Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Sheb]

They have. Go and read Acts 15:19-21 they're pretty specific that Gentile convert don't have to follow any old rules but for the few exceptions in here. That is: abstain from things polluted by idols, blood and sexual immorality. You'll notice the stuff about leaving corners uncut so poor people can glean food is not in the exception, so you don't have to care about it.

So no, you can't dismiss it, at least from a theological standpoint, although I guess you can argue what exactly is meant by sexual immorality here (porneia in greek).

Then of course, basing your morality on a 2000-years old book is kinda silly, but that's the Church for you.

[Lagslayer]

Then of course, basing your morality on a 2000-years old book is kinda silly, but that's the Church for you.

Basing your morality on a new fad is equally silly.

new ≠ better

[Darvi]

Just piping in that I find a discussion about the bible very much relevant to American politics. *European stereotypist*

[10ebbor10]

They have. Go and read Acts 15:19-21 they're pretty specific that Gentile convert don't have to follow any old rules but for the few exceptions in here. That is: abstain from things polluted by idols, blood and sexual immorality. You'll notice the stuff about leaving corners uncut so poor people can glean food is not in the exception, so you don't have to care about it.

I'm pretty sure this is the mistranslation maniac was referring too. Mistranslation from greek. Ie, pedantry* instead of homosexuality.

*Tradition in Greece and later Rome

[Sirus]

Yeah, I should probably have told folks to pack this up and move it into its own thread earlier. Whatever. Please find a new line to derail.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

No matter what you want to think, the Christian religion and by connection the Catholic church holds enormous influence in US politics.

If you believe a vast chunk of the US voting populace is not influenced by Christian dogma [and therefore, misrepresentations of Christian dogma] then I suggest a reality check.

I guess religion is out of bounds, so let's rehash the same gun debate again and yell over eachother [example above].

[Bauglir]

...

Yes, but the argument about how evil the Church is is another thing entirely.

Theology is also off topic, in addition to what I said in that quote. The entire concept of religion as a force in politics is not, but we haven't discussed that since MSH brought up the Church as a force of evil in the world. The current discussion is about as on topic as the quote in my signature is relevant to predicting future relationships. Arguing about what the Bible does or does not say is irrelevant wankery - we all know what most Americans believe it says, and that's the only thing that matters to American politics.

EDIT: Just to be clear, the original post about what the Pope said? Totally on topic! Discussions about the impact that might have on the religious voting block or on the policies of politicians in heavily Catholic districts? Totally on topic! Discussions about how this relates to past Papal statements in the context of American reactions? Totally on topic! Arguing about what sex acts the New Testament does or does not ban? Totally bullshit!

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The entire concept of religion as a force in politics is not, but we haven't discussed that since MSH brought up the Church as a force of evil in the world.

The only thing I brought up was that the Pope Francis bandwagon is all about the nice-sounding but functionally meaningless statements he keeps making, and that I'm not impressed with him at all. It naturally segued into the evils of the RCC when my viewpoint was not unanimously agreed with, since his lack of actual changes to said evils were what I was disputing.

[Bauglir]

Yeah, and that segue is what started the whole thing. I'm not blaming you for the entire discussion, because you're obviously not in control of the entire forum's behavior. Sorry if it came across that way - it actually was a decent enough segue*, but it wasn't a good direction for the entire conversation to swing in, and that's as much the fault of people responding to it instead of the rest of your post. Mind you, I do still hold some blame for you engaging the people that objected to that one particular thing, but blame isn't really the issue. I mean, hell, I'm no better, if my post history is anything to judge by.

The issue is let's please drop it, because it is a derail, and it isn't good for thread health.

*EDIT: In that it was an okay thing to comment on, and maybe even go back and forth a bit in the course of a larger conversation. However, it quickly grew to dominate the thread, to the point that we're not talking about politics anymore. That's the problem.

[misko27]

So how about Obamacare? Everyone loves that. Republicans sure seem to enjoy talking about it. Obamacare has managed to eclipse all issues, and any non-Obamacare issue now has "You are just trying to distract us from OBAMACARE SOCIALISM" in the background.


On a more positive note, this Congress has managed to pass 55 laws, fewer at this point then last Congress, which managed the record for "Least Productive Congress Ever". So at least this Congress hasn't been allowed to fuck up too many things. Their damage is limited to the things they don't pass.

[Max White]

On a more positive note, this Congress has managed to pass 55 laws, fewer at this point then last Congress, which managed the record for "Least Productive Congress Ever". So at least this Congress hasn't been allowed to fuck up too many things. Their damage is limited to the things they don't pass.

Do you guys have any sort of equivalent to Federation Chamber?
Basically we have a second chamber for the house of reps and senate to use for passing matters that are boring and uncontroversial, where things are pretty much certain to pass uncontested and they just calmly discuss the exact details involved rather than engage in open debate, allowing parliament to keep going on with its busywork even when something big is taking up all the time in one of the houses.

It works pretty well, I'm wondering is this kind of set up common? Does it exist in the US?

[Bauglir]

If that existed, would anybody be able to hold the nation hostage by refusing to pass such measures unless their insane demands were met?

[Max White]

If that existed, would anybody be able to hold the nation hostage by refusing to pass such measures unless their insane demands were met?

Yes, easily. The debt ceiling thingy would still exist and there would still be loans to pay.

[Bauglir]

Those're the sorts of things that I would've expected to fall under the boring and uncontroversial sorts of things - remember, all these hostage-takings have been over budgets that have already been passed.

[Sheb]

Well, from what I got from reading the wikipedia article, the Federation Chamber can only pass stuff with unanimity, so it wouldn't help at all right now.