Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6593
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 12 Jun 2017, 5:55 pm

freeman3 wrote:Oh, I think not...6-3 with Roberts and Kennedy joining the liberals and the three right-wing crazies--Thomas, Alioto, and Gorsuch--rubber-stamping the ban.


My guess is 5-4 against the ban.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1484
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 12 Jun 2017, 10:14 pm

Babuska:

Dag,Jesus refers to God as the Father, so that would make him a Son.


A spiritual father, and no, not Joseph. My spiritual father, your spiritual father, Muhammed's spiritual father and so on. A common idea for rabbis then and now. Although I will add that Jesus used the endearing term, "abba" or daddy to describe God, which was unique and is worth some discussion in the religion thread if you're interested.

Fate:
Yes, politics at the expense of the Constitution. Then again, it's not like he alienated an actual constituency of his. Christians would not vote for him anyway. 


Wrong. Quite a few would have voted for him had he not been cheated from the chance to find out.

Do you really want to debate that? Really? 


Any time you're ready. But not in this thread. How about the religion thread instead? I'm sorry I had to break it to you but it's for your own good. Now you'll need to rely a little more on faith instead of your own intellectual arrogance. John's gospel right? So 90-125 a.d. or thereabouts? Some 90 years after his death? But I digress. Tell me when you're ready and I'll see you in the other thread.

Why do you think the current system of vetting immigrants and refugees and visitors is a nightmare? How many foreign terrorists have managed to kill Americans since 9/11? The answer is 0.


Because I've attended Friday services on occassion since 1989 and listened in on the reflections of various Imams in both English and Arabic, with translations provided in the case of the latter. It ain't pretty. Not a big fan of vitriol at the pulpit no matter what the pulpit looks like.

And sorry was that managed? Or plotted? I'll bide my time on responding to this one.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 13 Jun 2017, 5:40 am

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Wrong. Quite a few would have voted for him had he not been cheated from the chance to find out.


The system of the DNC cheated. No doubt. However, no Christian would vote for him.

Do you really want to debate that? Really? 


Any time you're ready.


Go ahead. Here's what I know, unequivocally: you don't know what you're talking about. The original audience did.

To be fair, you are within a range of date of authorship, although anything approaching 125 AD would show a dubious base of knowledge. If you're going to go Ehrman and attack Scripture, don't bother.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4628
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 13 Jun 2017, 5:47 am

Dag:
endearing term, "abba"
. In Hebrew, av is father and abba is daddy. However, Jesus of Nazareth spoke Aramaic, There's controversy here, but in Aramaic my understanding is that "abba' means father (or even "our father")..
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4628
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 13 Jun 2017, 5:49 am

Dag:
Because I've attended Friday services on occassion since 1989 and listened in on the reflections of various Imams in both English and Arabic, with translations provided in the case of the latter. It ain't pretty. Not a big fan of vitriol at the pulpit no matter what the pulpit looks like.


I'd like to hear about your first hand experience.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 13 Jun 2017, 7:03 am

Ray Jay wrote:Dag:
endearing term, "abba"
. In Hebrew, av is father and abba is daddy. However, Jesus of Nazareth spoke Aramaic, There's controversy here, but in Aramaic my understanding is that "abba' means father (or even "our father")..


Indeed, there is controversy here. Ipsissima Vox vs. Ipsissima Verba.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1484
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 13 Jun 2017, 7:48 am

Wrong thread.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15856
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 14 Jun 2017, 1:16 am

You guys still politicising our tragedy, and them using it to enter circular debates on religion?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6593
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 14 Jun 2017, 7:34 am

danivon wrote:You guys still politicising our tragedy, and them using it to enter circular debates on religion?


Nope. Just answering Dag's question.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 02 Jul 2017, 4:50 pm

If nothing else...Trump could serve as a gadfly perhaps to spur answers to certain fractures in society:

(1) Media/Reliable Sources of Information--With the internet people have access to much more information and sources of information that validate their point of view And that led to questioning of even previously heretofore resources of authoritative sources of information like the New York Times, Washington Post, the major networks and CNN by those who think those news sources are biased. So this was a problem that existed before Trump...but his relentless attacks on the media, calling them fake news, and making personal attacks on the media have made it even worse. But there is an opportunity there to responding to these attacks by in essence showing that these news sources are reliable. I think there needs more self-validation/proof that they mostly get the news right, because a substantial part of our society thinks they are biased and they cannot be relied upon for truthful reporting. Everything is slanted in favor of a left-wing biased viewpoint, according to them. This needs to be responded to.

(2) What are the core American values that say 80% of Americans can get behind. A democratic society needs a center that coalesces around certain agreed upon value, even is there strenous disagreement about a lot of other issues. When disagreement about slavery split core agreement among large swaths of the country, this led to a concern that any states had to be on side or the other, and when Lincoln got elected the South thought they were going to lose that political fight and decided to rebel. Now, we are fracturing on identity/social/economic issues. The refusal to consider Garland's nomination was a sign of deep polarization as was the Republican controlled Senate changing the rules to allow Gorsuch to be approved by 50 votes instead of the 60 to get past a filibuster, as was Trump winning the election. Is there a way to come back toward the center on what most of us believe should be fundamentals of American life or will things get more polarized?

(3) Are there any minimum attributes of education, background, and temperament for someone to be president? The rules were thrown out with regard to Trump becoming president...maybe rules are good. Perhaps a discussion of what should disqualify someone from being president is in order. Trump manifested serious problems with his temperament well before becoming president, there were indications he was misogynistic, and he showed improper disrespect for the role of the judiciary and the press in American life. We may not be able to determine whether a president has the attributes to be a good president...but we should be able to determine disqualifying ones. Trump, of course, would be Exhibit A in any such discussions.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6593
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 02 Jul 2017, 6:41 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The rest are decided by the electorate, who are voting as to what is important to them in that election.

Perhaps this is just sour grapes resurfacing.

What changes are you thinking? College Doctorate degree? Business leadership experience? Senate? Community organizer?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Jul 2017, 3:53 pm

Thought this was a very incisive quote reflecting concern over Trump's attack on the media:

"We have a risk of getting to a place where we don’t have shared public facts. A republic will not work if we don’t have shared facts,” Sasse told CNN Sunday.

That is Republican senator Ben Sasse.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4628
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 04 Jul 2017, 1:54 pm

freeman3 wrote:Thought this was a very incisive quote reflecting concern over Trump's attack on the media:

"We have a risk of getting to a place where we don’t have shared public facts. A republic will not work if we don’t have shared facts,” Sasse told CNN Sunday.

That is Republican senator Ben Sasse.


Yes, very profound.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Jul 2017, 3:13 pm

I love Senator Sasse.

CNN? Unwatchable. If I want non-stop Trump-bashing, I can go to the Facebook feed of my liberal friends.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4628
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 05 Jul 2017, 5:41 am

Doctor Fate wrote:I love Senator Sasse.

CNN? Unwatchable. If I want non-stop Trump-bashing, I can go to the Facebook feed of my liberal friends.


Yes.

That's what most people do ... they have 2 billion users. How many people use CNN?