Social Charlie Kirk Shot and Killed

[PainIsLIfe]

And then?

And then nothing. Although the Catholic position has changed over the years, you are simply mistaken about early church teachings.

 

[kflo]

And then nothing. Although the Catholic position has changed over the years, you are simply mistaken about early church teachings.

No, I explained the teachings that existed for centuries. Yet people want to pretend there’s only one interpretation of Jesus teachings. It’s nonsense.

 

[DoctorTaco]

Reddit atheist bros to the rescue! I had no idea Jesus would be good with abortions.

At least they all go to heaven!

 

[Mr Holmes]

At least they all go to heaven!

 

[DoctorTaco]

Besides, romans 9 says god makes some vessels of glory and others for destruction and it’s his choice. Maybe that little aborted fetus was one of those vessels of wrath Paul was telling us about.

 

[DoctorTaco]

Yeah I know it’s ob
Yeah I know it’s obnoxious but it’s true.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

No, I explained the teachings that existed for centuries. Yet people want to pretend there’s only one interpretation of Jesus teachings. It’s nonsense.

No, you explained the views from 1200 - 1800 vhanged and pretended that those were always the views of the Church.

I'm more interested in 1st century views if I want claim God/Jesus approved of x. I don't really care what some 12th century pope thought if the idea is to know the mind of God.

 

[kflo]

No, you explained the views from 1200 - 1800 vhanged and pretended that those were always the views of the Church.

I'm more interested in 1st century views if I want claim God/Jesus approved of x. I don't really care what some 12th century pope thought if the idea is to know the mind of God.

I never said they were always the view of the church. I said they were the view of the church for at least centuries.

And you care what current / modern popes think so don’t try to argue you are strictly interpreting scripture and early teachings.

There was no church consensus in the first century.

 

[heloder]

Did social programs cause wages to unstagnate? That is why you claim the need for social programs.

Uh no, the need for social programs is because of poverty. You seem to be under the impression that welfare is supposed to end poverty. That's like saying cough syrup is supposed to end colds. If you want to end colds, then create a vaccine for the viruses that cause colds. Similarly, if you want to end poverty (or as near as is possible), you need to solve the problems that are causing it. Until you do that, then you will continue to have poverty, and you will continue to need welfare. Republicans don't want to do either of these things.

I honestly can't believe I'm having to explain this to an adult human being.

And if govt social programs have addressed it then why do I still have people showing up at the food bank and soup kitchen?

Are as many people showing up at food banks and soup kitchens as there would be if there was no social welfare? I know conservatives struggle immensely when dealing with anything other than absolutes (I'm serious about that), but there exist degrees of efficacy.

I dont say so, they Bible does.:

Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you.

Do you know the context of these passages? Because if you did, you would know that this isn't Jesus (or even Paul) telling everybody to hate, demean, vilify, or force others to do as he says. He's commanding Titus to teach, and teach within the church at that. The Bible repeatedly and explicitly says not to judge, control, or condemn your fellow man, but to love them. Even Jesus himself refuses to condemn or judge others, as that is God's domain alone.

This is the ultimate truth in Christianity. To judge and condemn others is to attempt to put yourself above Jesus himself.

And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth.
Timothy 2:24-25

You just cited Christian doctrine as reason the govt should do something. Its a bit disingenuous to say well Christianity doesn't matter.

Being a decent person isn't a Christian principle. It just happens to coincide with one. It'd be nice if Christians began realizing that. The entire point of this debate was to point out that the Democratic party has more in common with Christian doctrine than the Republican, even though Christians predominantly vote for latter. Maybe you missed that part.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

I never said they were always the view of the church. I said they were the view of the church for at least centuries.

But not the 1st century.

You actually said that was the view for centuries until it was changed in the 1800s. - Making it sound like the current view wasnt the original view.

And you care what current / modern popes think so don’t try to argue you are strictly interpreting scripture and early teachings.

I'm not Catholic, so no; I don't care what modern popes say.

There was no church consensus in the first century.

It is what the church taught in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. centuries. Seems logical that that would be closer to Christ's view.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Uh no, the need for social programs is because of poverty. You seem to be under the impression that welfare is supposed to end poverty. That's like saying cough syrup is supposed to end colds. If you want to end colds, then create a vaccine for the viruses that cause colds. Similarly, if you want to end poverty (or as near as is possible), you need to solve the problems that are causing it. Until you do that, then you will continue to have poverty, and you will continue to need welfare. Republicans don't want to do either of these things.

I honestly can't believe I'm having to explain this to an adult human being.

You said the govt needed social programs because wages have stagnated for 50 yrs.

I recall republicans passing a lot of legislation to address poverty.

Quick question... Is poverty higher or lower after welfare reform in the 90s? Evidently, sometimes removing programs reduces poverty.

Are as many people showing up at food banks and soup kitchens as there would be if there was no social welfare? I know conservatives struggle immensely when dealing with anything other than absolutes (I'm serious about that), but there exist degrees of efficacy.

Do you know the context of these passages? Because if you did, you would know that this isn't Jesus (or even Paul) telling everybody to hate, demean, vilify, or force others to do as he says. He's commanding Titus to teach, and teach within the church at that. The Bible repeatedly and explicitly says not to judge, control, or condemn your fellow man, but to love them. Even Jesus himself refuses to condemn or judge others, as that is God's domain alone.

The Bible repeatedly tells us to teach and rebuke our brethren - in love of course.

You are to council the person privately and if they do not stop the error, you are to bring it before the church.

You've obviously missed something if you dont think we are supposed to judge right from wrong - not condemn, but to enlighten.

This is the ultimate truth in Christianity. To judge and condemn others is to attempt to put yourself above Jesus himself.

And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth.
Timothy 2:24-25

How does one discern if not by judging? But, as I said we aren't to judge who is worthy or who is saved. You'd be hard pressed to find any preacher other than a televangelist who doesn't preach to call din by its name.

close.
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. James 1:27

Being a decent person isn't a Christian principle. It just happens to coincide with one. It'd be nice if Christians began realizing that. The entire point of this debate was to point out that the Democratic party has more in common with Christian doctrine than the Republican, even though Christians predominantly vote for latter. Maybe you missed that part.

Maybe you missed the part where Christians can (and do) give to the needy without giving through the govt. Oh, and they don't have to support abortion or allow male genitalia in their daughter's changing room in order to do it.

 

[Bob Gray]

I'm saying no matter how concreted the evidence is, you and your ilk will deny and deflect.

You dont think it floats both ways? Theres people on this forum that call him a rapist because of the laughable Carroll case where the evidence was nonexistent. Ask them what the evidence was and they just use a circular logic of appealing to the verdict alone. As long as theres an accusation, many people will believe almost anything negative about Trump. If ever there were actual and legitimate evidence of him doing that kind of harm to a child, far more people on the right would condemn him than there are people on the left who rush to judgment.

 

[Da Speeit]

You don't have to be religious to believe abortion can be considered murder.

I'd consider an abortion a week for before birth to be murder.

But I get it's extremely vague where the cut off should be. There's been some extremely pre-mature births where the baby can survive.

As for the bible, I don't think abortion was as controversial topic when Jesus was around. Or maybe it was. But if it was a hot topic, there would have been some mention of it in the bible on whether its acceptable or not.

The Quran doesn't say anything directly about it either... But there's writings about protecting innocent souls. The different sects have various views from absolutely forbidden to acceptable up to a certain date.

Either way, the bible debate is red herring. Murder is definitely forbidden in the bible... so what would you consider murder?

I mean there's definitely laws in some states where if you murder a pregnant mother, you can be charged with a double murder.

I posted a literal pic of the verse mentioning slaying of innocent souls and children from my copy of the Quran and some chud on here was like “SO IT DOESNT MENTION ABORTION THEN”

Yeah because Planned Parenthood had an outpost back then lmao

 

[Anung Un Rama]

You dont think it floats both ways? Theres people on this forum that call him a rapist because of the laughable Carroll case where the evidence was nonexistent. Ask them what the evidence was and they just use a circular logic of appealing to the verdict alone. As long as theres an accusation, many people will believe almost anything negative about Trump. If ever there were actual and legitimate evidence of him doing that kind of harm to a child, far more people on the right would condemn him than there are people on the left who rush to judgment.

I can't be sure if you're parodying the lunatic Trump cult or a member in good standing.
This is a perfect example of the delusion.
He was found guilty by a jury of raping Carroll.
He is an adjudicated rapist.
Its a fact.

 

[Bob Gray]

I can't be sure if you're parodying the lunatic Trump cult or a member in good standing.
This is a perfect example of the delusion.
He was found guilty by a jury of raping Carroll.
He is an adjudicated rapist.
Its a fact.

You literally just proved my point better than I ever could.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

You literally just proved my point better than I ever could.

 

[kflo]

But not the 1st century.

Lol.

You actually said that was the view for centuries until it was changed in the 1800s. - Making it sound like the current view wasnt the original view.

There was no “original view”.

I'm not Catholic, so no; I don't care what modern popes say.

So you can acknowledge there is still no consensus “christian” view on the topic.

It is what the church taught in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. centuries. Seems logical that that would be closer to Christ's view.

there was no 1st century “teachings”.

The primary early voice pushing life at conception was a lawyer from 200 ce who was a montanist preparing for the end of times. He wasn’t a prophet.

There was no single church view in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. centuries and the dominant view for over 1000 years was not at conception.

So again this notion that it’s clear what Jesus teachings were on the topic is total nonsense.