Mike Johnson, New Speaker of the House.

[B-Man]

                                               

 

 

.

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

This guy is a freakshow

 

 

This guy sounds like a clown. 

 

Let's just let the human heart solve all problems! 

[wnyguy]

39 minutes ago, Kemp said:

You couldn't glean my answer from my question?

 

So, either you're against Johnson's statement or you wish to live under a theocracy.

 

The guy I posted to wants a theocracy.

So you think living by the principles of the Bible or the Koran or the Torah would preclude you from following the Constitution?

[BillStime]

18 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

This guy sounds like a clown. 

 

Let's just let the human heart solve all problems! 

 

Well, and the Bible, where the Christo fascist selectively interprets the Bible to target minorities and disguises his hatred by claiming to follow Scripture.

[k2mountain]

The Dems vote out McCarthy with unanimous vote, then complain about the replacement. Four year old's have higher emotional intelligence.

[Orlando Tim]

On 10/25/2023 at 11:05 PM, John from Riverside said:

People are judged by their actions

 

He tried to overturn an election we have to see what he will do as a speaker

So did the guy all the Dems voted for, but one was way back in 2016 so you all seem to have forgotten 

[Kemp]

2 hours ago, wnyguy said:

So you think living by the principles of the Bible or the Koran or the Torah would preclude you from following the Constitution?

 

Didn't figure you for one who would be fine with a Muslim head of the House saying that his world view is guided by the Koran. 

I learned something new about you. I wonder if Callahan agrees with you.

[wnyguy]

10 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

Didn't figure you for one who would be fine with a Muslim head of the House saying that his world view is guided by the Koran. 

I learned something new about you. I wonder if Callahan agrees with you.

I don't see a thing wrong with any government official being guided by the Koran if it does not interfere with them also abiding by the Constitution, by which they are sworn to uphold. 

[Kemp]

15 minutes ago, wnyguy said:

I don't see a thing wrong with any government official being guided by the Koran if it does not interfere with them also abiding by the Constitution, by which they are sworn to uphold. 

 

I do.

 

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-of-the-violent-verses-in-Quran

Interesting to know that you'd be just fine with a Speaker of the House living by the Koran.

Let's now try it for the Bible:

 

Isaiah 13:9:

“Now, the day of the LORD is coming — cruel, and full of wrath and fierce anger… (16) Their little ones will be dashed to pieces before their eyes. Their houses will be looted, and their wives will be raped.”

 

2 Kings 6:28–29

Then he asked her, “What’s with you?” She said, “This woman said to me, ‘Give up your son so we may eat him today, and tomorrow we’ll eat my son.’ (29) So we boiled my son and ate him. The next day I said to her, ‘Give up your son so we may eat him,’ but she had hidden her son.”

"But if ... evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones..." (Deuteronomy 22:20,21)

I don't want anyone running the government who uses the Bible or any religious book as his world view. 

Somewhat ironically, Trump doesn't adhere to anything in the Bible and has said he has never done anything he should repent for.

[sherpa]

6 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

I do.

 

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-of-the-violent-verses-in-Quran

Interesting to know that you'd be just fine with a Speaker of the House living by the Koran.

Let's now try it for the Bible:

 

Isaiah 13:9:

“Now, the day of the LORD is coming — cruel, and full of wrath and fierce anger… (16) Their little ones will be dashed to pieces before their eyes. Their houses will be looted, and their wives will be raped.”

 

2 Kings 6:28–29

Then he asked her, “What’s with you?” She said, “This woman said to me, ‘Give up your son so we may eat him today, and tomorrow we’ll eat my son.’ (29) So we boiled my son and ate him. The next day I said to her, ‘Give up your son so we may eat him,’ but she had hidden her son.”

"But if ... evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones..." (Deuteronomy 22:20,21)

I don't want anyone running the government who uses the Bible or any religious book as his world view. 

Somewhat ironically, Trump doesn't adhere to anything in the Bible and has said he has never done anything he should repent for.

 

Do you understand the difference between the Old Testament and the New?

 

Nobody does burnt offering sacrifices anymore.

Nobody recommends animal sacrifice or blood atonement.

The point is moot.

 

The Old Testament stuff ended over 2000 year ago and is irrelevant. 

Interesting from a historical standpoint, as it is the story of a people preparing for something.

But that something occurred, and has been moved on from, with the exception of a very small group.

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

3 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Do you understand the difference between the Old Testament and the New?

 

Nobody does burnt offering sacrifices anymore.

Nobody recommends animal sacrifice or blood atonement.

The point is moot.

 

The Old Testament stuff ended over 2000 year ago and is irrelevant. 

Interesting from a historical standpoint, as it is the story of a people preparing for something.

But that something occurred, and has been moved on from, with the exception of a very small group.

 

I guess while we're at it, relying on a presumption of fairness, decency and the human spirit (irrespective of theology) isn't such a great plan, either.  

[nedboy7]

5 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Do you understand the difference between the Old Testament and the New?

 

Nobody does burnt offering sacrifices anymore.

Nobody recommends animal sacrifice or blood atonement.

The point is moot.

 

The Old Testament stuff ended over 2000 year ago and is irrelevant. 

Interesting from a historical standpoint, as it is the story of a people preparing for something.

But that something occurred, and has been moved on from, with the exception of a very small group.

 

 

You seem too intelligent to post stuff like this. 

 

All too often when people think about violence in the Bible, they focus on the Old Testament and ignore the New. People tend to imagine that the Prince of Peace rejects violence, and situate Jesus and the God of the New Testament in opposition to the Old Testament God; this kind of oppositional reading is problematic in many ways, not the least in its historic contribution to anti-Semitism, but also ignores what the text itself says.

 

In fact, the New Testament is full of violence and suffering, violence which is condoned by Jesus himself. Even in the Gospels, Jesus demands that eyes be plucked out and hands cut off as a result of sin, and threatens the earth with bloody violence. The Book of Revelation, written in the first or second century CE, is widely read as early Christianity’s rejection of the sinful, violent Roman Empire and the hopeful expectation of justice for true believers. This understanding of the Apocalypse overlooks the rampant violence omnipresent in the text, which depicts sexual violence as a punishment ordained by God. As John Marshall says, “Sexualized violence against women is one of John’s primary modes of depicting God’s judgment.”

 

 

[BillStime]

Hmmm... what's off about this photo from December 31st, 2022?

 

[B-Man]

 

 

Here it comes: Democrats pile on ‘appalling,’ ‘dangerous’ Speaker Johnson.

By Paul Bedard.

 

Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) hadn’t been elected the 56th House speaker for three minutes and the Democratic attacks started to land.

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/here-it-comes-dems-pile-on-appalling-dangerous-speaker-johnson

 

 

 

 

Of course, you know they’d say this about anyone who had any chance of being effective.

 

 

.

 

 

For us "older folks, this crazy anti religion tactic by you guys seems all too familiar.

 

How John F. Kennedy Overcame Anti-Catholic Bias to Win the ...

history.com

https://www.history.com/news/jfk-catholic-president

Nov 20, 2019 — “The argument was, when push came to shove, a president who was Roman Catholic would ultimately be more loyal to the Vatican because the fate of ...

 

 

It was bullsh*t then, it is bullsh*t now.

 

Your fear is remarkable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[BillStime]

 

[B-Man]

12 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Your fear is remarkable.

 

 

 

1 minute ago, BillStime said:

 

[sherpa]

18 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:

 

You seem too intelligent to post stuff like this. 

 

All too often when people think about violence in the Bible, they focus on the Old Testament and ignore the New. People tend to imagine that the Prince of Peace rejects violence, and situate Jesus and the God of the New Testament in opposition to the Old Testament God; this kind of oppositional reading is problematic in many ways, not the least in its historic contribution to anti-Semitism, but also ignores what the text itself says.

 

In fact, the New Testament is full of violence and suffering, violence which is condoned by Jesus himself. Even in the Gospels, Jesus demands that eyes be plucked out and hands cut off as a result of sin, and threatens the earth with bloody violence. The Book of Revelation, written in the first or second century CE, is widely read as early Christianity’s rejection of the sinful, violent Roman Empire and the hopeful expectation of justice for true believers. This understanding of the Apocalypse overlooks the rampant violence omnipresent in the text, which depicts sexual violence as a punishment ordained by God. As John Marshall says, “Sexualized violence against women is one of John’s primary modes of depicting God’s judgment.”

 

 

 

Of course it is full of Jesus saying that various things would be better than denying a relationship with God.

Jesus never recommended nor endorsed any of that.

He merely pointed out, by exaggeration to the people he was talking to, in a manner they would understand, how separating oneself  from fellowship with God was worse than the examples he provided.  

Show me where he ever commanded eyes be plucked out or hands cut off.

[BillStime]

1 minute ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

[John from Riverside]

4 hours ago, Orlando Tim said:

So did the guy all the Dems voted for, but one was way back in 2016 so you all seem to have forgotten 

The two or not even remotely, the same and you know it

[B-Man]

 

Well put.