General Election 2024 Harris vs Trump (14 Viewers)

SteveSBrickNJ said:

Duh. Some common sense needs to be applied. When the Bible was written there were no gender changing surgeries so of course it wasn't mentioned.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear, God is omnipotent right? Omniscient too?

It's really strange to me that man, who's really of feeble and limited minded, always put words into God's mouth. God said this. God told me to do this. If God wanted, he can make you do it. He doesn't have to say a word. This theological discussion of free will within religious circles always perplex me.

How does a Bible that religious types say has all the answers forget infinite details.

SteveSBrickNJ said:

Duh. Some common sense needs to be applied. When the Bible was written there were no gender changing surgeries so of course it wasn't mentioned.

Click to expand...

Being bigoted isn’t common sense. If your church teaches that trans people are an abomination against God, your church is heretical.

I ask the question even I know the answer, it's the same answer it always is

"If I like it, (or do it myself) it's God's will. If I don't it's the devil's work (or rebellion against God)"

SteveSBrickNJ said:

The Bible says God created man and it was very good. The Bible says in whatever state you find yourself, be content.

Click to expand...

so a sociopath is ok?

fooferdoggie said:

so a sociopath is ok?

Click to expand...

Haha!!!!! Good one....

If you keep it vague enough it can apply to anyone.....or no one......utter nonsense

MT15 said:

Being bigoted isn’t common sense. If your church teaches that trans people are an abomination against God, your church is heretical.

Click to expand...

Nope.
My church teaches the Bible.
The Bible says that God desires all people to be saved.
The Bible teaches that God created man and woman and it was good.
Modern folks take those simply truths and ignore them and then call people bigoted.
God is the same .
Yesterday.
Today
and tomorrow

UriUT said:

Just to be clear, God is omnipotent right? Omniscient too?

It's really strange to me that man, who's really of feeble and limited minded, always put words into God's mouth. God said this. God told me to do this. If God wanted, he can make you do it. He doesn't have to say a word. This theological discussion of free will within religious circles always perplex me.

How does a Bible that religious types say has all the answers forget infinite details.

Click to expand...

I try to just present what the Bible says.
I try.
I don't put words into God's mouth.
Yet some Biblical truths that seem so obvious to me are nonsense to woke people.
I just present Bible truths and let the chips fall where they may.

coldseat said:

Lol. Jesus is the very definition of "woke" for the time in which he lived.

It's 2,000 years later, but if he lived today Jesus would be a homeless, transgendered, illegal immigrant that still preached about God. "Woke" oozed out of Jesus' pores.

Click to expand...

Optimus Prime said:

Click to expand...

Jesus chose to have no where to lay his head. He chose to move from place to place preaching and teaching. He was at peace to trust his heavenly Father to take care of his needs.
Jesus would absolutely NOT be transgender. This "transgender" reference was stated by @coldseat but does not appear in the black outline with the white words. @Optimus Prime quoted @coldseat in Post 7,892

I've got work to do.
I'm done here for now.

SteveSBrickNJ said:

I try to just present what the Bible says.
I try.
I don't put words into God's mouth.
Yet some Biblical truths that seem so obvious to me are nonsense to woke people.
I just present Bible truths and let the chips fall where they may.

Click to expand...

Yes, you do. You have done so in this very thread. You claimed that something is not in the bible simply because of when it was written. If it's not in the bible, how do you know whether or not God said it? Do you presume to know His thoughts?

SteveSBrickNJ said:

Jesus chose to have no where to lay his head. He chose to move from place to place preaching and teaching. He was at peace to trust his heavenly Father to take care of his needs.

Click to expand...

That sounds awfully "woke" to me.

SteveSBrickNJ said:

Jesus would absolutely NOT be transgender.

Click to expand...

Why are you so sure? It was admittedly a bit of hyperbole by me, but the point was that if the Jesus of the bible came today, he wouldn't be who you would expect. He would probably be somebody you reviled for being "woke".

If Jesus were here today, who do you think he would speak out against or condemn more, a transgendered person trying to honestly deal with their issue and find their place in the world or Republicans?

SteveSBrickNJ said:

God is the same .
Yesterday.
Today
and tomorrow

Click to expand...

who knows? all we know is the faithful have changed a lot and they do not believe the same things they used to. Hell, how many flavors of Christianity are there?

SteveSBrickNJ said:

I don't put words into God's mouth.

Click to expand...

Yes, you do. Or rather your church does.

SteveSBrickNJ said:

I try to just present what the Bible says.
I try.
I don't put words into God's mouth.
Yet some Biblical truths that seem so obvious to me are nonsense to woke people.
I just present Bible truths and let the chips fall where they may.

Click to expand...

Which Bible truths? The one where Elisha curses children for making fun of him? Or where God approves mass murder in Deuteronomy 20:16-18 including women and children?

“The Lord said to Moses…” starts much of the Torah. Which means that attempts to rationalize away violence must fail. This then applies to alleged comments made regarding issues such as dietary restrictions or washing of pots/washing of hands and several other things because if The Christ IS God then he laid down the laws. He even supposedly said that not one part of the law would be taken away. The Letter of James reinforces that the law remains in place contrary to Paul’s claim that we are not subject to the law.

Misogynoir, the intersection of racism and sexism, was the main reason behind Kamala Harris’s loss in the 2024 general election, a panel of Black female experts argued, noting how post-election coverage has failed to contend with how white supremacy undergirded the election results.

In a conversation titled “Views from the 92%: Black Women Reflect on 2024 Election and Road Ahead”, several academics dissected how and why the vice-president lost, particularly given Trump’s problematic history.

The panel was hosted by the African American Policy Forum, a social justice thinktank co-founded by Kimberlé Crenshaw, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles and Columbia University.

“Racism is designed in such a way to make you question your humanity, but sexism is also. Sexism is really a power move,” said LaTosha Brown, co-founder of the Black Voters Matter Fund. “When you combine those two things together, I think that that best explains what [Harris] experienced.”

Throughout the 2024 election campaign, Trump and other conservatives launched an onslaught of racist and sexist attacks against Harris: repeatedly claiming that Harris “slept her way” into political power, was unintelligent and that she was not a Black woman.


Such attacks are unsurprising given American’s history with racism against Black women, the call participants said. But what was especially frustrating were platforms Trump was given to spread disinformation, Crenshaw argued, specifically calling out Trump being featured at the 2024 National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) convention.

Karen Attiah, the former co-chair of the convention, who stepped down after the announcement that Trump would be interviewed, said the interview was a “viscerally painful experience” which was excused by many “white liberals”.

During the contentious interview, Trump questioned Harris’s race, saying she suddenly “became a Black woman”. “Is she Indian or is she Black? I respect either one but she obviously doesn’t because she was Indian all the way and then all of sudden she became a Black woman.”

Trump was also repeatedly combative with the interviewer Rachel Scott, the senior congressional correspondent for ABC News, accusing her of being “rude”.

“The responses that I personally got for stepping down from white allies or people who are white leaders, was, ‘Well, he was racist and he destroyed your conference, but we needed to see that’ and I was like, ‘At the expense of our dignity[?]’,” she said.………

I find the idea of Christians needing to vote for Republicans over Democrats to be absurd and quite frankly blasphemous.

The two issues commonly cited are abortion and LGBTQ issues. Abortion is never mentioned in the bible (nor is anything regarding transgender issues). You have to ignore explicit passages in the bible that treat the death of a fetus differently than the death of a person, not to mention thousands of years of Jewish tradition that life begins at first breath (which was also the evangelical position until the 1960's) - you have to ignore that in favor a passage where God kills Onan for using the pullout method, and come to the conclusion that the sin there was recreational sex and not the more natural reading that he was supposed to impregnate is brother's widow b/c that was how she secured her rights, and he didn't want her to bear his child (I don't see many people begging to bring back that practice). Or for bits of poetry that Daniel wrote to praise God with allegories of being known before being formed in the womb.

You have to somehow treat passages condemning homosexuality as absolute while saying passages in the same chapter condemning wearing garments of different fabrics, or eating shellfish, or planting crops wrong, or working on the Sabbath are also abominations and should be treated with the death penalty. You have to ignore the actual message that Jesus was saying (about working on the Sabbath and what you take in you doesn't make you unclean). It doesn't even take much interpretation to figure out that Jesus was saying that what makes you good or bad, isn't the adherence to these laws - but how you treat people, that was literally the message there.

And do this all the while ignoring the single most consistent demand in the bible - scorn wealth and help poor people. More than any other topic, the Bible talks about money, how the accumulation of it leads to evil, and it is not only the individual's duty to take care of poor people, it is society's duty to take care of poor people (it explicitly says Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because even though they were rich they failed to take care of their poor).

This thinking says we need to vote for a rapist, avarice-filled, vain, greedy, blasphemous person who's central platform is to explicitly ignore Leveticus 19:34, because of something that isn't even mentioned in the Bible.

It's disgusting.

Lapaz said:

The article says that we got out of a similar situation in the early 1900s with the New Deal, and it could take something similar to reverse the “popular immiseration” and “elite over-production”. I think Democrats have been proposing programs to reverse those trends, so I don’t think that’s the main problem, but it does appeal to a portion the Republican coalition that Democrats used appeal to. The Republican party is comprised of cultural conservatives, anti-establishment elites, racists, mysogynists, wacko conspiracists, and people that want to upset trends of growing cost of living. Democrats should only try to win back the latter. If Trump goes through with his tariff and deportation plans, I think the effects of his actions win them back. It doesn’t have to be a grand new deal, but Democrats should continue to advocate for plans that will reverse “elite overproduction”.

Click to expand...

Optimus Prime said:

Misogynoir, the intersection of racism and sexism, was the main reason behind Kamala Harris’s loss in the 2024 general election, a panel of Black female experts argued, noting how post-election coverage has failed to contend with how white supremacy undergirded the election results.

In a conversation titled “Views from the 92%: Black Women Reflect on 2024 Election and Road Ahead”, several academics dissected how and why the vice-president lost, particularly given Trump’s problematic history.

The panel was hosted by the African American Policy Forum, a social justice thinktank co-founded by Kimberlé Crenshaw, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles and Columbia University.

“Racism is designed in such a way to make you question your humanity, but sexism is also. Sexism is really a power move,” said LaTosha Brown, co-founder of the Black Voters Matter Fund. “When you combine those two things together, I think that that best explains what [Harris] experienced.”

Throughout the 2024 election campaign, Trump and other conservatives launched an onslaught of racist and sexist attacks against Harris: repeatedly claiming that Harris “slept her way” into political power, was unintelligent and that she was not a Black woman.


Such attacks are unsurprising given American’s history with racism against Black women, the call participants said. But what was especially frustrating were platforms Trump was given to spread disinformation, Crenshaw argued, specifically calling out Trump being featured at the 2024 National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) convention.

Karen Attiah, the former co-chair of the convention, who stepped down after the announcement that Trump would be interviewed, said the interview was a “viscerally painful experience” which was excused by many “white liberals”.

During the contentious interview, Trump questioned Harris’s race, saying she suddenly “became a Black woman”. “Is she Indian or is she Black? I respect either one but she obviously doesn’t because she was Indian all the way and then all of sudden she became a Black woman.”

Trump was also repeatedly combative with the interviewer Rachel Scott, the senior congressional correspondent for ABC News, accusing her of being “rude”.

“The responses that I personally got for stepping down from white allies or people who are white leaders, was, ‘Well, he was racist and he destroyed your conference, but we needed to see that’ and I was like, ‘At the expense of our dignity[?]’,” she said.………

‘This is not time for retreat or apathy’: Black women dissect Harris loss

Activists among 92% of Black women who voted for Harris discuss how intersection of racism and sexism led to defeat

www.theguardian.com

Click to expand...

I wonder how many people declined to vote for Harris due to race or sex or both. Hard to say.

We already elected a black POTUS. Twice. We elect women to serve all across the country in a variety of roles. I have no issue voting for women but some people might. I don’t see that it played a major role in this election. Maybe you have polling data that says otherwise.