Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playboy Girl of the Year, anybody?

Why won’t BBC1 or the Anglican poster condemn Trump’s adultery even as they condemn homosexuals?

Because the Anglicans don't care about Trump and whatever he supposedly did or did not do. You are trying to link Evangelicals and Anglicans. They aren't the same.

Well here you are.... Still refusing to condemn adultery while you bash homosexuals.

No. different poster. 207 posters and 2753 viewers. There are many different voices here.

And you’re one of those posters, and you refuse to condemn adultery.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playboy Girl of the Year, anybody?

Why won’t BBC1 or the Anglican poster condemn Trump’s adultery even as they condemn homosexuals?

Because the Anglicans don't care about Trump and whatever he supposedly did or did not do. You are trying to link Evangelicals and Anglicans. They aren't the same.

Well here you are.... Still refusing to condemn adultery while you bash homosexuals.

No. different poster. 207 posters and 2753 viewers. There are many different voices here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playboy Girl of the Year, anybody?

Why won’t BBC1 or the Anglican poster condemn Trump’s adultery even as they condemn homosexuals?

Because the Anglicans don't care about Trump and whatever he supposedly did or did not do. You are trying to link Evangelicals and Anglicans. They aren't the same.

Well here you are.... Still refusing to condemn adultery while you bash homosexuals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

(BTW, Jesus here misunderstands the Pharisaic position - the decision to not follow the laws of ritual cleanliness itself comes FROM THE HEART. Someone who violates the law accidentally, though they may be impure for ritual purposes, has not committed a sin. Many sources of impurity (like menstruation) are completely involuntary, and do not imply a depraved heart or sinfulness. As long as someone follows the law, and purifies as appropriate)

Don’t want to get into the weeds of this or homosexuality. But Jesus made new laws and overturned old laws; he wasn’t simply misunderstanding old laws. It’s quite clear from his behavior in other contexts—eating with society’s outcasts, letting the woman with unbound hair wash his feet—that he really was overturning laws and rituals about impurity. Nothing accidental about it. This is why he was so revolutionary.

Jew here.

I was referring to the specific things he said/implied in that particular passage. The contrast between laws against gossip and slander (what comes out of the mouth) vs the laws of ritual cleanliness, strongly suggests a misunderstanding of the latter laws. Or maybe a deliberate misreading. He is not just saying "I am God, I don't care about the ritual laws".

Yes, he is saying “I don’t care about ritual dietary laws.” You keep trying to put this in a Jewish ritual context and complain it’s a misunderstanding of that. It’s not. He’s deliberately saying, “don’t engage in gossip, slander, or hateful talk, because these are important, not dietary rituals.” I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about that. Speaking of deliberate misreadings, this seems like a deliberate misreading on your part.

he is saying ritual cleanliness is not important - but not "because I am God, and I say so" but because it does not come from the heart. Again, a misreading, deliberate or not, of what the ritual laws are about.

His words are clear on their face. He’s saying: drop the ritual dietary laws. This is exactly how Christians, starting with Paul just a few decades later, have interpreted these passages for two millennia. Jesus was an expert in wordplay and you’re missing what he’s doing here. Trying repeatedly to yank this back into your own Jewish context and waving your hands and saying ”Jesus was stoopid” doesn’t reflect well on your own intelligence or motives.

Anonymous wrote:Playboy Girl of the Year, anybody?

Why won’t BBC1 or the Anglican poster condemn Trump’s adultery even as they condemn homosexuals?

Because the Anglicans don't care about Trump and whatever he supposedly did or did not do. You are trying to link Evangelicals and Anglicans. They aren't the same.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you’re actually a “Christian.” You think Jesus would be completely supportive of your views and that anything is okay except for “homosexuality.” Just like the Sermon on the Mount, really.

The Anglican Church is a refuge for certain people. Good luck.

And YOU call yourself a Christian and sit in judgment? You have some major anger issues to deal with. And prejudices. Hatred. Bigotry. Self-righteousness.

DP. Yikes. And we’re still waiting for you to answer the questions about adultery and mixed fabrics.

Because I'm not that poster. Why is it whenever someone gets in a fight with someone on this board they think they are talking to only one person?

All I care about is that Trump is running the country correctly, and the fact that liberals are screaming bloody murder like stuck squealing pigs confirm that Trump is doing the right thing.

Poe's law invoked.

the media would be charging to his rescue like they did with Bill Clinton, explaining everything away, saying "oral sex is not sex...technically" and other such things. [i]

the media did not mostly say that - the NYT in particular turned on him. Democrats denounced his conduct, and called for him to be censored. Is dishonesty consistent with Christianity?

Male and female could not have evolved separately, they would have had to have been created together within each other's fertile period within their lifespan.


They did not evolve separately. I am not sure what you mean. Micro organisms exchanged (and do exchange) genetic material. They were not gendered nor did they have "fertile periods" It is from that that sex and gender evolved. If you do not wish to sound like a fool you would do well to actually study microbiology and evolutionary biology.

Anonymous wrote:
I have to disagree with you a little bit though. Observing and learning from the world is not following G-d (I respect your Jewish belief) because G-d does not learn anything.

1. What the nature of G-d is, is a mystery. G-d is radically other. To say G-d does or does not learn is to presume to know more about G-d than man can.

2. When I said following G-d, I did not mean imitating G-d. I meant doing what G-d wishes us to do. Following his will. I believe is will is for us to learn about the will.

3. I would suggest your belief in vaccines, contrasted with your belief that Darwin was a dwarf, suggests a lack of familiarity with the nature of scientific understanding of bacteria, viruses, the immune system etc. The theory of evolution is at the heart of scientific biology and medecine, and Darwin as to his science (I do not speak of his theology) was a giant indeed.

^ ^ ^ BBC1 posting above

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

BBC1 is assuming that everyone spanks their children. Must be something in the bible about that.

Why, indeed there is:

Proverbs 23:12
Apply thine heart unto instruction, and thine ears to the words of knowledge.
Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

jew here.

Law does not come from Proverbs.

BBC1

That is true, the Proverbs are not law, but they are wise sayings profitable for wisdom, and on how to train up your child to be righteous.

They were written by Solomon, one of the wisest people to have ever lived. His God-given wisdom is worth heeding, certainly more than some psychologist like Timothy Leary who advised "turn on, tune in, drop out."

Everyone has an authority when it comes to living. I choose the bible. It has not steered me wrong yet.

G-d created the world. Learning from the world - by observation, including science - is therefore following G-d. Even the wisest man who lived thousands of years ago is not an authority over that. To quote a gentile, Bernard of Chartres

"Bernard of Chartres used to compare us to dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants. He pointed out that we see more and farther than our predecessors, not because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic stature."

I agree with you that much of what we learn is from building upon what others have discovered. It is called scientific progress. Without vaccines and doctors learning to wash their hands after surgery before delivering babies, the death rate, and misery index, would be much higher today. I have great reverence for the giants: Pasteur, Newton, van Leeuwenhoek, and many others.

I have to disagree with you a little bit though. Observing and learning from the world is not following G-d (I respect your Jewish belief) because G-d does not learn anything. There is nothing for G-d to learn because he knows everything already. G-d cannot be taught, therefore G-d does not learn. We learn, because we do not know, and we use our senses and mind to discover things about the world around us. The more I learn, the more in awe I am of just how amazing the creation is: our DNA, a sun that burns at a near-constant rate --too much we fry, too little we freeze. The incredible complexity of male and female coming together to form new life. Male and female could not have evolved separately, they would have had to have been created together within each other's fertile period within their lifespan.

And then there are people who think they are standing upon the shoulders of giants but in reality, are standing upon the shoulders of a dwarf staring stupidly up into the backside of a giant. I consider Darwin to be one of these dwarfs, and those standing on his shoulders thinking we evolved instead of being created are not looking at what they think they are looking at.

Anonymous wrote:Playboy Girl of the Year, anybody?

Why won’t BBC1 or the Anglican poster condemn Trump’s adultery even as they condemn homosexuals?

BBC1 here,

Okay, I condemn Trump: he is an adulterer. His conduct is shameful. He is immoral. It reveals a person utterly corrupted by the love of money. Does that mean the entire Republican party is too? Pence? No. Furthermore, the R party is doing good things by combating the 'Oh noes, bad humans are causing the climate to change, woe, woe woe, whaa, whaa, whaa".

I will vote again for Trump. He is the man, along with Pence, orchestrating good conservative pushback against the leftist-progressives in this country who I consider to be more evil than Trump's moral failures. Although Trump's behavior reflects poorly upon his character --as was JFK and Bill "The Scumbag" Clinton, Trump's agenda is fantastic and on point and I am very pleased at how he is running the country.

But here is a truth: If Trump were a Democrat, and he was implementing the Democrat agenda effectively, causing liberals to drool over him in ecstasy for being such a good liberal-progressive messiah, you would see no condemnation in the news. The media would be charging to his rescue like they did with Bill Clinton, explaining everything away, saying "oral sex is not sex...technically" and other such things. The media would say, "Well, prostitution is legal in Holland, it is only because of the backward Puritan influence on our nation as to why we condemn prostitution so much...our Democrat president is a GOOD MAN." You can be certain the media would be saying the exact opposite about prostitutes were a Democrat in the office.

The only reason Trump is being called out on his past conduct (which is irrelevant concerning his job) is that he is a Republican and the leftists in this country hate him with such a rabid frenzy it borders on insanity.

I will vote for Trump again. He has hit a home run appointing a good conservative justice to the Supreme Court. Now if only that old buzzard Ginsburg would step down he can appoint another. Trump is chasing away these leftist parasites in the government. That is far more important than his moral failures.

Obama smoked cigarettes. You almost NEVER saw anything negative about it, but you can be guaranteed if a Republican president were to smoke cigarettes, the media would gin up a firestorm of "This ignorant man is a bad role model for our children by smoking...impeach!" Every day, every hour of the day the media and democrats would harp and hound the president for smoking, claiming "he has not the wisdom to understand smoking is bad for you ---there are labels even a child can read! Therefore this Republican president has not the wisdom to run the nation. He. Must. Step. Down. NOW."

Bank on it, count on it, this is what would be. I ignore all the media's whining about Trump's this or that. All I care about is that Trump is running the country correctly, and the fact that liberals are screaming bloody murder like stuck squealing pigs confirm that Trump is doing the right thing.

MAGA to the Max

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

BBC1 is assuming that everyone spanks their children. Must be something in the bible about that.

Why, indeed there is:

Proverbs 23:12
Apply thine heart unto instruction, and thine ears to the words of knowledge.
Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

jew here.

Law does not come from Proverbs.

BBC1

That is true, the Proverbs are not law, but they are wise sayings profitable for wisdom, and on how to train up your child to be righteous.

They were written by Solomon, one of the wisest people to have ever lived. His God-given wisdom is worth heeding, certainly more than some psychologist like Timothy Leary who advised "turn on, tune in, drop out."

Everyone has an authority when it comes to living. I choose the bible. It has not steered me wrong yet.

G-d created the world. Learning from the world - by observation, including science - is therefore following G-d. Even the wisest man who lived thousands of years ago is not an authority over that. To quote a gentile, Bernard of Chartres

"Bernard of Chartres used to compare us to dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants. He pointed out that we see more and farther than our predecessors, not because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic stature."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

(BTW, Jesus here misunderstands the Pharisaic position - the decision to not follow the laws of ritual cleanliness itself comes FROM THE HEART. Someone who violates the law accidentally, though they may be impure for ritual purposes, has not committed a sin. Many sources of impurity (like menstruation) are completely involuntary, and do not imply a depraved heart or sinfulness. As long as someone follows the law, and purifies as appropriate)

Don’t want to get into the weeds of this or homosexuality. But Jesus made new laws and overturned old laws; he wasn’t simply misunderstanding old laws. It’s quite clear from his behavior in other contexts—eating with society’s outcasts, letting the woman with unbound hair wash his feet—that he really was overturning laws and rituals about impurity. Nothing accidental about it. This is why he was so revolutionary.

Jew here.

I was referring to the specific things he said/implied in that particular passage. The contrast between laws against gossip and slander (what comes out of the mouth) vs the laws of ritual cleanliness, strongly suggests a misunderstanding of the latter laws. Or maybe a deliberate misreading. He is not just saying "I am God, I don't care about the ritual laws".

Yes, he is saying “I don’t care about ritual dietary laws.” You keep trying to put this in a Jewish ritual context and complain it’s a misunderstanding of that. It’s not. He’s deliberately saying, “don’t engage in gossip, slander, or hateful talk, because these are important, not dietary rituals.” I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about that. Speaking of deliberate misreadings, this seems like a deliberate misreading on your part.

he is saying ritual cleanliness is not important - but not "because I am God, and I say so" but because it does not come from the heart. Again, a misreading, deliberate or not, of what the ritual laws are about.