Famous Fans on the Friday Political Open Thread

[Z is for Zangie]

good Morning! Have a famously fun Friday!

[Senor Natural]

I need to do the same . . .

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

When did you put a camera in my house?

[Mike]

Meet Logan Dorn. A Colorado man who (in his own words) was compelled by “righteous anger” and “boldness by the Holy Spirit” to seethingly confront a group of 18 year old girls on the beach. All were wearing ‘normal’ bikinis, not thongs or Wicked Weasel or anything outrageous. Yet he felt the need to get in their faces for many minutes and berate them for the ‘pornography’ of daring to wear a bikini in public. To spare “young eyes” from the sin of female flesh (never mind mind that, in normal life, every young person spends the first year or so of existence with a female breast right in his/her face).

https://www.tiktok.com/@loganvandorn?

Guide, you’re into Jordan Peterson. What does Peterson say about women and their exposure of flesh? About propagating ‘Christian’ values in public? About confronting in public those who do not live by your values?

Check the vid of him confronting those girls. He claims that his freedoms under the Constitution allow him to continue to berate those girls. Given they were lawfully attired, a reasonable person might opt instead to construe his beratement as harassment. I wonder if he, like so many other Christian zealots in this nation, claims that mask mandates go against god who created us in his image…. And I wonder if he grasps the dazzling irony of demanding to not be forced to wear a mask while demanding others cover up their bodies. From within their belief systems, religions claim to ‘respect’ women so much that they want to protect those women from (something) by covering them up. From any outside perspective, of course, that is nothing but ownership/control.

[Randi]

From within their belief systems, religions claim to ‘respect’ women so much that they want to protect those women from (something) by covering them up. From any outside perspective, of course, that is nothing but ownership/control.

Lol! When I was a teenager I made myself a string bikini in Home Ec. I thought some of my more conservative classmates were going to suffer head explosions And I lived every minute of it. I looked good and I knew it. For some odd reason conservatives hate to see women , especially young ones, with confidence
I know what my Mom would have said about him “ he’s all hot and bothered and he can’t do anything about it”. And knowing Mom she would have a rude, dismissive hand gesture with it. I think she was correct.

[Mike]

Pics or it didn’t happen

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

Guide, you’re into Jordan Peterson. What does Peterson say about women and their exposure of flesh? About propagating ‘Christian’ values in public? About confronting in public those who do not live by your values?

I have no idea. I'm not into Peterson for his politics, I'm into Peterson for his incites as a physiologist.

While I understand the point he's making with gender pronouns, I wouldn't do it. I already try to use the pronouns someone prefers, there is no way I'm going to stop just to fight a law. At the same time, I respect his point about compelled speech. I live in the US so I don't have to have it figured out and I'm happy for that.

I can say that I think the man above is an idiot. There is nothing in the bible that would validate his behavior. Jesus, a man who spent his time with the fringes of society, would admonish such behavior. It's sad that so many people use the symbolic nature of the text to validate their base impulses.

[Tarmaque]

It's sad that so many people use the symbolic nature of the text to validate their base impulses.

The funny thing is when people try to use the Bible to excuse their anti-abortion point of view. Absolutely nowhere in the Bible does it even mention abortion. Jesus says nothing about it. Another fun one is homosexuality. It's an extreme stretch of the translation of the Bible to construe it to be against homosexuality. And I'm not just talking about the symbolic parts either. With the exception of Leviticus little is mentioned about homosexuality at all. However there are a couple of lines in the New testament that seem to imply that homosexuals have just as much ability to reach heaven as anybody else. It also implies that Ruth was in a lesbian relationship with Naomi.

Depending on the translation of course.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

The funny thing is when people try to use the Bible to excuse their anti-abortion point of view. Absolutely nowhere in the Bible does it even mention abortion.

I don't think that's really a fair criticism The abortion debate comes down to ones belief in at what stage of development is killing a human an act of murder. (the correct translation of the commandment is Thou Shall not Murder). You are right that the bible says nothing about abortion directly, nor does it say I can't kill my boss because he got on my nerves today. I think most people would agree that killing my boss would be murder. Unfortunately, abortion falls into an uncomfortable moral grey area. I often think that people who are confident in their position haven't thought about it enough.

Jesus says nothing about it. Another fun one is homosexuality. It's an extreme stretch of the translation of the Bible to construe it to be against homosexuality. And I'm not just talking about the symbolic parts either. With the exception of Leviticus little is mentioned about homosexuality at all.

There are a couple of old testament passages that people hang on. All of them can be explained with context. In Leviticus it isn't just the 10 commandments and moral right. There are a lot of rules that center around advice on how to best build a nation from a small population. Homosexuality is problematic in the context of the goal, but that doesn't make it a sin. The new testament is kind of all over the place on the issue, this is one are where the writings of Paul complete contradict what the gospel writing say Jesus said. Paul is particularly hard on homosexuality in Romans. (I used king james version for below but I'm not aware of any translations that are kinder.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

I would say Corinthians is the most damning passage though.

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

For me personally these conflicts and others have eaten away at me enough that I've taken to rejecting the works of Paul as useful spiritual texts at all. I don't know if I'm right or missing something.

You did miss two other versus often used. one is in Genesis (Say it, say it... Saga). That one, to me, seems to be more about incest then homosexuality though.

And then there is the one that drives me nuts, Sodom and Gomorrah. People sometimes argue that they were destroyed for homosexuality. The story is about an attempted rape and specifically says that the cities were a hot bed for all kinds of evils and sins. To argue they were destroyed because of any specific sin is just nonsense.

[Runswift9]

And then there is the one that drives me nuts, Sodom and Gomorrah. People sometimes argue that they were destroyed for homosexuality. The story is about an attempted rape and specifically says that the cities were a hot bed for all kinds of evils and sins. To argue they were destroyed because of any specific sin is just nonsense.

Especially because the bible specifically SAYS that it was because of evil lack of hospitality

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

Especially because the bible specifically SAYS that it was because of evil lack of hospitality

That was the final straw, but remember God was going to destroy the city before that. That is why the angles were there, to find 10 righteous men. They were met with... well you know the rest.

[Runswift9]

They were met with... well you know the rest.

Yep, they were met with poor hospitality. Hospitality was, and still is, very important to desert dwellers.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

Yep, they were met with poor hospitality. Hospitality was, and still is, very important to desert dwellers.

I think hospitality is important to any who travel and it is a valid lesson of the story.

[Runswift9]

I think hospitality is important to any who travel and it is a valid lesson of the story.

Sure, no doubt...but to desert dwellers it can be the difference between life and death.

[Slip Shod]

To spare “young eyes” from the sin of female flesh ....
[/quote]
" praise the Lord, Mike " - never would I have thought we would agree on anything.
The sin of female flesh ?? No, a blessing.

[Tarmaque]

For me personally these conflicts and others have eaten away at me enough that I've taken to rejecting the works of Paul as useful spiritual texts at all. I don't know if I'm right or missing something.

Paul by his own admission never met Jesus, unless you accept his contention that Jesus appeared to him after his death. (Such an easy lie to tell. Who can check you on that?) Paul is a bit of an asshole, who used the growing popularity of Christianity as a tool to advance his own religious ideas. These ideas were distinctly Old Testament in nature, and contradict a lot of what Jesus said. Anyone with a Pauline bent to their theology should not be trusted.

It should also be noted that nearly all western Christian denominations have Catholicism in their DNA, and the Catholic Church is the church of Paul. There's a reason why the Catholic Church has so much corruption associated with it over the centuries. Protestant churches are usually little better, using the same tainted chapters and verse to defend their behavior while pointing their finger at Catholic corruption. I'm sure we've discussed my Brother's moral failings before. He's an avowed Christian who picked up much of his bad habits from the various churches he was indoctrinated into. (Particularly one mega-church called Crossroads.) He uses is "faith" to excuse all sorts of terrible behavior, from stealing from his churches to cheating his clients to leaving his wife and thirteen children because (and I quote) "I just want to be happy. Don't you think God wants me to be happy?"

I don't think the teachings of Jesus himself are particularly bad. The problem is the people who wrote them down (including Paul) never met him. The teachings have got lost in the centuries long game of "Telephone" that is Christianity.

[Runswift9]

I've taken to rejecting the works of Paul as useful spiritual texts at all. I don't know if I'm right or missing something.

Try reading "In Search of Paul" by John Dominic Crossan. It's very interesting.

[Tarmaque]

I've taken to rejecting the works of Paul as useful spiritual texts at all. I don't know if I'm right or missing something.

Try reading "In Search of Paul" by John Dominic Crossan. It's very interesting.

Poorly quoted. That was Guide who said that.

[Z is for Zangie]

Pics or it didn’t happen

[Runswift9]

Poorly quoted. That was Guide who said that.

Not my problem. I marked it, clicked on "Quote" and the software did what it does.

[Tarmaque]

Not my problem. I marked it, clicked on "Quote" and the software did what it does.

You did something, because that's not how the quote function works. It should have quoted both what he wrote that I quoted, and all the text that I wrote. You just got part of his.

That said, if you select any part of a post then click the quote button, it only quotes the part you selected. Perhaps that's what you did.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

For me personally these conflicts and others have eaten away at me enough that I've taken to rejecting the works of Paul as useful spiritual texts at all. I don't know if I'm right or missing something.

Paul by his own admission never met Jesus, unless you accept his contention that Jesus appeared to him after his death. (Such an easy lie to tell. Who can check you on that?) Paul is a bit of an asshole, who used the growing popularity of Christianity as a tool to advance his own religious ideas. These ideas were distinctly Old Testament in nature, and contradict a lot of what Jesus said. Anyone with a Pauline bent to their theology should not be trusted.

It should also be noted that nearly all western Christian denominations have Catholicism in their DNA, and the Catholic Church is the church of Paul. There's a reason why the Catholic Church has so much corruption associated with it over the centuries. Protestant churches are usually little better, using the same tainted chapters and verse to defend their behavior while pointing their finger at Catholic corruption. I'm sure we've discussed my Brother's moral failings before. He's an avowed Christian who picked up much of his bad habits from the various churches he was indoctrinated into. (Particularly one mega-church called Crossroads.) He uses is "faith" to excuse all sorts of terrible behavior, from stealing from his churches to cheating his clients to leaving his wife and thirteen children because (and I quote) "I just want to be happy. Don't you think God wants me to be happy?"

I don't think the teachings of Jesus himself are particularly bad. The problem is the people who wrote them down (including Paul) never met him. The teachings have got lost in the centuries long game of "Telephone" that is Christianity.

Yes all of that. !00000X all of that. When I first started questioning Paul I ended up in reading a lot of Islamic opinions on him. Some of those sources made what you said seem mild. And I don't remember reading a single bad point. I always laugh when people say "Mulims hate Jesus!" umm... no.... they love Jesus, they aren't found of Paul.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

I've taken to rejecting the works of Paul as useful spiritual texts at all. I don't know if I'm right or missing something.

Try reading "In Search of Paul" by John Dominic Crossan. It's very interesting.

I'm going to do that. I'd love to reconcile this issue, but until I can I just can't buy into those texts.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

Guide, you’re into Jordan Peterson. What does Peterson say about women and their exposure of flesh? About propagating ‘Christian’ values in public? About confronting in public those who do not live by your values?

oh man, I was I was a bigger fan. This is from his book 12 Rules for Life. it's the 11th rule, while not exact, I think it answers his view on this situation....

"Do not bother children when they are skate-boarding."

[Z is for Zangie]

For me personally these conflicts and others have eaten away at me enough that I've taken to rejecting the works of Paul as useful spiritual texts at all. I don't know if I'm right or missing something.

Paul by his own admission never met Jesus, unless you accept his contention that Jesus appeared to him after his death. (Such an easy lie to tell. Who can check you on that?) Paul is a bit of an asshole, who used the growing popularity of Christianity as a tool to advance his own religious ideas. These ideas were distinctly Old Testament in nature, and contradict a lot of what Jesus said. Anyone with a Pauline bent to their theology should not be trusted.

It should also be noted that nearly all western Christian denominations have Catholicism in their DNA, and the Catholic Church is the church of Paul. There's a reason why the Catholic Church has so much corruption associated with it over the centuries. Protestant churches are usually little better, using the same tainted chapters and verse to defend their behavior while pointing their finger at Catholic corruption. I'm sure we've discussed my Brother's moral failings before. He's an avowed Christian who picked up much of his bad habits from the various churches he was indoctrinated into. (Particularly one mega-church called Crossroads.) He uses is "faith" to excuse all sorts of terrible behavior, from stealing from his churches to cheating his clients to leaving his wife and thirteen children because (and I quote) "I just want to be happy. Don't you think God wants me to be happy?"

I don't think the teachings of Jesus himself are particularly bad. The problem is the people who wrote them down (including Paul) never met him. The teachings have got lost in the centuries long game of "Telephone" that is Christianity.

Yes all of that. !00000X all of that. When I first started questioning Paul I ended up in reading a lot of Islamic opinions on him. Some of those sources made what you said seem mild. And I don't remember reading a single bad point. I always laugh when people say "Mulims hate Jesus!" umm... no.... they love Jesus, they aren't found of Paul.

Paul, of course also had a , though common for the times, very traditional view of women and so I had problems with him when I was younger even before I read more as I got older...though I did like Corinthians 13 and even used it at my wedding service as a compromise with my ex (no obey in the vows...lol), I even got an A on my oral interpretation of it in my Forensics class.