The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

A Pro-@TedCruz Rant

Posted on | April 22, 2016 | 318 Comments

by Smitty

Category: Uncategorized

Comments

318 Responses to “A Pro-@TedCruz Rant”

  1. Wombat_socho
    April 27th, 2016 @ 3:57 am

    Stop feeding the goddamn trolls.

  2. Squid Hunt ?Patriarch
    April 27th, 2016 @ 6:02 am

    What you mean to say is you’ve come up with your own view of the Bible that suits your ego and your outlook and are unwilling to accept what the Bible says. You offer no counter view because there isn’t one. It’s all based on your opinion on how things work. If you had said that in the first place, it would have saved us a lot of time. Take care.

  3. daialanye
    April 27th, 2016 @ 7:21 am

    To argue that the immorality of America brought about Obama’s presidency might make some sense. To argue that the immorality of the Jews in Egypt somehow brought Pharaoh to office is an indication of your misunderstanding. In fact, you seem to have the whole principle backwards.

  4. Squid Hunt ?Patriarch
    April 27th, 2016 @ 7:41 am

    Straw man. The implication of my argument is that the immorality of Egypt brought about Pharaoh and the national disaster he wrought upon Egypt. And he’s another pagan ruler that God claimed to have raised up, by the way.

  5. daialanye
    April 27th, 2016 @ 9:13 am

    The Bible is a huge compilation of sacred writings—history, law, prophecy, prayer, sermonizing and fiction—sifted by the church fathers from an even larger fund of writings. In the past it has been misinterpreted in this nation to justify the execution of witches, the practice of plural marriage, and the avoidance of medical treatment among other faulty practices. In the more distant past it has been to justify what can only be called atrocities.

    It’s enlightening, I feel, that these misinterpretations—like yours—generally depend heavily on the Old Testament.

    The Bible contains considerable wisdom and useful examples. It’s regrettable, though, how often people use it to justify vain beliefs, such as yours that God chooses to punish a people by forcing them to accept the rule of tyrants.

  6. Squid Hunt ?Patriarch
    April 27th, 2016 @ 9:15 am

    Well, any time you’ve got some relevant passages to support your claim, you’re welcome to share. But your entire argument seems to be, “Nu-uh.”

  7. daialanye
    April 27th, 2016 @ 9:24 am

    My basic argument is that you aren’t fit to interpret the Bible. You’re a pharisee, in effect.

  8. Squid Hunt ?Patriarch
    April 27th, 2016 @ 9:31 am

    That’s a remarkably long intuitive leap from one slim view of my beliefs. But again, nothing to support your claim, just running your mouth.

  9. daialanye
    April 27th, 2016 @ 10:05 am

    My argument is and has been that you are misinterpreting the Bible. The only difference between you and Joseph Smith is that he intended from the start to make a profit, while you seem sincere but mistaken.

  10. daialanye
    April 27th, 2016 @ 10:13 am

    Perhaps more attention to the New Testament might enlighten you.

  11. Squid Hunt ?Patriarch
    April 27th, 2016 @ 11:24 am

    The same God from the New Testament is the God of the Old Testament. To say the Old Testament isn’t relevant for insight into God’s character is to say that Jesus Christ is different from the God of the Old Testament. Just remember when this period of grace and longsuffering ends, it ends with judgment. And Jesus Christ is leading the charge. He’s the same God that commanded the children of Israel to slaughter the Canaanites. He’s the God that sent the Assyrians to slaughter Israel. And he’s the God that sent Babylon to slaughter Judah and carry them off into captivity. I know that doesn’t fit the Buddy Jesus model, but the problem is the Buddy Jesus model doesn’t fit the Bible. Regardless of your opinions.

  12. Finrod Felagund
    April 27th, 2016 @ 11:49 am

    Thank you very much, and sorry for the hassle. Now it’s shown back up using its original account (USA Joseph) in the Feminism: It’s About Science! thread.

  13. daialanye
    April 27th, 2016 @ 12:41 pm

    No rational person who has read and comprehended the Bible can say that the perception of God hasn’t changed between that of first Joshua and that of Jesus. The Jews of Jesus’ time were far more advanced—far more civilized—than the desert nomads who infiltrated Canaan.

    Your multiple attempts at justification indicate to me that you recognize the weakness of your own claim.

  14. Squid Hunt ?Patriarch
    April 27th, 2016 @ 12:45 pm

    I am the Lord. I change not. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever. Uh…

    You don’t believe the Bible. That’s the problem. You don’t like what it says and you want it to fit your views and it doesn’t.

  15. daialanye
    April 27th, 2016 @ 1:46 pm

    The “problem” I have is that I know how the Bible came to be, and how important it is to interpret it.

    Your problem is that you don’t seem to know that the Church fathers selected the Bible books from a larger group of sacred writings. Even many Gospels were rejected, including that supposedly by Peter. The Roman Catholic and Protestant versions differ as, I imagine, do the Orthodox, Syrian, Abyssinian and so forth. Signs of the melding of beliefs exist, especially in Genesis where the various Israelite tribes struggled to proclaim the primacy of either Ba’al or Yahveh, still a source of conflict even at the time of Jesus.

    I attempted to keep the Bible out of the discussion early on, but since your interpretation of it is all you have in the way of argument, I’m forced to point out that a thousand and more cults have been justified by the writings of the King James version alone. There are conflicts within the written word, so interpretation is always necessary.

    You simply have made the wrong one.

  16. Squid Hunt ?Patriarch
    April 27th, 2016 @ 2:06 pm

    It takes a lot of nerve to be criticizing someone’s Bible when your church has done everything in its power (up to and including killing people) to keep the Bible out of the people’s hands and perverted the truth of that Bible for over a millennium to enslave the world to your empire. Now, there might have been a lot of cults come out of the King James Bible. But that’s because before the King James Bible there was only one cult allowed to exist on pain of death. And while it may have allowed people to form their own beliefs about what it says and wrongly, it allowed the true Gospel of Jesus Christ to be spread without regard to your paganistic works based religion. That’s what the problem is. The money stopped flowing into the holy coffers. Now that we’ve cleared the air about what’s really bothering you, I’ll leave you to your cookies.

  17. daialanye
    April 27th, 2016 @ 8:05 pm

    MY Bible, MY cookies? Jumping to conclusions, aren’t you?

    I prefer the King James myself, though I’m not actively religious. And, to again point out your lack of knowledge, the first scriptures in English were those of Wycliffe, a couple hundred years before the King James version of the Bible. In between the two, several Bibles and scriptural works were produced, usually translated into the vernacular from Latin and Greek versions, and from Hebrew and Aramaic texts.

    As for your “paganistic” slur, all versions of the Bible (and there are very many) contain some paganism. Think about the roots of Christmas and Easter. The practice of melding some older religious practices into the new is known as syncretism. You can look it up.

  18. Squid Hunt ?Patriarch
    April 28th, 2016 @ 6:20 am

    “Jumping to conclusions, aren’t you?”

    Look who’s talking. Take care.