction the clear majority of the party has chosen to take.

If you let a personality conflict get in the way of doing your job, it's gone well beyond a personality conflict.

She could have just kept her mouth shut and voted the interests of her constituents. She could have kept her mouth shut and helped Republican congressmen raise money, write & pass legislation, etc....you know, serve....serve the people of Wyoming and the members of her caucus. If she feels so strongly about Trump that she's willing to use her own political leadership position to publicly undermine the direction the party (in Wyoming, in Congress, and the nation at large) has chosen to take, yeah, she should switch parties. I mean, she either believes Trump is an existential problem, or not. Put up or shut up.

She will have a hard time winning her primary in WY.
Because she can't play team ball.
That's the way politics works, friend.

Liz Cheney was not undermining the direction of the Republican Party. She was merely voting against Trump's behavior on Jan 6th. MAGA people are playing the same Cancel methodology that the left has been using.


Only thing MAGAs did wrong on Jan 6 was a few of em followed the lead into the Capitol of the shipped in BLM gestapo buses

MAGAs were set up and it sux the truth never gets out


BLM lead the Jan 6 Capitol assault? Busloads of them?

Holy crap.
“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
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Canon said:

Mothra said:

bear2be2 said:

Mothra said:

bear2be2 said:

Calling conclusions drawn and decisions made by the scientific community "unscientific" without a science background or any expertise whatsoever on this subject reeks of hubris IMO.

And play the semantics game all you want, but the WHO has made and announced the decision to drop gender dysphoria as a mental disorder. The organization no longer views it as such, as you suggested above. That 2022 date merely provides a deadline for noncompliant member countries to make the necessary changes. Neither the research nor the conclusions have changed since that 2019 announcement and nor will they between now and Jan. 1. If having seven more months to pretend the science is on your side makes you feel better, knock yourself out.

To your last paragraph, My belief is that we're all (largely unrepentant) sinners who live immoral lifestyles. Every last one of us. And we will be until the day we die because we were born flawed and our nature guarantees it. Acknowledging that, I'll focus on the love and grace part of the gospel. You can keep your judgment. Let me know how many souls you save.
You're smarter than your first paragraph suggests. Can you tell me what science changed in 2019 that caused the WHO to make the decision to say transgenderism is no longer a mental disorder? You and I both know the science has not changed.

As for the last paragraph, unfortunately it appears you only focus on part of the Gospel message, instead of focusing on the entire Gospel, including why love and grace are necessary. In so doing, you unwittingly distort the Gospel, and it's call to Christians.



I focus on the parts of the gospel Christ did. I have little use for much else.
So Christ was not focused on since and repentance?


Marxists like him suggest that if Christ didn't say it, He didn't care. They think pedophilia and homosexuality are fine because Christ didn't say anything about either directly. They ignore that Christ is God's son and didn't change what constitutes a sin.
We don't really know what Christ said about anything. Violating Jewish laws was sin. Lot supposedly offered his daughters for pedophile acts with God's angels' blessing, and upon the mob's refusal of the daughters, God's angels struck the mob blind for their refusal. (Tells me all you need to know about the god of the OT).
If "we don't really know what Christ said about anything", then we don't "know" any of the other incidents with which you take exception happened either, do we? Always ironic when you use Scripture you reject to question the Scriptures themselves.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:

TexasScientist said:

Canon said:

Mothra said:

bear2be2 said:

Mothra said:

bear2be2 said:

Calling conclusions drawn and decisions made by the scientific community "unscientific" without a science background or any expertise whatsoever on this subject reeks of hubris IMO.

And play the semantics game all you want, but the WHO has made and announced the decision to drop gender dysphoria as a mental disorder. The organization no longer views it as such, as you suggested above. That 2022 date merely provides a deadline for noncompliant member countries to make the necessary changes. Neither the research nor the conclusions have changed since that 2019 announcement and nor will they between now and Jan. 1. If having seven more months to pretend the science is on your side makes you feel better, knock yourself out.

To your last paragraph, My belief is that we're all (largely unrepentant) sinners who live immoral lifestyles. Every last one of us. And we will be until the day we die because we were born flawed and our nature guarantees it. Acknowledging that, I'll focus on the love and grace part of the gospel. You can keep your judgment. Let me know how many souls you save.
You're smarter than your first paragraph suggests. Can you tell me what science changed in 2019 that caused the WHO to make the decision to say transgenderism is no longer a mental disorder? You and I both know the science has not changed.

As for the last paragraph, unfortunately it appears you only focus on part of the Gospel message, instead of focusing on the entire Gospel, including why love and grace are necessary. In so doing, you unwittingly distort the Gospel, and it's call to Christians.



I focus on the parts of the gospel Christ did. I have little use for much else.
So Christ was not focused on since and repentance?


Marxists like him suggest that if Christ didn't say it, He didn't care. They think pedophilia and homosexuality are fine because Christ didn't say anything about either directly. They ignore that Christ is God's son and didn't change what constitutes a sin.
We don't really know what Christ said about anything. Violating Jewish laws was sin. Lot supposedly offered his daughters for pedophile acts with God's angels' blessing, and upon the mob's refusal of the daughters, God's angels struck the mob blind for their refusal. (Tells me all you need to know about the god of the OT).
If "we don't really know what Christ said about anything", then we don't "know" any of the other incidents with which you take exception happened either, do we? Always ironic when you use Scripture you reject to question the Scriptures themselves.
Exactly, for the most part we don't know, which underscores my point that the ' Biblical scriptures' are internally inconsistent and self-refuting. That's the irony.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

curtpenn said:

TexasScientist said:

Canon said:

Mothra said:

bear2be2 said:

Mothra said:

bear2be2 said:

Calling conclusions drawn and decisions made by the scientific community "unscientific" without a science background or any expertise whatsoever on this subject reeks of hubris IMO.

And play the semantics game all you want, but the WHO has made and announced the decision to drop gender dysphoria as a mental disorder. The organization no longer views it as such, as you suggested above. That 2022 date merely provides a deadline for noncompliant member countries to make the necessary changes. Neither the research nor the conclusions have changed since that 2019 announcement and nor will they between now and Jan. 1. If having seven more months to pretend the science is on your side makes you feel better, knock yourself out.

To your last paragraph, My belief is that we're all (largely unrepentant) sinners who live immoral lifestyles. Every last one of us. And we will be until the day we die because we were born flawed and our nature guarantees it. Acknowledging that, I'll focus on the love and grace part of the gospel. You can keep your judgment. Let me know how many souls you save.
You're smarter than your first paragraph suggests. Can you tell me what science changed in 2019 that caused the WHO to make the decision to say transgenderism is no longer a mental disorder? You and I both know the science has not changed.

As for the last paragraph, unfortunately it appears you only focus on part of the Gospel message, instead of focusing on the entire Gospel, including why love and grace are necessary. In so doing, you unwittingly distort the Gospel, and it's call to Christians.



I focus on the parts of the gospel Christ did. I have little use for much else.
So Christ was not focused on since and repentance?


Marxists like him suggest that if Christ didn't say it, He didn't care. They think pedophilia and homosexuality are fine because Christ didn't say anything about either directly. They ignore that Christ is God's son and didn't change what constitutes a sin.
We don't really know what Christ said about anything. Violating Jewish laws was sin. Lot supposedly offered his daughters for pedophile acts with God's angels' blessing, and upon the mob's refusal of the daughters, God's angels struck the mob blind for their refusal. (Tells me all you need to know about the god of the OT).
If "we don't really know what Christ said about anything", then we don't "know" any of the other incidents with which you take exception happened either, do we? Always ironic when you use Scripture you reject to question the Scriptures themselves.
Exactly, for the most part we don't know, which underscores my point that the ' Biblical scriptures' are internally inconsistent and self-refuting. That's the irony.
They aren't self-refuting in any significant way.

If you "don't know", then you cannot logically conclude anything about any supposed inconsistencies. Circular.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

Mothra said:

bear2be2 said:

Mothra said:

bear2be2 said:

Calling conclusions drawn and decisions made by the scientific community "unscientific" without a science background or any expertise whatsoever on this subject reeks of hubris IMO.

And play the semantics game all you want, but the WHO has made and announced the decision to drop gender dysphoria as a mental disorder. The organization no longer views it as such, as you suggested above. That 2022 date merely provides a deadline for noncompliant member countries to make the necessary changes. Neither the research nor the conclusions have changed since that 2019 announcement and nor will they between now and Jan. 1. If having seven more months to pretend the science is on your side makes you feel better, knock yourself out.

To your last paragraph, My belief is that we're all (largely unrepentant) sinners who live immoral lifestyles. Every last one of us. And we will be until the day we die because we were born flawed and our nature guarantees it. Acknowledging that, I'll focus on the love and grace part of the gospel. You can keep your judgment. Let me know how many souls you save.
You're smarter than your first paragraph suggests. Can you tell me what science changed in 2019 that caused the WHO to make the decision to say transgenderism is no longer a mental disorder? You and I both know the science has not changed.

As for the last paragraph, unfortunately it appears you only focus on part of the Gospel message, instead of focusing on the entire Gospel, including why love and grace are necessary. In so doing, you unwittingly distort the Gospel, and it's call to Christians.



I focus on the parts of the gospel Christ did. I have little use for much else.
So Christ was not focused on sin and repentance?
His focus on sin and repentance was almost always framed within the context that individuals should focus on their own.

He saved many of his harshest rebukes for those within the church/faith who wouldn't do that, losing the heart of his message in vain legalism and judgment.

As a Christ follower, I'm called to love God and my neighbor. That's it. If I do the former, I'll long to follow his commandments. If I do the latter, so might others through my actions. But it's not my job to save anyone's soul. I don't have that power. All I can do is try to love others the way Christ loved me. The rest is up to the Holy Spirit.
Christ proclaimed that loving God and loving your neighbor are his two greatest commands, not his only commands, my friend. He makes clear throughout scripture that from those two things, all other actions must flow, but not that they are all that is required of us.

By way of example, in his parting words to the disciples in Matthew 28, Christ tells the disciples, "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."

We know from Christ's other words in scripture what it means to make disciples of all nations, and what kind of obedience Christ commanded his followers to teach others. Christ's first recorded words in Mark Chapter 1 were a call to repentance from sin: "The time has come. The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!" He echos these words throughout scripture. Repentance of sin is not only necessary, but he commands us to teach others about sin and repentance. See Luke 24:37, where Jesus told his disciples to proclaim "repentance and forgiveness of sins" in his name to all the nations. And of course the early church in Acts echoed this message.

The idea that it is loving to our neighbor to sit back and allow them to merely watch our actions instead of telling them about what Christ calls the "Good news" is not only unbiblical, but sinful. Christ did not call us not to talk about repentance and sin, my friend, but just the opposite. The belief that telling others about the path to salvation is somehow vain legalism or judgment is unbilbical. We are not sitting in judgment of others by telling them about sin and forgiveness, my friend. Instead, we are just beggars telling other beggars where the bread is.
Waco1947
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GrowlTowel said:

bear2be2 said:

GrowlTowel said:

bear2be2 said:

Doc Holliday said:

bear2be2 said:

Mothra said:

bear2be2 said:

Mothra said:

bear2be2 said:

Mothra said:

bear2be2 said:

Mothra said:

bear2be2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

Booray said:

BearFan33 said:

Redbrickbear said:

I liked Trump.

Kicking out Liz because she doe not like Trump is stupid.

Kicking out Liz because she is a piece of **** war monger and corporate money worshiping ***** is absolutely correct.
Liz is a never trump idiot that falls for and participates in false media narratives. %A0She can be in congress if her constituents want her, but in no way should be in any kind of leadership position. %A0
I wonder how many of the same posters who are arguing that Liz Cheney is a "war monger" who wants to keep us involved in endless conflicts also were all for the invasions post 9/11, argued Obama was an idiot for continuing the Iraq drawdown and think that maintaining stability in the Mid-East is of vital importance for energy reasons and to help Israel?

Also amazing that people who continually whine about politicians not sticking to their guns based on careerism will castigate someone for taking a position that is obviously the opposite of careerism.
Yep
is it really? %A0 Is she really going to get hurt if she loses her seat? %A0is she really in it for Wyoming? %A0

She lands on her feet no matter what. %A0It's the people of Wyoming who finally get someone who represents them, and the GOP caucus in Congress who gets a leader who knows how to team-build rather than virtue posture.
The problem is the GOP not tolerating differences of opinion. %A0If you don't line up with Trump you're out
Yeah. This is not the way to team-build.
Particularly when you're already fighting an uphill battle both demographically and in your silly religious culture war.

From a purely political standpoint, the Republicans' decision-making since 2015 has been utterly baffling.
Is it really silly to suggest that biological men should not be competing against biological women in sport? %A0That's it in a nutshell. %A0I can think of a number of non-religious reasons for opposing same.

It's silly to act like that's a major issue ... or even a significant part of the trans rights conversation.

And perhaps if the religious right could start in a place of acknowledgment that transgender people deserve basic human dignity and respect, we could have a more nuanced conversation on how to handle rare and specific cases like those you reference here.
It's a major issue because of the precedent it sets. %A0It's a Pandora's box, and could eventually lead to the door being closed to many women who wish to play sports. %A0See the girls in Connecticut who claim they had scholarship opportunities squelched because two biological men who identified as women took first and second in the state track championship's 100m.

I don't know many on the right who think that trans people don't deserve respect and dignity. %A0But often times those terms are code words used by people to mean special rights for people who suffer from mental disorders that cause them to believe they are the opposite sex. %A0And now it is being used by misguided parents to abuse children, in the form of puberty blockers that cause permanent and lasting damage to children. %A0

History has shown that civilizations begin to decline when rampant immorality (particularly, sexual) infects the civilization. %A0The idea that standing up for a moral code is silly, is an idea that is in and of itself silly.



The good old slippery slope fallacy -- a favorite of the church and most others desiring to stall change they're afraid of and/or don't understand.

And your second paragraph is proven false both by the daily verbiage on this board and by your own post here. Referring to transgender as a mental disorder, when the medical and mental health community do not, is not treating those individuals with dignity or respect. It's doing quite the opposite.
Tell me, in what way do I not understand transgenderism? %A0Please enlighten me.

And it's not a logical fallacy if what I described is actually happening, which of course it is.

As for my second paragraph, just FYI, until very recently transgenderism was indeed classified as a mental disorder, and still is by that little medical organization known as the WHO. %A0So how did that designation change? %A0A number of transgender advocates and activists began lobbying medical organizations to label it as something other than what it actually is, which of course they did, succumbing to the pressure from the woke crowd which denies biology, and believes that one can choose their gender. %A0Sorry, but medical organizations that more closely resemble political organizations, and can be lobbied to deny science, don't hold as much weight for me as they do you.

I respect transgender people's ability to live their lives as I do. %A0I simply don't deny science by classifying their behavior as normal, as you do. %A0That, it is not.

I know you are very bitter toward the church my friend, and Christianity in general, but it is the role of the church to be counter-cultural, not to conform to the ways of the world. %A0If that's silly, well, I guess it's been silly for around 2,000 years. %A0



Wrong.

https://time.com/5596845/world-health-organization-transgender-identity/

And the fact that you continue to conflate sex and gender is proof that you don't have a very firm grasp of this issue and have no desire to gain one.

And it is is the church's role to love and serve in a way that is counter-cultural. The fact that it has so badly missed this point is why I'm so bitter towards it.
No, I am right.%A0 They voted on the change in May 2019, but it does not go into effect until January of 2022.%A0 As of right now, it's still listed as a mental disorder by the WHO.%A0 Look it up.

As for sex vs. gender, I simply do not agree that there is a difference.%A0 The idea that gender is a social construct that can be changed, regardless of sex, is a recent (and unscientific) belief that denies biology.

With respect to your last point, your error is your belief that loving someone is not telling them about sin.%A0 This is the opposite of love, and leads them down a primrose path to destruction.%A0 But the fact it is a stumbling block for you is no surprise.%A0 It has been to people for centuries, and especially in today's culture where people don't want to be told their decisions and lifestyles are immoral.
Calling conclusions drawn and decisions made by the scientific community "unscientific" without a science background or any expertise whatsoever on this subject reeks of hubris IMO.

And play the semantics game all you want, but the WHO has made and announced the decision to drop gender dysphoria as a mental disorder. The organization no longer views it as such, as you suggested above.
Sad considering treatment for gender dysphoria had a very high success rate.
... if suicide is your standard for success.


What is the lopper suicide rate for comparison?

Further, why change policy because a fraction of the the already small population of loppers might kill itself?
A better question would be why do you care about policy that doesn't impact you in any material way that might actually reduce the insane depression and suicide rates among this particular population?

The current policy approach to trans rights and health care is a direct response to a failed approach that resulted in consistent and demonstrably poor outcomes.


Because the only way the lopper policy changes work is by forcing others into its make-believe world.
"Forcing?" What's being forced and how?
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

We do know that within a generation of the execution of Christ, the Christian movement was growing fast enough to concern both Jewish and Roman authorities.

I leave it to the reader to decide what caused that rapid growth, but I doubt it was confusion or a vague message.
No need for the Constantine's First Council of Nicaea then. I guess he was wrong about the need.
When exactly do you think Constantine was Emperor, TS?
Early fourth century. My point is there were many aspects of Christianity, the nature and divinity of Christ, and even God that were unsettlled for centuries, all the way to Nicaea. Constantine wanted to resolve the conflicts. Even the council couldn't obtain complete resolution and uniformity. And yet, and even today there isn't uniformity of belief.
My point is that essentially from the start, Christianity had a popular and clear message. The arguments and division only showed up later, after the Church began to enjoy earthly wealth and influence among nobles.

That is, Christ's message was clear from the start, it has always been humans who changed the message to suit their personal ambition that muddied the waters.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Waco1947
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

bear2be2 said:

Mothra said:

bear2be2 said:

Mothra said:

bear2be2 said:

Calling conclusions drawn and decisions made by the scientific community "unscientific" without a science background or any expertise whatsoever on this subject reeks of hubris IMO.

And play the semantics game all you want, but the WHO has made and announced the decision to drop gender dysphoria as a mental disorder. The organization no longer views it as such, as you suggested above. That 2022 date merely provides a deadline for noncompliant member countries to make the necessary changes. Neither the research nor the conclusions have changed since that 2019 announcement and nor will they between now and Jan. 1. If having seven more months to pretend the science is on your side makes you feel better, knock yourself out.

To your last paragraph, My belief is that we're all (largely unrepentant) sinners who live immoral lifestyles. Every last one of us. And we will be until the day we die because we were born flawed and our nature guarantees it. Acknowledging that, I'll focus on the love and grace part of the gospel. You can keep your judgment. Let me know how many souls you save.
You're smarter than your first paragraph suggests. Can you tell me what science changed in 2019 that caused the WHO to make the decision to say transgenderism is no longer a mental disorder? You and I both know the science has not changed.

As for the last paragraph, unfortunately it appears you only focus on part of the Gospel message, instead of focusing on the entire Gospel, including why love and grace are necessary. In so doing, you unwittingly distort the Gospel, and it's call to Christians.



I focus on the parts of the gospel Christ did. I have little use for much else.
So Christ was not focused on sin and repentance?
His focus on sin and repentance was almost always framed within the context that individuals should focus on their own.

He saved many of his harshest rebukes for those within the church/faith who wouldn't do that, losing the heart of his message in vain legalism and judgment.

As a Christ follower, I'm called to love God and my neighbor. That's it. If I do the former, I'll long to follow his commandments. If I do the latter, so might others through my actions. But it's not my job to save anyone's soul. I don't have that power. All I can do is try to love others the way Christ loved me. The rest is up to the Holy Spirit.
Christ proclaimed that loving God and loving your neighbor are his two greatest commands, not his only commands, my friend. He makes clear throughout scripture that from those two things, all other actions must flow, but not that they are all that is required of us.

By way of example, in his parting words to the disciples in Matthew 28, Christ tells the disciples, "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."

We know from Christ's other words in scripture what it means to make disciples of all nations, and what kind of obedience Christ commanded his followers to teach others. Christ's first recorded words in Mark Chapter 1 were a call to repentance from sin: "The time has come. The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!" He echos these words throughout scripture. Repentance of sin is not only necessary, but he commands us to teach others about sin and repentance. See Luke 24:37, where Jesus told his disciples to proclaim "repentance and forgiveness of sins" in his name to all the nations. And of course the early church in Acts echoed this message.

The idea that it is loving to our neighbor to sit back and allow them to merely watch our actions instead of telling them about what Christ calls the "Good news" is not only unbiblical, but sinful. Christ did not call us not to talk about repentance and sin, my friend, but just the opposite. The belief that telling others about the path to salvation is somehow vain legalism or judgment is unbilbical. We are not sitting in judgment of others by telling them about sin and forgiveness, my friend. Instead, we are just beggars telling other beggars where the bread is.

Well thought out. I appreciate the connectedness of the good news, the love commons, repentance and the great commission. However, let's be frank; we do stand in judgment and we decide what is commanded. Judgment is ok if we first judge ourselves by what Jesus commanded. But the commonality (to me) of where the bread is, is to say, "I,too, am a beggar in need of grace not judgment." That is, simple share with the sinner the power of Christ in your life and what led you to repentance.
We cannot say, "Hey, you're sinning here's Jesus." People need and want to know of our journey to the bread and our healing. Your journey is indeed Good News.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Waco1947 said:

Mothra said:

bear2be2 said:

Mothra said:

bear2be2 said:

Mothra said:

bear2be2 said:

Calling conclusions drawn and decisions made by the scientific community "unscientific" without a science background or any expertise whatsoever on this subject reeks of hubris IMO.

And play the semantics game all you want, but the WHO has made and announced the decision to drop gender dysphoria as a mental disorder. The organization no longer views it as such, as you suggested above. That 2022 date merely provides a deadline for noncompliant member countries to make the necessary changes. Neither the research nor the conclusions have changed since that 2019 announcement and nor will they between now and Jan. 1. If having seven more months to pretend the science is on your side makes you feel better, knock yourself out.

To your last paragraph, My belief is that we're all (largely unrepentant) sinners who live immoral lifestyles. Every last one of us. And we will be until the day we die because we were born flawed and our nature guarantees it. Acknowledging that, I'll focus on the love and grace part of the gospel. You can keep your judgment. Let me know how many souls you save.
You're smarter than your first paragraph suggests. Can you tell me what science changed in 2019 that caused the WHO to make the decision to say transgenderism is no longer a mental disorder? You and I both know the science has not changed.

As for the last paragraph, unfortunately it appears you only focus on part of the Gospel message, instead of focusing on the entire Gospel, including why love and grace are necessary. In so doing, you unwittingly distort the Gospel, and it's call to Christians.



I focus on the parts of the gospel Christ did. I have little use for much else.
So Christ was not focused on sin and repentance?
His focus on sin and repentance was almost always framed within the context that individuals should focus on their own.

He saved many of his harshest rebukes for those within the church/faith who wouldn't do that, losing the heart of his message in vain legalism and judgment.

As a Christ follower, I'm called to love God and my neighbor. That's it. If I do the former, I'll long to follow his commandments. If I do the latter, so might others through my actions. But it's not my job to save anyone's soul. I don't have that power. All I can do is try to love others the way Christ loved me. The rest is up to the Holy Spirit.
Christ proclaimed that loving God and loving your neighbor are his two greatest commands, not his only commands, my friend. He makes clear throughout scripture that from those two things, all other actions must flow, but not that they are all that is required of us.

By way of example, in his parting words to the disciples in Matthew 28, Christ tells the disciples, "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."

We know from Christ's other words in scripture what it means to make disciples of all nations, and what kind of obedience Christ commanded his followers to teach others. Christ's first recorded words in Mark Chapter 1 were a call to repentance from sin: "The time has come. The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!" He echos these words throughout scripture. Repentance of sin is not only necessary, but he commands us to teach others about sin and repentance. See Luke 24:37, where Jesus told his disciples to proclaim "repentance and forgiveness of sins" in his name to all the nations. And of course the early church in Acts echoed this message.

The idea that it is loving to our neighbor to sit back and allow them to merely watch our actions instead of telling them about what Christ calls the "Good news" is not only unbiblical, but sinful. Christ did not call us not to talk about repentance and sin, my friend, but just the opposite. The belief that telling others about the path to salvation is somehow vain legalism or judgment is unbilbical. We are not sitting in judgment of others by telling them about sin and forgiveness, my friend. Instead, we are just beggars telling other beggars where the bread is.

Well thought out. I appreciate the connectedness of the good news, the love commons, repentance and the great commission. However, let's be frank; we do stand in judgment and we decide what is commanded. Judgment is ok if we first judge ourselves by what Jesus commanded. But the commonality (to me) of where the bread is, is to say, "I,too, am a beggar in need of grace not judgment." That is, simple share with the sinner the power of Christ in your life and what led you to repentance.
We cannot say, "Hey, you're sinning here's Jesus." People need and want to know of our journey to the bread and our healing. Your journey is indeed Good News.
Absolutely agree with this. To clarify, I was not suggesting we tell the person who is sinning what his sins are, and beat him over the head with scripture, but instead to share with him humanity's condition apart from God, and OUR need for Jesus. When we speak of sin, we should speak of it in more general terms, as opposed to being accusatory. Otherwise, good luck ever planting a seed that will grow.

When I have the opportunity to share the good news with people, I begin by focusing on humanity's fallen condition in general, then I focus on who I was before Jesus, and who I am now. I never get caught up in judging the sin of the person I am speaking with. That is not my place.
Waco1947
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said "Absolutely agree with this. To clarify, I was not suggesting we tell the person who is sinning what his sins are, and beat him over the head with scripture, but instead to share with him humanity's condition apart from God, and OUR need for Jesus. When we speak of sin, we should speak of it in more general terms, as opposed to being accusatory. Otherwise, good luck ever planting a seed that will grow.

When I have the opportunity to share the good news with people, I begin by focusing on humanity's fallen condition in general, then I focus on who I was before Jesus, and who I am now. I never get caught up in judging the sin of the person I am speaking with. That is not my place."

The only thing that I might add is that rather than sharing with them "the depravity of humankind" is to share my own fall into distancing myself from God and failing to live a loving and just life.
My personal witness is more powerful than speaking generally. Depravity(which you may not actually use) is a preachy word and a mystery to people who know the Bible only in a distant way but that is only semantics.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

We do know that within a generation of the execution of Christ, the Christian movement was growing fast enough to concern both Jewish and Roman authorities.

I leave it to the reader to decide what caused that rapid growth, but I doubt it was confusion or a vague message.
No need for the Constantine's First Council of Nicaea then. I guess he was wrong about the need.
When exactly do you think Constantine was Emperor, TS?
Early fourth century. My point is there were many aspects of Christianity, the nature and divinity of Christ, and even God that were unsettlled for centuries, all the way to Nicaea. Constantine wanted to resolve the conflicts. Even the council couldn't obtain complete resolution and uniformity. And yet, and even today there isn't uniformity of belief.
My point is that essentially from the start, Christianity had a popular and clear message. The arguments and division only showed up later, after the Church began to enjoy earthly wealth and influence among nobles.

That is, Christ's message was clear from the start, it has always been humans who changed the message to suit their personal ambition that muddied the waters.
The message formulated in time, and there were differing teachings from the start. It's plain in the ealiest writings of Paul. There is no way to know what Jesus actually said, or taught, other than by supposition, speculation, and conjecture.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

We do know that within a generation of the execution of Christ, the Christian movement was growing fast enough to concern both Jewish and Roman authorities.

I leave it to the reader to decide what caused that rapid growth, but I doubt it was confusion or a vague message.
No need for the Constantine's First Council of Nicaea then. I guess he was wrong about the need.
When exactly do you think Constantine was Emperor, TS?
Early fourth century. My point is there were many aspects of Christianity, the nature and divinity of Christ, and even God that were unsettlled for centuries, all the way to Nicaea. Constantine wanted to resolve the conflicts. Even the council couldn't obtain complete resolution and uniformity. And yet, and even today there isn't uniformity of belief.
My point is that essentially from the start, Christianity had a popular and clear message. The arguments and division only showed up later, after the Church began to enjoy earthly wealth and influence among nobles.

That is, Christ's message was clear from the start, it has always been humans who changed the message to suit their personal ambition that muddied the waters.
The message formulated in time, and there were differing teachings from the start. It's plain in the ealiest writings of Paul. There is no way to know what Jesus actually said, or taught, other than by supposition, speculation, and conjecture.


If you can only know by conjecture, the you cannot know there were differing teachings or even what Paul said since you say it is all conjecture.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

We do know that within a generation of the execution of Christ, the Christian movement was growing fast enough to concern both Jewish and Roman authorities.

I leave it to the reader to decide what caused that rapid growth, but I doubt it was confusion or a vague message.
No need for the Constantine's First Council of Nicaea then. I guess he was wrong about the need.
When exactly do you think Constantine was Emperor, TS?
Early fourth century. My point is there were many aspects of Christianity, the nature and divinity of Christ, and even God that were unsettlled for centuries, all the way to Nicaea. Constantine wanted to resolve the conflicts. Even the council couldn't obtain complete resolution and uniformity. And yet, and even today there isn't uniformity of belief.
My point is that essentially from the start, Christianity had a popular and clear message. The arguments and division only showed up later, after the Church began to enjoy earthly wealth and influence among nobles.

That is, Christ's message was clear from the start, it has always been humans who changed the message to suit their personal ambition that muddied the waters.
The message formulated in time, and there were differing teachings from the start. It's plain in the ealiest writings of Paul. There is no way to know what Jesus actually said, or taught, other than by supposition, speculation, and conjecture.
Oh please, that's bunk from the historical evidence we have. The Gospel spread fast and strong from the start.

You seem afraid of that fact. Me, I am a bit sad that we let the purity of the first Church get polluted with the politics of human schemes, but Jesus warned that would happen too.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

We do know that within a generation of the execution of Christ, the Christian movement was growing fast enough to concern both Jewish and Roman authorities.

I leave it to the reader to decide what caused that rapid growth, but I doubt it was confusion or a vague message.
No need for the Constantine's First Council of Nicaea then. I guess he was wrong about the need.
When exactly do you think Constantine was Emperor, TS?
Early fourth century. My point is there were many aspects of Christianity, the nature and divinity of Christ, and even God that were unsettlled for centuries, all the way to Nicaea. Constantine wanted to resolve the conflicts. Even the council couldn't obtain complete resolution and uniformity. And yet, and even today there isn't uniformity of belief.
My point is that essentially from the start, Christianity had a popular and clear message. The arguments and division only showed up later, after the Church began to enjoy earthly wealth and influence among nobles.

That is, Christ's message was clear from the start, it has always been humans who changed the message to suit their personal ambition that muddied the waters.
The message formulated in time, and there were differing teachings from the start. It's plain in the ealiest writings of Paul. There is no way to know what Jesus actually said, or taught, other than by supposition, speculation, and conjecture.


If you can only know by conjecture, the you cannot know there were differing teachings or even what Paul said since you say it is all conjecture.
I didn't say Paul. I said what Jesus said. We know some of what Paul said from his letters, the ones he actually wrote. (not the ones attributed to him that he didn't write)
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

We do know that within a generation of the execution of Christ, the Christian movement was growing fast enough to concern both Jewish and Roman authorities.

I leave it to the reader to decide what caused that rapid growth, but I doubt it was confusion or a vague message.
No need for the Constantine's First Council of Nicaea then. I guess he was wrong about the need.
When exactly do you think Constantine was Emperor, TS?
Early fourth century. My point is there were many aspects of Christianity, the nature and divinity of Christ, and even God that were unsettlled for centuries, all the way to Nicaea. Constantine wanted to resolve the conflicts. Even the council couldn't obtain complete resolution and uniformity. And yet, and even today there isn't uniformity of belief.
My point is that essentially from the start, Christianity had a popular and clear message. The arguments and division only showed up later, after the Church began to enjoy earthly wealth and influence among nobles.

That is, Christ's message was clear from the start, it has always been humans who changed the message to suit their personal ambition that muddied the waters.
The message formulated in time, and there were differing teachings from the start. It's plain in the ealiest writings of Paul. There is no way to know what Jesus actually said, or taught, other than by supposition, speculation, and conjecture.
Oh please, that's bunk from the historical evidence we have. The Gospel spread fast and strong from the start.

You seem afraid of that fact. Me, I am a bit sad that we let the purity of the first Church get polluted with the politics of human schemes, but Jesus warned that would happen too.
The historical evidence we have is not good and is incomplete. We know various groups of Christians sprang up and spread around the Mediteranian, but that doesn't mean they all had uniformity of belief. Because it spread fast and strong there were differences in what people came to believe about him. It started out as an oral tradition. It was decades before the gospels were written. There were varying understandings of the nature of Christ and his divinity. The belief he was that he was crucified and raised from the dead is about the only common ly held belief.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Again, the initial generation following Christ's death saw wide and fast growth, with no sign of confusion or conflicting messages. You cannot import the politics of 4th century Rome into the first generation of Christendom.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Again, the initial generation following Christ's death saw wide and fast growth, with no sign of confusion or conflicting messages. You cannot import the politics of 4th century Rome into the first generation of Christendom.
Fast growth and spread leads to differences in message. The early Christians were Jewish and believed the message was for Jews. You're saying they were right.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

Again, the initial generation following Christ's death saw wide and fast growth, with no sign of confusion or conflicting messages. You cannot import the politics of 4th century Rome into the first generation of Christendom.
Fast growth and spread leads to differences in message. The early Christians were Jewish and believed the message was for Jews. You're saying they were right.
** sigh **

No, I am saying that your claim to confusion and different messages only applies to later generations, not the 1st century. As for the Jews-only claim, see Paul's writings for better context, notably Cornelius.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

Again, the initial generation following Christ's death saw wide and fast growth, with no sign of confusion or conflicting messages. You cannot import the politics of 4th century Rome into the first generation of Christendom.
Fast growth and spread leads to differences in message. The early Christians were Jewish and believed the message was for Jews. You're saying they were right.
** sigh **

No, I am saying that your claim to confusion and different messages only applies to later generations, not the 1st century. As for the Jews-only claim, see Paul's writings for better context, notably Cornelius.
You know Paul's letters were first century, and much of what he wrote was to clear up confusion and what he believed heresy, and establish the message was for gentiles and not just the Jews. If you are correct, there was no need for him to write any letters.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Waco1947 said:

Mothra said "Absolutely agree with this. To clarify, I was not suggesting we tell the person who is sinning what his sins are, and beat him over the head with scripture, but instead to share with him humanity's condition apart from God, and OUR need for Jesus. When we speak of sin, we should speak of it in more general terms, as opposed to being accusatory. Otherwise, good luck ever planting a seed that will grow.

When I have the opportunity to share the good news with people, I begin by focusing on humanity's fallen condition in general, then I focus on who I was before Jesus, and who I am now. I never get caught up in judging the sin of the person I am speaking with. That is not my place."

The only thing that I might add is that rather than sharing with them "the depravity of humankind" is to share my own fall into distancing myself from God and failing to live a loving and just life.
My personal witness is more powerful than speaking generally. Depravity(which you may not actually use) is a preachy word and a mystery to people who know the Bible only in a distant way but that is only semantics.
There is of course a way to explain man's depravity in general terms and in a way the layperson can understand. I've seen the chasm illustration between man and God which is popular in tracks and for interactions with strangers, wherein the cross bridges the chasm between man and God. There are other popular methods. I like many that Ray Comfort uses, and have found them to be very effective. But without a basic understanding of why God said his Son's death was necessary, I am not sure you will have a true conversion.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

Again, the initial generation following Christ's death saw wide and fast growth, with no sign of confusion or conflicting messages. You cannot import the politics of 4th century Rome into the first generation of Christendom.
Fast growth and spread leads to differences in message. The early Christians were Jewish and believed the message was for Jews. You're saying they were right.
** sigh **

No, I am saying that your claim to confusion and different messages only applies to later generations, not the 1st century. As for the Jews-only claim, see Paul's writings for better context, notably Cornelius.
You know Paul's letters were first century, and much of what he wrote was to clear up confusion and what he believed heresy, and establish the message was for gentiles and not just the Jews. If you are correct, there was no need for him to write any letters.
That statement tells me you have not bothered to study any of Paul's epistles, nor have you ever founded anything. It's the same 'logic' as saying since your new car is great there is no need for an owner's manual.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

curtpenn said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

We do know that within a generation of the execution of Christ, the Christian movement was growing fast enough to concern both Jewish and Roman authorities.

I leave it to the reader to decide what caused that rapid growth, but I doubt it was confusion or a vague message.
No need for the Constantine's First Council of Nicaea then. I guess he was wrong about the need.
When exactly do you think Constantine was Emperor, TS?
Early fourth century. My point is there were many aspects of Christianity, the nature and divinity of Christ, and even God that were unsettlled for centuries, all the way to Nicaea. Constantine wanted to resolve the conflicts. Even the council couldn't obtain complete resolution and uniformity. And yet, and even today there isn't uniformity of belief.
My point is that essentially from the start, Christianity had a popular and clear message. The arguments and division only showed up later, after the Church began to enjoy earthly wealth and influence among nobles.

That is, Christ's message was clear from the start, it has always been humans who changed the message to suit their personal ambition that muddied the waters.
The message formulated in time, and there were differing teachings from the start. It's plain in the ealiest writings of Paul. There is no way to know what Jesus actually said, or taught, other than by supposition, speculation, and conjecture.


If you can only know by conjecture, the you cannot know there were differing teachings or even what Paul said since you say it is all conjecture.
I didn't say Paul. I said what Jesus said. We know some of what Paul said from his letters, the ones he actually wrote. (not the ones attributed to him that he didn't write)
So, if Paul said that Jesus said something, then Jesus must have said that then?
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:

TexasScientist said:

curtpenn said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

We do know that within a generation of the execution of Christ, the Christian movement was growing fast enough to concern both Jewish and Roman authorities.

I leave it to the reader to decide what caused that rapid growth, but I doubt it was confusion or a vague message.
No need for the Constantine's First Council of Nicaea then. I guess he was wrong about the need.
When exactly do you think Constantine was Emperor, TS?
Early fourth century. My point is there were many aspects of Christianity, the nature and divinity of Christ, and even God that were unsettlled for centuries, all the way to Nicaea. Constantine wanted to resolve the conflicts. Even the council couldn't obtain complete resolution and uniformity. And yet, and even today there isn't uniformity of belief.
My point is that essentially from the start, Christianity had a popular and clear message. The arguments and division only showed up later, after the Church began to enjoy earthly wealth and influence among nobles.

That is, Christ's message was clear from the start, it has always been humans who changed the message to suit their personal ambition that muddied the waters.
The message formulated in time, and there were differing teachings from the start. It's plain in the ealiest writings of Paul. There is no way to know what Jesus actually said, or taught, other than by supposition, speculation, and conjecture.


If you can only know by conjecture, the you cannot know there were differing teachings or even what Paul said since you say it is all conjecture.
I didn't say Paul. I said what Jesus said. We know some of what Paul said from his letters, the ones he actually wrote. (not the ones attributed to him that he didn't write)
So, if Paul said that Jesus said something, then Jesus must have said that then?
We don't reallly know what Jesus said. We know what Paul said in his authentic letters. Paul didn't know what Jesus said. He knows what he may have been told Jesus said. I'm sure one of the reasons Paul visited with James, Jesus brother was to hear what James had to say about Jesus. There is no way to know how much Jesus message was embellished by others over a few years of oral retelling.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

curtpenn said:

TexasScientist said:

curtpenn said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

We do know that within a generation of the execution of Christ, the Christian movement was growing fast enough to concern both Jewish and Roman authorities.

I leave it to the reader to decide what caused that rapid growth, but I doubt it was confusion or a vague message.
No need for the Constantine's First Council of Nicaea then. I guess he was wrong about the need.
When exactly do you think Constantine was Emperor, TS?
Early fourth century. My point is there were many aspects of Christianity, the nature and divinity of Christ, and even God that were unsettlled for centuries, all the way to Nicaea. Constantine wanted to resolve the conflicts. Even the council couldn't obtain complete resolution and uniformity. And yet, and even today there isn't uniformity of belief.
My point is that essentially from the start, Christianity had a popular and clear message. The arguments and division only showed up later, after the Church began to enjoy earthly wealth and influence among nobles.

That is, Christ's message was clear from the start, it has always been humans who changed the message to suit their personal ambition that muddied the waters.
The message formulated in time, and there were differing teachings from the start. It's plain in the ealiest writings of Paul. There is no way to know what Jesus actually said, or taught, other than by supposition, speculation, and conjecture.


If you can only know by conjecture, the you cannot know there were differing teachings or even what Paul said since you say it is all conjecture.
I didn't say Paul. I said what Jesus said. We know some of what Paul said from his letters, the ones he actually wrote. (not the ones attributed to him that he didn't write)
So, if Paul said that Jesus said something, then Jesus must have said that then?
We don't reallly know what Jesus said. We know what Paul said in his authentic letters. Paul didn't know what Jesus said. He knows what he may have been told Jesus said. I'm sure one of the reasons Paul visited with James, Jesus brother was to hear what James had to say about Jesus. There is no way to know how much Jesus message was embellished by others over a few years of oral retelling.


How do we know what Paul said without actually having his original writings complete with verifiable provenance? You assume writings attributed to Paul are somehow accurate whereas those attributed to others are not. Odd.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

Again, the initial generation following Christ's death saw wide and fast growth, with no sign of confusion or conflicting messages. You cannot import the politics of 4th century Rome into the first generation of Christendom.
Fast growth and spread leads to differences in message. The early Christians were Jewish and believed the message was for Jews. You're saying they were right.
** sigh **

No, I am saying that your claim to confusion and different messages only applies to later generations, not the 1st century. As for the Jews-only claim, see Paul's writings for better context, notably Cornelius.
You know Paul's letters were first century, and much of what he wrote was to clear up confusion and what he believed heresy, and establish the message was for gentiles and not just the Jews. If you are correct, there was no need for him to write any letters.
You are wrong. Paul's letters established churches around the Empire, and plainly were meant to encourage, teach a consistent message, and confirm the Gospel.

You continue to try shaping Paul into something he never was, and falsely paint the Church as something other than the historical evidence we have from writings and events.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Waco1947
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Waco1947 said:

Mothra said "Absolutely agree with this. To clarify, I was not suggesting we tell the person who is sinning what his sins are, and beat him over the head with scripture, but instead to share with him humanity's condition apart from God, and OUR need for Jesus. When we speak of sin, we should speak of it in more general terms, as opposed to being accusatory. Otherwise, good luck ever planting a seed that will grow.

When I have the opportunity to share the good news with people, I begin by focusing on humanity's fallen condition in general, then I focus on who I was before Jesus, and who I am now. I never get caught up in judging the sin of the person I am speaking with. That is not my place."

The only thing that I might add is that rather than sharing with them "the depravity of humankind" is to share my own fall into distancing myself from God and failing to live a loving and just life.
My personal witness is more powerful than speaking generally. Depravity(which you may not actually use) is a preachy word and a mystery to people who know the Bible only in a distant way but that is only semantics.
There is of course a way to explain man's depravity in general terms and in a way the layperson can understand. I've seen the chasm illustration between man and God which is popular in tracks and for interactions with strangers, wherein the cross bridges the chasm between man and God. There are other popular methods. I like many that Ray Comfort uses, and have found them to be very effective. But without a basic understanding of why God said his Son's death was necessary, I am not sure you will have a true conversion.
"A true conversion" is it a reality and realization that I am far less a good human being than a loving one? The old word is repentance which does not speak much to a modern culture but does point to a necessary turning around of lives and towards a God who lives us
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

Canon said:

Sam Lowry said:

Canon said:



If there are two choices (which, realistically, is all there are) and you condemn one choice, in metered verse using backup singers (which you have), you are supporting the remaining choice. One cannot come to a crossroads, claim 'there be monsters' to the right and not accept the defacto support for going left.

You and every other never Trumper supported and continue to support socialist policies and politicians. Just own it.
Thank you. It's BS, but at least it's honest BS. Hopefully the cowards will take a lesson.


RINOs have indeed always been cowards...far more afraid of upsetting the left than of upsetting conservative voters. The only policies you lot fight tooth and nail against are conservative policies, whilst capitulating to virtually ever left wing power grab for decades.
Well, congratulations. You've just replaced a conservative leader with one who resisted Trump's legislative efforts but supported his temper tantrum.

Policy before personality, indeed.
We replaced a conservative leader who lost the confidence of her caucus because she was unable to get past her own gargantuan egocentrism and represent the overwhelming sentiments of her district and caucus. Churchill crossed the aisle when he found himself at odds with the rest of his caucus; Cheney should do the same. If she's not ready to do that, she should at minimum have resigned her leadership position rather than use it to undermine an otherwise united caucus. But she didn't do that. And in so doing became the megalomaniac she accuses Trump to be.

The new leader, on the other hand, had no problem balancing the task of representing her district on policy AND playing team ball with her caucus on partisan issues. She was willing to fight for a man who's policies she was not always able to support. And she fought very well, too. Gained my respect, even though I occasionally disagree with her on policy positions. She earned this promotion.

Lost in the debate is the reality that the Conference Chairmanship is often filled by a moderate, for balance within the caucus....to give moderates in the GOP caucus a stake in leadership. So this change actually enlarges the tent, so to speak.

The virtue posture is a hard habit to break. But if you keep trying, you might be able to shake it.
And here we go again. Churchill crossed the aisle for policy reasons. You would have Cheney switch parties over what you consider a personality conflict.

Cult is gonna cult.
The cult would be the Democrats, who never seem to have anyone with the kind of moral crisis that Cheney is experiencing, much less someone in leadership who is actively and very publicly working to undermine the direction the clear majority of the party has chosen to take.

If you let a personality conflict get in the way of doing your job, it's gone well beyond a personality conflict.

She could have just kept her mouth shut and voted the interests of her constituents. She could have kept her mouth shut and helped Republican congressmen raise money, write & pass legislation, etc....you know, serve....serve the people of Wyoming and the members of her caucus. If she feels so strongly about Trump that she's willing to use her own political leadership position to publicly undermine the direction the party (in Wyoming, in Congress, and the nation at large) has chosen to take, yeah, she should switch parties. I mean, she either believes Trump is an existential problem, or not. Put up or shut up.

She will have a hard time winning her primary in WY.
Because she can't play team ball.
That's the way politics works, friend.

Trump and the R House leadership kept bringing up 1/6 and promoting the lie they were foisting upon America. You're saying she should just shut up, stand by, while Trump tries to assuage his loss, rile up his base and others with a bold face lie, in order to position himself as the R godfather, and for a run in 2024? Trump is a walking talking personality conflict. He's dangerous for what he is trying to do to undermin democracy, and dangerous because of his extreme malignant narcissist personality disorder. People with that type of disorder are unpredictable, operate only in a manner of what they perceive is best for themselves, have no empathy or conscience. We're lucky we got him out of office with nothing worse than 1/6, loss of the WH, House and Senate to show for it.
The only thing Trump endangers is the vanity of his critics.
Guy Noir
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

Booray said:

Forest Bueller said:

Politicians gonna politic.

There is virtually no straight up national level politician.

They are self enriching scum besides a few exceptions.


Liz Cheney is one of the few exceptions apparently. There is no way she is doing this to enhance her power or enrich herself. This is purely a stand on principal.

Yet many who say "we just want politicians to be straight with us" and "they are all out for themselves" vilify this politician for being straight with us and taking a stand against her personal interest.

The lesson, as always, is we get the government we deserve.
I see you're a man of words, not actions.

She will support forever wars and selling out to the highest bidder despite telling you she won't.


And you base this. Conclusion on what?
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.