He does consider himself a Christian above all else though, which would make him an entirely different kind of nightmare.
He does consider himself a Christian above all else though, which would make him an entirely different kind of nightmare.
I do find the need to make up Pence quotes weird, the guys a nutter, you don't need to make anything up.
Originally Posted by Lewis
He's said lots of crazy stuff. That one sounds like something he would say.
Pro tip: If it's got a Snopes logo on the side, probably not real.
Which is fine isn't it, but let's at least stick to things he's actually said and done.
There's no need to promulgate complete bollocks so you can establish your holier-than-thou credentials.
I just happened to listen to a speech from Trump (great.. the best...(horrid cadence)) and then switched over to see the King of Spain addressing the Houses of Parliament - the fucking difference in statesmanship. The King has a level of English that Trump could only dream of.
I agree. It happens with Trump too, the quote where he references Fox News as if it's the go to news source for Republicans three years before it was even available in all states being the most egregious example. That one still pops up fairly regularly on Facebook, and everyone who posts it seems to believe they've found their calling as an investigative journalist.
Henry immediately buying in to that image is a handy illustration of how willing, almost eager he is to believe literally anything negative about someone he's already decided is an arsehole.
Like May vs Kingbyn.
Pence is a paid-up member of the loony religious fringe. You just have to read his articles from when he wrote for newspapers. The one where he goes off on the film Mulan as propaganda for allowing women into the military is a bit special.
Some actual quotes from Mike Pence, which I've had my fact checking team verify this time.
“Global warming is a myth.”
“I’m a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order. “
“Time for a quick reality check. Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn’t kill.”
“Um … I, do I believe in evolution? Ah, I, I, ah … I embrace the, uh — the, uh — the view, ah, that God created the heavens and the earth, the seas and all that’s in them.”’
The evolution/God thing always baffles me. They must be the two easiest views to reconcile and yet nobody ever does. Who but God could have designed a universe where beings adapt to their environment over time.
It's not evolution and God that they can't reconcile. It's evolution and biblical literalism.
Having been raised in some pretty serious 7-day creation biblical churches, I honestly don't believe the inerrant model of scripture is compatible with an old universe. And I spent the best part of a decade fruitlessly trying to reconcile the two in my head, so this isn't coming from a place of ignorance.
It's not just because of the first part of Genesis either. It's the entire philosophy of a fallen world, created in a state of perfection but fallen through human choices. The scriptures treat this idea as a literal fact from start to finish, including ideas and direct statements that came from the prophets, from Jesus in the gospels, and from the letter-writers post-gospel. Christian philosophy is constructed with this idea unavoidably built into the foundations.
Rejecting a young earth is more than just rejecting the first couple of chapters of the Bible. It cuts to the foundation of things like substitutionary atonement and original sin, and when you get to that point you're cutting into the very core of what Christianity is.
It depends whether you take the bible literally in all aspects or consider it to reflect the best wisdom of its time. A lot of the doctrine on original sin is attributable to Saint Augustine, but you're going back to the 5th century.
I'd suggest reading the Meier series on the real Jesus, which delves into the gospels in serious detail to work out what can be attributed to the real Christ and what were post-Easter additions by the evangelists.
To return to Pence, he's one of the reasons why the Democrats shouldn't be trying to 'get rid' of Trump, as such. Trump's a basic populist with no actual belief in anything but his own celebrity. You could probably make him change his mind if you co-ordinated some of the press of TV coverage. Pence is a true believer, and that's inherently more dangerous to the Democrats.
Although I agree that the issue cuts to the core of what Christianity (particularly a lot of Protestant sects) is about, I'd dispute some of this. Original sin and atonement are Christian concepts that weren't even fully developed until the 5th century (see Augustine). Scripture can be read with them in mind, but it isn't riven through with them from start to finish. Or else Jews, for example, would have these concepts.
EDIT: I see that GS basically said the same thing. Not often we agree, and against Ital!
I specifically mentioned the inerrant model of scripture, which is what the vast, vast majority of evangelical Christians (particularly in the US) follow.
I agree that there are other models of Christianity (although they were strongly philosophically informed by ideas that are often now rejected, which is interesting, but another discussion entirely). However, claiming that these are in any way the dominant cultural form of Christianity just isn't true. There's a reason the likes of Tim Keller, Al Mohler, Chris Tomlin and Hillsong are all so successful, and it's not to do with their subtle theology. But these are the figures who shape the practice of Christianity now.
Trying to make an old universe work with total scriptural inerrancy in its most common form is, I am inclined to believe through exhaustion, basically impossible. If you relax inerrancy, then you can start to fit things together, but that'll probably get you kicked out of any US Baptist church you care to name.
Nutshell: Thoughtful rejection of literal scriptural inerrancy is quite sensible in many cases, and has little to do with mainstream evangelical Christianity.
But it just isn't true that scriptures "treat this idea [the fallen world] as a literal fact from start to finish".
So that isn't anything to do with inerrancy. It's just a doctrine that they like for whatever reason.
I do agree with your general point though. It challenges a core doctrine.
Well, yeah. If you adhere to scriptural inerrancy, you're not going to be able to square too many circles. That said, much of the doctrine is based on later writers interpreting the scriptures as they understood them at the time, those views being 'retrospectively' applied, and later generations accepting them - usually because it was the best explanation anybody had come up with up until that point. That some branches of Christianity no longer accept those interpretations or explanations (e.g. Aquinas advocating the first mover theory) doesn't mean they're rejecting fundamental tenets of Christianity.
Which is fine; there are plenty of other reasonable options aside from literal biblical inerrancy. But if you're discussing the practice of mainstream evangelical Christianity, then the other options aren't what actually happens.
You may think they're doing it wrong, but Tim Keller will outsell Paul Meier thousands of times over. That's contemporary evangelical Christianity as it is actually practiced, rather than the works of intelligent thinkers who like to believe they're steering the ship, but are actually just coming along for the ride.
Meier is not an evangelical. He's a Catholic IIRC.
And I think you're missing the point.
I realise there is intelligent, informed Christianity that has no trouble whatsoever squaring scientific truth with scriptures. But this conversation started because Jim couldn't understand how there could be Christians that couldn't do that, and I'm saying that it's a consequence of the model of scriptural inerrancy that is the dominant force in contemporary evangelical Christianity.
I am very aware there are other models and approaches (I did spend ages trying to get on board with more intellectual Christianity as well, after my break with the mainstream evangelical stuff). But they're also incidental to the conversation, because they aren't the people who have the trouble Jimmy was talking about. I'm very familiar with that form of Christianity, because I was raised in the worst kind of literal evangelicalism, and it took me years to break the mould.
The incidental fact that intelligent Christian thinkers (of which there are plenty, and who have no trouble reconciling science and scripture) have negligible influence on mainstream contemporary evangelical Christianity is an aside, but an aside worth making.
Well evangelicalsm is more of a business than anything with an intellectual basis, as far as I can see.
My favourite Trump dialogue tick is the "A lot of people don't know that" which invariably means "I didn't know that".
For example:
'Nobody knew...' is better, because it tends to precede something everyone knows. 'Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated' is a particular favourite.
Amazed to see that, after his posts earlier in the thread that mert seems to be representing Trump on the Russia thing.
Marc Kasowitz, President Trump’s personal attorney on the Russia case, threatened a stranger in a string of profanity-laden emails Wednesday night.The man, a retired public relations professional in the western United States who asked not to be identified, read ProPublica’s story this week on Kasowitz and sent the lawyer an email with the subject line: “Resign Now.’’
Kasowitz replied with series of angry messages sent between 9:30 p.m. and 10 p.m. Eastern time. One read: “I’m on you now. You are fucking with me now Let’s see who you are Watch your back , bitch.”
In another email, Kasowitz wrote: “Call me. Don’t be afraid, you piece of shit. Stand up. If you don’t call, you’re just afraid.” And later: “I already know where you live, I’m on you. You might as well call me. You will see me. I promise. Bro.”
'Bro' aside, that reads nothing like Mert. It's closer to Ant after a beer and a Vidic compilation.
It's like one of Smiffy's PMs.
So two more Russia connections were in the meeting with Junior, which he failed to disclose up until now. One with connections to the GRU, and a lobbyist.
Also present but not yet mentioned:
- Ivan Drago
- a bear
- Shmladimir Shmutin, ordinary USA Rock And Roll Cowboy Guy
- sentient bottle of vodka (denies any connection to Russian government)
On a similar Christianity topic to upthread, if you have Netflix watch Louis CK's new show from 14:28 mins in. https://www.netflix.com/watch/801611...2c68d6-9809609
And on Trump/Russia, Fox news funny stupidity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCDSqgs8qNo
The healthcare bill failed. Again. It's almost like it's hard to repeal something that was already a Republicans dream healthcare bill.
In other news, this is a wonderful quote.
Where's that from?
This piece from a guy who's wrote about Bannon joining the campaign
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/josh...trump-campaign
The problems with articles like that, is that it could easily just be made up bullshit. Some low level staffer wanting to get a quick $20k so makes up some shit about Trump losing his temper.
Yeah, publishers love paying 20k to low-level staffers to get sued for slandering the most powerful man in the country.
Wut. It failed because Republican 'moderates' would rather get re-elected than unravel an entitlement.The healthcare bill failed. Again. It's almost like it's hard to repeal something that was already a Republicans dream healthcare bill.
In other news, this is a wonderful quote.
Surely we have learnt by now that journalists and politicians staffers have been known to make shit up - on both sides. A story like this comes and goes in 24hrs - Trump will probably never hear about it.
So ... they're not going to take ownership of something 20 million American people now have some reliance on? Nah, lads. You can't feasibly do that. You can say it, but you can't do it.
The suggestion by Trump is that they now repeal Obamacare without putting in a replacement. I imagine that would cause chaos.
My political instincts have been off for a little while now, but I still don't think that'll fly. I honestly thought they'd end up pressuring the moderates on this one though, so who knows.
They've openly admitted that the 'attempt' to do that under Obama was purely symbolic knowing he'd veto it. It won't fly.
lol at Mitch McConnell, the owl-faced cunt.
You're laughing now, just wait until Democrats are called out on their ludicrous 'Medicaid for all!' agitations.
Not that it matters as anyone who is Medicare/Aid for all will be in prison anyway due to this thing.
Now THAT'S economic freedom.
There was quite a hilarious example the other day of Ken Loach complaining that some band were going to play in Israel, until it was pointed out to him that his films had been screened in Israel repeatedly during his supposed boycott.
That's fukin retarded.
Israel and bombing the shit out of anyone near them, the only two bipartisan issues.
When the Democrats control the White House and both houses of Congress and still can't pass a fuckin thing (yet), I'll let you lol.
I'm not even being smug, it's not like the Democrats are in a good position at all. Everyone I know is complacent and just assumes that Trump will lose in 2020 without realizing that the Democratic party is even more divided than the Republicans. It's just lol that the Republicans have been going on about the evils of Obamacare since the beginning of time and now they have the chance to change it and they trip on their shoelaces.
And how do the thought police intend to detect "support" for the boycott?
The courts would throw that out anyway.
Reply With Quote
