mdk

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Terror attack at the Port Authority in NYC. Early reporting says the fucker did it wrong and injured himself too much to set off a suicide vest, got taken alive; two hurt, including the """"""suspect""""".

edit: not a serious injury to the bystander. Nice bomb, loser.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

You can still enjoy the fascinating discussion of how people are doing Iron Age cult practice wrong.

@Penny

But enough about Sweden's migrant policy.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

Might be because you only posted twice (thrice if you count your new post) and they were one (1) loosely related meme and one (1) loosely related video.

@Odin

So you're noticing the pattern.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

MFW they talkin shit about Biblemayng

DONCHU TALK NO SHIT ABOUT BIBLEMAYNG!

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Now, theologically, it is true to say that no amount of good works can 'buy' someone into heaven. Because Heaven is a perfect paradise and no man is perfect, therefore no one is ever worthy. However, to not attempt to live a live of giving and kindness is also blasphemous.

@POOHEAD189

I mean, it's heretical. Blasphemy is a pretty specific thing and it's bad (in some teachings, unforgivable -- seems like a stretch, but that's the sort of gravity the word implies). Heretical just means it's outside the teachings of Christ, which is a much broader word. God's got all kinds of love for heretics (as he must, because at some point all of us were/are heretics and we all do heretical things all the time). The parable of the prodigal son is the best summary of how that all plays out.

Also always take Romans with a grain of salt. Not to say it is false, per say. However, Paul is not Jesus. Romans and the like is secondary compared to books like Luke.

eh. And also, that's not something Paul dreamed up. And also again -- Luke wasn't an apostle, so he and Paul are pretty much on a level.

END OF THE DAY -- look we're saying the same thing. Only reason I jumped in with an argument was like.... it's not a "have to" situation, if you actually believe that Jesus is who he said he was, then that belief ought (naturally) to cause in that person a desire to do good things. If it doesn't, then it wasn't faith in the first place.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote by The Harbinger of Ferocity>

True. Things in middle east are abit more calm.
If there is such a thing out there.

It would very unwise previously when things where more tense and open conflicts.

He did live up to the promise on the issue however I would think thr middle east issue on peace process is kinda going to be extremely tricky to balence.

@PrinceAlexus

I mean yes but, at the same time, the Palestinian authority responded to the news with barely-veiled threats of terrorism (BBC quoted some more leaders) so... like.... fuck those guys though right? If this was the reaction, we were fooling ourselves to think negotiations were even remotely possible.

But hey. Prove me wrong, Middle East, and we'll both enjoy peace while I eat some crow.

TL:DR good move, I fully support it.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote by SleepingSilence>
That is incorrect.

In fact it is incorrect to say that most Americans are Christian, simply because they claim it. Donald Trump for instance is not really a Christian, by the way he acts. That'd be like calling Stalin a Capitalist simply because he claims it.

Jesus himself says that the road to paradise is narrow and most people won't make it, because of such a lax view of the faith. To be honest, people who claim to be faithful yet don't follow the doctrine are worse off than athiests, for they are pharisees and hypocrites, something Jesus disliked over all others. Jesus himself said that to live the life of a Christian will be very difficult.

To put it simply, if you're a Christian, you need to follow the teachings of Jesus in order to be one. Yes do need to accept Jesus into your heart. However depending on your definition, that is either not all you need to do, or that's an extremely difficult thing to accept. You need to try your best to not judge others, for instance. Do not covet. You need to be willing to sell all other aspects of your life for the faith if need be. You are to value your faith and God above all of your possessions and relationships on earth, and you are to love your neighbor as yourself. Of course, since we are human, all of that is pretty much impossible. But to attempt to live in the faith, as much as you can, is something God wishes.

To say what you said, that it is an easy thing, is honestly insulting to people who truly attempt to live a life like that (me), or someone who made a career out of his faith like my father, who regularly translates Greek and Hebrew texts and spent 12 years of school in Theology.

Christianity is a faith as worthy of respect as Islam or Judaism. Just because a bunch of assholes use the names of God and Jesus while they do shit doesn't make it less so.

@POOHEAD189

My understanding (it's been a while) is slightly (but significantly) different, and you could chalk that up to theological differences.... But the way I understand it is, belief is sufficient on its own (Romans 10:9), and also, if you DO believe, you'll follow through (Luke 6:43-45). It's not so much "You have to do Christian-y things" (Ephesians 2:8-9) -- that's the symptom, not the salvation. It's not something you buy with good behavior, because you can't afford it. It's a gift you're given and grateful for and, if that's true, you're not wasting it on trivial bullshit.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@mdk so the body responsible for maintaining these laws is the same body that can remove these laws? That's what I mean. Yeah it's sacred - so is water if a priest waves his hand over it. It only has the meaning and weight you attach to it. I don't really attach meaning and weight to rights because they can be taken or plunged into a non-right at any given moment.

@Odin

On the contrary. The body which can infringe upon these laws (Congress) is totally distinct from the body responsible for protecting them (SCOTUS). That said, the current/recent liberal bent in the US is judicial activism -- legislation from the bench -- which puts us squarely into that territory where the same (unelected, unaccountable, appointed-for-life) body both creates and strikes down federal policy, playing both sides of the 'rights' game.

Anyway. This thing you're talking about is precisely why the U.S. Constitution forbids the government from taking away the right to bear arms. The system is set up to (a) prevent the government from infringing on your rights, and also (b) to offer citizens recourse (by votes, mostly, but preserving the ultimate recourse of force) to safeguard their own rights.

....the other tangent I wanted to go on, but thought better of.... In anarchy, you have all of the rights, and so does everybody else, and that kinda sucks. Every law is a restriction of rights. Frequently that's for the best, but that's what a social contract is, a surrender of rights in exchange for protection. Ergo, a "good law" is one that offers the most protection for the lowest cost in freedom, and a bad law is one that is overly restrictive without offering corresponding value in protections. Judging things on that basis, a whole lot of liberal crap is pretty terrible policy.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

I see what you're saying about the right already existing but again, that implies that there is some sort of higher power (God) giving you that right. This raises all kinds of questions. How can we measure it? What are the limits? Are these limits in line with what God wants them to be? If not then aren't we, the people, trampling on those rights now? If God wants us to have these rights why does he allow people to trample them? Why doesn't the Pope, literal incarnate God on Earth, also allow these things? Do we consult the Pope for policy making advise?

@Odin

Legally speaking, all it means is that these rights are more important than the government. Your right to assemble with other humans trumps anything that DC wants to do. Your right to vote is considered "sacred" by law -- whether that's what Xenu really wants or not. The right to own guns is not drawn from any religion anywhere, it comes from the principle that... okay bad example there's a lot of debate about where that comes from.

The incarnate god on earth who gets 'consulted' (post-facto) on what this all means is the Supreme Court.

I totally do understand what you're driving at, I just don't have time to get to the state constitutions before leaving for work. Short version is there's fifty of the damned things and their writing spans a broad timeline (and also I'm familiar with roughly one, and couldn't quote a word of it)