GOP

static111 · December 2022

gimmesometruth27 said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?

You have obviously never read the Bible.

jesus did not ever specifically mention homosexuality in the bible. feel free to look it up if you don't believe me.

Agree to disagree, It is clearly written right by the part where he says the US Embassy shall be built in Jerusalem and the third temple shall be built on the holy mosque

oh that must be in those new modern bibles. the one where jesus said "you can't rely on me to multiply this fish and bread all the time. get off your lazy butt and get a job."

Is there another bible than The American Patriot Bible?

gimmesometruth27 · December 2022

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?

You have obviously never read the Bible.

jesus did not ever specifically mention homosexuality in the bible. feel free to look it up if you don't believe me.

Agree to disagree, It is clearly written right by the part where he says the US Embassy shall be built in Jerusalem and the third temple shall be built on the holy mosque

oh that must be in those new modern bibles. the one where jesus said "you can't rely on me to multiply this fish and bread all the time. get off your lazy butt and get a job."

Is there another bible than The American Patriot Bible?

not these days, haha

Vitalogensia · December 2022

mrussel1 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?

It's in Leviticus. But then ask someone to defend the rest of Leviticus.

When a woman has ·her monthly period [L a discharge of blood from her genitals/body], she is unclean [C in a ritual sense; the blood’s association with reproduction makes it holy; 15:16] for seven days; anyone who touches her will be unclean until evening. 20 Anything she lies on during this time will be unclean, and everything she sits on during this time will be unclean. 21 Anyone who touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe in water; that person will be unclean until evening. 22 Anyone who touches something she has sat on must wash his clothes and bathe in water; that person will be unclean until evening. 23 It does not matter if the person touched the woman’s bed or something she sat on; he will be unclean until evening.

Or Corinthians..

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

I have had someone try to defend Leviticus and Corinthians to me, with the same tried-and-true message as everything else in the Bible: "It's about love." That's why women can't speak in church, because their husbands love them.

mrussel1 · December 2022

gimmesometruth27 said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?

You have obviously never read the Bible.

jesus did not ever specifically mention homosexuality in the bible. feel free to look it up if you don't believe me.

Agree to disagree, It is clearly written right by the part where he says the US Embassy shall be built in Jerusalem and the third temple shall be built on the holy mosque

oh that must be in those new modern bibles. the one where jesus said "you can't rely on me to multiply this fish and bread all the time. get off your lazy butt and get a job."

Ha! That was great.

mrussel1 · December 2022

Vitalogensia said:

mrussel1 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?

It's in Leviticus. But then ask someone to defend the rest of Leviticus.

When a woman has ·her monthly period [L a discharge of blood from her genitals/body], she is unclean [C in a ritual sense; the blood’s association with reproduction makes it holy; 15:16] for seven days; anyone who touches her will be unclean until evening. 20 Anything she lies on during this time will be unclean, and everything she sits on during this time will be unclean. 21 Anyone who touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe in water; that person will be unclean until evening. 22 Anyone who touches something she has sat on must wash his clothes and bathe in water; that person will be unclean until evening. 23 It does not matter if the person touched the woman’s bed or something she sat on; he will be unclean until evening.

Or Corinthians..

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

I have had someone try to defend Leviticus and Corinthians to me, with the same tried-and-true message as everything else in the Bible: "It's about love." That's why women can't speak in church, because their husbands love them.

See, now you see the Light.

Go Beavers · December 2022

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?

You have obviously never read the Bible.

Those aren’t references to homosexuality.

OnWis97 · December 2022

I have never read the bible...so anyone can shoot me down when they want.

But it certainly seems like the bible is cherry-picked for which things to rail against and which things to ignore. Seems like the things to rail against tend toward things that trigger the most insecurities.

static111 · December 2022

Go Beavers said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?

You have obviously never read the Bible.

Those aren’t references to homosexuality.

So you haven't read the Bible either?

tempo_n_groove · December 2022

static111 said:

Go Beavers said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?

You have obviously never read the Bible.

Those aren’t references to homosexuality.

So you haven't read the Bible either?

Go Beavers said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?

You have obviously never read the Bible.

Those aren’t references to homosexuality.

Lectivus again.

If a man lays with another man as if he were a woman they have both committed an abomination.

I'm no scholar but I think I know what they were getting at.

Go Beavers · December 2022

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

Go Beavers said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?

You have obviously never read the Bible.

Those aren’t references to homosexuality.

So you haven't read the Bible either?

Go Beavers said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?

You have obviously never read the Bible.

Those aren’t references to homosexuality.

Lectivus again.

If a man lays with another man as if he were a woman they have both committed an abomination.

I'm no scholar but I think I know what they were getting at.

And I’m not a Hebrew scholar either, along with all the conservative Christians who aren’t, so the original text gets lost in translation and historical context gets left out. Scholars will talk about the original Leviticus text being a holiness code for Israel’s priests and more specifically the above was a rule against incest. Homosexual relationships wasn’t a part of the dialogue back then.

tempo_n_groove · December 2022

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

Go Beavers said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?

You have obviously never read the Bible.

Those aren’t references to homosexuality.

So you haven't read the Bible either?

Go Beavers said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?

You have obviously never read the Bible.

Those aren’t references to homosexuality.

Lectivus again.

If a man lays with another man as if he were a woman they have both committed an abomination.

I'm no scholar but I think I know what they were getting at.

And I’m not a Hebrew scholar either, along with all the conservative Christians who aren’t, so the original text gets lost in translation and historical context gets left out. Scholars will talk about the original Leviticus text being a holiness code for Israel’s priests and more specifically the above was a rule against incest. Homosexual relationships wasn’t a part of the dialogue back then.

I would disagree with that as those points were definitely made in Lectivus too as well as other places.

As far as anything new with translations there most likely won't be. So it was written and now it's done? That was my attempt at a pun...

Go Beavers · December 2022

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

Go Beavers said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?

You have obviously never read the Bible.

Those aren’t references to homosexuality.

So you haven't read the Bible either?

Go Beavers said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?

You have obviously never read the Bible.

Those aren’t references to homosexuality.

Lectivus again.

If a man lays with another man as if he were a woman they have both committed an abomination.

I'm no scholar but I think I know what they were getting at.

And I’m not a Hebrew scholar either, along with all the conservative Christians who aren’t, so the original text gets lost in translation and historical context gets left out. Scholars will talk about the original Leviticus text being a holiness code for Israel’s priests and more specifically the above was a rule against incest. Homosexual relationships wasn’t a part of the dialogue back then.

I would disagree with that as those points were definitely made in Lectivus too as well as other places.

As far as anything new with translations there most likely won't be. So it was written and now it's done? That was my attempt at a pun...

The other often used references can also be debunked. What you find is there is no support for the anti-gay interpretation of the Bible and a lot of support against that interpretation.

static111 · December 2022

It's only a few pages away from the part where it says the United States shall move the embassy to Jerusalem with an McDonalds on the lot adjacent. I can't believe how hard it is for some to miss the obvious and then argue about it.

mickeyrat · December 2022

72 yr old eyeing presidential run says we need a fresh voice.....

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-arkansas-asa-hutchinson-government-and-politics-51b6dd54e7e56d35abc15ca01a094360

Donald Trump Arkansas Asa Hutchinson Government and politics

The AP Interview: Hutchinson says Trump worst choice for GOP

By ANDREW DeMILLO

11 mins ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, who is considering running for president, on Tuesday called a third Donald Trump White House bid the “worst scenario" for Republicans and said his call for terminating parts of the Constitution hurts the country.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Hutchinson said he planned to make a decision early next year on whether to seek the Republican presidential nomination. Hutchinson, 72, leaves office in January after serving eight years as Arkansas' governor.

He's part of a growing cohort of Republicans eyeing a White House run at a challenging moment for the party, which fell short of its hopes for sweeping victories in last month's midterm elections. Trump, who has already announced another run for the presidency, has faced blame from some Republicans for contributing to the GOP's lackluster performance by elevating candidates and issues that didn't resonate with voters during the general election.

Hutchinson has previously said he wouldn't support Trump's candidacy in 2024, but on Tuesday, he didn't rule out backing Trump if he becomes the Republican nominee.

“That's really the worst scenario," Hutchinson said of another matchup between Trump and Biden. “That’s almost the scenario that Biden wishes for. And that’s probably how he got elected the first time. It became, you know, a binary choice for the American people between the challenges that we saw in the Trump presidency, particularly the closing days, versus Biden, who he made it that choice."

POLITICS

US poised to approve Patriot missile battery for Ukraine

US-hosted Africa summit opens with focus on youth, security

Biden to sign gay marriage bill at White House ceremony

Fusion breakthrough is a milestone for climate, clean energy

Hutchinson also derided Trump’s recent statement calling for terminating parts of the Constitution to overturn the 2020 election as “so out of line and out of step with America that it almost does not deserve a response.”

“It hurts our country,” he said. “I mean, any leader, former president that says suspend the Constitution is tearing at the fabric of our democracy. And so we want to make sure that the people know that it’s Republicans that support the rule of law.”

Hutchinson said he's measuring how much financial support he'd have for mounting a presidential bid, but said he's also testing to see what kind of response his message is getting as he weighs a run. Hutchinson, who's been a regular presence on Sunday news talk shows, said he's been reaching out to other governors, members of Congress and evangelical leaders for advice on a possible run.

“The midterm elections made it clear to me that the GOP needs a bold agenda, but also new voices that’s articulating what our party stands for, the direction we want to take our country," Hutchinson said.

Hutchinson said he didn't view the midterms as a rejection of Republicans overall as much as of specific candidates.

“We're very disappointed that because of poor candidates, poor messaging, looking back instead of looking forward, we didn’t do as well as we should have in the midterm election," he said.

Hutchinson is among several Republican candidates who are weighing a presidential run. Others include former Vice President Mike Pence, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Another Arkansan, Sen. Tom Cotton, announced he wasn't seeking the Republican nomination.

Despite the potentially crowded field, Hutchinson said he doesn't expect a repeat of 2016 when GOP rivals hoping to block Trump's candidacy instead split the vote. Hutchinson said he thinks the early primary and caucus states will winnow the number of rivals to Trump very quickly.

“I think it will be much more methodical this cycle than what we’ve seen in previous years," he said. “And I think that competition is good and it’s healthy."

Though he's offering himself up as a new voice, Hutchinson has been a fixture in Arkansas politics going back to the 1980s when the state was predominantly Democratic. Hutchinson is a former congressman who served in former President George W. Bush's administration as the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration and an undersecretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

Hutchinson has ramped up his criticism of Trump in recent months, including a speech at the Reagan Library where he recounted his experience as a U.S. attorney who prosecuted white supremacists in Arkansas in the 1980s. Hutchinson contrasted that background with Trump having dinner with a Holocaust-denying white nationalist and a rapper who has spewed antisemitic conspiracies.

Hutchinson said that contrast is one of the reasons he thinks his voice may be needed in the presidential race. Republicans need figures who speak the truth and are not worried "whether you’re satisfying somebody down in Mar-a-Lago or not," he said.

Hutchinson earned the ire of Trump last year when the governor vetoed legislation that would ban gender-affirming care for minors. GOP lawmakers overrode Hutchinson's veto and enacted the ban, which has been blocked by a federal judge.

Trump called Hutchinson a RINO — Republican in Name Only — for vetoing the ban. The governor's successor, former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, has said she would have signed the ban into law.

Hutchinson, who has said he would have signed the measure if it was limited to gender-affirming surgery, called Arkansas' legislation “one of the most extreme in the country."

A vocal opponent of abortion who has signed other restrictions on transgender youth into law, Hutchinson said Republicans need to tread carefully on culture wars issues.

“The key thing is for Republicans and conservatives is to think about let’s not instinctively say, well, let’s use the power of government to accomplish our social agenda or our cultural agenda," he said. “You know, our first response is a strength in the home, the strength and the families and the communities and our churches and synagogues strengthen those because that’s the greatest impact on our culture."

Nearing the end of his eight years as governor, Hutchinson is touting his work on tax cuts and on expanding computer science courses as his top accomplishments. Hutchinson, who wrapped up his one-year term as National Governors Association chairman in July, is term limited and could not seek reelection. He said he thinks it's important to have a governor running for the office.

“I’m known for having a steady hand in leadership, but also a bold agenda," he said. “And I think that’s a good combination for a leader of the country."

gimmesometruth27 · December 2022

can someone, anyone, please point me to a verse where jesus christ, the main character of the 4 gospels, specifically spoke about homosexuality?

no?

ok then.

because he didn't.

gimmesometruth27 · December 2022

and if he did, it was left out of the new testament of the bible.

mrussel1 · December 2022

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

Go Beavers said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?

You have obviously never read the Bible.

Those aren’t references to homosexuality.

So you haven't read the Bible either?

Go Beavers said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?

You have obviously never read the Bible.

Those aren’t references to homosexuality.

Lectivus again.

If a man lays with another man as if he were a woman they have both committed an abomination.

I'm no scholar but I think I know what they were getting at.

And I’m not a Hebrew scholar either, along with all the conservative Christians who aren’t, so the original text gets lost in translation and historical context gets left out. Scholars will talk about the original Leviticus text being a holiness code for Israel’s priests and more specifically the above was a rule against incest. Homosexual relationships wasn’t a part of the dialogue back then.

I would disagree with that as those points were definitely made in Lectivus too as well as other places.

As far as anything new with translations there most likely won't be. So it was written and now it's done? That was my attempt at a pun...

The other often used references can also be debunked. What you find is there is no support for the anti-gay interpretation of the Bible and a lot of support against that interpretation.

If you're really serious about making this argument, I don't think that saying it wasn't what Leviticus meant is a winning one. While certainly there could be translation issues from Aramaic or what not, it does seem clear. The better argument is that Christians cannot pick and choose which parts of Leviticus they follow. Either you follow it or you don't. And if you don't, tell us all about how women are unclean, and her husband is unclean if he lays with her, and how women cannot speak in church. Force them to defend Leviticus across the board. Either he speaks for God or he doesn't.

gimmesometruth27 · December 2022

mrussel1 said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

Go Beavers said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?

You have obviously never read the Bible.

Those aren’t references to homosexuality.

So you haven't read the Bible either?

Go Beavers said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?

You have obviously never read the Bible.

Those aren’t references to homosexuality.

Lectivus again.

If a man lays with another man as if he were a woman they have both committed an abomination.

I'm no scholar but I think I know what they were getting at.

And I’m not a Hebrew scholar either, along with all the conservative Christians who aren’t, so the original text gets lost in translation and historical context gets left out. Scholars will talk about the original Leviticus text being a holiness code for Israel’s priests and more specifically the above was a rule against incest. Homosexual relationships wasn’t a part of the dialogue back then.

I would disagree with that as those points were definitely made in Lectivus too as well as other places.

As far as anything new with translations there most likely won't be. So it was written and now it's done? That was my attempt at a pun...

The other often used references can also be debunked. What you find is there is no support for the anti-gay interpretation of the Bible and a lot of support against that interpretation.

If you're really serious about making this argument, I don't think that saying it wasn't what Leviticus meant is a winning one. While certainly there could be translation issues from Aramaic or what not, it does seem clear. The better argument is that Christians cannot pick and choose which parts of Leviticus they follow. Either you follow it or you don't. And if you don't, tell us all about how women are unclean, and her husband is unclean if he lays with her, and how women cannot speak in church. Force them to defend Leviticus across the board. Either he speaks for God or he doesn't.

also the part about tattoos, and the part about eating shellfish.

mrussel1 · December 2022

gimmesometruth27 said:

and if he did, it was left out of the new testament of the bible.

He didn't. He did talk about border crossings though and building walls.

mickeyrat · December 2022

mrussel1 said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

Go Beavers said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?

You have obviously never read the Bible.

Those aren’t references to homosexuality.

So you haven't read the Bible either?

Go Beavers said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?

You have obviously never read the Bible.

Those aren’t references to homosexuality.

Lectivus again.

If a man lays with another man as if he were a woman they have both committed an abomination.

I'm no scholar but I think I know what they were getting at.

And I’m not a Hebrew scholar either, along with all the conservative Christians who aren’t, so the original text gets lost in translation and historical context gets left out. Scholars will talk about the original Leviticus text being a holiness code for Israel’s priests and more specifically the above was a rule against incest. Homosexual relationships wasn’t a part of the dialogue back then.

I would disagree with that as those points were definitely made in Lectivus too as well as other places.

As far as anything new with translations there most likely won't be. So it was written and now it's done? That was my attempt at a pun...

The other often used references can also be debunked. What you find is there is no support for the anti-gay interpretation of the Bible and a lot of support against that interpretation.

If you're really serious about making this argument, I don't think that saying it wasn't what Leviticus meant is a winning one. While certainly there could be translation issues from Aramaic or what not, it does seem clear. The better argument is that Christians cannot pick and choose which parts of Leviticus they follow. Either you follow it or you don't. And if you don't, tell us all about how women are unclean, and her husband is unclean if he lays with her, and how women cannot speak in church. Force them to defend Leviticus across the board. Either he speaks for God or he doesn't.

in fact Christians shouldnt be following the OLD LAW anyway since Christ fulfilled that Law(entire old testament), besides it was specific to the children(12 tribes) of Israel. And gentiles aint that.

GOP

Comments

Categories