News   Nov 07, 2024
News Roundup for November 7, 2024
 358     0 
News   Nov 07, 2024
Vineyard Getaway
 379     1 
News   Nov 06, 2024
Exterior Coming Together as 88 Queen Approaches Occupancy
 1.5K     1 

Premier Doug Ford's Ontario

Coolstar said:
Right-Wing Christians are not Christians. Period.
Click to expand...
I may be a secularist, but one of the most important things about being Christian is the following:

Judge not lest be judged.

The evangelical folks are very quick to judge others (and don't allow others to judge them) and thus aren't real Christians, despite calling themselves such.
 
191169354_10165477789905221_171052946376647055_n.jpg

From link.
 
Coolstar said:
Right-Wing Christians are not Christians. Period.
Click to expand...
Bald assertions are not arguments. What evidence do you base your claim on?

How do you define a Christian?
Johnny Au said:
I may be a secularist, but one of the most important things about being Christian is the following:

Judge not lest be judged.

The evangelical folks are very quick to judge others (and don't allow others to judge them) and thus aren't real Christians, despite calling themselves such.
Click to expand...
This is a common, and fallacious, objection that non-Christians often raise when they wish to address, what they perceive to be, judgemental behaviour that is incompatible with Scripture.

This is an example of cherry picking Bible verses, while ignoring context, and surrounding verses. What you are citing comes from Matthew 7. Here is the whole passage, in order to clarify the full thrust of what Jesus was getting at:

Matthew 7:1-5 (ESV) “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.”

Jesus never said not to judge anyone, ever, rather, he said not to judge hypocritically. In other words: one ought to deal with their own hypocrisy and sin, first, so that they can judge others righteously. Christians are to judge, not as means of tearing people down, rather, to edify them. The purpose of judgement is to correct wrong behaviour, and gently encourage others to live in accordance with Christ’s teachings. Judgement is never to be used as a weapon to deliberately hurt others with malicious intent. That sort of thing is directly opposed to what Christ taught.

Your last comment is a blanket statement, which isn’t supported by any evidence. I don’t know who, or what, has informed your views with respect to evangelicalism, but Charles McVety, and whatever inflammatory personas the media uses as spokespeople, don’t represent it, at large. Many evangelicals are eminent historians, philosophers, scientists, etc. that the average secular person has no exposure to.

Lastly, judging doesn’t disqualify someone as a follower of Christ. Again, righteous, non-hypocritical, judgement is in keeping with the Christian vocation. One wouldn’t be much of a Christian if they didn’t judge any behaviour, whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
Cadogan said:
Bald assertions are not arguments. What evidence do you base your claim on?

How do you define a Christian?

This is a common, and fallacious, objection that non-Christians often raise when they wish to address, what they perceive to be, judgmental behaviour that is incompatible with Scripture.

This is an example of cherry picking Bible verses, while ignoring context, and surrounding verses. What you are citing comes from Matthew 7. Here is the whole passage, in order to clarify the full thrust of what Jesus was getting at:

Matthew 7:1-5 (ESV) “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.”

Jesus never said not to judge anyone, ever, rather, he said not to judge hypocritically. In other words: one ought to deal with their own hypocrisy and sin, first, so that they can judge others righteously. Christians are to judge, not as means of tearing people down, rather, to edify them. The purpose of judgment is to correct wrong behaviour, and gently encourage others to live in accordance with Christ’s teachings. Judgement is never to be used as a weapon to deliberately hurt others with malicious intent. That sort of thing is directly opposed to what Christ taught.

Your last comment is a blanket statement, which isn’t supported by any evidence. I don’t know who, or what, has informed your views with respect to evangelicalism, but Charles McVety, and whatever inflammatory personas the media uses as spokespeople, don’t represent it, at large. Many evangelicals are eminent historians, philosophers, scientists, etc. that the average secular person has no exposure to.

Lastly, judging doesn’t disqualify someone as a follower of Christ. Again, righteous, non-hypocritical judgement is in keeping with the Christian vocation. One wouldn’t be much of a Christian if they didn’t judge any behaviour, whatsoever.
Click to expand...

This is not a theological forum.

I appreciate that yours was not the first comment; and that the legitimate subject of public interest (degree-granting status; and the pompous, self-serving bigot who applied for it for his school) necessarily involves some tangential comment..........

But lets, please, go no further down this rabbit hole.
 
While he's *threatened* violence, is there concrete evidence out there that he's actually *acted* on it? Sadly, that (momentary) technicality might explain why he hasn't been locked up.

But also remember that he's a "work in progress" Like, he may be an estranged son now, but that wasn't always the case. Likewise, he and his wife (who used to be ohsoclose like a beefed-up/Botoxed-up Chad & Stacey for the movement) are no longer together, and this latest charge indicates that Rob Carbone's no longer in the fold, either. Right now, any connections he might have aren't those of Daddy, but those of a shadowy funny-money crowdsource "network"--and even that, ultimately, can only go so far...
 
adma said:
While he's *threatened* violence, is there concrete evidence out there that he's actually *acted* on it? Sadly, that (momentary) technicality might explain why he hasn't been locked up.

But also remember that he's a "work in progress" Like, he may be an estranged son now, but that wasn't always the case. Likewise, he and his wife (who used to be ohsoclose like a beefed-up/Botoxed-up Chad & Stacey for the movement) are no longer together, and this latest charge indicates that Rob Carbone's no longer in the fold, either. Right now, any connections he might have aren't those of Daddy, but those of a shadowy funny-money crowdsource "network"--and even that, ultimately, can only go so far...
Click to expand...

I refer you to John Hinckley Jr. He was obsessed with Jodie Foster and ended up shooting reagan to impress her.
 
adma said:
While he's *threatened* violence, is there concrete evidence out there that he's actually *acted* on it? Sadly, that (momentary) technicality might explain why he hasn't been locked up.
Click to expand...
Does nearly running down a cop when fleeing from police qualify?
 
Surprising no one........but disappointing just the same...............

The Premier has broken his promise to ensure every long term care resident benefits from air conditioning.


While the promise was always problematic in terms of how it would be implemented in some older facilities......

The reality is that the Ministry hasn't even imposed the mandate to have maximum temperatures at all..........(with such exceptions as may be required in the short term)

In fact.....while the Premier's promise was made last July...............the Ministry only began collecting data on what homes had a/c........in February of this year..........some 8 months later.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top