Joe Biden and his campaign have.Democrats tout Christianity? Lol
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Joe Biden and his campaign have.Democrats tout Christianity? Lol
That’s not directly attributed to Jesus, although it is in the OT and JC is quoted as saying he doesn’t want to change anything in the law.Yeabut.......his platform on the gays was just brutal.
It's like in Jesus 4:10 (somewhere in the NT I'm sure)
"No man on man love"
"No fags"
Doesn't say a lot about girl on girl action, so that might be ok.
Such as?
It’s interesting you ask that. Because there was a group of early Christians Who didn’t think Jesus was male. Rather he was both male and female and he said he wouldn’t return until the sexes were equal.Why was jesus a male and not female. Why is religion controlled by males? Why no female pope. Why do churches acquire wealth? Why do people follow jerry falwell jr as he wacks off behind a closet door watching his wife get banged by the pool boy. This is religion in a nut shell. Power Fu""""k in money this is how everything you need to know about religion
Mayor Pete says hi.Democrats tout Christianity? Lol
My issue with people who use the Bible to support their political beliefs is that 9/10 times they seem to quote from the Old Testament. Feel like part of the point of being a Christian is that we've moved on from the fire and brimstone parts of the Bible.
No, it's not, Chis. His whole point was to remove perversions in Christianity from the discussion of Jesus. That undoubtedly includes Trump-adoring evangelicals.
They are right, man. You are obsessed.
I’d offer a counter point. To me, the need to deify the man gets in the way of the message. You started the thread by asking why we can’t just follow the message yet here you are unwilling to separate the message from the dogma. So answer your own question. Why can’t you separate them?Absolutely correct! I think for most, they have to buy into the message before they can even fathom His divinity. I really enjoyed Lee Stroble's Case for Christ on this topic.
Evangelicals like to say Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality but in reality they were destroyed for not helping the poor and the weak.what are your thoughts?
Scripturally His platform was:
Love God.
Love your neighbor as yourself.
Forgive others who have wronged you.
Love your enemies.
Ask God for forgiveness of your sins.
Socially His platform was:
Take care of the poor
He elevated the position of women
He challenged religious law at every turn
He challenged social status (What self-respecting leader would go to parties with prostitutes and swindlers)
Most of the discussion I see here are either does a god exist or not or a challenge of Christian belief systems and their consistent hypocrisy. But what about Jesus himself...he was controversial for His time, but in many ways He most certainly was not this white conservative as many want to see him as. He was very progressive for His time. Thoughts?
I’d offer a counter point. To me, the need to deify the man gets in the way of the message. You started the thread by asking why we can’t just follow the message yet here you are unwilling to separate the message from the dogma. So answer your own question. Why can’t you separate them?
And now we have a president and his cult who take it to a level never before seen in America.The definition of hypocrisy is a politician. They only say what they need to for votes. They don’t really care once they’re part of the establishment. And they have to be a part of the establishment or they’re out the door of their own party.
To kind of go along with what Keller said in the tweets I posted...(as an example) Homosexuality is specifically called out as a sin (along with a whole myriad of other things both sexual and non-sexual). However, many evangelicals read that as homosexuality should be outlawed, gay marriage should be outlawed, gays shouldn't have the same rights as others and that government should pass laws to do all of that. The Bible says the person must turn away from their sin and ask for repentance. Notice the difference? How should Christians address one's homosexuality (particularly of a loved one)? The Bible kind of leaves it up in the air, though it does talk about how to treat sinners as a whole.
I’m going to challenge this again. The Bible is silent on the issue of loving same sex relationships except to honor them in the example of David and Jonathan. What the Bible actually condemned was the pagan practice of the time where people would sleep with male prostitutes as a way of worshiping a competing religion.To kind of go along with what Keller said in the tweets I posted...(as an example) Homosexuality is specifically called out as a sin (along with a whole myriad of other things both sexual and non-sexual). However, many evangelicals read that as homosexuality should be outlawed, gay marriage should be outlawed, gays shouldn't have the same rights as others and that government should pass laws to do all of that. The Bible says the person must turn away from their sin and ask for repentance. Notice the difference? How should Christians address one's homosexuality (particularly of a loved one)? The Bible kind of leaves it up in the air, though it does talk about how to treat sinners as a whole.
That’s the entire point of the thread. And I don’t agree that you can’t separate the teachings from the teacher. In fact I’d go further and assert that if the teachings have any value, they should stand on their own, independent of the teacher.Christ didn't separate them. Separating the political from the religious should be easy, but one can't separate Christ's claim to be the Son of God from His teachings...they go hand in hand.
Paul calls out same sex religious practices in Romans. But in keeping with the point of the thread, Jesus is never quoted on the topic.Where that conflicts for me though, is that Jesus spoke with everyone - he didn't make any exceptions. I don't recall where in the New Testament where homosexuality gets called out. Most of that seems to get mentioned in the Old Testament.
It will not be the last time the Democrats spotlight Biden’s lifelong Catholicism. A political action committee announced last week it will spend $50,000 on ads highlighting religious reasons to vote for Biden and the convention this week will feature a nun and a Jesuit priest in high-profile speaking spots.
Mayor Pete says hi.
Didnt Thomas Jefferson already do this. Pretty sure he did.
Pelosi says hi too. So does Biden. The Bible says you’re not supposed to wear your religion as a badge of honor but to practice it and demonstrate it by your deeds. As a Catholic you should appreciate that.Yes, I meant on a macro level like Republicans do.
Pelosi says hi too. So does Biden. The Bible says you’re not supposed to wear your religion as a badge of honor but to practice it and demonstrate it by your deeds. As a Catholic you should appreciate that.
I believe that’s the point. Religion is between you and your gods, not you and the public.I agree. And I'm not impressed with either one's religious beliefs.
Yes and no. We are called to share and disciple to others. We are called to community worship.I believe that’s the point. Religion is between you and your gods, not you and the public.
Where that conflicts for me though, is that Jesus spoke with everyone - he didn't make any exceptions. I don't recall where in the New Testament where homosexuality gets called out. Most of that seems to get mentioned in the Old Testament.
I acknowledge that point is in there too.Yes and no. We are called to share and disciple to others. We are called to community worship.
That’s the entire point of the thread. And I don’t agree that you can’t separate the teachings from the teacher. In fact I’d go further and assert that if the teachings have any value, they should stand on their own, independent of the teacher.
My biggest issue with Jesus is that he failed to give props to the dinosaurs.
Because to follow Jesus also means to surrender your life in Christ and declare Him King.I’d offer a counter point. To me, the need to deify the man gets in the way of the message. You started the thread by asking why we can’t just follow the message yet here you are unwilling to separate the message from the dogma. So answer your own question. Why can’t you separate them?
This.Because to follow Jesus also means to surrender your life in Christ and declare Him King.
Many in this thread are cool with some of Jesus’s teachings (feed the poor) but are they also cool with rendering to Caesar what is Caesar? What about Paul’s teachings (Romans 13 and other)? Do they not matter? Paul had a personal encounter with The Man! That should count for something I would hope.
Many are OK with Jesus but will not declare Him as King over their lives. You cannot do one without the other. Impossible as that would be cherry-picking Jesus’s own words. The question is not if you believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Rather, do you want a King (Christ Jesus) to rule over you? Many, Christians and non-Christians alike stumble here.
Americans today have no real, tangible experience living under absolute authority. For many of us, we can only relate to our own Father’s as king of the homes we grew up in. Many men have a difficult/complex relationship with their father’s. It should come as no surprise that men who felt unloved by their father’s and cannot trust them also have a much greater tendency to deny faith & religion.
Following Jesus is hard, like be willing to die for Him hard! To do that, requires Biblical community to strengthen you and once you have Biblical community, you have religion. Following Jesus alone is not really possible and he made that very clear. We are to be the church and the church is Christ’s bride. As a husband has been faithful to his bride, so will Christ be with the church.
I know Paul spoke of it, along with other sexual sins.
And Jesus speaking with everyone is kind of the point. Legal action isn't called for in the Bible, it's purely an action between the sinner (regardless of sin) and God. There is nothing there saying there should be legal consequences for any sin. So, a Christian saying that a particular sin requires a particular legal action (see Keller's mention of abortion) based on the Bible is incorrect.
what are your thoughts?
Scripturally His platform was:
Love God.
Love your neighbor as yourself.
Forgive others who have wronged you.
Love your enemies.
Ask God for forgiveness of your sins.
Socially His platform was:
Take care of the poor
He elevated the position of women
He challenged religious law at every turn
He challenged social status (What self-respecting leader would go to parties with prostitutes and swindlers)
Most of the discussion I see here are either does a god exist or not or a challenge of Christian belief systems and their consistent hypocrisy. But what about Jesus himself...he was controversial for His time, but in many ways He most certainly was not this white conservative as many want to see him as. He was very progressive for His time. Thoughts?
Not sure I agree with all of this. A pretty careful parsing of the New Testament shows that all or almost all of the divinity claims appear only in John--the last of the gospels to be written. The scholars in the Jesus Seminar made a pretty good case that these divinity claims were inserted late in the game by folks who were looking to build a new religion around the teachings of Jesus and wanted to give them the extra appearance of authority. Personally, I doubt that Jesus actually claimed to be divine, and he actually might have been mortified by any such claim. With all of that said, most of his teachings are pretty unassailable in terms of being a moral, loving, and just way to lead one's life.Not in this case. Everything in the New Testament in based on Jesus claiming to be the Son of God. If He isn't, then his teachings are worthless because they are taught by Him with the idea that He is speaking for God. He isn't just the teacher, He is the point of the teachings. That matters
I find your position very contradictory. You explain exactly why religion and politics are essentially the same thing.When you mix politics and religion, you get politics.
The movement into politics of evangelical Christianity in the 1980s was very good for Republican politics. It has been an absolute disaster for evangelical Christianity.
I'm pretty convinced there is no home in either party for someone trying to live and vote Christian. You have to do the best you can. I'm Catholic, and every single week for 40 years I listen to the gospels and the letters of Paul and the other apostles, and it's actually shocking how not political Jesus was in the current sense. How little he has to say about government policy and secular law.
The obsession of Christians with harnessing government, and with politicians harnessing Christianity, I think falls so far outside and below what Christ asked for.
I use my Christian beliefs to vote my conscience as much as I can, there's nothing wrong with that, and in some cases voting I think is a powerful exercise of your Christianity. I personally think it's important to vote pro-life. I think it was important to vote for candidates who did not appease the Soviet Union and it's attempt to crush out Christianity in Eastern Europe.
But I just don't see how the full on political bent of some wings of Christianity is even remotely defensible in the Gospel.
That’s really only true for John. Jesus is hardly divine at all in Mark. And the Bible is filled with teachings that are considered valuable that don’t come from a divine teacher. The nature of Jesus isn’t really important. We know that because Christianity existed for hundreds of years before his nature was settled.Not in this case. Everything in the New Testament in based on Jesus claiming to be the Son of God. If He isn't, then his teachings are worthless because they are taught by Him with the idea that He is speaking for God. He isn't just the teacher, He is the point of the teachings. That matters