• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Look who's side God is no now.

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,824
16,447
55
USA
✟413,847.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I think that touches on another aspect of the ideological conflict.

The hermanutics aspect is one that's something of a sticking point for the religious conservatives, and to be honest, I think their frustration with that is somewhat understandable.

Whenever that concept is invoked, almost without fail, it's almost always from a progressive-leaning academic perspective that has the predictable conclusion of "and here's why all of the things that align with my preferences are applicable, but all the things that the other team wants aren't meant to be taken literally or no longer apply"

And it's typically received as condescension.

"We don't believe your book is real, but for those of you who do believe it, we are going to tell you the correct way to believe in it... Which, as luck would have it, aligns with our political ideology"

Or, in a practical phrasing:

"Here's why all of the verses that would support welcoming migrants and giving money to the poor are still valid, but all that stuff it says about gays and women doesn't apply anymore"
It isn't really "religious conservatives" versus "progressives" that triggered that comment by our void-dwelling philosopher friend was about , [but] bad biblical interpretation, not the specific politics, based on bad methodology of analysis. The more the extracted quote is sought to serve a modern political purpose, the more likely it is to be "cherry-picked'. Even this "good hermannootics" is still passed through a general theological lens, so frankly I don't care. If I want to know what the some author of a book of Jewish scripture meant, I'm don't care how it is being interpreted today by various branches of Judaism, or Christianity. Instead, I'll find someone who works to understand what it meant to the author in the context of its time. Likewise with NT writings, if I want to know what Paul or "Luke" or "Mark" meant, then I will find analysists who work with in the contemporary context of authorship and not filter it through Reformed, or Catholic, or any other modern Christian theology. Being non-Christian is a benefit to our understanding when we can find the appropriate sources.

As for the ICE passage, I have no idea what the text even was because it doesn't matter as no government agency has any business quoting any scriptures for any reason.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,538
29,049
Pacific Northwest
✟812,849.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Right. The ICE video was not pitched to the fully biblically literate and the verse was not picked "willy-nilly."

"Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease.

Against stupidity we are defenseless.

...

The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with a person, but with slogans, catchwords and the like that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once and for all destroy human beings.

Yet at this very point it becomes quite clear that only an act of liberation, not instruction, can overcome stupidity.

Here we must come to terms with the fact that in most cases a genuine internal liberation becomes possible only when external liberation has preceded it. Until then we must abandon all attempts to convince the stupid person.

This state of affairs explains why in such circumstances our attempts to know what ‘the people’ really think are in vain and why, under these circumstances, this question is so irrelevant for the person who is thinking and acting responsibly. The word of the Bible that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom declares that the internal liberation of human beings to live the responsible life before God is the only genuine way to overcome stupidity.

But these thoughts about stupidity also offer consolation in that they utterly forbid us to consider the majority of people to be stupid in every circumstance. It really will depend on whether those in power expect more from people’s stupidity than from their inner independence and wisdom.
" - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,538
29,049
Pacific Northwest
✟812,849.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Which many will see as a strong argument against education. :rolleyes:

The longer I live the more I am convinced that the war against education, the war against science, the war against medicine, the war against competency is not a side-effect of certain political policies; but is a strategic necessity by certain people in power. Waging war on education and on credible institutions of knowledge and learning is the point--because destroying education and destroying faith in such institutions is strategically beneficial.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,693
11,541
Space Mountain!
✟1,363,142.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It is the most interesting of all of the fictional universes we discuss.
It's actually not. ... but don't get me wrong. I like to see Khan get kicked by Kirk and friends just like everyone else does.
Lucas? The only politics I remember in his work was the comment about democracy failing in the 3rd prequel, otherwise his morality tales were rather black and white (and often costumed that way as well).
You're missing the point, as usual.
I am unfamiliar with the 70s work of Stan Lee.
Both the 60s and 70s Marvel was, for the most part, anti-Communist. In fact, most of my outlook on life was gained from the first four Marvel comics I ever bought as kid. I still see the world pretty much that way even today.
Blaming a failed job application on "DEI" and "Marxism" is weak sauce.
.... I'm pretty sure that it wasn't because I couldn't do the job. I guess didn't apply enough pink, blue and orange to my hair-do and polish my nose rings up enough.
I'm telling this to the poster who is soft on separation of government and religion. (And therefore weak on opposition to theocracy.)

Actually, my support or opposition to, as you call it, "theocracy" depends upon a host of diverse, nuanced factors. Not all theocracies are built the same. Whether I may or may not be "weak" on opposition to theocracy doesn't quite follow directly on having a more lenient proviso between the extent to which I think government and religion can (as opposed to some prescriptive "should") interrelate.

Whatever your feelings are on the matter, I'm not daunted by any of those in the least. Just like you're not daunted by mine.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,693
11,541
Space Mountain!
✟1,363,142.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Which many will see as a strong argument against education. :rolleyes:

Those in the "many" category of which you speak are usually those who scream the loudest in support of the so-called perspicuity of scripture.

Maybe also see post #36 as a supplement here.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,693
11,541
Space Mountain!
✟1,363,142.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Right. The ICE video was not pitched to the fully biblically literate and the verse was not picked "willy-nilly."

That's just the thing: I need to talk face to face with the individual so I can question him further about his particular church background, his own ideology, and how he thinks the Bible should be "read." Until then, it's underdetermined.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,693
11,541
Space Mountain!
✟1,363,142.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It isn't really "religious conservatives" versus "progressives" that triggered that comment by our void-dwelling philosopher friend was about , [but] bad biblical interpretation, not the specific politics, based on bad methodology of analysis. The more the extracted quote is sought to serve a modern political purpose, the more likely it is to be "cherry-picked'. Even this "good hermannootics" is still passed through a general theological lens, so frankly I don't care. If I want to know what the some author of a book of Jewish scripture meant, I'm don't care how it is being interpreted today by various branches of Judaism, or Christianity. Instead, I'll find someone who works to understand what it meant to the author in the context of its time. Likewise with NT writings, if I want to know what Paul or "Luke" or "Mark" meant, then I will find analysists who work with in the contemporary context of authorship and not filter it through Reformed, or Catholic, or any other modern Christian theology. Being non-Christian is a benefit to our understanding when we can find the appropriate sources.

As for the ICE passage, I have no idea what the text even was because it doesn't matter as no government agency has any business quoting any scriptures for any reason.

That's fair.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
8,208
2,589
✟265,542.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
And people wonder "why" I place so much weight on the field of Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis where the Bible is being read.
I wish more hermeneutics were applied to the commentary of the video. This is just Anti American claptrap.
While it seeks to bash America, as though these NON WHITE people have no such tendencies as Whites do..
Our Government accused...YET>>>>>>
These poor people, suffering people have no such government over them that is the cause of this?
Oh no these non whites can never be under drug lord's. or narco states. After all they are non white
Shame on the bringer of such falsehoods about others.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,824
16,447
55
USA
✟413,847.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
It's actually not. ... but don't get me wrong. I like to see Khan get kicked by Kirk and friends just like everyone else does.

You're missing the point, as usual.
Probably because you don't make it clear what that point was. Was it something about ancient weapons or hokey religions? There is so little in the "Lucas universe" to even analyze from which to discern "politics". (That's why when found out there was a Trek v. Wars debate on "Star"s I knew I was a Trek man. After all there were only 3 SW movies but there was twice as many ST movies plus two whole TV series.)
Both the 60s and 70s Marvel was, for the most part, anti-Communist. In fact, most of my outlook on life was gained from the first four Marvel comics I ever bought as kid. I still see the world pretty much that way even today.
And I've never bought or even read a Marvel comic. Most of the characters in these Marvel movies that they advertise I had never heard of before. (I knew Spiderman.) I saw most of the Spiderman film on TV and a part of one of the X-men movies.
.... I'm pretty sure that it wasn't because I couldn't do the job. I guess didn't apply enough pink, blue and orange to my hair-do and polish my nose rings up enough.
This is one of the myths about hiring. There are lots of jobs where there are many people who could "do the job" therefore whoever they hired was almost certainly qualified and capable.
Actually, my support or opposition to, as you call it, "theocracy" depends upon a host of diverse, nuanced factors. Not all theocracies are built the same. Whether I may or may not be "weak" on opposition to theocracy doesn't quite follow directly on having a more lenient proviso between the extent to which I think government and religion can (as opposed to some prescriptive "should") interrelate.
the proper interrelation between governments and religions are things like the sending and paying of tax bills, the putting out of fires when they start on the religions property, the arresting of molesters, etc. Governments using religious doctrine is not acceptable.
Whatever your feelings are on the matter, I'm not daunted by any of those in the least. Just like you're not daunted by mine.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,824
16,447
55
USA
✟413,847.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I wish more hermeneutics were applied to the commentary of the video. This is just Anti American claptrap.
While it seeks to bash America, as though these NON WHITE people have no such tendencies as Whites do..
Our Government accused...YET>>>>>>
These poor people, suffering people have no such government over them that is the cause of this?
Oh no these non whites can never be under drug lord's. or narco states. After all they are non white
Shame on the bringer of such falsehoods about others.
I don't think you are getting the point of this thread. It is not about what the verse means (And now that I have looked at the article, I'm still not sure), but that a government agency has no place using religion in its propaganda. The US government is legally required to not endorse religious positions.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,693
11,541
Space Mountain!
✟1,363,142.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Probably because you don't make it clear what that point was. Was it something about ancient weapons or hokey religions? There is so little in the "Lucas universe" to even analyze from which to discern "politics". (That's why when found out there was a Trek v. Wars debate on "Star"s I knew I was a Trek man. After all there were only 3 SW movies but there was twice as many ST movies plus two whole TV series.)
Yes, I know. I've heard complaints over the years that I say "too little."
And I've never bought or even read a Marvel comic. Most of the characters in these Marvel movies that they advertise I had never heard of before. (I knew Spiderman.) I saw most of the Spiderman film on TV and a part of one of the X-men movies.
Admittedly, most comic books made are, or have been, fodder for the fire. But there have been a few comics story lines from DC and Marvel that are as entertaining, and which approach a work of "art," as some of the better Star Trek episodes have been (or as the first Star Wars movies have been).
This is one of the myths about hiring. There are lots of jobs where there are many people who could "do the job" therefore whoever they hired was almost certainly qualified and capable.
Yeah, yeah, I know. There's the common appeal to: "It's not completely their fault for not hiring you---There were just too many other good applicants and it's tough going for everyone right now." .... maybe. But I'm not going to tell you where I applied.
the proper interrelation between governments and religions are things like the sending and paying of tax bills, the putting out of fires when they start on the religions property, the arresting of molesters, etc. Governments using religious doctrine is not acceptable.

Yes, and you're coming at this from the context (more or less) of our current valuation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights (and other asundry laws). However, even so, these "texts" are still read and interpreted in more than one way, and like the Bible, are open game for Hermeneutical analysis-------------of various kinds. So, again, Hermeneutics, of the academic sort I'm referring to, play a part in the controversial political debate over the extent to which religion and government should (or should not) be separated.

So, Governments (in this case specifically, our Government) using religious doctrine is not acceptable, not as a legal necessity, but as a provisional preference. Where I would come in on all of this is as a hermeneutical in-betweener, who doesn't want the FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation) leading the way, but who also doesn't want someone like the following figure to lead the way either:

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,693
11,541
Space Mountain!
✟1,363,142.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I wish more hermeneutics were applied to the commentary of the video. This is just Anti American claptrap.
While it seeks to bash America, as though these NON WHITE people have no such tendencies as Whites do..
Our Government accused...YET>>>>>>
These poor people, suffering people have no such government over them that is the cause of this?
Oh no these non whites can never be under drug lord's. or narco states. After all they are non white
Shame on the bringer of such falsehoods about others.

Those are good points, but if we apply more academic level hermeneutics (as well as biblical exegesis), we'll probably need to consider the following when addressing biblical statements that are taken out of context:

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,693
11,541
Space Mountain!
✟1,363,142.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I don't think you are getting the point of this thread. It is not about what the verse means (And now that I have looked at the article, I'm still not sure), but that a government agency has no place using religion in its propaganda. The US government is legally required to not endorse religious positions.

Personally, as a philosopher, I would go so far as to say that our government, at any point, whether it's coming from the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, should not be using propaganda---------------PERIOD. We can do better than that. WE should do better than that.

Why don't we? Propaganda of any sort is not acceptable.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: ralliann
Upvote 0

durangodawood

re Member
Aug 28, 2007
27,473
19,168
Colorado
✟528,881.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
I don't know that Christian doctrine discourages that. The idea that God's revelation of Himself is "progressive" through history, culminating in Jesus who is THE Revelation of God is, last I checked, considered normative.

Though this can come down to the theological tradition/denomination of Christianity one is part of; as a Lutheran I would subscribe to the words of Dr. Luther when he says, "We believe the Scriptures for Christ's sake, we do not believe in Christ for the Scripture's sake". That is to say, the meaning and purpose of the Bible is Jesus, the point isn't the Bible for the Bible itself; but because the Bible is ultimately about Jesus and points us to Jesus. Or, going back to St. Augustine, "the Scriptures contain but a single Utterance", the single Utterance of Scripture being Jesus.

The historic Christian doctrinal claim is that Jesus is, Himself, the Divine Word of God. To dig fully into what that means would involve getting into layers of Greek and Jewish philosophical concepts as well as digging into the doctrine of the Trinity; but just on an immediate surface level meaning, to call Jesus the Divine Word made flesh, the Incarnate Logos as we would say, means that Jesus is God's way of making plain Himself.

So when we read Jesus saying things like, "If you have known Me you have known the Father" or where John the Evangelist writes, "No one has every seen God, but the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, has made Him known" or where the author of Hebrews writes, "At many times and in diverse ways God has spoken to our fathers through the prophets, but in these last days has spoken to us through His Son ... who is the radiance of His glory and the exact imprint of His Person" or where St. Paul says, "He is the visible image of the invisible God" it's all pointing to the fact that in Jesus we encounter God in the the clearest way possible. Jesus is how God tells us about Himself, and shows us Himself. To encounter to Jesus is to encounter God (not just in the sense that Jesus is, Himself, God by nature, which is true; but because Jesus as the Son shows us, reveals, and presents unambiguously, who His Father is). What is God like? Well God is like Jesus.

So taking these two things together: The point of the Bible is Jesus, and Jesus is the locus of Divine Revelation, God's own Self-Disclosure; then that means we don't get a full disclosure of God outside of and apart from Jesus--so if I read the Bible sans Christ, I am not going to get a clear image of God. I can only encounter who God really is in Scripture if I understand and read Scripture through a Christocentric lens--reading the Bible through Jesus.

This also means that it is not difficult nor controversial to say that God as He grants people encounter with Himself meets them not in fullness, but in part. Jesus, for example, says that Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of the human heart--but that this isn't how it was supposed to be from the beginning. That is to say, there is a limited encounter or limited amount of revelation; at least in some sense. God encounters people in the context of their time and culture. Israelite religion looks Near-Eastern not because Near-Eastern culture is superior or itself of Divine origin; but because that is the culture of Israel's historic context at nexus of Egypt, Canaan, and Mesopotamia--and God gives Himself within the context of that culture.

Circumcision, for example, was not a unique invention of the Israelites, there was an already established precedent in some of the cultures of the ancient near east--but in the story of Abraham and in the giving of the Torah, in the establishment of Covenant, circumcision means something specific; it becomes a sign of Covenant, a remembrance of God's promise to Abraham, it cements an identity based on Divine promises. For Christians, we see those covenant promises, God's covenant faithfulness, fulfilled in Jesus; St. Paul sees circumcision as a shadow pointing to the solid reality of Jesus, in which what matters is not foreskin but a transformation of the heart wrought by grace, and the Christian Sacrament of Baptism conveys a crystallization of the encounter with grace--whereby one is made new in Christ, with a new heart, a new conscience, the birth of becoming a new kind of person that is no longer under the bondage of slavery through Adam, but freedom in the Messiah, who has become the New Adam. For Paul this means "circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing"--the foreskin doesn't matter; and even more importantly--whether one is Jewish or one is Gentile isn't what matters, what matters is faith in the Messiah, the transformation that happens by the power of God through Jesus, in which we are becoming partakers of the new creation, for Christ was risen as first-fruits of the resurrection, and when He returns there will be resurrection, and the longing of all creation for renewal and freedom from the futility of death shall come to pass--that's new creation. Early Christian theologians, from the beginning, spoke of the day Jesus rose from the dead as an "8th day of creation" and highlighted the fact that the Torah commands male babies be circumcised on the 8th day as pointing to this--what does an "8th day of creation" mean? That going back to Genesis chapter 1 the story of creation unfolds in 6 days, with the 7th day a day of Divine rest--an 8th day of creation means new creation. If, in Eden we see creation sold over to slavery and futility through Adam and Eve's mishandling of their responsibility to care, steward, and be faithful rulers of God's good creation--then in Jesus there is a reversal of Adam's disobedient act, a healing and fix to the Fall, and ultimately the making-new of all creation. Through Jesus we, even today and right now, are called to become partakers of that new creation through faith, by grace, as we are being conformed to the image of Jesus, looking forward to the Day when God sets all things to rights; that through our forgiveness and call to follow Jesus we are supposed to be agents of transformative love and representatives of God's kingdom, and living lives that are infused with the hope of renewal and resurrection. To live a godly life is not that I might secure my spot in a good afterlife apart from earth; but because it reflects the hope of renewal, the cessation of death, the setting-to-rights of all things by God in a life of hopeful anticipation and confidence that Jesus has overcome death and the wicked powers and principalities are already defeated--I can therefore go and live my neighbor because that is my full human purpose as an Image-bearing creation of God, reflecting the new reality in Jesus, because God desires the full flourishing of His creation, not just of human beings, but the whole of creation ("Be fruitful and multiply").

And none of what I'm saying here is controversial, this is all of it pretty basic historic Christian dogma.

-CryptoLutheran
Well that is certainly a highly considered reply. And I read it and appreciate it.

Perhaps my problem is that, as a contemporary American in our hyper-political era, I am getting a wrong impression from some of the loudest Christians who seem to dismiss anything like a progression. Instead Jesus and his ministry cannot rise above any other part of the Bible in authority for our times - if that part is useful for enforcing ideological conformity.

Thats the impression I get anyway.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,131
17,010
Here
✟1,463,882.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
An unspoken part of the "progressive" argument is to privilege the words of Jesus himself over both more ancient revelations as well as later interpreters.

I understand that Christian doctrine highly discourages that. But From an outsider perspective it seems kind of sensible.
It does, until you consider that there are a multitude of concepts that aren't covered in the red font. (Red font referring to the words that were supposedly spoken by Jesus)

I've heard that same argument leveraged before, things along the lines of "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality or abortion" (just to name examples)

...but neglect to acknowledge that's true of many modern contentious topics.

People operating on the premise that silence on an issue implies neutrality or even approval of one perspective seems like it would be deeply flawed.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,824
16,447
55
USA
✟413,847.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Those are good points, but if we apply more academic level hermeneutics (as well as biblical exegesis), we'll probably need to consider the following when addressing biblical statements that are taken out of context:


I started watching this video and when I heard where the coordinates of the quoted text, my thoughts were: "is this Yahweh calling Isiah to be a prophet?", so I read the chapter and it was. (I can see why Christians would That was followed immediately by his first transmitted prophecy to the king of Judah about his enemies falling away before the pregnant lady's son learns right from wrong. Let's see what the professional academic hermenoodelists have to say... (watching rest of video...)

Pretty much the same understanding. They put a bit more into it about misunderstanding the "mission of Isiah" as general whatever you want it to be "mission from God" (w/ or w/o the dry white toast) that can be summarized with this bit of Midwestern scripture:

Oh my name it is nothin'
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And that land that I live in
Has God on its side.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

re Member
Aug 28, 2007
27,473
19,168
Colorado
✟528,881.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
It does, until you consider that there are a multitude of concepts that aren't covered in the red font. (Red font referring to the words that were supposedly spoken by Jesus)

I've heard that same argument leveraged before, things along the lines of "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality or abortion" (just to name examples)

...but neglect to acknowledge that's true of many modern contentious topics.

People operating on the premise that silence on an issue implies neutrality or even approval of one perspective seems like it would be deeply flawed.
Thats part of the problem right there: that human behavior should be governed by a comprehensive list of divine shalls and shall nots - which is the impression you get from earlier parts of the Bible. But the overall intent for correct human behavior that I get from Jesus' words and example can be summed up by: love God and love your neighbor.

Is there any red font that permits us to finally wear mixed fabrics again? (Or do we need a warning sign at our band merch table?)
 
Upvote 0

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
8,208
2,589
✟265,542.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Those are good points, but if we apply more academic level hermeneutics (as well as biblical exegesis), we'll probably need to consider the following when addressing biblical statements that are taken out of context:

More of the same "false witness" even worse....Enforcing law and justice is not the State, establishing a religion.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: rjs330
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,824
16,447
55
USA
✟413,847.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Yes, I know. I've heard complaints over the years that I say "too little."

Admittedly, most comic books made are, or have been, fodder for the fire. But there have been a few comics story lines from DC and Marvel that are as entertaining, and which approach a work of "art," as some of the better Star Trek episodes have been (or as the first Star Wars movies have been).
Which is fine, but that doesn't make the allusions to fiction I don't know useful in communicating things.
Yeah, yeah, I know. There's the common appeal to: "It's not completely their fault for not hiring you---There were just too many other good applicants and it's tough going for everyone right now." .... maybe. But I'm not going to tell you where I applied.


Yes, and you're coming at this from the context (more or less) of our current valuation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights (and other asundry laws). However, even so, these "texts" are still read and interpreted in more than one way, and like the Bible, are open game for Hermeneutical analysis-------------of various kinds. So, again, Hermeneutics, of the academic sort I'm referring to, play a part in the controversial political debate over the extent to which religion and government should (or should not) be separated.
It really shouldn't that hard to sort out and lawyers have been doing it for ages. Or at least it was until nitwits like CJ Roberts started defining "freedom of religion" to mean "freedom to use my religion as a sheild against other laws protecting your rights" instead of "freedom to practice".
So, Governments (in this case specifically, our Government) using religious doctrine is not acceptable, not as a legal necessity, but as a provisional preference. Where I would come in on all of this is as a hermeneutical in-betweener, who doesn't want the FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation) leading the way, but who also doesn't want someone like the following figure to lead the way either:

your contrast to the FFRF is a literal Nazi? Sheesh. I skimmed the video (Phil Williams is one of the best local reporters in the country on this topic of right wing extremists. Perhaps it is because there are so many nearby for him to investigate.) I think you can do better as a counter-example. I've supported the political positions of the FFRF on their one issue since I found out about them many years ago. I didn't even know they were a group for "atheists and agnostics" until a few years back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0