351–360 of 1001 posts
I strongly believe the American choice was a strategic decision made by a group of highly intelligent individuals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because he is the head of a foreign nation, and will hold that office till death. You cannot be head of multiple nations at once.
> You cannot be head of multiple nations at once. Says who? Is it actually prohibited in the us constitution? The british monarch is head of state of multiple nations, and has been for over a century.
Throughout that time and afterwards, the monarch of England & Scotland was often also the monarch of other territories too, so that "one title" is eliding a bunch of stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean? There are plenty of "modern" interpretations. New scholarly commentaries come out almost every year. My point is that, among these, the prevailing assumption continues to be one that doesn't support same-sex marriages in the church. What is lacking, from my perspective, are scholarly interpretations that swing the discussion the other way. The best I've seen simply just exclude the problematic scrip…
I think the crux of the problem is that with all the statements the Bible makes, at a plain reading of the text, who are we, as mere humans to decide which parts should be strictly adhered to, or which parts should not, or which parts mean something completely different from the plain reading? As far as I can tell there is no consistent application of logic and understanding what parts matter and which parts do not.…
I would disagree. The art of hermeneutics has been around for a _long_ time and has been refined over time as we develop new understandings about the ancient cultures that wrote these documents. So, yes, things do change, but I would argue they do not _dramatically_ change. For example, the message of "the gospel" has been the same since the founding apostles. But our understanding of something like Genesis 1 has changed dramatically over the years as our understanding of the sciences, history, etc. increase.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He’s a far south sider. 99% chance of being a Sox fan. EDIT - apparently a Cubs guy Incidentally, the steel mill very close to where he grew up was idled due to the effects of Trump tariffs this week.
Well, no heuristic is perfect.
The Cubs were awful. But they had Ernie Banks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If he is taxed, he should renounce US citizenship as he's very unlike to move back to the US.
Notably, in that case he might end up no longer being able to enter the US at all: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Amendment_(immigration)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> my duty is to interpret and lead via "the holy scriptures" Said scriptures also says that a woman can be sold to her rapist after he violates her. I think a more modern interpretation would not be a bad idea.
What do you mean? There are plenty of "modern" interpretations. New scholarly commentaries come out almost every year. My point is that, among these, the prevailing assumption continues to be one that doesn't support same-sex marriages in the church. What is lacking, from my perspective, are scholarly interpretations that swing the discussion the other way. The best I've seen simply just exclude the problematic scrip…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The white smoke means there's a pope thing started in 1914[1], but they've been burning the ballots for a very long time. [1] https://www.history.com/articles/pope-conclave-smoke-color
Any chance the guy who programmed history.com to redirect deep links to your local tld version’s frontpage is on HN? What a helpful feature
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not the New Testament. Christianity has the luxury (compared to some other religions..) of having very few "divinely ordained" rules. The teachings of Jesus supersede the stuff from the Old testament (the one with all not very nice things) however they are rather vague and undefined. So various churches can freely pick/discard almost whatever they want besides the 10 commandments while Muslims can't exactly just thro…
Jesus never said he was superseding a single thing. His entire ministry was about railing against the legalistic structure of the Pharisees, who were more interested in following "the Law" than having common sense or taking care of people. His ministry was about Jews, for Jews, and had nothing to do with gentiles at all. The grifter Paul is the one who opened up their cult to gentiles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think "progressiveness" isn't necessarily a good metric to judge an entity that believes itself to be a moral guide. It's very job is to deal moral teachings, rather than follow the crowd. That's not to say the teachings are right, and of course no one has to follow the teachings. But it'd be a bit like saying, dunno, dismissing a judge's verdict on the basis of it not reflecting popular opinion. It's not meant to…
Nobody said "progressiveness" except you. People can judge it on its moral grounds. If we dismiss criticism as being invalid because it happens to be another person's idea of "progressive," then that's surely the opposite of ignoring the crowd. That's using political labels to distract from the actual thing being discussed. Considering there were literal pedophiles given more grace than openly gay bishops, it's a dis…