Pre-match: Can't believe it took this long for this thread, the 2024 Presidential election thread!

Why would you be against those laws? What business is it of yours?

 

No. And you don't know what I do for a living. Is that a prereq to discussing in this thread?

 

Intellectually dishonest goal post change on your part. I'm going to stick to the topic. It was why Christians would vote for Republicans, and I gave one example of not being in favor of laws dictating what kids can do without parental consent. You said it didn't exist. I just showed you where it did. You lost that part of the debate. Do you want to ask another question now?

 

And now you are bearing false witness. Only JD Vance has said that. I said he was Hitler-loving, not that he was Hitler. If you don't understand such a basic difference, then I can't really help you. Saying you love Michael Collilns is not saying you are Michael Collins.

I only pointed out that just because people love someone/something, it does not mean they agree with it in every way. I don't know why that is difficult for you to understand.

But since you went there - Jesus fulfilled the law so that we don't have to. In other words, let's say there is a goal that we have to achieve but are unable to. If someone else comes along and fulfills that goal, it means the goal has been achieved. If you want to put it into soccer terms, 10 players are out there trying to score a goal but are unable to. An 11th player comes along and scores a goal in the 90+10th minute and they win the game. That game is now over. The objective has been achieved - they won the game. It wasn't achieved by taking the ball and going home (thereby destroying the game), it was achieved by playing by the rules of the game and fulfilling the objective. The law was fulfilled, not destroyed.

Deeds, not words. Central Park 5, labeling housing applications with "C" for "colored", inevitably referring to any black woman who opposes him as "nasty", etc. Deeds, not words.

 

You don't understand what that means. It's not your fault, you're trying to get a gotcha moment by cherry picking something you're ignorant on.

No, many others in media said it too. What have you got against someone who said they were wrong?

He said he didn't abolish it. That words has a specific meaning. Take your time to figure out what it is.

 

Because the left isn't commanding or demanding women to have abortions.

You'll also note the Bible never condemns abortion, but does actually say that a fetus that "drops" prematurely (the Hebrew term covers miscarriages and any other form of a baby not coming to term, which would include abortion) is better off than a man who has lived long years and has 100 children.

 

Vance and Trump said it would be the States decision.

Back to your question, you asked why Christians would vote for Republicans who are mostly on the side of pro life, and I said probably because they consider a fetus with a beating heart and functional neurology to the point where it can feel and react to pain to be alive and that is murder.

What's the problem here?

 

I thought you were referring to the accusation the gender affirming care was being done in schools without parental consent. Which is why I responded you cannot take an aspirin without a doctor note in school.

Congratulations.

 

Really? Is that particular command, or reasonable approximations thereof, not found throughout the Old Testament and encapsulated within Jesus's commands in the New Testament? If you're not familiar with the Bible, just say so.

Jesus summed up the law very succinctly, and the Leviticus passage I quoted explicitly falls within that summary by Jesus - as I've already explained.

 

Troll.

 

No, that’s not trolling.

 

Provide specific examples of when someone said Trump WAS Hitler. I've asked in these threads many times and so far no one has provided such an occurrence. They always point to something else (Nazi, fascist, etc), but never someone actually saying he was Hitler. The only one who has is JD Vance.

Clearly you don't understand what "fulfilled" means.

 

So you say Jesus didn't say this just because you don't want to believe he did? Is that right?

Matthew 5:17-20

King James Version


17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.


That's why I said your selective re-interpretation of passages was out of ignorance.

here's another one you're not going to like much

1. Psalm 139:13-14
“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.”

The Bible affirms that God is intimately involved in the creation and development of human life in the womb. King David wrote,

You didn't answer whether we should now replace the law of the Bible with law of the land. I'm genuinely curious about that.

Your attempts to use the Bible against itself are failing.

Do you agree that Christians are mostly against abortion? Wouldn't that answer your original question?

 

Clearly you do not understand what "I didn't come to destroy the law" means.

 

It's not good trolling, that's for sure. How did that source I provided work out for you?

 

I guess you don't understand rhetorical question responses.

Someone asked: "How can he love Hitler and support Israel at the same time?" So I provided the rhetorical response: "How can someone love God and support Trump at the same time?" You see, what I did was replace the first noun with another noun, and then the second noun with another noun.

The point, as I explained later was: "In other words, it is possible for actions and beliefs not to be congruent. So the orange Hitler-loving narcissistic rapist could both love/admire Hitler and still support Israel, especially if he saw personal benefit in supporting Israel."

 

If you love Jesus like he loved you, then you would also not be in favor of those who cherry picked the law. Sort of like what you're trying to do here. A reference for you to consider, what happened in the temple to those who were using it as a market. Not very "loving" of Jesus was it?

 

Yeah, and I gave you clear answers to a dishonest question. Now you're upset. Vance changed his opinion when he was wrong. You could try doing the same.

 

Here's more context to put your argument to rest

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Not only did he say he wasn't there to destroy the law, but he's clearly saying don't break any of them too.

Sorry, but your gotcha moment failed.

 

What I truly don't understand is why you're going to great lengths to avoid commenting on my original post. I'll put it here again.

Name one thing that Patrick Lanfear has wrong, and give your reasons why

1855239889635217526 is not a valid tweet id

 

I've already addressed that - maybe you missed it?

Yes, the Psalmist said that. And? I'll make two points to that.

First, according to the Bible God made lots of stuff - that has nothing to do with how we treat those things. You are making a logical jump that is not included in that passage.

Second, I'm reminded of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Al Mohler, who wrote two articles of interest in his blog a number of years ago. First, he said that it appears homosexuality is inborn (which science shows us it is) and that if a "cure" is developed, we should use it. Second, he said that abortion is immoral because God knits us together in the mother's womb. Of course, he was completely inconsistent with his beliefs - if God knits us together and makes some of us gay, why should we feel compelled to "fix" it?

I'm an atheist, so you can guess my personal view. But I have not been arguing from a position of atheism, I have been arguing from a position of evangelical Christianity in particular.

Many Christians certainly are today, even if many of those same Christian traditions were not in the 1960s.

And no, that does not answer my original question because Christian beliefs do not always line up very well with what Jesus taught. And that point is pretty obvious based on this discussion.

In fact, I invite you to do the following: Take out two pieces of paper. On one piece put the heading "Specific things Jesus told people to do". On the other write "Specific things Jesus told people not to do". Then go through the "red letters" in the Gospels and fill out the two sheets. It's simple to do, does not compel anyone to go against their beliefs, and will help you better understand what Jesus taught.

 

Again, in the passage I quoted, the first part was a specific command that was a subset of the second part. Jesus explicitly taught the second part as one of the two most important things we are to do. You have failed to show me how my reference of that passage is cherry-picking something out of context to what Jesus taught, given Jesus explicitly says the same thing that the general overarching command said.

 

Well, first you'll have to show me how I am wrong. Are you saying that using phrases like "poisoning the blood of our country" is not similar to what Hitler said?