Trump is a bully and spent his life surrounding himself with yes men. He’s a child. His daddy should have made him earn his own way.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Any graphic like that is a gross oversimplification. Who knows what standards he's using. I mean Trump took trade protectionism from far left to far right in a single election.
Whitehouse just announced that it would resume oil leases on Federal land.
Anything and everything to win votes, but the damage is already done.
Anything and everything to win votes, but the damage is already done.
It is interesting how the Bible has existed for thousands of years, but in the past 20-40 new scholars discovered new ways to interpret the subject scripture. It’s great for people who want the Bible to say what they want it to say, but not very compelling, otherwise. I read the Bible when I became a Christian hoping it did not say some of what it clearly says. Changing God’s words is the very reason the world is in the mess it is in.
Are you serious? Scholars have been interpreting the Bible for over a thousand years. St Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Erasmus, Kierkegaard?
I did not say otherwise. But, show me where they interpreted it to say homosexuality is not discussed in the Bible. I will wait, because I know you want to be contextual to the actual discussion.
LOL, they are reducing the amount of land that can be drilled by 80% and they are increasing the royalties by 50%. Total vote grab fraud administration. Scum.
Last edited:
They are beholden to the crazies. It is now such a large block of their party.
You did, reread your post. And you didn't mention homosexuality specifically either. The same passages in the Bible have been interpreted many different ways over the centuries, it isn't a new phenomenon.
Would’ve helped 15 months ago.
Dion, you must read the posts in the context of the discussion. But, I think you know that, you just want to pretend you are right.
“subject scripture”
You don't think Barr was a yes man? GD boy, he tripped over his feet clearing Trump of zRussian collusion and he didn't read the report. In the end the 1 time he didn't lick Trump's boots and overthrow the election for him Bye!
I know he was not. Like personally know it. In fact, he hired a lot of people who were not “yes men.” You don’t have to reject facts because of your hate.
The bible says clearly and unequivocally the unrepentant sexually immoral cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Any sex outside of marriage, which can only be between a man and a woman in His eyes, is adultery.
Pseudointellectual scholars can and do argue almost anything about almost everything. It doesn't make it so, and an argument isn't good just because it comes from someone hwo "knows" something.
Pseudointellectual scholars can and do argue almost anything about almost everything. It doesn't make it so, and an argument isn't good just because it comes from someone hwo "knows" something.
You just don't like what it says.
You really don't like that it's true. You know it's true.
Which version of the Bible you referring to, bub? How old is the modern English language?
It's the opposite, you forget I am far left. I wish it were true. Would be awesome, we might actually get some meaningful policy like healthcare. It isn't though and we don't.
Save up all that evangelical hate for the crescendo, my man. You can kiss abortion goodbye in all except the most liberal bastions, and those might not survive the SCOTUS.
In case you haven't noticed, the drums of war are hammering hard. The war machine needs bodies, and abortions steals those, but when it happens you make sure you blame those nasty, uber powerful, evangelicals.
Translation: Dion wants free shit.
Nah man it's the Word of God. Doesn't matter who's translating it, God gets all up inside 'em. Contradictory translations are just you not believing hard enough duh.
You're just more radicalized.
You wouldn't be so far left if you weren't brainwashed into it by an environment that swung unnecessarily too far left after 2008. Your very existence proves it.
also the question of who decided what goes in the Bible. Not every denomination uses the same version
2008? I was actually way more radical in 2001. Matured and mellowed some over the years.
Nope. The Council of Nicaea was completely legit and unbiased. Straight from God. Now go recite the Nicene Creed and hush on the rest you blasphemer.
Yeah. No one translated the Bible until people decided it did not address homosexuality. Nice try, Bub.
Same firm they just retained recently had value set at $30. Was on their site. So $41 is over $10 premium per share.
Poison pills are effective tools to ward off hostile takeovers, but I think the timing combined with the price opens the bod for derivative liability. They can't just shirk off $10 per share profit for their shareholders.
Of course that was part of the defensive strategy of getting blackrock to very publicly acquire every share they could. It 1) drove up current price to make a refusal more reasonable and 2) helped insulate them from the largest shareholder joining in said action.
The scary part is - who is the puppet master (s) pulling billions of dollars of strings?
I did not say anything about contradicting translations. Dude, you cannot follow a conversation.
For Christians, when Jesus referenced an OT book, that was deciding. One reason why I think the Protestants get it wrong with Maccabee’s.
You realize the Bible was written in Old Hebrew and translated in many different ways, correct?
Serious question, are you saying the Bible is written factually? Ie, should be taken literally? Because I don’t think you can defend it.
Was I talking to you? Doesn't look like I'm the one with the reading comprehension issues.
The Bible has every kind of literary device known, as one would expect of a writing inspired by God. The truth found in the Bible should be taken literally. That has been defended for centuries. So, I suspect it can be defended. Not all of the OT was written in Hebrew. You do know that, right?
And, the fact that you point out your serious questions is kind of sad. It would appear that you are more often not serious, than you are serious, if that is an indicator.
You have a real problem with context. But, that said, feel free not to “talk to” me.
What is the truth in the following verse?
Ephesians 6:5-8 Paul states, “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ”
Ah, well, let’s start by saying that the NT was not written in Hebrew. So, you have now changed lanes. Not surprising.
Do you want to do a Bible study with me? Want to discuss the social economic class system in Rome during Paul’s day? The Roman version of welfare and bankruptcy? Is that what you want to discuss?
So, ignoring the fact that the Bible has instances of misinterpretation, assuming your interpretation is the correct one, why would your principle of historical context not apply to homosexuality if applies to slavery? Sure seems like you’re picking and choosing based on political expediency.
Similar threads
