Talarico recants past statements, says he was 'intentionally provocative' by calling God 'non-binary'

Tuur · Sunday at 4:43 PM

ViaCrucis said:
Well that's easy. It's Talarico.

Paxton is a snake.

But then again, this is America. The place where sheep vote for wolves, and gazelles vote for leopards. So being a corrupt immoral snake is probably in Paxton's favor.

As far as the specific topic of the thread. I am not familiar with Talarico's specific remarks, but referring to God as "non-binary" is likely to serve two purposes: It is provocative, which Talarico seems to be admitting to here. But it's also normative, orthodox Christian doctrine that the Divine Essence is non-gendered. So while "non-binary" is a provocative statement, and would technically still be incorrect as non-binary applies only to a context of human gender; God is best described as non-gendered. This is a non-controversial and non-provocative statement, as it is entirely accurate. God is neither male nor female--He is God.

Whether either lives in a herpetarium is one question; how well either would support federal and state constitutions is another. Frankly, I don't know the answer to that, having not followed the Texas race very much. He does seem to want to back away from statements in the past, which isn't that unusual in politics, and so far hasn't been impressive in doing so. He's went from boasting of running a non-meat campaign (when he was campaigning for re-election to the Texas State House) and buying only vegan products to posing with a turkey leg in hand and mouth. His statement that God is non-binary came up in a floor speech in opposition of a bill restricting what sports transgender students can compete in,. Despite his arguments in the aftermath of that, he overlooks something rather simple: The incarnation of Christ. Would enjoy seeing him answering whether the trinity is God the Father; God the Son; and God the Holy Spirit.

Postvieww · Sunday at 5:48 PM

ViaCrucis said:
Well that's easy. It's Talarico.

Based on what?

ViaCrucis said:
As far as the specific topic of the thread. I am not familiar with Talarico's specific remarks

You should be before jumping on his band wagon.

iluvatar5150 · Sunday at 9:58 PM

Tuur said:
Oh my word: This is Civics 101. Impeachment is a trial. On the Federal level, the House acts as the grand jury and returns articles of impeachment just as a grand jury returns an indictment. The trial is then held in the Senate, which is like a trial held by the traverse jury, except instead of 12 jurors you have 100.

A quick check shows that Texas follows the same model. The Texas House returns articles of impeachment and the trial for removal is held in the Texas Senate. There you have 31. Like it or not Paxton was acquitted on all impeachment charges.

ok, fair enough, I should've been more specific in my objection.

Yes, the format is similar and some of the vocabulary is shared. What I was objecting to was the claim about evidence: impeachments don't hinge on evidence the same way that criminal trials do. A prosecutor has to have a certain amount of evidence against a person to seek an indictment against them, whereas the same is not true of a House seeking an impeachment of an elected official. They could do it just because they feel like it.

So, one could argue that, with regards to judging whether or not a person actually committed an act, an impeachment alone means even less than an indictment. And they'd be correct. But by the same token, the aqcuittal also means less.

In the criminal world, an acquittal can mean that a person didn't do it or it can mean that they did it, but the state didn't adequately make their case. Either way, that decision is made by an impartial jury, seeking to weigh evidence they've been given in a very specific and controlled manner according to very specific rules they've been given. An acquittal should, at the very least, cause a person to be seriously skeptical of the veracity of the original charges.

The same is not true of an impeachment, where the Senate acts as a combination of judge and juror, deciding the rules as they go, over a case in which every single member has a vested interest in the outcome swinging one way or the other. The only thing the verdict really indicates is what was politicallly advantageous to the majority of senators at the time of the vote.

In Paxton's case, the impeachment vote was 121-23, with the ayes split roughly evenly between Dems and Republicans. That was preceded by quite a bit of investigating and procuring of evidence. Somehow an overwhelming majority Republican Representatives were convinced by their chamber's investigations that he should be removed from office, but only 2 of 18 Republican Senators were convinced.

Tuur · Monday at 5:43 AM

iluvatar5150 said:
In Paxton's case, the impeachment vote was 121-23, with the ayes split roughly evenly between Dems and Republicans. That was preceded by quite a bit of investigating and procuring of evidence. Somehow an overwhelming majority Republican Representatives were convinced by their chamber's investigations that he should be removed from office, but only 2 of 18 Republican Senators were convinced.

I sincerely doubt the Democrats were in favor for removal strictly on legal grounds.

iluvatar5150 · Monday at 9:46 AM

Tuur said:
I sincerely doubt the Democrats were in favor for removal strictly on legal grounds.

Sure, which is why I pointed out how many how House Republicans were on board.

I'd also point out that, as in the case of the Trump impeachments, a guilty verdict and removal from office wouldn't magically give Dems that position - Paxton (and Trump) would've been replaced by another Republican. In both cases, Republicans would've retained the power of the office. Sure, the political calculus may have been complicated, but it's not hard to imagine how they could've come out ahead by presenting themselves as virtuous stewards of the public trust, rooting out corruption amongst their own ranks even when it's difficult.

Tuur · Monday at 12:02 PM

iluvatar5150 said:
Sure, which is why I pointed out how many how House Republicans were on board.

I'd also point out that, as in the case of the Trump impeachments, a guilty verdict and removal from office wouldn't magically give Dems that position - Paxton (and Trump) would've been replaced by another Republican. In both cases, Republicans would've retained the power of the office. Sure, the political calculus may have been complicated, but it's not hard to imagine how they could've come out ahead by presenting themselves as virtuous stewards of the public trust, rooting out corruption amongst their own ranks even when it's difficult.

To back up slightly, the statement that the senate acts as judge and jury didn’t feel comfortable, then remembered the chief justice of the USSC acts as judge on the federal level. Judges in action seem to serve as referee during jury trials. Hearings are somewhat different, but even in probate court they seem more like a referee in seeing proper legal procedure is maintained. Note: this is just my observation for being on traverse juries and in probate court.

Impeachment seems closer to the centuries old practice in England of a jury investigating matters. That ended long ago, but it may be more accurate to say that, during impeachment, the senate acts as inquisitor and jury.

Getting back to the post at hand, we’re not allowed to invoke the popular name of a certain species, but that is as much a factor as anything, along with internal jockeying for power.

iluvatar5150 · Monday at 12:48 PM

Tuur said:
Getting back to the post at hand, we’re not allowed to invoke the popular name of a certain species, but that is as much a factor as anything, along with internal jockeying for power.

Anything's possible, but that's a level of eating one's own that would give even Democrats pause.

Tuur · Tuesday at 5:40 AM

iluvatar5150 said:
Anything's possible, but that's a level of eating one's own that would give even Democrats pause.

Not really. This was how my father-in-law first had a relative run against him in a primary, then had said relative refuse to lend his support in the run-off. I don’t think said relative was so clueless as to not realize he was forcing a run-off in favor of my father-in-law’s opponent and then that he was undermining support.

hedrick · Tuesday at 7:12 AM

Vambram said:
Frankly? I doubt his recantation is sincere.

You really think God has gender? I thought the consensus was that that's based on things God doesn't have. I suppose non-binary might be technically true, in the sense that God is neither male nor female, but you wouldn't normally use that term except if you're making some kind of point.

Michie · Tuesday at 8:06 AM

God refers to Himself all through out Scripture with male pronouns.

ViaCrucis · Tuesday at 11:07 AM

Michie said:
God refers to Himself all through out Scripture with male pronouns.

That does not make God male.

To assign gender to the Divine Essence would be an act of confusing the Creator with the created, which is of course quite heretical.

"That he is Father we know in utmost fullness from Jesus Christ, who constantly makes loving, thankful, and reverent reference to him as his Origin. It is because he bears fruit of himself and requires no fructifying that he is called Father, and not in the sexual sense, for he will be the Creator of man and woman, and thus contains the primal qualities of woman in himself in the same simultaneous transcending way as those of man." - Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar, Credo

"Accordingly the everlasting God generates His own Word which is perfect, without beginning and without end, that God, Whose nature and existence are above time, may not engender in time. But with man clearly it is otherwise, for generation is with him a matter of sex, and destruction and flux and increase and body clothe him round about , and he possesses a nature which is male or female. For the male requires the assistance of the female." - St. John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book I, Ch. 1

"But because they are there renewed after the image of God, where there is no sex; man is there made after the image of God, where there is no sex, that is, in the spirit of his mind." - St. Augustine, On the Trinity, Book XII, Ch. 7

To assign gender to the Divine Essence undermines the Creator-creature distinction, it denies the the redemption we have in Christ (for Christ, though becoming male in His humanity, is Savior not of men alone, but men and women; who in Christ and being transformed into the image of Christ and, therefore, having the Image of God restored), it cuts God in half and brings confusion and breeds countless heresy.

No. God is not male. God is God.

The Divine Logos, Second Person of the Holy Trinity, did indeed truly become man (that is, human) and in His humanity, a male. We do not, on this occasion, assign gonads and gametes of any kind to the Divine Being--for the Father bears of His own Essence, His Eternal Son and Word, not with partner, but of Himself, of His own Essence. This is basic orthodox Trinitarianism.

Delvianna · Tuesday at 11:17 AM

ViaCrucis said:
That does not make God male.

To assign gender to the Divine Essence would be an act of confusing the Creator with the created, which is of course quite heretical.

"That he is Father we know in utmost fullness from Jesus Christ, who constantly makes loving, thankful, and reverent reference to him as his Origin. It is because he bears fruit of himself and requires no fructifying that he is called Father, and not in the sexual sense, for he will be the Creator of man and woman, and thus contains the primal qualities of woman in himself in the same simultaneous transcending way as those of man." - Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar, Credo

"Accordingly the everlasting God generates His own Word which is perfect, without beginning and without end, that God, Whose nature and existence are above time, may not engender in time. But with man clearly it is otherwise, for generation is with him a matter of sex, and destruction and flux and increase and body clothe him round about , and he possesses a nature which is male or female. For the male requires the assistance of the female." - St. John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book I, Ch. 1

"But because they are there renewed after the image of God, where there is no sex; man is there made after the image of God, where there is no sex, that is, in the spirit of his mind." - St. Augustine, On the Trinity, Book XII, Ch. 7

To assign gender to the Divine Essence undermines the Creator-creature distinction, it denies the the redemption we have in Christ (for Christ, though becoming male in His humanity, is Savior not of men alone, but men and women; who in Christ and being transformed into the image of Christ and, therefore, having the Image of God restored), it cuts God in half and brings confusion and breeds countless heresy.

No. God is not male. God is God.

The Divine Logos, Second Person of the Holy Trinity, did indeed truly become man (that is, human) and in His humanity, a male. We do not, on this occasion, assign gonads and gametes of any kind to the Divine Being--for the Father bears of His own Essence, His Eternal Son and Word, not with partner, but of Himself, of His own Essence. This is basic orthodox Trinitarianism.

Your proof is what other people said?

ViaCrucis · Tuesday at 11:39 AM

Delvianna said:
Your proof is what other people said?

I'm sharing the historic witness of the Christian Church as to what Christians have always believed.

God, in Christianity, is neither male nor female. He's God.

Male and female gods are something Pagans believe. Their false gods were having sex just like human beings. But the Scriptures are clear, our God is not like human beings. He is not to be compared to human beings or anything else in all of creation.

"To whom then will you liken God,
or what likeness compare with Him?
An idol! ..."

"Do you not know? Do you not hear?
Has it not been told to you from the beginning?
Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?

It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;
who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;
who brings princes to nothing,
and makes the rulers of the earth as emptiness.
..."

"To whom then will you compare Me, that I should be like him? Says the Holy One.
Lift up your eyes on high and see:
Who created these?
He who brings out their host by number,
calling them all by name;
by the greatness of His might
and because He is strong in power,
not one is missing.

Why do you say, O Jacob,
and speak, O Israel,
'My way is hidden from the LORD,
and my right is disregarded by my God'?
Have you not known? Have you not heard?
The LORD is the everlasting God,
The Creator of the ends of the earth.
He does not faint or grow weary;
His understanding is unsearchable."
-Isaiah 40:18, 21-23, 25-28

Assigning gender to the Divine Essence is nothing less than a form of Pagan idolatry. No different than if we assign to the Almighty other things, such as thinking the Divine Essence has a physical body, or human passions. The gods of Paganism are mutable, passible, with sex, who engage in violence amongst themselves, who suffer from all the same foibles as mortal men. Our God is not like the gods of the nations.

"I am the LORD, and there is no other,
besides Me there is no God;"
- Isaiah 45:5

Delvianna · Tuesday at 11:51 AM

ViaCrucis said:
I'm sharing the historic witness of the Christian Church as to what Christians have always believed.

God, in Christianity, is neither male nor female. He's God.

Male and female gods are something Pagans believe. Their false gods were having sex just like human beings. But the Scriptures are clear, our God is not like human beings. He is not to be compared to human beings or anything else in all of creation.

"To whom then will you liken God,
or what likeness compare with Him?
An idol! ..."

"Do you not know? Do you not hear?
Has it not been told to you from the beginning?
Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?

It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;
who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;
who brings princes to nothing,
and makes the rulers of the earth as emptiness.
..."

"To whom then will you compare Me, that I should be like him? Says the Holy One.
Lift up your eyes on high and see:
Who created these?
He who brings out their host by number,
calling them all by name;
by the greatness of His might
and because He is strong in power,
not one is missing.

Why do you say, O Jacob,
and speak, O Israel,
'My way is hidden from the LORD,
and my right is disregarded by my God'?
Have you not known? Have you not heard?
The LORD is the everlasting God,
The Creator of the ends of the earth.
He does not faint or grow weary;
His understanding is unsearchable."
-Isaiah 40:18, 21-23, 25-28

Assigning gender to the Divine Essence is nothing less than a form of Pagan idolatry. No different than if we assign to the Almighty other things, such as thinking the Divine Essence has a physical body, or human passions. The gods of Paganism are mutable, passible, with sex, who engage in violence amongst themselves, who suffer from all the same foibles as mortal men. Our God is not like the gods of the nations.

"I am the LORD, and there is no other,
besides Me there is no God;"
- Isaiah 45:5

Just because people from a few hundred years ago believed something, doesn't make it accurate. By that logic, Baal worshipers are accurate, or the Muslim faith of Allah is accurate. Every single time God is mentioned in scripture, it uses male pronouns. If God was gender neutral, it wouldn't do that. Jesus is God is he not? He is male. So even by trinitarian standards, where Jesus and the Father are one, God is still male.

ViaCrucis · Tuesday at 11:56 AM

Delvianna said:
Just because people from a few hundred years ago believed something, doesn't make it accurate. By that logic, Baal worshipers are accurate, or the Muslim faith of Allah is accurate. Every single time God is mentioned in scripture, it uses male pronouns. If God was gender neutral, it wouldn't do that. Jesus is God is he not? He is male. So even by trinitarian standards, where Jesus and the Father are one, God is still male.

Last I checked the New Testament was written by "people from a few hundred years ago", specifically two thousand years ago. So I'm hoping your argument here isn't that because something is old it is unreliable, because the Bible is pretty old. The Bible is also the divinely inspired written word of God.

Yes, Jesus Christ is male.

That's because our Lord Jesus Christ is human.

Are you familiar with the doctrine of the Incarnation?

Delvianna · Tuesday at 11:59 AM

ViaCrucis said:
Last I checked the New Testament was written by "people from a few hundred years ago", specifically two thousand years ago. So I'm hoping your argument here isn't that because something is old it is unreliable, because the Bible is pretty old. The Bible is also the divinely inspired written word of God.

Yes, Jesus Christ is male.

That's because our Lord Jesus Christ is human.

Are you familiar with the doctrine of the Incarnation?

And yet Jesus always was.

John 8:58: Jesus declared, "Very truly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I am!"

"Flesh" means humanity, not that he didn't have a human body before hand and suddenly, now he does. Other wise, how are we made in His "image"?

Also, its your argument about everything old = truth. My argument is wisdom/discernment is needed and truth is dependent on what is actually true, and not just because it's old.

ViaCrucis · Tuesday at 12:16 PM

Delvianna said:
And yet Jesus always was.

John 8:58: Jesus declared, "Very truly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I am!"

"Flesh" means humanity, not that he didn't have a human body before hand and suddenly, now he does. Other wise, how are we made in His "image"?

Also, its your argument about everything old = truth. My argument is wisdom/discernment is needed and truth is dependent on what is actually true, and not just because it's old.

The Second Person of the Trinity, the "I am" of John 8:58, is Eternal--the Son, the Logos, has always existed because He's God. As the Nicene Creed states, He is "begotten of the Father before all ages" "begotten, not made" "of the same Being with the Father". As the Divine Son He is Eternal God, consubstantial with the Father.

That Hypostasis, that Person, the Son/Logos, at a specific point in time became flesh--became human--of the Virgin Mary.

"But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of woman, born under the law." - Galatians 4:4

In this way the Logos "became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14)

God became man.

This is the Incarnation. God the Son united to Himself human nature, and in so doing received a human body and soul. As we confess in the Symbol put forward at Chalcedon, He is "fully human, of a rational soul and body".

So that Jesus Christ is to be confessed as One Person, undivided; both fully human and fully Divine; with neither confusion nor separation. We do not divide the Person, so as to deny that it is truly God who was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary; nor do we confuse the "natures" so as to eradicate the distinctiveness of each--for we confess that the Son suffered not in His Divinity, but in His humanity, and yet as the Acts of the Apostles tells us, the Church is founded on God's own blood.

He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, as true flesh of her flesh, like us in all ways but without sin. Truly human. Remaining, however, as He always was: True God, consubstantial with the Father, only-begotten Son, the Logos.

The idea that God, in His Essence, has physical form--a body--is an age old heresy called Audianism. Audius taught, wrongly, that the Divine Essence had physical form, and that when Genesis it says humans are made in the Image of God it means physically. This view is, through-and-through heretical.

God does not have shape nor form, He is God.

God the Son, in His Incarnation, has a human body--because He's human.

ViaCrucis · Tuesday at 12:19 PM

Just to add comment: If one has to engage in blatant heresy in order to defend a political opinion, then perhaps that political opinion isn't worth holding onto.

What matters is the truth of the Gospel--and if we deny the Gospel in favor of political partisanship then we are denying Jesus Christ before men (and He says whoever denies Him before man, He will deny before His Father). So, perhaps, forsake the false MAGA gospel, repent, and return to the pure word of Christ.

Delvianna · Tuesday at 12:24 PM

ViaCrucis said:
The Second Person of the Trinity, the "I am" of John 8:58, is Eternal--the Son, the Logos, has always existed because He's God. As the Nicene Creed states, He is "begotten of the Father before all ages" "begotten, not made" "of the same Being with the Father". As the Divine Son He is Eternal God, consubstantial with the Father.

That Hypostasis, that Person, the Son/Logos, at a specific point in time became flesh--became human--of the Virgin Mary.

"But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of woman, born under the law." - Galatians 4:4

In this way the Logos "became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14)

God became man.

This is the Incarnation. God the Son united to Himself human nature, and in so doing received a human body and soul. As we confess in the Symbol put forward at Chalcedon, He is "fully human, of a rational soul and body".

So that Jesus Christ is to be confessed as One Person, undivided; both fully human and fully Divine; with neither confusion nor separation. We do not divide the Person, so as to deny that it is truly God who was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary; nor do we confuse the "natures" so as to eradicate the distinctiveness of each--for we confess that the Son suffered not in His Divinity, but in His humanity, and yet as the Acts of the Apostles tells us, the Church is founded on God's own blood.

He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, as true flesh of her flesh, like us in all ways but without sin. Truly human. Remaining, however, as He always was: True God, consubstantial with the Father, only-begotten Son, the Logos.

The idea that God, in His Essence, has physical form--a body--is an age old heresy called Audianism. Audius taught, wrongly, that the Divine Essence had physical form, and that when Genesis it says humans are made in the Image of God it means physically. This view is, through-and-through heretical.

God does not have shape nor form, He is God.

God the Son, in His Incarnation, has a human body--because He's human.

And I've already addressed this per my last message. It's "humanity" not a literal body like he didn't have one before.

Flesh word in John 1:14 is σάρξ

Meaning: the sensuous nature of man, "the animal nature"

without any suggestion of depravity
the animal nature with cravings which incite to sin
the physical nature of man as subject to suffering

Same concept in:
Mat 16:17
And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh (σάρξ) and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

I suggest you learn Hebrew/Greek because it gives you a better idea of what words mean instead of calling it heretical.

ViaCrucis · Tuesday at 12:54 PM

Delvianna said:
And I've already addressed this per my last message. It's "humanity" not a literal body like he didn't have one before.

Flesh word in John 1:14 is σάρξ

Meaning: the sensuous nature of man, "the animal nature"

without any suggestion of depravity

the animal nature with cravings which incite to sin

the physical nature of man as subject to suffering

Same concept in:
Mat 16:17
And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh (σάρξ) and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

I suggest you learn Hebrew/Greek because it gives you a better idea of what words mean instead of calling it heretical.

No, He literally received a body in the Incarnation. A human body.

God, in His Divine Essence, doesn't have a body. To say that He does is, as I said, the heresy of Audianism. So, yes, if you are saying that God, in His Divine Essence, has a body, then you are promoting a heretical idea.

Talarico recants past statements, says he was 'intentionally provocative' by calling God 'non-binary'

Well-Known Member

Believer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Similar threads