|
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Jul 1, 2020, 10:08 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by talaniman
If that were the case Clete we wouldn't be protesting racist cops.
I think the whole thing is bizarre, what is with the cops over there?
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Jul 1, 2020, 10:52 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by paraclete
I think the whole thing is bizarre, what is with the cops over there?
It's very simple. A sizable fraction of police (maybe 15-20%) are outright racist. The rest see the racism but are hesitant to rock the boat by snitching on their brother cops. It's called the Blue Wall of Silence and is the determining factor in police brutality and the ensuing racism (and corruption). Change that culture and the problems disappear overnight.
It's not easy to change that culture, but it IS necessary to make a start.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Jul 1, 2020, 11:46 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by Athos
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Jesus said why do you call me good? If he would not call himself good, what man has right to the title. The problem is men are only good in their own eyes
|
|
|
Expert
|
|
Jul 2, 2020, 04:05 AM
|
|
Cops need only be good in the eyes of the law, so should not be above the law.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Jul 2, 2020, 07:20 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by paraclete
Jesus said why do you call me good? If he would not call himself good, what man has right to the title. The problem is men are only good in their own eyes
That's a very strange read of what Jesus said. I suggest you go back to the drawing board and work out a better solution.
The saying about the triumph of evil is about as accurate as is possible. I'm sure Jesus would agree.
I wonder why Jesus called the Samaritan good? Or the shepherd?
|
|
|
Expert
|
|
Jul 2, 2020, 08:20 AM
|
|
Relying on the words of ancient man is a dubious venture in the first place. Humans have been known to be flawed, and have proved through history they can screw up anything, even the notion of god.
|
|
|
Jobs & Parenting Expert
|
|
Jul 2, 2020, 09:22 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by paraclete
Jesus said why do you call me good? If he would not call himself good, what man has right to the title. The problem is men are only good in their own eyes
From Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible:
Various alternatives have been suggested for what Jesus meant by this question. They are of varying quality.
1) Jesus meant, “You must not call me good unless you recognise me as God. If you can see my goodness, learn your lesson from it as to Who and What I am.’
2) Jesus is indicating that His goodness is dependent on the Father’s goodness, (see John 5:19) so that the title of absolute goodness belongs only to the Father.
3) Jesus was not prepared to accept the title of good until His probation was past. Until His life was complete He would not have earned the honour.
4) Jesus is taking the attitude of a man towards God, as He always did. He was here as a man among men pointing them to God. They were not to look to honour Him, however good He was, but to honour His Father.
5) He is stating a recognised truth and rebuking the man for his casual attitude towards goodness, revealed by his using the term ‘good’ without thinking it through.
6) He recognises that the man sees Him as uniquely good (as a rabbi) and is seeking to imitate Him in order to receive eternal life (compare in Matthew, ‘what good thing must I do’). He realises that the man is therefore aiming to be like Him, and really thinks that he can be. But He does not want him to try to imitate Him in this way. He wants him to look to God as his standard. So He is seeking to turn his thoughts away from Himself as the standard of goodness to God.
Certain conclusions must be drawn. Firstly that only God Himself can be seen as truly ‘good’. Secondly that Jesus does not vociferously deny the appellation, which He would have done had He seen it as totally unfitting, but wants the man to think through what he has said. When a Rabbi asked questions of his hearers it was in order to expand on the idea under discussion. Thirdly that He is unhappy about the way that the man is using the idea of goodness, and wants him to be more careful in his use of the term.
|
|
|
Expert
|
|
Jul 3, 2020, 09:19 AM
|
|
I don't think anything is written in stone, nor accepted as fact by a few without the many questions being answered. Can't modern man question ancient man without the backlash? Does holding a bible (Koran or Torah) make a loony nut legitimate and all knowing? If it does then Antifa, ISIS, and White Supremists have a legit cause, message, and method to their madness.
That doesn't sound very good to me.
|
|
|
Jobs & Parenting Expert
|
|
Jul 3, 2020, 09:30 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by talaniman
I don't think anything is written in stone, nor accepted as fact by a few without the many questions being answered. Can't modern man question ancient man without the backlash? Does holding a bible (Koran or Torah) make a loony nut legitimate and all knowing? If it does then Antifa, ISIS, and White Supremists have a legit cause, message, and method to their madness.
That doesn't sound very good to me.
Yup, we can debate (until the cows come home) the words and meanings in any holy book. It still always comes down to the Golden Rule, how we treat each other.
|
|
|
Expert
|
|
Jul 3, 2020, 09:47 AM
|
|
You mean I have to suffer those loons with the chaos stick?
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Jul 3, 2020, 07:30 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by talaniman
I don't think anything is written in stone, nor accepted as fact by a few without the many questions being answered. Can't modern man question ancient man without the backlash? Does holding a bible (Koran or Torah) make a loony nut legitimate and all knowing? If it does then Antifa, ISIS, and White Supremists have a legit cause, message, and method to their madness.
That doesn't sound very good to me.
Tal if I recall, the Ten Commandments were written in stone
|
|
|
Jobs & Parenting Expert
|
|
Jul 3, 2020, 07:49 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by paraclete
Tal if I recall, the Ten Commandments were written in stone
And Jesus broke those two rigid stones into two dynamic ethics.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Jul 3, 2020, 08:15 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
And Jesus broke those two rigid stones into two dynamic ethics.
No, that isn't what he did, he explained them in a simple way, love, but, he didn't supplant them, he couldn't change the Word of God
|
|
|
Expert
|
|
Jul 4, 2020, 06:59 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by paraclete
Tal if I recall, the Ten Commandments were written in stone
Before Moses wrote on stone tablets for his flock, those commandments and many more were already written in many cultures in that region already.
Originally Posted by paraclete
No, that isn't what he did, he explained them in a simple way, love, but, he didn't supplant them, he couldn't change the Word of God
Or the ancient teachings before there was Christ, and Christianity. The message is a universal one common to many cultures both before and after Jesus.
|
|
|
Jobs & Parenting Expert
|
|
Jul 4, 2020, 09:11 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by paraclete
No, that isn't what he did, he explained them in a simple way, love, but, he didn't supplant them, he couldn't change the Word of God
I didn't say "supplant"! I said Jesus (who is God) gave them a dynamic meaning. The Ten Commandments are no longer negatives, but are now positives.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Jul 8, 2020, 09:40 AM
|
|
But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. .......censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.
https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-just...d-open-debate/
From the left .... you would think that arguing in favor of the free and open exchange of ideas would be a good thing. But the furious reaction from the left base has been swift .Why the gratuitous & irrelevant lines about 'right-wing demagogues'? Conservatives love a free and open exchange of ideas . We may drop the occasional name calling on them . But that is about it .
The liberal inquisition has already passed judgement ...
Chomsky...cancel him ! JK Rawling cancel and burn Harry Potter books ! Salman Rushdie, burn any of his books that the Muslims forgot .Gloria Steinem, you just lost your feminist cred . Randi Weingarten kick her out of the union . Robert F. Worth your words are not worth the paper they re printed on. Fareed Zakaria you are cancelled too.
One of their political weapons is ‘Cancel Culture’ — driving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters, and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees. This is the very definition of totalitarianism, and it is completely alien to our culture and our values, and it has absolutely no place in the United States of America.
[Trump address at Mt Rushmore ]
... It appears some pretty prominent lefties agree with him
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Jul 8, 2020, 10:45 AM
|
|
This article blames Trump for the lack of civility and the illberalism in the public square.
Why the gratuitous & irrelevant lines about 'right-wing demagogues'?
Because the right-wing demagogues are gratuitous and irrelevant.
Conservatives love a free and open exchange of ideas .
Where have the conservatives gone? They have been replaced in the US Senate by right-wing demagogues.
|
|
|
Expert
|
|
Jul 8, 2020, 05:17 PM
|
|
I suppose making Obama a one term president the day he was inaugurated was one of those conservative free and open exchange of ideas right Tom? Hard to tell the fringers from the conservatives sometimes.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Jul 8, 2020, 05:25 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I didn't say "supplant"! I said Jesus (who is God) gave them a dynamic meaning. The Ten Commandments are no longer negatives, but are now positives.
In what way were then ten commandments negative but then I expect you think any curtailment of your freedom to kill, steal, have intercourse, covert, disrespect God or parents or others negative
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Jul 8, 2020, 06:14 PM
|
|
I suppose making Obama a one term president the day he was inaugurated was one of those conservative free and open exchange of ideas right Tom?
He wasn't was he ? Just the opposite . Racist white majority America voted him in for 2 terms . But yeah I was opposed enough to his policies and his abuses of power that I did not want him to have a shot at the damage he did in his 2nd term. His one big legislative 'achievement ' was a dubiously and unconstitutional restructure of the American health care system. And it is just historically wrong to suggest that opposition to him was racially motivated . Oh I'm sure there was some of that. But the fact is that he went in with his agenda and the attitude of an imperial President . He not only had issues with Republicans. But even the Dems on the hill had issues with him (although that was not widely reported by the compliant press)
Some are scratching their heads why, after nearly six years in office and a reshuffling of his legislative affairs team, Obama's working relationship with Congress remains prickly.
“It's hard for us to fathom; I mean, is it just lack of full staffing and resources? [Is it] professional commitment? Is it a disdain for the legislative branch? I mean, what is it?” asked Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.). “People like me want to be allies — I mean, I am an ally. So work with us, reach out to us; you know, we're not the enemy.”........Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, lamented what he characterized as a history of the White House dropping its plans on congressional Democrats without warning.
“Not being consulted ahead of time — that just makes people crazy,” Grijalva said. “Let us know ahead of time. Call us in when you're developing something so we can give you our ground-level reality check about how this is going to work.”
Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) likened the relationship between presidents and their Capitol Hill allies to that between quarterbacks and the offensive linemen charged with protecting them. Some quarterbacks, he said, simply manage that alliance better than others.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/2...t-talk-to-them
Think about it . He went into his Presidency with super majorities in Congress and instead of working on a real recovery to the global recession he got a poorly thought threw pork laden "stimulus" package and then used the next 2 years to destroy the health care system . Large numbers of insured people were forced out of sensible private plans into a typically heavily subsidized that are substandard to what they had . It basically was"screw the market, screw economics, I'm setting these standards because it's the right thing to do... deal with it. If you don't like it ,take the red pill .
He was such a bad domestic agenda President that he got his party drubbed in the mid terms . Truth is that it was good that his agenda failed . Cap and trade was a disaster waiting to happen . So he did EOs . Immigration went no where .So he did more EOs He did enough after that to secure a 2nd term . And then spent his 2nd term destroying America's foreign policy and using the Intel and investigative agencies of his executive dept to go after political opponents . Honestly the only way you could not call his presidency a failure is if you assume he meant to put the practices of 'Rules for Radicals ' into practice . In that regard he was a success.
|
|
Question Tools |
Search this Question |
|
|
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
21st century slavery
[ 8 Answers ]
Can a employer not give raise to the felon he has working but give them to everyone else? Can they take benefits away from felon but no one else? Can he not pay a felon for ANY OVERTIME he works just because he is a felon?
Abbott and Costello in the 21st Century
[ 5 Answers ]
Abbot and Costello in the 21st Century
COSTELLO CALLS TO BUY A COMPUTER FROM ABBOTT
ABBOTT: Super Duper computer store. Can I help you?
COSTELLO: Thanks I'm setting up an office in my den and I'm thinking about buying a computer.
ABBOTT: Mac?
COSTELLO: No, the name's Lou.
ABBOTT: Your...
Home Security for the 21st Century
[ 9 Answers ]
I was looking to survey what services and fees (if any) people subscribe to for their home security system. In addition, if you are using a pay/fee-based service - do you feel the cost/fee is reasonable?
Secondly, what feature(s) do you like the best about the system?
If you ignore...
21st Century Tithing.
[ 23 Answers ]
Would you tithe:
1. More
2. Less
3. The Same
4. Be Highly Offended
5. I don't tithe at all.
IF your place of worship accepted Debit and Credit Cards????
View more questions
Search
|