Trump Says 'More White People' Killed By Police, 'People Love' The Confederate Flag

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I only know one who overturned tables, and used whips. Uniquely qualified.
 
GKMotley said:
I only know one who overturned tables, and used whips. Uniquely qualified.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that if anyone else did it for the same reasons he did, they would necessarily be doing wrong? What do you mean “uniquely” qualified? Do you think he did it because it was the right thing to do or only because he was God?
 
Last edited:
It was the right thing to do because He did it. Lacking those qualifications, the situation becomes debatable.

The mods say I’m talking too much. So, everybody play.
 
You will find very little historical or philosophical justification for many of your “inherent individual rights”.
 
No. I think that you lack the authority to do what God did in those circumstances. Produce a license from the Trinity appointing you to that role.
 
I saw Trump being interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox this morning.

Wallace brought this up and Trump explained exactly what he meant and he was right.

More white people are killed by cops than blacks.

Also, most of the people who flew the Confederate Flag, did it out of Southern Pride or not because they like how it looks and they’re not trying to be nostalgic about slavery.

I don’t agree people should fly the flag, knowing that black people are offended by it, but it doesn’t make them racist when they do fly it.
 
Last edited:
GKMotley said:
No. I think that you lack the authority to do what God did in those circumstances. Produce a license from the Trinity appointing you to that role.
Click to expand...
What complete nonsense. Produce a licence from the Trinity appointing you to following Christ’s example? How about the fact that we are supposed to look to him as the model human? Part of why he took our nature and lived a human life: to SHOW us how best to be human? You produce one prohibiting us to follow his example in this specific circumstance or indeed ANY other.

Where did you get this rule you’re imposing by your own arbitrary non-Trinitarian authority? “Hey, don’t you dare follow Christ HERE!” . . . The nerve. 🙂
 
Last edited:
Actually, their beliefs were premised on the Judeo Christian understanding of man and natural law.

Members of the Catholic Church like Bartolomeo de las Casas and Francisco de Vitoria lay the groundwork for international (human rights) law vis a vis indigenous peoples, such that the so-called savages were also in the eyes of God, men created in the image of God and therefore deserving of dignity.

www.cambridge.org

Francisco de Vitoria and the colonial origins of international law (Chapter 1) - Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law

Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law - January 2005
www.cambridge.org www.cambridge.org
While Hugo Grotius is generally regarded as the principal forerunner of modern international law, historians of the discipline trace its primitive origins to the works of Francisco de Vitoria, a sixteenth-century Spanish theologian and jurist. Consequently, it is entirely appropriate that the Carnegie endowment commenced its renowned series of Classics of International Law with Vitoria’s two famous lectures, De Indis Noviter Inventis and De Jure Bellis Hispanorum in Barbaros. Traditional approaches to Vitoria’s work and his place within the discipline pointed, among other things, to Grotius’ indebtedness to the teachings of Vitoria, to Vitoria’s identification of certain fundamental theoretical issues confronting the discipline and to the enduring significance of Vitoria’s thinking on the law of war and on the rights of dependent peoples.

Vitoria’s two lectures, as their titles suggest, are essentially concerned with relations between the Spanish and the Indians.
Click to expand...
www.cambridge.org

The New Laws (Chapter 10) - Bartolomé de las Casas

Bartolomé de las Casas - June 2012
www.cambridge.org www.cambridge.org
. . . the Emperor Charles V signed a decree for the governance of his colonies far to the west across the Atlantic Ocean. The “New Laws of 1542” legislated on the treatment of Indians and replaced the “old” laws issued in the cities of Burgos and Valladolid in 1512 and 1513.

The New Laws of 1542 became milestones in Spain’s attempt to reform and control the devastating consequences of the conquest in the Americas. They were more than the decrees of a monarch, Charles V, bent on bringing the unruly and independent-minded conquistador class and encomenderos to heel. The laws represented the practical application of newly emerging theories on the nature of man, of freedom, of rights, and even of international law. As such, they stand as monuments to man’s spirit and desire to do what is right, on the basis of both Scripture and natural law.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
And, having done that, He told you to go and do likewise?

Which temple will you start in?
 
That’s not entirely true. Look to Stoic philosophy or Aristotle and Cicero, that is, natural law.
WingedHussar said:
You will find very little historical or philosophical justification for many of your “inherent individual rights”.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Jon, I think you will find this interesting if you didn’t already know it.
The British polemicist Thomas Gordon “incorporated Cicero into the radical ideological tradition that travelled from the mother country to the colonies in the course of the eighteenth century and decisively shaped early American political culture.”[31] Cicero’s description of the immutable, eternal, and universal natural law was quoted by Burlamaqui[32] and later by the American revolutionary legal scholar James Wilson.[33] Cicero became John Adams’s “foremost model of public service, republican virtue, and forensic eloquence.”[34] Adams wrote of Cicero that “as all the ages of the world have not produced a greater statesman and philosopher united in the same character, his authority should have great weight. Thomas Jefferson “first encountered Cicero as a schoolboy while learning Latin, and continued to read his letters and discourses throughout his life.” He admired him as a patriot, valued his opinions as a moral philosopher, and there is little doubt that he looked upon Cicero’s life, with his love of study and aristocratic country life, as a model for his own.” Jefferson described Cicero as “the father of eloquence and philosophy.”
Click to expand...
The New Testament carries a further exposition on the Abrahamic dialogue and links to the later Greek exposition on the subject, when [Paul] states “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another.” The intellectual historian A. J. Carlyle has commented on this passage, "There can be little doubt that St Paul’s words imply some conception analogous to the ‘natural law’ in a law written in men’s hearts, recognized by man’s reason, a law distinct from the positive law of any State, or from what St Paul recognized as [the revealed law of God]. It is in this sense that St Paul’s words are taken by the Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries like [St Hilary of Poitiers]

Because of its origins in the Old Testament, early [Church Fathers], especially those, saw natural law as part of the natural foundation of [Christianity]The most notable among these was [Augustine of Hippo], who equated natural law with humanity’s [prelapsarian] state; as such, a life according to unbroken human nature was no longer possible and persons needed instead to seek healing and salvation through the [grace] of [Jesus].
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
GKMotley said:
And, having done that, He told you to go and do likewise?

Which temple will you start in?
Click to expand...
Mine if I find people prostituting in my parish or desecrating the tabernacle.

Still no source for where you get the nerve to tell me which of Christ’s examples I should NOT follow, I see. I should just assume the Holy Spirit is speaking through your keyboard.

More of the same: “Everything Jesus did that he did not immediately follow with “do likewise” is out of bounds as an example.”

Interesting to witness how truisms presented as truth are created and asserted out of thin air.
 
Last edited:
Will you take a whip of cords? Or what shall you physically chastise with?
 
GKMotley said:
Will you take a whip of cords? Or what shall you physically chastise with?
Click to expand...
Will you quote the Bible? Or what shall you express your arbitrary authority with beyond your posts?
 
Last edited:
My observation that you assume that you possess the authority of Christ, and the ability to discern where it should be used, in like manner as to what He did, is more to the point.

How would you cleanse the temple, or temple analogs?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top