Popular Post Damien the Leper Posted January 23 Popular Post Posted January 23 Ben Shapiro complains about Bishop Budde's sermon and Dan McClellan responds adequately. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT2LeFuYv/ 7
Calm Posted January 23 Posted January 23 I would love to see how Shapiro supports his claim Jesus was against free immigration. 4
Popular Post Mark Beesley Posted January 23 Popular Post Posted January 23 The scriptures would seem to suggest exactly the opposite, at least in terms of what the attitude of believers ought to be. “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God.” Ephesians 2:19 6
CV75 Posted January 23 Posted January 23 2 hours ago, Calm said: I would love to see how Shapiro supports his claim Jesus was against free immigration. He made the fish cough up money for crossing the Jordan 1
Okrahomer Posted January 23 Posted January 23 2 hours ago, Mark Beesley said: The scriptures would seem to suggest exactly the opposite, at least in terms of what the attitude of believers ought to be. “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God.” Ephesians 2:19 I like what you say here and agree with it as it applies to our obligations to Christ’s heavenly Kingdom; but don’t we also have obligations to the earthly kingdom? ”19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. 20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 21 They say unto him, Cæsar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” Free and open borders sound good to my Christian heart, but my imperfect mortal mind cannot fathom how one nation can safely and/or economically embrace the multitudes. 4
Mfbnew Posted January 24 Posted January 24 5 hours ago, Damien the Leper said: Ben Shapiro complains about Bishop Budde's sermon and Dan McClellan responds adequately. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT2LeFuYv/ I think both of them need a class or three on Rorty and Wittgenstein. The correspondence theory of truth simply doesn't work guys Words are WORDS- funny noises we make that we pretend "correspond" to the hard reality of life. They don't. All they can possibly correspond to is our personal opinions- even if a million billion agree! So both are right, and both are wrong. Why bother? Let people have their own beliefs and leave it alone. Life is too short! 1
Popular Post Steve J Posted January 24 Popular Post Posted January 24 (edited) I think it’s clear what scriptures say about how to view and treat migrants, but I think it’s wrong to use bible verses to try to win modern US policy debates. There also how much U.S. should assist people in home countries and whether mass migration is brain drain and keeps countries in a state of poverty. All policy debates where arguments can be made from variety of sides. I find it problematic when you say Jesus or scriptures support my 21st century U.S. policy position Edited January 24 by Steve J 6
sunstoned Posted January 24 Posted January 24 Dan is the Man, and pastor Lorenzo Sewell was courageous in reminding current politicians and their supporters what real Christianity is. 2
Dario_M Posted January 24 Posted January 24 Oh my, i can't even watch it because i have no tiktok. 🤷♀️
Robert F. Smith Posted January 24 Posted January 24 22 hours ago, Damien the Leper said: Ben Shapiro complains about Bishop Budde's sermon and Dan McClellan responds adequately. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT2LeFuYv/ "Adequately"? I'd say sharply.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 24 Posted January 24 17 hours ago, Mfbnew said: I think both of them need a class or three on Rorty and Wittgenstein. The correspondence theory of truth simply doesn't work guys Words are WORDS- funny noises we make that we pretend "correspond" to the hard reality of life. They don't. All they can possibly correspond to is our personal opinions- even if a million billion agree! So both are right, and both are wrong. Why bother? Let people have their own beliefs and leave it alone. Life is too short! Yeh, Mark, but where does that leave those of us who appreciate John Stuart Mill? Does the strong interaction of opposing views help sharpen our understanding, or is it all a wash?
Mfbnew Posted January 24 Posted January 24 (edited) 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: Yeh, Mark, but where does that leave those of us who appreciate John Stuart Mill? Does the strong interaction of opposing views help sharpen our understanding, or is it all a wash? I am not understanding your point I guess. Yes, opposition in all things is a good thing- it is how ideas grow, and how evolution itself "works" But I believe also that there is real improvement as things evolve BECAUSE of the opposition, and later, evolved ideas tend to solve earlier understandings. Incidentally I think that our new "Post-Mormon" church is well established to become postmodern as well- which enhances- I believe- the entire idea of personal revelation. Our dear prophet President Nelson is actually -imo- the most postmodern church president we have ever had- but my historical knowledge of church history is quite weak really. Crudely stated postmodernism is about "my truth" vs "your truth". You can't get closer to that then a church which encourages receiving one's own revelations! To be direct, I think J.S. Mill was a wonderful philosopher, but his position was incomplete as compared to, say, James or Heidegger, Rorty , or Wittgenstein. "Strong interaction of opposing views" imo clearly shows a progression in ideas, and for me, sticking with JS Mill is like wanting to stick with a Model T Ford rather than something more contemporary. Edited January 24 by Mfbnew 2
longview Posted January 24 Posted January 24 3 minutes ago, Mfbnew said: Crudely stated postmodernism is about "my truth" vs "your truth". You can't get closer to that then a church which encourages receiving one's own revelations! Both personal revelation and prophetic warnings and teachings are necessary. Jesus' Intercessory Prayer (John 17) emphasizes the absolute necessity of Oneness or Unity in the Godhead, and between God and the Twelve Apostles, and with the Body of Christ the Church. Why we raise our right arms to sustain callings even if we are imperfect. Always striving for greater progress and unity (in overcoming the natural man).
The Nehor Posted January 24 Posted January 24 17 hours ago, Dario_M said: Oh my, i can't even watch it because i have no tiktok. 🤷♀️ That is more blessing than curse. 2
Calm Posted January 24 Posted January 24 I have not added it to my collection. I have gone as far as FB and nothing else. I think I tried instagram for three days before I deleted it. I really hope I won’t have to add more besides FB.
Danzo Posted January 25 Posted January 25 On 1/23/2025 at 3:33 PM, Okrahomer said: I like what you say here and agree with it as it applies to our obligations to Christ’s heavenly Kingdom; but don’t we also have obligations to the earthly kingdom? ”19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. 20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 21 They say unto him, Cæsar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” Free and open borders sound good to my Christian heart, but my imperfect mortal mind cannot fathom how one nation can safely and/or economically embrace the multitudes. Sometimes following Christ requires us to use faith. We do not always need know everything before we act. 2
Okrahomer Posted January 25 Posted January 25 (edited) 1 hour ago, Danzo said: Sometimes following Christ requires us to use faith. We do not always need know everything before we act. Only “sometimes”? How do you (or should we) faithfully follow Christ’s counsel in Matthew 22:15-22 — especially if we dislike or disagree with Ceaser? Edit to add: I may be misunderstanding you here. Apologies if that is the case. Edited January 25 by Okrahomer
Calm Posted January 25 Posted January 25 (edited) 1 hour ago, Danzo said: Sometimes following Christ requires us to use faith. We do not always need know everything before we act. How about always, not just sometimes? Since we never know everything before we act. Oops, didn’t see Okra’s comment before posting, lol. Edited January 25 by Calm 1
Dario_M Posted January 25 Posted January 25 7 hours ago, The Nehor said: That is more blessing than curse. Is it so horible then? Oh my.
CV75 Posted January 25 Posted January 25 On 1/23/2025 at 1:43 PM, Damien the Leper said: Ben Shapiro complains about Bishop Budde's sermon and Dan McClellan responds adequately. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT2LeFuYv/ Was the complaint primarily political or doctrinal in nature?
Benjamin McGuire Posted January 25 Posted January 25 29 minutes ago, CV75 said: Was the complaint primarily political or doctrinal in nature? The answer is yes. Shapiro is a highly political person - but it can be hard for the political right to criticize Christian theology, since the political right depends a lot on that voting block. So, Shapiro criticizes the theology of the individual (by trying to portray the individual as a theological other). The purpose of the criticism those is entirely political - and we see this in the fact that the theological argument is simply bad - which is what Dan McClellan was pointing out - the emperor has no clothes. What is really bad about this is that this is nothing other than a Machiavellian response. The effort to recast these issues as moral issues is as much about creating a new morality as it is about supporting the political policies. The effort to convince Christians that they should see these issues as moral issues is entirely a part of the historic playbook is a part of what Machiavelli calls the stupefaction of the masses. So is it primarily political or doctrinal in nature? It's really both. It is the new politics and the new doctrine ... 4
longview Posted January 25 Posted January 25 25 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said: Shapiro is a highly political person - But not as extreme as Bishop Budde who espouses far-left virtue signaling which includes surgical mutilation and chemical castration of under age children. 25 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said: but it can be hard for the political right to criticize Christian theology, Shapiro is NOT criticizing Christian theology. He is directly criticizing Bishop Budde's radical wokism. She is placing her congregants under distress by politicizing her office of ministering. Not all of them will agree with her use of the prayer meeting (held AFTER inauguration ceremony) to agitate against a newly sworn-in president. I was also concerned about Franklin Graham and others who prayed (during the inauguration ceremony) making political points. 25 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said: since the political right depends a lot on that voting block. True. 25 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said: So, Shapiro criticizes the theology of the individual (by trying to portray the individual as a theological other). False. Just her wokism and trying to imply that God was exclusively on HER side. 25 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said: The purpose of the criticism those is entirely political - and we see this in the fact that the theological argument is simply bad - which is what Dan McClellan was pointing out - the emperor has no clothes. I saw the video. Dan seemed very smug and self-serving. It would have been better for Dan to invite Shapiro to discuss the pros and cons in that video. 25 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said: What is really bad about this is that this is nothing other than a Machiavellian response. Definition from the wiki: "Machiavellianism (or Machiavellism) is widely defined as the political philosophy of the Italian Renaissance diplomat Niccolò Machiavelli, usually associated with realism in foreign and domestic politics, and with the view that those who lead governments must prioritize the stability of the regime over ethical concerns." Response on the part of Shapiro? That would be a very strange perspective for you to have. Shapiro is known to be a deeply principled supporter for original-intent interpretation of the US Constitution and conservative family values and less autocratic and minimal Federal government. Budde is a rabid radical that is insistent for a more dominant and heavy-handed centralized authority. The former expect consistency in ethical concerns. The latter are willing to "bend the rules." 25 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said: The effort to recast these issues as moral issues Yes. To bring back sanity and accountability in the medical-industrial complex that has fast-tracked surgical mutilation and chemical castration. 25 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said: is as much about creating a new morality as it is about supporting the political policies. No. Radicals are always moving the goal post and casting about for dealing with constantly changing mirages. 25 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said: The effort to convince Christians that they should see these issues as moral issues is entirely a part of the historic playbook is a part of what Machiavelli calls the stupefaction of the masses. So is it primarily political or doctrinal in nature? It's really both. It is the new politics and the new doctrine ... Yes. We should take a closer look at the so-called state sponsored indoctrination in public schools.
Benjamin McGuire Posted January 25 Posted January 25 (edited) 41 minutes ago, longview said: But not as extreme as Bishop Budde who espouses far-left virtue signaling which includes surgical mutilation and chemical castration of under age children. You see, this is complete nonsense. That you think this sort of comparison is appropriate says an awful lot about you, and your lack of personal integrity. Apparently you have bought into the nonsense new morality. I think we can simply leave it at that. Edit: Actually, CFR on the idea that Bishop Budde espouses "surgical mutilation and chemical castration of under age children". Edited January 25 by Benjamin McGuire 2
Recommended Posts