This is unbelievably racist. Sorry, I just don't wish to go any further with this. I can't talk you out of racism.
Upvote
0
Why Republican Ideals Are Not God's Plan
- Thread starter SupernovaK
- Start date
This is unbelievably racist. Sorry, I just don't wish to go any further with this. I can't talk you out of racism.
- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,981
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
My 'racist' policy would help these countries as well as us (it would also reduce the bedbug problems here).
https://www.thequint.com/voices/blogs/india-brain-drain-and-no-jobs
Experts: Mexico experiences brain drain
Migration and brain drain from Africa acute Report - University World News
Arab 'brain drain' accelerates after Arab Spring: UN
I think that about covers it (oh wait, there's Indonesia and Asia).
Indonesia Brain Drain | GBG
Asian Brain Drain - Americus Sumter Observer Newspaper
So there seems to be a global brain drain from countries that desperately need their 'best and brightest'. And the facilitator for this disaster is the immigration policies of America and other affluent western nations.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Sorry that I missed these posts about bible contradictions the first time around. I'll try to address them now.
My assumption was, when I posted them, that the reader understood the stories well... I didn't cite every little detail because most of this is common knowledge. Jesus is accused of blasphemy in Mark 14:64 and found "guilty" of it. When brought to Pilate, they asked him if he was the "King of the Jews" Mark 15:1-2 because that was the relevant crime -- blasphemy was "claiming the attributes of a deity" Definition of BLASPHEMY Did you think they arrested Jesus for one crime and then brought him before Pilate for a different one? I'd like a source for this claim if that's what you believe. In fact, if you make any claim about what the bible says, please post your source rather than just telling me what you personally believe.
This is all just footnote stuff, though. The contradiction that I pointed out was that Jesus said nothing at his Pilate trial in the first 2 gospels so much so that Pilate marveled at his silence Matthew 27:12-14 Mark 15:3-5 in Luke he merely answers "You said it" (with the implication that he himself didn't) Luke 23:3 and in John he responds at length at least 3 times John 18:33-37. These can't all possibly be true.
Luke 1:39-41 If you didn't know about the visit to Elizabeth, why didn't you just look up the birth narrative in Luke yourself and read about it?
That baby within that citation turns out to be John the Baptist Luke 1:59-60 Luke 1:76-80 and if he was in the womb at the same time Jesus was, then he would be in the age group that Herod massacred as well as in the same region (if not, why flee to Egypt rather than just stay with Elizabeth again?).
While we both agree that "God told Joseph to take his family to Egypt" in Matthew, this doesn't make sense given what Luke tells us. In that gospel, instead of fleeing to Egypt, Jesus and his family go to Jerusalem when Jesus is 8 days old Luke 2:21-22 and immediately afterwards they go back home to Nazareth. Luke 2:38-39 But in Matthew, they go straight from Bethlehem to Egypt and stay there for years. Matthew 2:8-14 Matthew 2:22-23 until Herod's son Archelaus is king after Herod's death. In verse 22, it explains why Joseph brought them to Galilee instead of back to where they came from.
If you still have questions, take some time to actually read both of these narratives. Please don't just post a question mark as if I was very unclear. If you're familiar with the birth narratives, this should all make immediate sense. And it would go far in explaining why you don't think they're contradictory if you don't even know what they're claiming.
Upvote
0
You didn't cite the bible in showing that "he that doesn't work shouldn't eat", and it runs in direct opposition to Jesus' directive to feed the poor. Luke 14:13-14 Do you really want an atheist showing you up on bible knowledge?
I'm not familiar with where the bible calls excessive debt "slavery" or "sin", but nonetheless you have very biased views of your party if you think only Democrats run up excessive debts. If you look at the graph shown here History of the United States public debt - Wikipedia you'll see that debt rose under nearly every president, Republican or Democrat. The real story, however, is in the bottom half of that graph where it compares debt to GDP (which determines how much is collected in tax revenue). Our debt fell sharply in comparison to GDP from about 1940-1970 under both Democrats and Republicans. It then started to rise under the Republicans in the 80's, dropped under a Democrat in the 90's (Clinton actually balanced the budget for a year), and then spiked through both these recent 2 presidents, Bush and Obama. So there are obvious trends in the debt that have little correlation with the party that controls the white house. Democrats run up the debt for social programs while Republicans run it up for military applications, but neither party is recently financially responsible (with the exception of Bill Clinton specifically).
Upvote
0
- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,981
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
I have questions.
Why do you think Mary went to Jerusalem after the 8th day when the account clearly says the 40th day?
Why do you think the Magi went to Bethlehem when the story clearly suggests they went to Nazareth?
(This is not to suggest that the traditional manger scene should be changed. I actually like it even though it is clearly unbiblical.)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,981
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
That a man who 'doesn't work shouldn't eat', and that the 'debtor is servant to the lender' are well known scriptures. No citation needed.
Upvote
0
Even if they were, they would directly contradict the scripture that I cited, which specifically tells you to feed them on the premise that they can't repay you (verse 14). That doesn't clarify the issue. I thought you "accepted" that the bible contains contradictions, and that it was "no big deal". I thought you were insincere in that claim, and now I know you were.
Upvote
0
- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,981
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,981
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
There is no contradiction between feeding the hungry and insisting that able bodied men work when work is available.
As I have briefly shown most so-called contradictions are easily explained. The few that remain unexplained are no big deal to me.
Why are you even doing this, you haven't proven a single 'contradiction'.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I have questions.
Why do you think Mary went to Jerusalem after the 8th day when the account clearly says the 40th day?
Why do you think the Magi went to Bethlehem when the story clearly suggests they went to Nazareth?
Because Luke 2:21 said it was on the 8th day. There's no reference at all about a "40th day", and of course you didn't cite one because you made that up. Even if Luke didn't give a date, it did say that this was to fulfill the commandment in the scripture which specifically commands that it's done on the 8th day Genesis 17:12.
The Magi are specifically told to go to Bethlehem Matthew 2:8 Do you have any other questions for me to look up in the bible for you or do you think you can manage by yourself like a big boy? LMGTFY
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,981
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Your Google link supports my position. Will you apologize for your sarcastic ad homs if I'm proven correct?
Where and when did the wise-men meet Jesus?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,981
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Lurkers are welcome to help explain these things to Supernovak. It seems that my word and that of the bible aren't sufficient. Matthew 18:16
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,981
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,981
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
- Jun 26, 2015
- 26,396
- 15,479
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Thank you. The scripture does not say the Magi went to Bethlehem. It says that Herod sent them to Bethlehem but then it says that the star that they had seen in the east appeared to them again and led them to 'where the child was.'
No it says that he was circumcised on the 8th day. They didn't need to take him to Jerusalem to be circumcised if that is what you are thinking. Most likely they would have had the local Levite circumcise him or could even have done it themselves.
@OldWiseGuy is correct. It says they went to Jerusalem after the days of purification...which is 40 days.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I didn't disagree with the rest of it.
Some points I'd raise:
1. As a Christian, scripture tells me clearly that the Body of Christ is fully responsible to care for its own members. There is enough wealth in the hands of Christians around the world to ensure that no Christian in the world should ever be hungry, naked, or homeless. None. And if we ensured that, scripture assures us that the world would notice and praise God. This is not some kind of "hidden" scripture; the fact is, American Evangelicals know what Jesus expects of them...they just don't want to do it.
2. Evangelicals seem to have no problem invoking Romans 13 to claim Christians should support the government's authority to kill people. They seem to have a problem with the same verses directing Christians to pay whatever taxes the government levies.
There is zero scriptural support for tax resistance (much less rebellion). You probably know that the Israel monarchy was divided between the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judea. You probably also know that the northern kingdom was conquered repeatedly and eventually the Israelites disappeared as a discrete nation.
You may not know that the original reason of their separation from the united kingdom was a tax revolt against Solomon's son. So as far as scripture is concerned, this is the example of the consequences of tax revolt.
3. Many governments have seen a need to provide for its poorest citizens if for no other reason than to shore up civil order. Even the Roman Empire had a welfare program (consisting of both free food and free entertainment). If the government decides to implement a welfare program, there is zero scriptural support for the Church to oppose it. It's not even a matter for the Church, totally out of our scope. The same Romans 13 that gives the government authority to declare war also gives it authority to hand out food.
Upvote
0
I tend to feel that way about how Republicans are all for killing our enemies before they kill us.
Upvote
0
God doesn't care if Caesar has a welfare dole, nor does God care if Caesar releases a criminal.
Nor is it the mission of the Body of Christ to prevent Caesar from having a welfare dole or releasing a criminal.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
