An article written in the Atlantic helps explain it. Not really "the" impeachment, but the House Judiciary Dems say the Constitution gives them the power to begin the impeachment process:


Why We're Moving Forward With Impeachment - The Atlantic

I really don't care much about impeachment, but there has to be extensive investigation into all of the ethical and criminal lapses with this admin. If an impeachment inquiry is how to get there, fine, but the investigations are much more important to me than an impeachment vote.

You know, the emails from the WH used to be about how America was being helped and improved, and under this guy, it's ALL about how trump himself is helping everyone. It's gone from American successes to praise for the American Hero who is everyone's savior. It's rather subtle, but very distinct.

Not sure I agree that its more important than impeachment, but yeah definitely has to be investigations into just about every Cabinet position, and none of them should be allowed to hold a govt. position/run for federal office ever again. The worse part will be when they all leave office and we start finding out some of the stuff they have been hiding.

I don't think this is a particularly strong point. I don't recall any treatises in the Bible about the Fairness Doctrine, global warming, privacy, or nuclear weapons either. I think trying to decide what political platforms are 'more Christian' is a very dangerous game. I think the NT is quite clear on essential matters, but those tend to be limited to core doctrines; i.e. what is a believer/disciple, how should a Christian live, those kinds of thing. Going beyond that dogmatically is very rarely justified IMO. Jesus spent basically zero time from what I recall engaging in political activism vis a vis the Romans, because, well, as he put it his kingdom was and is not of this world.

On the whole 'voting your pocketbook' thing, I guess I'm just weird. I've always felt I had a civic duty to vote for what was best for the whole country - and in recent decades, broadened that to what's best for humanity as a whole even if it's not best for the nation I live in. I've never cast a vote in the hopes that it would improve my personal bottom line. I always thought that was a very selfish approach and one that would merely justify the critiques leveled by Marx, Mussolini, etc.

I'm not sure I'll throw 100% of them under the bus. I think Mnuchin, Pompeo, Perry & some of the ones who've already left (Tillerson, Kelly, Mattis, Haley) might be alright. Zinke & Pruitt were probably the most corrupt outside of Trump himself, and I'm not sure how Acosta & Devos are still around.

I don't think it's anywhere near that tough: Modern Democrats are pushing several core common policies that obviously conform to core Christian beliefs which are absolutely defined in the Bible (providing healthcare, helping the needy, forgiving debt and reducing military spending), and modern Republicans have zero core common policies or platforms that meet that same standard & many that directly contradict those same core values. The end.

If anybody can correct my view please do, if you can't the point seems rock solid.

And yet, have voted for things we would consider "far left" (and then some). I think making the statement that voters in a democratic society are too self interested to vote for left policies to be not the case.

Acosta resigned last month. I agree that Zinke and Pruitt were the most corrupt, but almost all of them ignored their ethics advisor and there should be a price to pay for that.

Wilbur Ross is quite likely the most corrupt of them all, but Elaine Chao is in the running.

Mnuchin isn't anywhere close to clean. In a normal admin he'd probably be run out of office already for his corruption.

Somehow Rick Perry became the ethically clean, competent, unobjectionable guy.

Looks like the US strong armed Guatemala to do this. I guess it should work to reduce number of undocumented if implemented but sounds as if there is enough controversy in Guatemala.

I'm all for sending more aid to Guatemala to support this. In 2017, it was about $257M. Heck, send a couple billion in targeted aid to help them grow their economy, businesses/farms etc. to support this policy.

Trump seeks to reduce asylum claims by designating Guatemala “safe� - Vox

I would only call one of those - helping the needy - a core Christian belief. Where are the others found in the Bible? And even then it's not an essential on the level of the things I was talking about. No question it's a clear teaching, but I don't see the other three you mentioned there. And with respect to helping the needy, the teaching is about how individual disciples should behave, or how believers as a whole should behave.

Contrasting with that, modern political policies such as those you describe are about taxing everybody, believer and unbeliever alike, in support of such an agenda. And that's where we get back into the part where Jesus didn't spend any time criticizing Roman authority because that wasn't what he was here to do. Peter and Paul instructed that we should submit to all authorities … and one of them they were talking about was Nero, generally considered one of the worst tyrants in ancient history. Paul wrote about the idea that it's not the church's place to judge those outside the church, something many believe should be kept in mind. Anytime you vote for a new law, you're voting to tell other people what they can and can't do. This concept is why there is a school of thought that holds that government should maximize economic and political liberty rather than focus on engineering specific societal results, so as to have a stance of humility and respect towards all people including those who don't hold Christian worldviews. The OT prophets talk a lot about economic justice (speaking to believers once again), while the OT also provides for a lot of things like extensive private property rights and so on.

Bottom line is that I think it's a very open question what Jesus would have thought of various modern political systems. Not a question that Christians should aim to be charitable and help others, esp. those less fortunate/widows/prisoners/etc., but private action and the broader political realm are two very different things.

I honestly don't know how (or why) I should argue against the suggestion that healing the sick, the forgiveness of debt and peace among men aren't clear Biblical principals.

Regardless, you gave me one point for the Democrats at the very least, and we can argue all day about how and why each particular Democratic principal fails your particular litmus test, while the counter for core Christian Republican values is still sitting squarely at zero. That's still the cogent point and it's not getting any weaker, no matter how much dust you kick around it.

The video is worth the time to watch through. I know nobody (white) really wants to stand up for Baltimore, and while that's symptomatic it's also understandable I suppose, but the way Trump speaks about minorities just drips with revulsion. I cannot stand this man. And the millions of people who just abide this make me sick.

Yashar Ali � on Twitter: "Drop everything you're doing and watch this....

cc: @VictorBlackwell… "

And shit like this why the GOP is considered the party of racists and it's not something that's going to go away when Trump leaves office unless something is actively done to take the party back. Sitting back and hoping dems show up to vote him out of office isn't going to be enough to get rid of the damage he's caused.

*yawn*

And Trump dangles the keys again to get everyone's attention.

Why talk about something like the election security bill that the republicans refuse to pass when we can talk about yet another offensive tweet.

Trump has CNN wrapped all around his tiny finger.

Referring to the first statement here, no actually I didn't. That's contradicted by what I wrote. As to why you should argue about it - um because you're the one who brought it up? The how's pretty simple - if you wished, you could cite passages that back up your point. Seems strange to me to bring up an assertion and then not want to defend it. Do as you like of course, but as for me I maintain that neither party owns biblical fidelity and core Christian values are, by their very nature, apolitical.

I was thinking this.

Many other things to talk about vs a Pavlovian reaction to Trump's stupid tweets by CNN and MSNBC (and by Fox).

1.) CNN has covered the election security bill with multiple articles.

2.) Why is it falling on Dem to impeach? Why aren't FOX viewers asking why these more important issues are being ignored or barely covered?

Republican voters put Trump in office and it seems like everyone thinks its the Dems job to undo the mess.

The more racist Trump is the lower his poll numbers. He's not being a genius or distracting from more damaging issues. He may fire up 30-40% of voters, but he can't win doing that, and it's much more damaging that talking about legislation.

There are a lot of swing voters that worry about two things, the Dems being too far left and Trump being a terrible person. The more things like this dominate the news, the better for the Dems. It reminds all these voters about why they dislike Trump while simultaneously keeping any possible worries about the Dems out of the news.

You didn't explicitly say helping the needy qualified as a core Christian value? In a bubble I'm certainly willing to debate the greater point with just about anybody else, but in my experience you've got a history of making convoluted bad-faith arguments, purposely muddying the waters to the point of absurdity and are currently trying to slide away from suggestions that you can't remember seeing peace, forgiveness or healing in the Bible and extensive property rights and small government are obviously more important Christian values. I feel entirely comfortable leaving you alone on top of that particular mountain declaring yourself the winner.

Trump's poll numbers have been pretty consistent.

How Popular Is Donald Trump? | FiveThirtyEight

And you say that swing voters worry that the Dems are being too far left. Well Trump is trying to make sure that worry stays in people's minds by promoting politicians such as Omar(who is anti-semitic) and AOC(who is a socialist and whose chief of staff wore a shirt featuring a Nazi collaborater).

How/why is Omar anti-Semitic?

I think Jesus would be pretty shocked by such a statement. Hell, most denominations would be. The Gospel is highly political - maybe not partisan, but it imagines a reordering of society. He and many apostles (including Paul) were crucified for a reason (it's a Roman punishment for treason). It is why many Christian saints throughout history have gotten in trouble with the authorities. We are called to act for justice in the world and that shit is super political.

As part of the other debate, we also are, of course ascribing our views of Church/State separation on books written when that didn't exist. Faith and governance were one and remained as such only until the last few centuries. So if someone was saying the faith needed changing, they were also saying the way people led needed changing (Jesus and the early Christians spoke out against the ruling authorities in their locations - I mean John the Baptist got himself killed for speaking out against King Herod too much).

edit: Now if you want to discuss how Christians should advocate political change or what political change they should advance, that's a different story, but to claim the Gospel is apolitical is laughable.

They have been, but when they've dipped it's been after his statements, like, "on both sides." He would do a lot better if he hammered on policy in relation to Dems, but send them back and no human would live in Baltimore or the western suburbs won't help him.

He got 46% of the vote last time. Some of those people have died, so he has to get new voters just to get to his old vote total. Add in the fact that it's unlikely that 46% would win again and he has to expand. Playing only to his base is a losing strategy, and that's what racist and sexist comments do.

You're 100% correct. His polling has dropped since the beginning of his barrage of racist comments. Pre-comments he had some adjusted polls coming in around the 44% range which would be the highest he's polled at since his first 2 months in office. The more recent polls have been averaging in the 40% range.

Does he have a better play with the hole he's dug over the first 2+ years though? He's going to win the deep red states by a landslide, but he's made no adjustments since the midterms so I'm not sure if he has anything better than drive home us vs them as much as he can and hope for an electoral college miracle. He's an incumbent that has severely limited the number of paths he has to winning in 2020.

The fact that he's not letting up shows this is a calculated plan by his campaign. I'm not ruling out the possibility that they're just trying to keep it close enough for Russia to bail them out.

Is the distinction that Jesus was not political but disciples in NT were?

Interesting discussion topic.

Was Jesus not going around proclaiming a completely new social order? Was he not crucified for pissing off the authorities? Mind, saying religious authorities and political authorities are separate was not really a distinction made back then - as saying Jesus is Lord was a direct counter to the Roman Empire, for which saying Caesar is Lord was a common allegiance of affirmation (and of course, as Jesus said, you cannot serve two masters). And of course the Sanhedrin (the assembly of rabbis) was able to sit in judgement by leave of the Roman Governor of the province of Judea.

I will also point out that the disciples were the ones who wrote the Biblical books, so I'd argue their actions seem to indicate what they felt Jesus's words were and the Gospels narrative should be seen through that lens. (also should be noted that Gospels - and Acts of the Apostles, which was basically Luke pt. 2 - were the last books of the Bible to written, aside from Revelation)

As ISiddiqui noted faith and government were the same thing for the Romans. The Caesars & Pharoahs of those times would claim to be literally descendants/mediators of the Gods and that divinity gave them the obvious right to rule, and by suggesting & representing an entirely different (and exclusive) faith Jesus was also necessarily suggesting & representing a different government. How could he not be political?

The accusation against Jesus is that he was King of the Jews. He said that his kingdom was not of this world, and that if it was, his servants would fight. I don't know how you get more clearly apolitical than that. Render under Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's. Then you have, as referenced, Paul in Romans 13 saying Christians should obey all authorities and Peter saying the same thing about Nero in I Peter 2.

We do have situations like Peter and John disobeying the Sanhedrin in the Book of Acts, but even there they treated them all with utmost respect. "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard." (Acts 4:19-20). Only in cases where someone was instructed to break a clear command do you see this.

Acts also tells us that the common people were afraid to associate with the apostles and other believers. They lived communally and apart from nonbelievers - the consistent pattern of the NT is not as I read it seeking a reordering of society, but calling out a holy people (i.e., the church) from society to live a distinct life. II Corinthians 6:14-18 hits this nail on the head with instructions not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, that a Christian has nothing in common with one who is not, come out from among them and be separate, etc. Superficial reform of the unbelieving larger society I see nowhere.

.02

FWIW. Lots of differing opinions out there.

The Politics of Jesus - Life, Hope & Truth

Yes, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's! What is not God's?! What does that leave for Caesar? Coins with his face that claim he is divine? The world belongs to God. Jesus is Lord means Caesar is not.

Jesus says when he talks of His kingdom not being from this world that it comes from somewhere else. It comes from the Creator of the world and it will fix the corruption and brokenness of this world.

Paul literally spent multiple times in jail. I doubt he was obeying authorities there. Especially when he was told not to proselytize.


And where are these communities getting their members? And where are these communities living? They aren't going out in the wastes and wilds, but are in the cities of Rome!! Paul writes to churches in Corinth and Rome - two big cities in the Roman Empire. Taking from that society and refusing to bow down to the Roman cult - which was required by law, btw.

They were considered such a threat, that Roman emperors Nero and Domitian initiated persecution against them and later, Valerian tried to wipe them out (executing Bishops along the way). You don't do that for minor sects that just are not challenging the status quo.

Obviously not a scholar. Some articles say this is in reference to the future world. For now, give to Caesar that belongs to him.

I do remember reading and enjoying "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus" which does state Jesus was all political. However, I remember reading reviews of his book essentially saying he overstated things or took things out of context etc.

I don't really know. I can be convinced otherwise but lean towards Jesus himself (vs. his followers afterwards) tried to stay out of politics.


... but not his disciples after he was crucified. And hence, my query whether a distinction should be made between Jesus' sayings/teaching and what happened after his death.

And yet, Jesus gets crucified, because he does not give Caesar everything of his day. He does not accept moneychangers at the Temple. He does not accept the religious laws that are enforced by those the Emperor has allowed to exercise authority. Pilate is concerned that he is referred to as a King... and even though Jesus tells him My kingdom is from somewhere else, the Romans still nail "King of the Jews" to his cross - as if to show this person they considered seditious was getting his by the state.

And if most of His followers (who were there when He was alive - well aside from Paul) are trying to change their society after His death, then maybe He touched on the issue a time or two...

edit: I think the ancient setting throws people off here. Consider this, the US Government allows the Southern Baptist Convention to enforce religious laws in the Southeast US and issue punishments for their violation (but the death penalty is reserved for the Governors of those States). And then this guy starts going around saying this is bullshit and deliberately starts violating religious laws even though those are the laws of the land. And hangs out with the people in violation of the SBC's legal pronouncements. Those would be, of course, political acts! It is standing against laws considered unjust. (And then add in the US Government in this case considers itself a divinely led rule and its President is descended from God and the person instead asks allegiance to Him over the President)

Wikipedia lied to me?!? Seriously I must've missed the Acosta news during a busy month, my bad. Interesting Scalia's son is the acting head - hopefully he has the same intellect & backbone his dad did.
I may be grading Mnuchin on a curve, but for a handpicked Trump friendly Wall Street guy he at least seems competent & willing to hide any corruption.

Yeah, Perry falls in the category with Pence, Ben Carson, even Jeff Sessions where I disagree ideologically with them, but I think they shouldn't be allowed to hold office because they're dumb, not because they're corrupt.

Ironically, even if you want to believe that Christian and Biblical values are necessarily individual and entirely apolitical doesn't the Democratic party obviously also represent THAT particular belief better than the modern GOP?

Mnuchin is nowhere near the worst, but in normal times his actions would be scandals that could force him from office.

Carson is also corrupt. He's been caught a couple of times with lavish spending of federal funds. Again, in normal times he might have been forced to resign, but in this circus he fits right in.

Dan Coats out as the Director of National Intelligence. Thankfully we don't get Nunes as a replacement, but instead a Republican congressman from Texas, John Ratcliffe. Amongst other reasons he liked what he said to Mueller during his hearing.

I don't want to glorify Coats, after all he's the guy that "investigated" the Clintons by shooting watermelons in his back yard, but at this point, he at least seemed to put loyalty to the nation above loyalty to Trump. Ratcliffe is completely unqualified and likely to roll back the election protections being pushed by Coats.

The GOP is quite openly opening the doors to foreign assistance in the 2020 election and this just fits the pattern.

Nobody circles the wagons like the rejected-as-owner of the Buffalo Bills.

Ratcliffe is your crazy uncle that pedals conspiracy theories in your emails/Facebook.

Nunes was apparently offered the job but turned it down, but he would want an Intel job like CIA Director if Trump gets re-elected. Reason #infinity for Trump not to be reelected

I think we've been talking past each other on most of the things we've been saying. After considering how to hopefully respond productively to your points, I've concluded that this might be a good example of it.

From the perspective above, how do you explain Pilate's reaction to Jesus? Based on what you've said here, you'd think Pilate would have taken one look at the situation and basically said 'Crucify this traitor, the only problem is that you didn't bring him to me sooner!'. Instead he actually says:


Multiple times Pilate argues that Jesus hasn't committed a capital crime, which is a completely ridiculous thing for him to say if in fact Jesus is considered a threat to Roman power and authority. He proclaims 'Why? What evil has he done '(v. 22) which demonstrates that he didn't buy the trumped-up charges brought by the Sanhedrin. One of the criminals crucified with Jesus even backed that up, declaring that 'this man has done nothing wrong' in contrast with the two of them (v. 41). The King of the Jews appellation seems clearly to be a mocking derision kind of thing, both in the immediate context (vv. 35-38) in which they were mocking Jesus at the time, and also the larger one in which the Romans did not at all, in any way, make a determination that Jesus was seditious. He was crucified to satisfy the Jews according to the biblical account, not because he was considered a threat to Rome.

Kind of a big deal when a President trashes a city he took an oath to protect and insinuates black people aren't human beings.

500 - Internal Server Error

Immigration officers detain a U.S. Citizen who was carrying her U.S. Passport and detain her for 32 hours because she gave "inconsistent information" when questioned.

She is nine years old.

You either work to vote out this administration or you don't.

I'm pretty much over the pseudo-intellectual analysis like "Of course the warrentless detention of United States Citizen children on the basis of their race is problematic, but I'm not sure that paragraph 3 on page 7 of Julian Castro's tax plan speaks to me, personally, so really, both sides are just as bad here."

My son is 9. Thinking of him being in a situation like this makes me want to puke. Granted, would never happen because he is a white, upper middle class kid. This is a problem

Didn't we talk about this already when it happened 4 months ago? Not that it isn't a sad story or that Trump isn't an asshole but not sure what the need is to post old stories out of the blue.

I had no idea this happened 4 months ago. The fact that it wasn't a bigger story is telling with how despicable this administration is that a story like this barely moves the needle.

Any other time this would be a monster story.

But yet, Rome crucifies him in a manner of death for the rebellious. Do you mean to say that the same Rome, which the greatest military might in the known world, that utterly destroys the Temple 40 years after the dealt of Jesus, would be in fear of a small crowd of the Sanhedrin wanting a prophet killed?

Through separate historical writings (Josephus and Philo) we know that Pilate was a brutal Governor who in 36 AD brutally suppressed a Samaritan movement. The Gospel account shows a very different Pilate than other historical sources show. So quite a number of scholars think the Gospel writers in the late 1st Century AD were trying to minimize Rome's authority here (especially Luke) to help mitigate Roman persecution at the time.

Here is a Professor from Yale Divinity School speaking to that:

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/tool...rucified-jesus

Recall that before the Gospels are written, the letters of Paul speak to Jesus being above every Earthly ruler, every knee should bow, above all the powers and principalities of this world. Christians in AD 50-70 are claiming Jesus above Rome. And Rome... well, strikes back. The Temple is destroyed in 70 AD and the Gospels are written a little after that.

There is the other interesting thing - about Barabbas. His name is Jesus Barabbas (some translations take out the Jesus part of his name because it's inconvenient). Barabbas, of course, translates into "Son of the Father" - Bar Abba. So Pilate offers up to the crowd Jesus Son of Joseph (& Mary) or Jesus Son of the Father. Of course there is no historical evidence apart from the Gospels that Roman Governors ever offered up a pardon on Passover. An interesting addition to the text. There is a theory that the choice specified in the Gospels was a fiction - Pilate offering to release Jesus... or Jesus.

Of course this all gets into in depth historical criticism of the Gospel accounts of crucifixition. But we do believe that all the 12 Apostles (after Matthias was selected to replace Judas) were martyred aside from John. And quite a few were crucified (and some upside down as their request). And I'm not sure the Jewish communities were striking fear into Emperor Nero to get him to crucify Christian leaders.

FYI... the Christians.(and there was more than one group of them) were a very small and fringe subset of Jewish society. Rome destroyed the temple because of repeated Jewish rebellions over several decades. Jewish authorities actually managed to wrest control of Israel away for about 3-4 years in the 60s AD, but that was only because Rome was havjng its own issues (Nero) and it takes time to get the news and then get around to responding with a military force. The Christians really had very little to do with this, although I am.certain there were Christians among the Jewish rebels.

By and large, Rome allowed the religions of their vanquished peoples to remain, rather than imposing their own religion. They also generally allow the local authorities to govern themselves, within reason. Bigger issues like taxation for Rome, sedition (active sedition like the Jewish rebellion, not a random prophet in the Gallilee region type of sedition), and crimes against Roman citizens were more the purview of the Roman governors. They left the rest to the locals
From what I have read, Pilate didn't give a rat's butt for the fate of Jesus. He simply accepted that the local Jewish authorities wanted him killed and did so, since he had no dog in the fight and it's easier to acquiesce to such a simple request by a group he has to do business with.

Yeah, I probably should have moved the Temple destruction to another paragraph.

The destruction of the Temple was a big deal for Christians at the time though. Recall the largest 'church' at the time was in Jerusalem. And it seems as though the Gospels know this (the I will demolish the temple and raise it in three days seems to be cognizant of it).


That too.. the equivocating seen in the Gospels seems to be un-Pilate like. Of course he probably wasn't too fond of some guy making a ruckus among the moneychangers in the Temple. Nor some guy whose followers put palm branches before him (a sign of victory or triumph). Pilate may have thought this guy could be trouble for his own rule.

At which point we are no longer talking about what the gospel teaches (the original topic), but whether what the gospel teaches is reliable, which is a horse of a completely different color.


Not Rome itself, but Pilate. And it's not about whether I mean to say this - there's been a lot written about why this might be, but it IS what the Bible says, which again was the point originally under discussion.

Different denominations read the Bible in different ways. The position I am stating is a common way to read the Bible in Mainline Protestantsm and Catholicism. And therefore reading Scripture is always under the lens of its historic character and in terms of the general themes that run throughout.

Hence, there are a lot of denominations who read Scripture and see the God of the Old Testament, the Prophets, and Jesus the Christ challenging the political underpinnings of society and see that they should follow that role.

You stay classy Donald

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-...1-bill-signing

The most jaw dropping part of this, to me, was when he insinuated that he was also a first responder but doesn't take credit for it.

If you take that to the point of adopting a view that is contrary to that presented in the Bible from the central elements of Jesus life (events leading up to his death in this case), my question is why use the Bible at all? We're not talking about issues such as whether Job was a real historical figure or an allegorical tale here. If I were to believe that the Bible lied about what Pilate said here, I sure wouldn't be able to trust it when it tells me that Jesus has the power to save me from my sins or that he rose from the dead. I would necessarily need to become an agnostic for reasons of basic rationality. This very debate we're having points up the importance of that, because we can have no confidence we're doing what Jesus would actually have us do if we can't trust the accounts of his life to be a reasonably accurate portrayal of his teachings.

Because we can realize that Biblical authors may exaggerate or twist the telling a bit to make a point. History wasn't about putting down the facts exactly back then - it was about making a moral point. The Gospels were to spread the Good News (which is what Gospel translate to). That doesn't mean we don't have faith about Jesus's salvic action or physical resurrection.

I mean we (well most Christians) don't necessarily believe in a literal 6 day Creation either, acknowledging it's mytho-poetic narrative. We don't believe the Earth is the center of the Universe. Most of us don't believe that God ordered genocide either, acknowledging the writers of Biblical text took some liberties with what they witness of God's actions in the world (Heck, John Calvin called Genesis "God's babytalk").

We can know certain things are true while also acknowledging that the accounts are exaggerated and created for proselytizing. That may not past the test of basic rationality for you, but I've never seen faith as all that rational - and that's the strength of it, especially in a world that worships hyper-rationality.

America First!

Trump aide submitted drafts of 2016 'America First' energy speech to UAE for edits, emails show - ABC News

So, um... when do we start attacking Russia for its repeated and apparently ongoing efforts to undermine our elections?

Had cyberwarfare existed in the 1950s and or 1960s and the USSR did this, we would have been considering nuclear strikes. We almost went to war over the Bay of Pigs.

This is the most frustrating part of all of this.
Democrats - Trump obstructed justice and maybe colluded with Russia. Impeachment?
Republicans - Hoax, witch hunt. Mueller and his team of Dems. No obstruction, no collusion, total exoneration.
Russia - Ha ha, you stupid Americans. (keyboard clicks)

Don't get me wrong, there is evidence that Trump obstructed justice, and if so, we need to think about what to do about that. However, nobody seems to be discussing what to do about what, to me, amounts to a Russian attack on American soil. Are BOTH parties in bed with Putin?

NOTE: By attack I don't necessarily mean war.

I agree with this. My church wouldn't be a fan of me saying this, but I don't have a need for a literal 6-day creation, I think a lot of the OT is phenomenological - meaning that it was written in a way that would have made sense to people at the time. Explaining things in a way that reflects what we know even now about astrodynamics would have made no sense to them. I've learned over the years a lot about how history was used in ancient times and I think you are right in terms of that.


Why doesn't it? I mean in terms of faith not having to be rational, the reason I can't go there is that the Bible itself doesn't go there. Paul says if Jesus was not raised from the dead Christians above all people are to be pitied ... and he's right. We're a bunch of dupes worse than the most anti-religion portrayals on this forum if so. Where do you draw the line between what's believable and what isn't? Jesus himself, the way he used Scripture, the way he handle the temptation before his ministry … all of that points directly away from this. Repeatedly we see statements 'Do you not know?' relating to some concept that people were expected to have already mastered. And why was there that expectation? Because it had already been revealed in Scripture. The Bereans were characterized as noble because they didn't take what Paul said at face value, but search the Scriptures (in an age where people didn't have their own private copies of the Bible in most cases) to see if what he said was true. This is a theme that is hammered over and over again.


There are certain things which have to be true and knowable or the whole thing falls apart. If you're going to have your car serviced at a mechanic, and they lie to you about what hours the shop is open, falsify the estimate, etc., how confident are you going to be in their work? It's a credibility thing - whether we are looking at a reliable account or whether we aren't. The claims the Bible makes about Jesus are far more extravagant than any repair shop ever thought of claiming, so if it's not a reliable source ... How do you fulfill the Great Commission? You can't make disciples of all nations and teach them to observe everything Jesus commanded if you don't have a reliable record of what those commands actually were. This isn't the finer points of eschatology or quibbling over ways of observing the sacraments or what church hierarchy should be. This is baseline 'what does it mean to be a Christian' stuff, as fundamental as it gets. It's why the Westminster Confession begins with a chapter about Scripture, because it's the foundation - without it everything Christians say they know about God can't actually be known. How do we know Jesus didn't want us to go on a jihad against all unbelievers and slaughter the lot of them, go live on a mountaintop monastery shut off from the world, or anything in between? Without a standard you can just make up whatever you want and nobody's opinion is better than anyone else's.

The other thing is it leads to a lot of 'well I believe X, so I'll accept the parts of the Bible that support it and not the parts that don't'. From my POV our debate has strongly illustrated this. Why should we put credence in the account of Pilate questioning Jesus (and thus being concerned about him being called a King) but not in what he said aftewards? Whey believe he said 'render unto Caesar' at all? Why believe Paul was actually imprisoned or that he actually said anything he said about government? Why believe Jesus even had a placard above his head saying 'King of the Jews'? Maybe the authors made that up too and it never happened. Meanwhile virtually ever writer in the NT focuses, and some of them repeatedly, on the need to combat false teaching. How on earth can you do that, contend for the faith delivered once for all to the saints, if you can't even know what true and false teaching is and who really knows how much of the record of Jesus' life even really happened? How can you follow Jesus' example, as we are repeatedly enjoined to do, if you have no confidence in what he even said and did?

Bottom line is you literally can't make a Biblical argument of any kind without cutting out the ground on which you stand under this kind of approach. Intellectually, I give a lot more credence to those who say the whole thing is a bunch of hooey and only a moron would believe that nonsense. I disagree with them and think they're wrong but it's a very logically defensible position. The 'take this and leave that' approach - and I know it's often not intended but it can end no other way - always reminds me of the Francis Shaeffer line that modern man has his feet firmly planted in mid-air.

Interesting tangent that we have taken in the Trump Presidency thread. You both are closer to how I interpret the Bible vs many of my other friends/acquaintances taking it literally.

Two questions to both of you.

(1) In John 14 Jesus says "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me" for salvation. How do you interpret this in (your) "proper context"?

Is Jesus "the only" way or is there room for the aborigines, Africans, Chinese etc. who have not had the opportunity to be saved (or have not had many/proper/sufficient opportunities to learn about Jesus)?

(2) What are your thoughts on Purgatory in addition to Heaven & Hell?

Purgatory - Wikipedia

It's worse than that. Dems have passed some bills on election security and McConnell won't even let them be debated. Coats recently took some steps to combat Russian interference, and Trump pushed him out.

The Dems aren't beating the drum loud enough, IMO, but the GOP surely seems like they are actively working to make sure the Russians, and others, can help them in 2020.

Purgatory came about from teachings about praying for the souls of the dead. The line of reasoning is if the souls went to hell, no amount of prayer would save their soul. If they went straight to heaven, your prayer would not do anything because their soul has already received its eternal reward. Therefore, there must be a place of holding for some time (purgatory). Here your prayers may be heard to reduce the amount of time the soul is in purgatory.

This also provided an answer for many who were concerned that they had not gone to confession, omitted sins during confession, committed a venal sin since last confession, etc., and died with a venal sin on their soul. Obviously, with a mortal sin on your soul you would go to hell. With a venal sin on your soul at death, what happened? Again, purgatory fills the gap, you will have some atonement there, but you would not go to hell. If you look at old prayer books, there were lists of time that your stay in purgatory would be reduced for each prayer. I believe these also held if you said the prayer for someone's soul (it would reduce their time in purgatory).

Now later on, this wound up leading to the sale of indulgences, but the initial teaching makes sense.

Who cares if people think we're dupes? Why does that matter? Jesus and Paul and the Bereans all went back to Scripture while they were radically redefining it. The New Testament is nothing if not a reinterpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures - and a reading of the Hebrew Scriptures in the light of Jesus's ministry. Jesus says "Do you not know" but he also says "You have heard X, but I say to you".

And we do not follow the Hebrew mitzvah anymore. If we were to hold Scripture in the way that some would hold it, we should keep kosher and all the rest - but Paul indicates that this is a reinterpretation.

The reinterpretation of Scripture based on what the Spirit is telling us does not mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater. It means you read Scripture in light of when it was written and in light of what God is saying today.


Many a Christian tradition claims the foundation is actually the Church. Or at least the Church is equally a tradition as Scripture. As pointed out before, the Eastern Orthodox put the Church above Scripture as the Church determined what Scripture was.

If you acknowledge (and you do) that the writers were trying to put the best spin on the story of Jesus that they could, then you have to realize that some of it just isn't true in the sense a history of World War II is true. Some of it is exaggerated or turned for a specific reason. One can know that and also deeply know that Jesus died, rose, and will come again.

To stake one's faith on a (purposely) biased account seems to be putting your feet in shifting sand.

And when something in Gospel hits against things we know is unlikely due to other historical forces, I think we are strong enough in our faith to know that it does not harm it to acknowledge that. My faith is not based on Pilate's exact conversation with Jesus or which of the powers & principalities of this world was directly responsible for Christ's death by capital punishment, it is based on my encounter with the Living God and through the community of faith and also, yes, through Scripture. But Scripture does not have to be perfect for me to believe. I trust Christ is risen because I have felt it to be so.

If people want to say it is hooey, let them say it. If they feel it is logically defensible - it is. I make no claims on logic defensibility of my faith. I know it to be true because I feel it deep in my soul. It's not logical, but it is true - at least to me.


I see it as Jesus is the Way and is God and opens up the channel to God. Other people may not have heard of Jesus, or may have even rejected Him, but Jesus has opened the Way for all, and through that way all are saved.

As a Universalist, I don't see a blocking issue with Jesus saying He's the Way.


Purgatory is an interesting concept. It is also a result of trying to over rationalize things. People wondered how can flawed and sinful people stand in the presense of a perfect and flawless God and so created a way of cleansing foks so they can be perfected to be in the presense of such a God. I do think that in the end of the age we get cleansed of our sins. I don't think it's a purgatorial working however. It's more a cleansing fire... and if Hellfire is anything, it's that.

I believe Heaven is God's realm and also as Revelation says, at the end, Heaven and Earth will come together and create a new Heavens and a new Earth and God will live with His people.

The concept of us hanging out in clouds is nonsense to me. I am more in the camp of the soul sleep (when we die, we sleep until the end of the age and at that time, we are resurrected to live in the New Earth with God).

Not trying to be the dick here, but does all this religious talk really belong in this thread?

That's what I was thinking too.

No. This is wonderful. I am so happy just thinking about how Trump would react if he knew that there was a thread that was supposed to be about him but then people got bored of him and started talking about something else.

Well it stems from the question does Religion belong in politics. All of this is attempting to answer that question by getting to core things to get to the politics.

It is also curious because the Conservative leaning person is saying it doesn't and the Liberal leaning person is saying it does.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Just trying to take a break from the far-left echo chamber (and save some souls !!)

If you define politics as the distribution of power and resources, I'm not sure how Christianity could be anything other than political.

Thanks Lathum so I didn't have to be the dick. :) I certainly don't mind when religion or something distantly related to his Presidency comes up and gets talked about a bit, but it seems like this is becoming more the religion thread than the Trump thread. Might be nice to others to swing this off to its own thread where those who are interested can give it full attention.

All we need to do is bump the Jesus Is Love thread back to the top

LOL

Yeah ffs. CoSign.

So maybe a separate thread titled "does religion belong in politics?"

Doesn't the overwhelming Evangelical support for Trump (and some Democrats taking up a pro-religion mantle - Buttigieg and Booker the most prominent) not allow for conversations on that in the context of current day issues?

I mean you could start talking about Trump and leading us off in a different conversational direction.

What started as that seems to have spun off in to something far different. Just wanted to point out seems like it has taken enough of a life of its own for a separate thread.

It has been an interesting week to be in Maryland politics. Baltimore is trying to figure out how to turn this odd attack into a marketing campaign... somehow suggesting that the real way to #resist is to...uhhh...come visit Baltimore and buy stuff or something.

I've never understood the "Start a new thread!" or "There's too many threads!" complaints. Scroll by and don't read if you're not interested. There's so few of us here, I don't see the point in enforcing rules to the point where more people might leave.

Why even have threads then? By your logic just make everything one long conversation and people can scroll by what they aren’t interested in. Threads organize the topics and allow users to decided based on the title if they are interested in reading it.

In this instance I enjoy the thoughts of the posters involved on the thread topic, so by skipping through the religious posts I may miss something interesting that’s about the topic.

I doubt we would lose any members over a new thread being started.

And now we are guilty.

I'm fine with it being moved into a different thread if that's what people want. On the other hand, unless there are more wrinkles added I expect it to wrap up soon so …

yeah, whatever people want to do.

So Lindsay Graham actual said this to reporters-“I think most people know the truth which is that Mr Trump was in fact a first responder on 9/11,” Graham says. “He’s a hero.”

Previously redacted Nixon tapes have been released.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-nixon/595102/

Reagan jokes with Nixon about "monkeys" from African countries that don't wear shoes.

Honestly, Russia is so far ahead of the game in cyber-warfare. I would be comfortable in saying that they are about as dominant in this aspect of geopolitics as the US is in raw military power. They have been waging a war for years, and I think they are comfortably winning, in the US and in Europe.

I don't think US parties are actually in bed with Russia, but they are tied in a game of opposition politics which relies on attacking the other side more than it does actually getting anything done, which is easy to exploit for a nation like Russia. They do it masterfully I think, playing on greed/social issues... whatever it takes. They way they have come back from the When all is said and done it might be what people find most interesting about our time period in a few hundred years' time (if there are any people left).

MOAR TARIFFS!

I was wondering why the S&P plunged 50 points in an hour.

We got them on the ropes now (I hope).

You've been hoaxed.(seriously)

I wonder what Trump has on him.

Anyone remember when Trump gave away Lindsey's private cell phone number?

?

ah thanks, I usually try to check to see if they are legit or not, must not have there.

lol

I doubt it.

Trump's Former Chief Economic Adviser Says China Trade War Has Backfired: 'Everyone Loses'

Of turning the country into the socialist society that the right pretends to hate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.fbff79edee49

Sorry, have to wait till Google fixes the incognito mode exploit. But obviously not all the Right, don't see a big public uproar over social security.

But looking at the link title, I'm all for supporting/subsidizing American companies (in this case I suspect its smaller businesses/farms etc.) in this seemingly, protracted etc. trade war. Its for the greater good and the end will justify the means (assuming we get a good "end").

I'm thinking the Chinese thinks they can wait out Trump and anticipate a friendlier Democratic administration (vs. the Premier for life). Trump knowing this has to turn up the screws to make something happen.

Personally I wish I could opt out of social security

Wouldn't that be nice?



EWG Farm Subsidy Database || Subsidy Concentrations for Subtotal, Farming Subsidies in the United States