Kneel!

Trump has done a masterful job of responding to the chinese disease

150,000 dead Americans say otherwise.

when the left was going completely insane with fears of people dying at the doorsteps of hospitals waiting for a respirator the trump administration was massively increasing hospital beds by sending US Navy hospital ships and building temporary hospitals where needed

Uh, it was two ships, and they were ill-suited to the task. Most of the temporary hospitals were built by state officials.

Sorry, man the fact we are still losign 1000 people a day when most of the rest of the world has this thing under control, when Europe has to have a travel ban from the US< Trump has not done a "masterful" job.
hey dirt bag---what have you done to improve anything? nothing--trump has done more than most---once you get that the 20 somethings are not social distancing and actually spreading the virus--your brain might grow a little bit---two ships are better than what you sent!!!
So your reply is that Trump did better than an ordinary citizen and that impressed you enough. :blowpop:
 
hey dirt bag---what have you done to improve anything? nothing--trump has done more than most---once you get that the 20 somethings are not social distancing and actually spreading the virus--your brain might grow a little bit---two ships are better than what you sent!!!

Uh, I pay taxes, so I paid for those ships...

It's too bad Trump didn't do anything USEFUL with the tax dollars we sent him..

Trump fucked this up, compared to other countries, that handled it just fine.

Hey, you want a laugh, watch the Axios interview, where he squirmed when they compared us to South Korea.
 
Except that's not what the Bible says. The bible says ALL the Tribes were in Egypt.
Weren't you just arguing there was no record for the Israelites being in Egypt? I respond that the Bible shows indications a certain tribe was in Egypt. Now you want to argue with me that all the tribes were in Egypt? So, go ahead. Keep in mind that thus far archaeology indicates all the Tribes were not in Egypt, and against a great number of people escaping across the Sinai Desert.
 
Oh, because it would be funny. "OH, we aren't going to KILL gay people like the Bible says, but man, we'll otherwise try to make their lives miserable.... because we's right with Jesus, who hated Mexicans and Gays just like we do!"
Are you saying every single Christian person has made a gay life miserable? I know that is untrue, but I am willing to listen to your evidence. Myself? I know too many stories (some from gays back in my grandparents day) that even then, people were willing to go along.
 
Weren't you just arguing there was no record for the Israelites being in Egypt? I respond that the Bible shows indications a certain tribe was in Egypt. Now you want to argue with me that all the tribes were in Egypt? So, go ahead. Keep in mind that thus far archaeology indicates all the Tribes were not in Egypt, and against a great number of people escaping across the Sinai Desert.

The Bible also says Snakes can talk and there were sea monsters and giants and Zombies... That's how seriously I take the bible as a "record".

1596634817053.png


Archeology doesn't support the bible at all. In fact, quite the contrary, if there was a Kingdom of Israel, it was quite small and insignificant.
 
So your reply is that Trump did better than an ordinary citizen and that impressed you enough.
Specifically, what would you have done differently? What differences would we see now as the result of implementing your plan?
 
Are you saying every single Christian person has made a gay life miserable? I know that is untrue, but I am willing to listen to your evidence. Myself? I know too many stories (some from gays back in my grandparents day) that even then, people were willing to go along.

I know my Aunt was gay and living in a strict Catholic Community, and she was absolutely fucking miserable.
 
The Bible also says Snakes can talk and there were sea monsters and giants and Zombies... That's how seriously I take the bible as a "record".
Ah, a literalist. I'll bet you go out to gather puppies when someone tells you it is raining cats and dogs. :)
 
I know my Aunt was gay and living in a strict Catholic Community,
Yes, studies have shown even in communities/societies have long accepted homosexuality, unfortunately homosexuals still have higher rates of depression. Of course, we also know heterosexuals who feel miserable as well. It is often difficult to help anyone through misery and depression. Yes, it is even difficult for Catholics to do this. I am sure that shocks you to the core. ;)
 
Well, no, because that's an inaccurate description.

The bible describes talking snakes and zombies....
But you do not give "inaccurate description" when the Bible also uses idioms? Tell me, how does one identify modern idioms? How do we know it not actually raining cats and dogs? Could it be for the same reason we know snakes don't talk? Therefore, anyone who believes snakes talk, should also believe it rains puppies and kittens.
 
The Bible also says Snakes can talk and there were sea monsters and giants and Zombies... That's how seriously I take the bible as a "record".
Ah, a literalist. I'll bet you go out to gather puppies when someone tells you it is raining cats and dogs. :)
Once you break from literal interpretation of the Bible or any other holy text, you inevitably cause the religion to splinter into different camps of believers. Interpretation is subjective and since the gods have decided not to intervene, believers are left to make it up as they go. That's why religions edge into that really bizarre world where some things you believe as literal, others not, which is really your garden variety of pick-and-choose what you want to believe. If you can say, "Well, Genesis is true but Pauline rules on women is not" (or whatever), well, then I can -- with equal "authority" -- by your own standards, say "Well, the siege of Jericho is true, but the resurrection is not". Such game playing with one's beliefs is certainly your right to do, but it only strips your argument of credibility, it doesn't support your case at all.
 
Well, no, because that's an inaccurate description.

The bible describes talking snakes and zombies....
But you do not give "inaccurate description" when the Bible also uses idioms? Tell me, how does one identify modern idioms? How do we know it not actually raining cats and dogs? Could it be for the same reason we know snakes don't talk? Therefore, anyone who believes snakes talk, should also believe it rains puppies and kittens.
You really just crashed Genesis of any credibility. Yeah, talking snakes are silly. So is making a human from a rib. So is eternal damnation for fruit theft.
 
Archeology doesn't support the bible at all. In fact, quite the contrary, if there was a Kingdom of Israel, it was quite small and insignificant.
As to the first part, you know that is not true. Archaeology has discovered places and events mentioned in the Bible. The Bible has stories that have grown up around these places. Perhaps what you meant is that archaeology has not discovered any evidence that Biblical stories are word-for-word facts of the actual event?

It is no secret that the Kingdom of Israel was quite small. Making it even more insignificant is the fact it was a divided Kingdom. Then, the final blow--many of the tribes had dispersed. I am sure in today's world you can find equally small nations that none-the-less also tell of a quite colorful history.
 
Once you break from literal interpretation of the Bible or any other holy text, you inevitably cause the religion to splinter into different camps of believers. Interpretation is subjective and since the gods have decided not to intervene, believers are left to make it up as they go. That's why religions edge into that really bizarre world where some things you believe as literal, others not, which is really your garden variety of pick-and-choose what you want to believe. If you can say, "Well, Genesis is true but Pauline rules on women is not" (or whatever), well, then I can -- with equal "authority" -- by your own standards, say "Well, the siege of Jericho is true, but the resurrection is not". Such game playing with one's beliefs is certainly your right to do, but it only strips your argument of credibility, it doesn't support your case at all.
Are you aware that Catholics have many differences of opinions regarding the Bible? That many of our greatest Saints heartily disagreed with each other on Biblical and doctrinal points? Yet, we are all equally Catholic because of the bottom line: We believe in God and His love. We believe the best way to live is to love God and love our fellow man. It does not matter a whit if some of us give credit to evolution and some of us do not. It matters not if some of us believe snakes once talked, and others of us believe idioms were used in Biblical times as well.

Paul was talking to the people of his time about a specific occurrence(s) of that time and place. Paul also speaks of women disciples, women deacons, women leaders. He also speaks of differences some communities followed in different communities.

What you are still not grasping or taking into account is when the various accounts were written; when they may have been edited; the languages, cultures, and histories of those times and how all of these differ from our own language, culture, and history. Our perspective today is not the same perspective people had thousands of years ago. For example, do you and your grandparents have the same perspectives about everything? When they differ, isn't it often because they were brought up and lived in a different time?

Hollie, I have said this many times on this forum: First seek God. Once one truly experiences God one of two things will occur: First, the Bible will not matter as much. Or, one is going to become greatly curious of why the Bible does not seem to align with the experience and begin intense Bible study. For me, it was this second, and I came to realize it was not the Bible that did not align, it was my own perspective of the Bible. Once I began to see it through the lens of ancient humans and their history, culture, languages, and literature things fell back into alignment.

It does not matter greatly how literally some people of faith take the Bible, because it is their faith which is more vital. For people of no faith, taking the Bible literally from the perspective of modern history, languages, and culture is a death knell. Start with seeking God; start with faith. Unless, of course, your goal is to discredit the Bible. That is very easy to do. Move the Biblical goal posts far from the original intent and purpose, look at it through the eyes of no faith, modern culture, and literally, and it disintegrates for you. Of course, what disintegrates is your own creation, not the creation of the original authors and participants.
 
Yes, studies have shown even in communities/societies have long accepted homosexuality, unfortunately homosexuals still have higher rates of depression. Of course, we also know heterosexuals who feel miserable as well. It is often difficult to help anyone through misery and depression. Yes, it is even difficult for Catholics to do this. I am sure that shocks you to the core.

No, what shocks me is my poor Aunt had to live a lie for 70 years, and ended up being very unhappy. Because Religion. Instead, she got into a sham marriage, had a kid she had no idea how to raise, and frankly, caused four generations of misery in that side of the family.

As to the first part, you know that is not true. Archaeology has discovered places and events mentioned in the Bible. The Bible has stories that have grown up around these places. Perhaps what you meant is that archaeology has not discovered any evidence that Biblical stories are word-for-word facts of the actual event?

No, they haven't... Hey, did they find Jesus' Tomb... the real one? How about Goliath's bones... you think if the guy was really a giant, they'd have kept that.
 
You really just crashed Genesis of any credibility. Yeah, talking snakes are silly. So is making a human from a rib. So is eternal damnation for fruit theft.
You have correctly identified all the idioms. Remember, I told you Hebrew is not a subjective language, it paints a picture. I take it you understand reality. Using the picture, you should be able to tell us the reality of the idioms.

For example, "It is raining cats and dogs" came into being because someone was conveying it was raining unbelievably hard. (It is unbelievable that rain is made up of cats and dogs. Cats and dogs are heavier than water, so the picture is also of a heavy rain.) Now do this with the idioms/pictures in Genesis.
 
For example, "It is raining cats and dogs" came into being because someone was conveying it was raining unbelievably hard. (It is unbelievable that rain is made up of cats and dogs. Cats and dogs are heavier than water, so the picture is also of a heavy rain.) Now do this with the idioms/pictures in Genesis.

Uh, sorry. the Bible wasn't being "figurative". They really said there were Zombies and Talking Snakes and Giants.

For instance, Goliath is described quite completely, with his height and the weights of his weapons and armor.
 
I wouldn't have locked anything down. Ever.
I would have stopped travel from China, then from Europe as the virus spread over there. Like you, I was not in favor of the lock down, am intensely disdainful of being mandated to wear masks. However, this is what we all knew at the time: The virus spreads quickly, hospitals elsewhere being overwhelmed. What made sense was to make the attempt to slow down the spread of the virus so that our care facilities would not be overwhelmed.

Notice how the goal posts moved: The attempt to make sure those who became very sick would have hospital care available became the attempt to try to make sure no one got sick. That is where any lock down fails to make sense. That is why masks do not make sense. Viruses are going to do what viruses do. If people want to lock themselves away or wear masks, that is their business. True, everyone should take extra precautions around senior care residences and the like. However, being required to don a mask to enter any other public area is not right.

One thing we should note is that after it was shown hospital care was not going to be an issue, the President was in favor of ending all of this--but the mandates were turned over to governors and mayors. Should the President have insisted the governors and mayors follow his wish with reopening with masks optional? Did he have the power to decree this?

I teach, I want the schools to reopen, masks optional. My school district, instead, is still going to go ahead with distance (online) learning. Nothing I can do about that, nothing I can do about the face covering mandate. And these were ordered, not by the President, but the governor. He also wants distance learning. I mightily disagree on both points. I am willing to take chances. But I suspect I may be in the minority.
 

Forum List

Back
Top