Joe Ferguson forever Posted July 14 Posted July 14 7 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: Your argument is truly the same as Dems in the 1860s with slavery- what will the market bear? You show how immoral you are when you try to be clever I wasn’t around in the 1860’s. I’d like to think I would have been aligned with the underground railroad in Lewiston had I been. That would have been worth the cost. Are you a socialist? Should a living wage be mandated? 1
ghostwriter Posted July 14 Posted July 14 10 hours ago, Brandon said: I'm saying that society has a strong tendency to be indifferent to a man who is struggling and is occasionally outright hostile. Aside from maybe their parents, men do not have an emotional support structure around them. That's why the suicide rates are higher than for women. Many men, (not just white men) see society for what it is and are depressed by it and while I agree with that sentiment, I disagree with the action of suicide itself. I am a Christian man and I think God put us here for a reason. Hell is a lot worse. 1
Tiberius Posted July 14 Author Posted July 14 15 minutes ago, ghostwriter said: You said that white men commit suicide at a higher rate because of toxic masculinity. 1.) What is masculinity? 2.) What is toxic masculinity? Why? 1
ghostwriter Posted July 14 Posted July 14 Just now, Tiberius said: Why? Because you have no idea what you’re talking about and I knew it would be a checkmate. You have evil in your heart and it’s as simple as that. 4
Tiberius Posted July 14 Author Posted July 14 5 minutes ago, ghostwriter said: Because you have no idea what you’re talking about and I knew it would be a checkmate. You have evil in your heart and it’s as simple as that. I just won a game of chess, I had him trapped and he timed out. Happy here 😀
Joe Ferguson forever Posted July 14 Posted July 14 12 minutes ago, ghostwriter said: Many men, (not just white men) see society for what it is and are depressed by it and while I agree with that sentiment, I disagree with the action of suicide itself. I am a Christian man and I think God put us here for a reason. Hell is a lot worse. Define society. As a Christian, do you believe that man is inherently good? That seems a dividing line among our group. 1
ghostwriter Posted July 14 Posted July 14 2 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: Define society. As a Christian, do you believe that man is inherently good? That seems a dividing line among our group. I’m about to go to bed, but let me reply quickly before I go and I will respond to you tomorrow morning when I get up. Society can be your family, it can be your neighbors, it can be a stranger that you bump into at a store, it can be me and you talking together on message board. Do I believe that man is good? No. We’re all sinners which is why Jesus died on the cross for us. It wasn’t just the Jews that put him there. I put him there, you put him there. We all did. As a Christian, I am not better than you, it just means that Jesus bought me out of my debt. That also does not mean that I can run the credit card up as much as I want and expect Jesus to pay for it. I have to make certain lifestyle changes as well. Man was meant to be good, but we fell. 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted July 14 Posted July 14 4 minutes ago, ghostwriter said: Do I believe that man is good? No, inherently good...Was man corrupted or were we bad from the beginning? I think the garden of eden is symbolic of the former. I'm a Christian as well, albeit a liberal one. Jesus was killed by the Romans for being a radical rabble rouser. The Jews were (and are) convenient villains. 1
boyst Posted July 14 Posted July 14 48 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: I wasn’t around in the 1860’s. I’d like to think I would have been aligned with the underground railroad in Lewiston had I been. That would have been worth the cost. Are you a socialist? Should a living wage be mandated? Nah, bro. You'd fall 100% to the en vogue trends shaped by your surroundings. Your white sheet would be starched and extra bleached. Nice try. 1
Putin Posted July 14 Posted July 14 On 7/12/2024 at 5:37 PM, yall said: Imagine a thread that was effectively celebrating the high suicide rate of literally any other demographic. That would be racist and he/she should be canceled 1
sherpa Posted July 14 Posted July 14 15 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: No, inherently good...Was man corrupted or were we bad from the beginning? I think the garden of eden is symbolic of the former. I'm a Christian as well, albeit a liberal one. Jesus was killed by the Romans for being a radical rabble rouser. The Jews were (and are) convenient villains. This is not an accurate claim. The Jewish Sanhedrin did not have the authority to have people executed. Only the occupying Romans did. The Romans didn't care about blasphemy, but they did care about sedition, and that was a capital offense. The Sanhedrin wanted him killed and held a "trial." During that, they concluded that he needed to be killed, so they presented the issue to the Roman authority with the demand that he be killed as he was guilty of sedition, and Pilate authorized it. Matthew 26: 65-66 "He has blasphemed! Why do we still need witnesses? Now[o] you have heard the blasphemy! What is your verdict?”[p] They[q] answered, “He is guilty and deserves[r] death.” 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted July 15 Posted July 15 (edited) 9 hours ago, sherpa said: This is not an accurate claim. The Jewish Sanhedrin did not have the authority to have people executed. Only the occupying Romans did. The Romans didn't care about blasphemy, but they did care about sedition, and that was a capital offense. The Sanhedrin wanted him killed and held a "trial." During that, they concluded that he needed to be killed, so they presented the issue to the Roman authority with the demand that he be killed as he was guilty of sedition, and Pilate authorized it. Matthew 26: 65-66 "He has blasphemed! Why do we still need witnesses? Now[o] you have heard the blasphemy! What is your verdict?”[p] They[q] answered, “He is guilty and deserves[r] death.” The bible is not historical. There wasn't an ark full of mating pairs of every living thing. The world wasn't created in 6 days. The Jews answered to the occupying Romans not vice versa. As occupiers, the Romans undoubtedly noticed a man holding gatherings of 1000's and espousing strange, unsettling ideas. It would be analogous to the current Israeli occupiers not noticing and observing a very successful Palestinian organizer. Clearly he upset the Jewish establishment then as well. But they didn't call the shots. They gave the Romans an out to rid themselves of a potential revolutionary. https://source.wustl.edu/2004/02/romans-are-to-blame-for-death-of-jesus/ Edited July 15 by Joe Ferguson forever 1
sherpa Posted July 15 Posted July 15 6 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: The bible is not historical. There wasn't an ark full of mating pairs of every living thing. The world wasn't created in 6 days. The Jews answered to the occupying Romans not vice versa. As occupiers, the Romans undoubtedly noticed a man holding gatherings of 1000's and espousing strange, unsettling ideas. Your claim is in conflict with the Bible, both in prophesy and the gospels. The Romans had a history of allowing occupied lands to keep their traditions, as long as it didn't disrupt Pax Romana or threaten the emperor. Jesus' ministry was upsetting to the Jewish leadership at the time. The Pharisees despised him and repeatedly tried to get him. The Sanhedrin ultimately decided he needed to be killed. It started slowly, but when he trashed the Temple money schemes, that was the last straw for them. There was a relationship between them, specifically Caiaphas, and the Roman occupation forces. Caiaphas convinced the Romans that Jesus' presence during the Passover, which meant thousands of additional Jews were in Jerusalem, represented a threat. They had to do this becasue under Roman law, they had no authority to execute, and they expressly stated they wanted him dead. Thus the fake "trial" by the Jews, completely at odds with their own laws, and the fake sedition charge, which was created by stating he claimed to be king, over Caesar. The Romans didn't care a whit about him. Never attended any gatherings etc. Only the Jewish authorities did. 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted July 15 Posted July 15 3 hours ago, sherpa said: Your claim is in conflict with the Bible, both in prophesy and the gospels. The Romans had a history of allowing occupied lands to keep their traditions, as long as it didn't disrupt Pax Romana or threaten the emperor. Jesus' ministry was upsetting to the Jewish leadership at the time. The Pharisees despised him and repeatedly tried to get him. The Sanhedrin ultimately decided he needed to be killed. It started slowly, but when he trashed the Temple money schemes, that was the last straw for them. There was a relationship between them, specifically Caiaphas, and the Roman occupation forces. Caiaphas convinced the Romans that Jesus' presence during the Passover, which meant thousands of additional Jews were in Jerusalem, represented a threat. They had to do this becasue under Roman law, they had no authority to execute, and they expressly stated they wanted him dead. Thus the fake "trial" by the Jews, completely at odds with their own laws, and the fake sedition charge, which was created by stating he claimed to be king, over Caesar. The Romans didn't care a whit about him. Never attended any gatherings etc. Only the Jewish authorities did. And you know this how? The bible is in conflict with itself. The older authors blamed Romans and later writers gradually blamed the Jews. See the scholarly article I linked. As I said earlier, the bible is not an historical document. It can't be if stories of the same event differ so much... 1
sherpa Posted July 15 Posted July 15 9 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: And you know this how? The bible is in conflict with itself. The older authors blamed Romans and later writers gradually blamed the Jews. See the scholarly article I linked. As I said earlier, the bible is not an historical document. It can't be if stories of the same event differ so much... I have absolutely no interest in defending the accuracy of the Bible with you, nor "blaming" anyone. There is uniformity in the three synoptic gospels regarding the events of Holy Week, which is when the Jewish authorities decided that Jesus had to go, and made their case to a initially reluctant Pilate, who was in Jerusalem solely because of concern over a potential Passover insurrection. They had wanted this done for some time, as Biblical records clearly indicate. Once Jesus seemed to be getting into their wallets, they could wait no longer. He gave Caiaphas what he wanted in order to prevent a schism with the Jewish religious authority. 2
Joe Ferguson forever Posted July 15 Posted July 15 6 minutes ago, sherpa said: I have absolutely no interest in defending the accuracy of the Bible with you, nor "blaming" anyone. There is uniformity in the three synoptic gospels regarding the events of Holy Week, which is when the Jewish authorities decided that Jesus had to go, and made their case to a initially reluctant Pilate, who was in Jerusalem solely because of concern over a potential Passover insurrection. They had wanted this done for some time, as Biblical records clearly indicate. Once Jesus seemed to be getting into their wallets, they could wait no longer. He gave Caiaphas what he wanted in order to prevent a schism with the Jewish religious authority. Do you believe the entire bible is to be read literally.? Are you relies or ancient history scholar? Do you believe the gospels must be given context by7 other historians? 1
sherpa Posted July 15 Posted July 15 2 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: Do you believe the entire bible is to be read literally.? Are you relies or ancient history scholar? Do you believe the gospels must be given context by7 other historians? I am not going to get into a broader discussion of the Bible with you. I have spent hundreds of hours on it, and still do so weekly. I am simply sticking to the issue. The Jewish church officials, who were incredibly powerful during that time, persuaded a reluctant Pilate to have Jesus executed. They wanted him gone prior, but once he became a financial/ideological threat to them, they played their hand. Judas betrayed Jesus to the Jewish authorities. They arrested him. They tried him, against all Jewish trial rules. The Romans did not precipitate this. Pilate did it to appease the Jewish authorities because he feared a backlash from Rome if any trouble occurred in his area of responsibility. 2
Joe Ferguson forever Posted July 15 Posted July 15 (edited) 4 hours ago, sherpa said: I am not going to get into a broader discussion of the Bible with you. I have spent hundreds of hours on it, and still do so weekly. I am simply sticking to the issue. The Jewish church officials, who were incredibly powerful during that time, persuaded a reluctant Pilate to have Jesus executed. They wanted him gone prior, but once he became a financial/ideological threat to them, they played their hand. Judas betrayed Jesus to the Jewish authorities. They arrested him. They tried him, against all Jewish trial rules. The Romans did not precipitate this. Pilate did it to appease the Jewish authorities because he feared a backlash from Rome if any trouble occurred in his area of responsibility. Of course you're not going to...from my cited article (and I can produce many more scholars who agree) Some (note “some’) Jewish leaders (Sadducees and Pharisees) owed their positions to their patron/client relation to the Roman authorities. The emperor appointed the procurator of Judea who appointed the High Priest. Other Jewish parties, including teachers and prophets in rural Galilee and the Dead Sea Scrolls community of Qumran, either rejected or rebelled against the Jerusalem leaders’ tainted relationship with Rome. Julius Caesar had earlier exempted Jews from offering imperial worship by having them pay a special tax to Rome. Temple authorities, via tax farmers, collected this tax for Rome along with the Temple tax. Poor farmers in Galilee wound up having to mortgage their ancestral lands to the powers that be in Jerusalem. The wealthy in Jerusalem should have returned this land to the original tribes by the periodic law of Jubilee, but failed to do so. Like the prophets of old, Jesus preached kingdom of God. “Render unto Caesar” means, give back to Caesar his own coin with his image on it (according to Leviticus 19: 4, a blasphemy to the pious Jew!) and to God what is God’s, namely, the land itself which God ultimately owns and which God gave directly to Israel in the covenant (Joshua 24:13)! Jesus’ message was both spiritually and politically threatening first to the Roman authorities and secondarily to their client appointees in Jerusalem. You admit there is room for disagreement on this issue correct? Pope Benedict fairly recently made it clear that the church no longer feels the Jews were responsible... https://www.npr.org/2011/03/04/134264425/Pope-Jews-Are-Not-Responsible-For-Killing-Jesus Edited July 15 by Joe Ferguson forever
Recommended Posts