Cruz: I’m a Christian first, American second

[MongGrel]

I was complaining how bshole treated somebody else, a person he says he respects. So that doesn't work.

At this point you've dug yourself so deep a hole no one really cares what your opinion is at this point.

But keep on blundering on I guess.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not sure why he would waste his time giving you answers when you summarily dismiss them as "mental gymnastics".

This has to be the most glaringly hypocritical statement that has been made in P&N for a long time, and that's a category with a lot of competition.

I find it sad (but a little amusing) that our resident head Christian apologist is such an immoral person.

 

[Bowfinger]

I was complaining how bshole treated somebody else, a person he says he respects. So that doesn't work.

Color me unsurprised that you're going to try to dance your way around the meaning of hypocrisy. It's all too predictable, and another example of how you refuse to engage honestly here.

Since nobody believes this is that going to affect the rest of your point? Yeah it is.
No YEC that I am aware of takes that view of biblical interpretation.
When you're arguing for taking things out of context you're not on very solid ground.

Nobody says the bible must be taken 100% literally, word for word. That is a caricature and a strawman.

You are being intentionally dishonest. Many denominations claim the Bible is the literal word of God, word for word. I was active in two such denominations, Southern Baptist and Church of Christ, way back when I was young and foolish. Call it a youthful indiscretion, if you will. But you don't have take my word for it. According to Gallup, 28% of Americans today believe the Bible is the literal word of God. It seems strange for you to deny this.

 

[WHAMPOM]

And he is not going to get any major flak from conservatives at all for this travesty.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...gine-if-Muslim-or-Jewish-politician-said-that

Sounds like a promise to violate the oath of office to me. Besides. Can a person that enjoyed dual citizenship by birth qualify as a natural born American?

 

[Moonbeam]

What I see happening in this thread. Basically, I see the question is, whether we can best trust a person whose notions of what is ethical is primarily informed by a belief in a higher power, in this case the Christian God of the Bible, or an inward sense of ethics such as empathy as suggested by secular thinkers.

Look at one difference. The Christian God is eternal and represents the one and only truth. It is a faith that inspires a great deal of ethical certainty. If your morality is God's morality, you can hardly go wrong.

Alternatively, if you believe you have the one true morality and are completely insane at the same time, you can act as a monster with little in the way of inhibition.

That's less of an issue for the secular moralist who practices situational ethics bases on supposedly rational analysis. There is no final truth to anything, but judgment to be made as to the best the rational mind can come up with.

As a side note, if there is a God then the secularist will tend toward God's law even if he or she does not know that God exists, because, (I would suggest) both the Christian God to Christians and God generally speaking, probably is considered to be rational if He actually does exist.

But what if what the rational secularist goes by isn't really rational at all, but some similar form of insanity as potentially expressed by some similarly deranged Christian?

Owing to the fact that either the Christian notion of God as filtered by the contemporary Christian mind and the current level of Christian spiritual evolution or the contemporary situational ethics of the contemporary secular ethicist influenced by the same background cultural stage of evolution are both, I would suggest, capable of reaching the same level of advanced understanding or depravity equally, it would seem to me that neither can offer anything to suggest we can trust them.

Without an ethical absolute truth behind ones ethics, ones ethics can perhaps be more easily broken, with one that is insane, the greater fanaticism implied by its absoluteness becomes a dangerous liability.

In every instance where paradox appears in my experience, an answer that resolves the contradictions appears at a higher level of understanding. For me this issue resolves in the realization that we were created in the image of God and therefore create God in our image. The eye with which he sees us is the same eye with which we see Him.

The answers are to be had in self awareness. Self awareness to me is the capacity to feel what is to be truly human. That is not a state that is possible where there is unconscious motivation, having feelings one will not allow into conscious experience. To know thyself is wo reawaken to ones ancient programming pain, to retrieve the life that happened before our psychic deaths. How that can be done is the question that interests me, or is it the question I will not face?

 

[elitejp]

Hold on a second. God doesn't transcend cultural? He is constrained by the culture from which he arose? The Old Testament is not the holy word of an omnipotent being but merely a historical document written by a bunch of priests? While I agree with you that the Old Testament is nothing more than that, I am perplexed as to how you can keep your faith in the light of that knowledge.

Because I said many not all of the laws were written due to their culture, but principles transcend culture. And the OT is filled with history. We simply say that the Bible is 100% God's Word but we also understand that doesn't mean its 100% true. It is 100% truly written though. For example there are passages in the OT where someone says there is no god. Well that would be untrue according to the Bible with one of its main points is that there is a God! So you study the Bible just like any other book, within context of what was said and the culture of the time. Another example of culture would be when Paul commanded Christian woman not to shave there head or have very short hair. Well that's kind of a silly thing to command. Except in that letter to that church in that region female prostitutes were easily recognized by these distinguishing features. But this wasn't a hard and fast rule. In today's society no one would think that. So can the Bible be universally applied? It still can. Because Paul was teaching a principle as well, as we see in other writings of his. The principle of not causing new born or baby or immature Christians to stumble and fall into sin. What happens if your a Christian woman and know that hair length isn't a big deal and shave it all off? Well
GOD doesn't look at your hair length and then determine if your a good person or not. But when a young Christian sees you and thinks your a prostitute and a Christian he/she might think it would be ok to do other things that the Bible does say is wrong.

 

[buckshot24]

Color me unsurprised that you're going to try to dance your way around the meaning of hypocrisy. It's all too predictable, and another example of how you refuse to engage honestly here.

Did you read what I was responding to from your post? I quoted it for your convenience.

Perhaps, but I was talking about you, and how your behavior affects others. You can't feign bewilderment at how others treat you when you pull a stunt like this. You reap what you sow, remember?

Since I wasn't complaining about how somebody was treating myself your complaint simply doesn't work. Would you care to try again?

You are being intentionally dishonest. Many denominations claim the Bible is the literal word of God, word for word.

That isn't what you claimed. Here is your actual claim.

Of course, but that reinforces my point. Evangelicals like to assert that the Bible is the perfect word of God, and that it must be taken literally, word for word.

You call me dishonest and you can't even represent your own words accurately! Nobody takes everything in the bible literally, nobody.

 

[lopri]

Closet homosexual fourth.

He does have an aura of drag queen.

I have a friend whose mom looks just like him. It is just too overbearing to look at him.

Then there is this. "There are few things that I enjoy more"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaZGaJrd3x8

I am not sure if he really thought through the message this video conveys.

 

[elitejp]

Perhaps, but I was talking about you, and how your behavior affects others. You can't feign bewilderment at how others treat you when you pull a stunt like this. You reap what you sow, remember?


Of course, but that reinforces my point. Evangelicals like to assert that the Bible is the perfect word of God, and that it must be taken literally, word for word. This is how young Earth creationists justify their nonsensical beliefs, for example. The problem (as you've just demonstrated) is these same people then brush off the huge amount of texts that contradict their particular dogma. The Bible is the perfect word of God ... except for all the parts they subjectively decide don't apply to them today. They pick and choose which parts of the Bible to accept, and which to ignore.

I don't know of any Christian scholars who say you are to take the Bible literally word for word. I think its time to go back to high school English literature and refresh all that goes into writing something. You have hyperboles, imagery, metaphors,allusions etc. You don't need to take those things and understand it literally word for word. So again you study the context and then culture. This way your less likely to misunderstand the point.

Now I will jump off topic but it will illustrate a point.
Young earth creationists:
First off the bible says very little about creation. It isn't a science book. a book about mankind and the need for Jesus and to give us and understanding of God. That's the purpose of the Bible. But since I actually like the topic of creation I will give you my understanding (along with many others) of what happened. And it will just be a very simple account, not in depth.
The genesis account did happen. People animals plant life etc happened within six literal 24 hr days. But between genesis 1:1 and 1:2 there is a huge huge time gap. Verse 1 says in the beginning God created the heaven and earth. Then in verse 2 it says it was without form and void. So did God just create a mess and then start fixing a bit of it day by day?
I don't think so but just a casual reading would cause you to think that. Verse 2 in the original language conveys the idea of chaos. It says the earth was in chaos and in a mess of problems. This along with other in depth study has led many scholars to believe that verse 2 begins the re-creation of earth. So God creates the earth with plants, animals and I believe people and something happens and the earth goes into chaos. I assume it would be what the scientists call the ice age. Then in verse 2 we see the re-creation of the earth that we see now. If your interested I would recommend to do a web search on Finis Dake and pre adamate race.

Now back on point. No one alive has a complete understanding of the Bible. I'm likely to interpret things wrong and change my view. But I don't dismiss the Bible because I don't understand something or because someone else believes it different than me. But as time has passed there has been enough in the Bible that I see as true that makes me confident that the Bible is correct but I may misunderstand some parts if it. Just like I don't agree that the earth is 6000 years old. But my understanding of what happened could also be flawed. I wasn't there and the God didn't see it necessary to write a science book on the subject.

But one point that I continue to try to get across to others is the OT and the NT need to be studied together. If you just read parts of the OT you can come away with the impression that God is a psycho. Because everything is written as if God personally did it. He caused misery and havoc which is what bshole is trying to prove. But then you also read that God is merciful,loving, protecting etc. So it seems quite the polar opposite. But then Jesus(God in the flesh) comes on the scene and begins to teach that God isn't this judgemental God that you should fear but is a loving God. Well who's right? The OT or the NT. Well they both as but sometimes we haven't got it all figured out. Just like if you choose to believe in evolution there are some holes in the theory, but you see enough evidence that your willing to accept that your knowledge on the subject is limited and therefore these gaps will later be filled.

But again why focus on the OT and forget about the NT. The teachings in the NT are extremely hard to follow because they teach so much on being kind to others and forgiving people even though they are wrong and your right. Christian teaching doesn't teach you to be racist, it doesn't teach you to hate homosexuals, it doesn't teach you to be greedy and not help those in need, it doesn't teach you to steal or lie. Now imagine knowing someone like this who is kind, helpful, forgiving. This would be a someone I would want to.be friends with.

 

[Bowfinger]

Did you read what I was responding to from your post? I quoted it for your convenience.


Since I wasn't complaining about how somebody was treating myself your complaint simply doesn't work. Would you care to try again?

Sorry, I won't indulge your childish compulsion to twist the discussion off on a tangent. Color me unsurprised that you're going to try to dance your way around the meaning of hypocrisy. It's all too predictable, and another example of how you refuse to engage honestly here.

That isn't what you claimed. Here is your actual claim.

You call me dishonest and you can't even represent your own words accurately! Nobody takes everything in the bible literally, nobody.

These are the exact words from the Gallup question:

"the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word"
​

Some 28% of Americans agree with that statement, soundly busting your lie that, "Nobody says the bible must be taken 100% literally, word for word. That is a caricature and a strawman." Grow up and own your dishonesty.

And since you've tried to divert the original point, let's repeat it:

Evangelicals like to assert that the Bible is the perfect word of God, and that it must be taken literally, word for word. This is how young Earth creationists justify their nonsensical beliefs, for example. The problem (as you've just demonstrated) is these same people then brush off the huge amount of texts that contradict their particular dogma. The Bible is the perfect word of God ... except for all the parts they subjectively decide don't apply to them today. They pick and choose which parts of the Bible to accept, and which to ignore.
​

Your dishonest antics continue to bring shame to you and to your faith. I'm starting to doubt you're truly a Christian at all, but instead simply chose that shtick as a trolling tool. This would give you and Cruz something in common, though he plays that role for pandering instead of trolling.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

If you don't like child molestation then don't molest a child. Doesn't work now does it?

What do you think "doesn't work," exactly?

And why are you thinking about child molestation?

Quit being an idiot.

Hail, the King of the Idiots has spoken.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Define "abominable behavior" and why is it wrong?

It's a tautology to say that abominable behavior is wrong. Do you know what a tautology is? Run along and google it, numbnuts.

Is that based on your opinion or something tangible? Why is the criteria for what you find abominable any different than what cookie flavor you prefer?

What difference does it make? Where the rubber meets the road you have your say-so about morality, and I have my say-so. It doesn't impress anyone nor give your say-so any greater gravity that you have invented a big, bad imaginary friend that you have convinced yourself is gonna come rescue you and beat up all the bad guys for you... someday... soon, too... right?

Yea sure, buddy.

 

[buckshot24]

Sorry, I won't indulge your childish compulsion to twist the discussion off on a tangent. Color me unsurprised that you're going to try to dance your way around the meaning of hypocrisy. It's all too predictable, and another example of how you refuse to engage honestly here.

Tangent? You shouldn't have made the initial accusation then because my behavior isn't any justification for other's behavior to other people. Nothing I have done gives bshole any justification to treat elitejp so shabbily

These are the exact words from the Gallup question:

"the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word"
​

Some 28% of Americans agree with that statement, soundly busting your lie that, "Nobody says the bible must be taken 100% literally, word for word. That is a caricature and a strawman." Grow up and own your dishonesty.

I didn't even look at the link but that is a horrible question and none of those people who said yes take 100% of the bible 100% literally. Run the survey again and ask them if God has wings.

And since you've tried to divert the original point, let's repeat it:

Evangelicals like to assert that the Bible is the perfect word of God, and that it must be taken literally, word for word. This is how young Earth creationists justify their nonsensical beliefs, for example. The problem (as you've just demonstrated) is these same people then brush off the huge amount of texts that contradict their particular dogma. The Bible is the perfect word of God ... except for all the parts they subjectively decide don't apply to them today. They pick and choose which parts of the Bible to accept, and which to ignore.​

Whether or not we take the bible 100% literally has nothing to do with the original point. God tells certain people to do certain things and you people uncritically try and apply that to 100% of the people for all time.

Here is what the leading YEC organization has to say about taking the bible literally.

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/why-do-you-take-the-bible-literally/

They don't take it literally in the sense that Gallup asked the question.

I'll ignore your irrelevant personal comments.​

 

[Bowfinger]

I don't know of any Christian scholars who say you are to take the Bible literally word for word.

Then you don't know any evangelical/fundamentalist Christian scholars. That is what they say, and as I showed in my Gallup link, some 28% of Americans believe it.

I think its time to go back to high school English literature and refresh all that goes into writing something. You have hyperboles, imagery, metaphors,allusions etc. You don't need to take those things and understand it literally word for word. So again you study the context and then culture. This way your less likely to misunderstand the point.

I absolutely agree, as do most American Christians. They take a more intelligent, reasoned approach, and focus on the overall themes instead of dissecting every single word. Indeed, that's the only rational way to view it given the genesis of its many books, and the ways they've evolved through multiple translations (which sometimes contradict each other).

Now I will jump off topic but it will illustrate a point.
Young earth creationists:
First off the bible says very little about creation. It isn't a science book. a book about mankind and the need for Jesus and to give us and understanding of God. That's the purpose of the Bible. But since I actually like the topic of creation I will give you my understanding (along with many others) of what happened. And it will just be a very simple account, not in depth.
The genesis account did happen. People animals plant life etc happened within six literal 24 hr days. But between genesis 1:1 and 1:2 there is a huge huge time gap. Verse 1 says in the beginning God created the heaven and earth. Then in verse 2 it says it was without form and void. So did God just create a mess and then start fixing a bit of it day by day?
I don't think so but just a casual reading would cause you to think that. Verse 2 in the original language conveys the idea of chaos. It says the earth was in chaos and in a mess of problems. This along with other in depth study has led many scholars to believe that verse 2 begins the re-creation of earth. So God creates the earth with plants, animals and I believe people and something happens and the earth goes into chaos. I assume it would be what the scientists call the ice age. Then in verse 2 we see the re-creation of the earth that we see now. If your interested I would recommend to do a web search on Finis Dake and pre adamate race.

That's an entertaining take on the story, but there's no reason to believe the Genesis account is anything more than allegory.

[ ... trimmed ... ]
But again why focus on the OT and forget about the NT. The teachings in the NT are extremely hard to follow because they teach so much on being kind to others and forgiving people even though they are wrong and your right. Christian teaching doesn't teach you to be racist, it doesn't teach you to hate homosexuals, it doesn't teach you to be greedy and not help those in need, it doesn't teach you to steal or lie. Now imagine knowing someone like this who is kind, helpful, forgiving. This would be a someone I would want to.be friends with.

While I don't share your faith, I'm not trying to deny it to you and other Christians. Believe what you wish (as long as you aren't forcing your beliefs on others).

 

[buckshot24]

Then you don't know any evangelical/fundamentalist Christian scholars. That is what they say, and as I showed in my Gallup link, some 28% of Americans believe it.

Name one biblical scholar who thinks there are no similes, metaphor or any figure of speech language in the bible, just one.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

No YEC that I am aware of takes that view of biblical interpretation.
When you're arguing for taking things out of context you're not on very solid ground.

Nobody says the bible must be taken 100% literally, word for word. That is a caricature and a strawman.

Oh, so you're saying that the Bible is literally not true.

Thank you so kindly for joining us.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Name one biblical scholar who thinks there is no similes, metaphor or any figure of speech language in the bible, just one.

Why must it be a biblical scholar now? You said nobody believes it. That's simply false. Lots of people believe it. They are all a bunch of ignorant religious nutjobs like you.

 

[fskimospy]

Name one biblical scholar who thinks there is no similes, metaphor or any figure of speech language in the bible, just one.

This is getting embarrassing. Stop digging, dumbass.

 

[Bowfinger]

Tangent? You shouldn't have made the initial accusation then because my behavior isn't any justification for other's behavior to other people. Nothing I have done gives bshole any justification to treat elitejp so shabbily

Again, as you understand full well, I was talking about you, not Bshole or Elitejp. Your remarks were glaringly hypocritical, and are a perfect example of why people here treat you with such contempt. Whether you feel such reactions are justified is completely irrelevant to reality. You reap what you sow.

I didn't even look at the link but that is a horrible question and none of those people who said yes take 100% of the bible 100% literally.

In other words, you simply stick your fingers in your ears and chant, "La, la, la," when your claim is conclusively shown to be false. That will also surprise no one.

Run the survey again and ask them if God has wings.
Whether or not we take the bible 100% literally has nothing to do with the original point. God tells certain people to do certain things and you people uncritically try and apply that to 100% of the people for all time.

That is the 180 degree opposite of the point. The real point is even "Bible is the literal word of God" evangelicals subjectively pick and choose the parts they accept and the parts they reject.

Here is what the leading YEC organization has to say about taking the bible literally.

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/why-do-you-take-the-bible-literally/

They don't take it literally in the sense that Gallup asked the question.

Good for them. Aside from being more fluff than substance, the fact that one person, or even a group of people interpret the Bible that way in no way supports your claim that nobody takes it literally. Indeed, as Gallup showed you, some 28% of Americans do believe, ""the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word". That this doesn't fit your position du jour is irrelevant.

I'll ignore your irrelevant personal comments.

Of course, you have no choice. The alternative would be introspection that would give you a painful bout of cognitive dissonance.

 

[buckshot24]

Again, as you understand full well, I was talking about you, not Bshole or Elitejp. Your remarks were glaringly hypocritical, and are a perfect example of why people here treat you with such contempt. Whether you feel such reactions are justified is completely irrelevant to reality. You reap what you sow.

Since I wasn't complaining about how I was being treated, how is your point relevant?

In other words, you simply stick your fingers in your ears and chant, "La, la, la," when your claim is conclusively shown to be false. That will also surprise no one.

Not at all, none of those 28% take the bible literally, word for word. I can guarantee you that.

That is the 180 degree opposite of the point. The real point is even "Bible is the literal word of God" evangelicals subjectively pick and choose the parts they accept and the parts they reject.

That is what the 28% indicates and it is completely not true. None of them take all of the bible literally, word for word.

Good for them. Aside from being more fluff than substance, the fact that one person, or even a group of people interpret the Bible that way in no way supports your claim that nobody takes it literally.

How about you find anybody who takes the bible 100% literally, shouldn't be hard. (but nobody does).

Indeed, as Gallup showed you, some 28% of Americans do believe, ""the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word". That this doesn't fit your position du jour is irrelevant.

I'm telling you that they don't. This is a poorly worded question, thats all.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

How about you find anybody who takes the bible 100% literally, shouldn't be hard.

My grandparents for starters.

 

[IronWing]

So 28% of Americans (all Christians) are liars or buckshot is a liar. Tough choice.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Since I wasn't complaining about how I was being treated, how is your point relevant?
Not at all, none of those 28% take the bible literally, word for word. I can guarantee you that.
That is what the 28% indicates and it is completely not true. None of them take all of the bible literally, word for word.
How about you find anybody who takes the bible 100% literally, shouldn't be hard. (but nobody does).
I'm telling you that they don't. This is a poorly worded question, thats all.

The wording for the choices seems pretty clear and understandable.

 

[buckshot24]

My grandparents for starters.

Ask them how they read this.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+84:11&version=ESV

For the Lord God is a sun and shield;
the Lord bestows favor and honor.
No good thing does he withhold
from those who walk uprightly.

 

[buckshot24]

So 28% of Americans (all Christians) are liars or buckshot is a liar. Tough choice.

False dichotomy.

Nobody takes the bible 100% literally, period.