Trump47 First Week & Beyond Catch-All

[CFordUNC]

I probably should have said "political activist", which is what you made reference to in separate parts. I don't think he was a political figure. He was a prophet, preaching the end of times and the things he thought would get people saved (grace, compassion, helping your fellow man, etc), whose actions sometimes caused him to intersect with politics and politicians.

But I never said that Jesus was a political figure, in the sense of being a politician. I said that He was an activist- and provided demonstrable evidence of his activism- whose activism put Him directly in the crosshairs of the Roman state who ordered and carried out his execution. Whether Jesus was a social activist or a political activist seems to me to be a distinction without a difference considering that he was executed by the state either way.

 

[superrific]

I thought that has been answered long ago.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with POTUS hearing the message and teachings of Christ. That's the purpose of a religious service he was attending. Bodde used selective messages of Christ to support HER political beliefs and to lecture the POTUS at a ceremonial service as part of the Inauguration.

Many don't like it when Evangelical preachers use selective verses of Christ to support THEIR conservative beliefs. In many cases, I don't either.

She could have preached the sermon - with the same teachings - and left our the activist lecture and it would have had greater effect. Why not let the listener connect the dots? Instead, she went all Joy Reid on POTUS.

So it's your position that it's wrong for a person to speak to the president about values? Very on brand for you. In the real world, the president is a public servant. It's literally his job to listen to the people and make policy as the leader of a system of self-government.

But he wants to be king, and apparently you want that as well. And of course, one doesn't talk to the king like that.

 

[CFordUNC]

I thought that has been answered long ago.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with POTUS hearing the message and teachings of Christ. That's the purpose of a religious service he was attending. Bodde used selective messages of Christ to support HER political beliefs and to lecture the POTUS at a ceremonial service as part of the Inauguration.

Many don't like it when Evangelical preachers use selective verses of Christ to support THEIR conservative beliefs. In many cases, I don't either.

She could have preached the sermon - with the same teachings - and left our the activist lecture and it would have had greater effect. Why not let the listener connect the dots? Instead, she went all Joy Reid on POTUS.

I appreciate your response. I suspose the onus is on you to figure out whether you believe the actual written words of the God whom you claim to worship (the things about love, mercy, compassion, kindness, generosity, care for the sick, help for the poor, embrace of the immigrant, etc.), or believe the things that He *DIDN'T* say (things about abortion, gay marriage, hating immigrants, American exceptionalism, etc.).

 

[ZenMode]

But I never said that Jesus was a political figure, in the sense of being a politician. I said that He was an activist- and provided demonstrable evidence of his activism- whose activism put Him directly in the crosshairs of the Roman state who ordered and carried out his execution. Whether Jesus was a social activist or a political activist seems to me to be a distinction without a difference considering that he was executed by the state either way.

Ok, then we largely agree. One of your first posts, you used "political figure", which was what I mostly took issue with.

 

[lawtig02]

I probably should have said "political activist", which is what you made reference to in separate parts. I don't think he was a political figure. He was a prophet, preaching the end of times and the things he thought would get people saved (grace, compassion, helping your fellow man, etc), whose actions sometimes caused him to intersect with politics and politicians.

So you're saying he wasn't a political figure, but the Romans killed him because he was being called the King of the Jews? I'm confused.

 

[Ramrouser]

Maybe it would help if you pointed us to the anti-immigrant, America First parts of the gospels that she should have included in her comments?

"Render unto Caesar"
Or, not a Gospel, but

Romans 13: 1-2
"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves."

In other words: FOLLOW THE LAW.

 

[ZenMode]

So you're saying he wasn't a political figure, but the Romans killed him because he was being called the King of the Jews? I'm confused.

Being a prophet, who is viewed (because of Judas) as a threat by political leadership, isn't the same as being an actual political figure who is viewed as a threat by political leadership.

 

[StrangePackage]

"Render unto Caesar"
Or, not a Gospel, but

Romans 13: 1-2
"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves."

In other words: FOLLOW THE LAW.

So the guy who voted for the felon says follow the law.

I just fucking can't with you

 

[ZenMode]

"Render unto Caesar"
Or, not a Gospel, but

Romans 13: 1-2
"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves."

In other words: FOLLOW THE LAW.

^^^^^This is where the downward spiral begins.^^^^^

Whatever you want to find in the Bible, you can find. Not that you're wrong, by any means, but the argument for enforcing a national border, because it's a law, can be supported by the Bible depending on how you interpret specific verses.

Christians can go back and forth and never come to agreement.

 

[finesse]

"Render unto Caesar"
Or, not a Gospel, but

Romans 13: 1-2
"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves."

In other words: FOLLOW THE LAW.

Yay ,Paul, the biggest fraud in the ancient world.

Always been hard for me to figure out why Jesus said this

And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

and according to most Bible scholars, there are no words of his in the Bible after Acts and Paul took total precedence.

 

[Ramrouser]

^^^^^This is where the downward spiral begins.^^^^^

Whatever you want to find in the Bible, you can find. Not that you're wrong, by any means, but the argument for enforcing a national border, because it's a law, can be supported by the Bible depending on how you interpret specific verses.

Christians can go back and forth and never come to agreement.

Agree. I didn't want to go down that path. Plus that is my argument about Bodde lecturing to POTUS using her selected Biblical passages.

 

[BlueSteel]

Where are the Democrats? Trump's flanks are exposed on the January 6 pardons!!! Attack, Attack and Attack some more!!!!!

Many of these are violent criminals with prior records no less who can now get their guns and do who knows what. They violently attacked the capital police. Point it out. Point it out.

Why do we let them get away with the "Justice Department was weaponized" argument as the Speaker just used. Point out that to go after violent criminals is their job. Emphasize the word "violent". It will break thru.

And the word "violent" will help inoculate the counter on the Biden pardons. Not easy, but can be done.

Because the Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

 

[UNCatTech]

Is this 2015? - because we've been having this same discussion about Trump for 10 years. We get it, he's often crude, rude and counterpunches on Twitter/X. Even a lot of his supporters don't particularly like it but it's part of the package.

So, because it's been a decade it's acceptable?

There are good conservative candidates out there, why didn't the party run one of them?

If it's only about issues one of them should have had equal chance to win.

It's sad that this is what we have as a leader in this country. Not because of policy, those are subjective and neither party has a monopoly on good or bad ideas, but because he 8s a reprehensible piece of shit who only cares about himself and is an international embarrassment to thus country. That and his rhetoric continues to divide the country further.

 

[ZenMode]

So the guy who voted for the felon says follow the law.

I just fucking can't with you

The interesting part is that you can more or less use Biden's argument for pardoning Hunter to categorize Trump's felony convictions. The fundamental basis of what Trump did is generally a misdemeanor offense.

 

[StrangePackage]

The interesting part is that you can more or less use Biden's argument for pardoning Hunter to categorize Trump's felony convictions. The fundamental basis of what Trump did is generally a misdemeanor offense.

Actually the interesting part is where you think anybody here still takes you seriously after your performance the last couple months.

 

[CFordUNC]

Agree. I didn't want to go down that path. Plus that is my argument about Bodde lecturing to POTUS using her selected Biblical passages.

But your entire argument is nonsensical because the "selected Biblical passages" that she used were the ones of Jesus's own words! Jesus, the guy upon whom the entire faith is founded! She wasn't using any ol' Biblical passages. She was using the ones where Jesus Christ Himself preached mercy and compassion for the marginalized and downtrodden.

I am in no position to judge yours or anyone else's Christian faith or lack thereof, but how in the world can you claim to follow Christ if you take issue with a Bishop using Christ's own words?

 

[UNCatTech]

I thought that has been answered long ago.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with POTUS hearing the message and teachings of Christ. That's the purpose of a religious service he was attending. Bodde used selective messages of Christ to support HER political beliefs and to lecture the POTUS at a ceremonial service as part of the Inauguration.

Many don't like it when Evangelical preachers use selective verses of Christ to support THEIR conservative beliefs. In many cases, I don't either.

She could have preached the sermon - with the same teachings - and left our the activist lecture and it would have had greater effect. Why not let the listener connect the dots? Instead, she went all Joy Reid on POTUS.

Which verses support treating people so poorly? I thought all of God's messages were inclusive and lead us to help and respect one another.

Pretty sure Jesus would have been considered a woke activist if he were to appear today. He'd probably be crucified by the maga cult.

 

[lawtig02]

"Render unto Caesar"
Or, not a Gospel, but

Romans 13: 1-2
"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves."

In other words: FOLLOW THE LAW.

Like Jesus did in Matthew 12? Of course, what he said to the Pharisees there made them decide to kill him, so I can understand why it would rub you the wrong way, too.

 

[UNCatTech]

"Render unto Caesar"
Or, not a Gospel, but

Romans 13: 1-2
"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves."

In other words: FOLLOW THE LAW.

So, I take it, you never exceed the speed limit?

I'm fairly sure that Jesus didn't want leaders to inact laws that punished people for trying to support their families and provide a better life.

Do you feel the same about business laws that promote fair business practices by not allowing fraud?

 

[Ramrouser]

So, because it's been a decade it's acceptable?

There are good conservative candidates out there, why didn't the party run one of them?

If it's only about issues one of them should have had equal chance to win.

It's sad that this is what we have as a leader in this country. Not because of policy, those are subjective and neither party has a monopoly on good or bad ideas, but because he 8s a reprehensible piece of shit who only cares about himself and is an international embarrassment to thus country. That and his rhetoric continues to divide the country further.

There was a contested Republican primary with numerous conservative candidates running against him. He won. Trump wasn't handed the nomination unlike Kamala.