How You Die Does Not Redeem How You Lived

[duckpoint]

In Constitutional law there are two schools of thought when it comes to interpretation, the doctrines of originalism and living constitutionalism. Origionalism relies on the text and intent when it was written. Living constitutionalism allows for interpretations to change with the evolution of social norms.
Personally, I'd put myself in Originalist camp as the Constitution has built in provisions that allow for evolving over time via Constitutional conventions and amendments.

Some Christian denominations may have adopted an approach similar to living constitutionalism. This could be necessary because the Bible lacks explicit mechanisms for adapting to changing times. A brief review of historical trends suggests that attitudes within some Christian churches toward homosexuality began to shift approximately 50 years ago.

What you are describing is just the process of eroding meaning from any work. What is the old meaning giving way to exactly? What does 'evolution of social norms' or 'adapting to changing times' mean? Is there something new under the Sun? It just means that over time, someone who is not God is attempting to change what God said. The Bible, which was written through many authors over about a 1500-year period, is meant to counter this meaning erosion with a solid view of God's perspective and Word. It has been preserved with men's lives over many generations precisely to combat meaning erosion so that we have a compass and are not 'tossed around by every wind of doctrine'. The real question is if someone actually believes in God. He doesn't change; He is the same yesterday, today and forever. His Word also doesn't change, it will be remain after Heaven and Earth pass away.

I know it is overly simplistic to say people don't understand because they are not 'devout' enough, but you are not wrong to examine what someone is saying and conclude that they are far from God's Word. The meaning is accessible and knowable, despite attempts to say otherwise. For the unregenerate it is a stumbling block, and for believers, it is the power of God. I could quote all of 1 Cor 2 here, but I encourage you to read it again if you haven't in awhile.

Your point about the Bible’s permanence as a counter to "meaning erosion" is compelling, and it raises an interesting question: could we see a parallel between the shift in some Christian denominations’ attitudes toward social issues like homosexuality and the broader societal shift from classical liberalism to identity politics? Both seem to involve reinterpreting foundational principles to align with evolving cultural norms.

[whosyourwally]

Revelations 14:3 -
“And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth.”

There are ~2.4 billion Christians currently on earth and likely 10’s of billions in total across history. There were a total of ~55 million people across the Roman Empire in 100AD, few of whom were Christians. That 144,000 made a lot more sense then. Go ahead and devoutly acknowledge that Heaven must have locked the gates some 1500 years ago, so as not to erode meaning from the scriptures. Anything less is to casually adapt to changing times.

Anyway, I could care less if you think God welcomes the LGBTQ population in heaven, but, so long as an argument for a separation of church and state is still worth anything, and Kirk told us, again and again, that the US was intended to be a theocracy, I very much care whether politically-inclined people are pushing policy that prevents LGBTQ couples from fostering/adopting.

I’ve spent years of my life working in congregate care settings for children, and you’d have to be pretty damn evil to keep a child in a place like that when a loving family is willing to take them in.

[whosyourwally]

Duckpoint, Classical liberalism is a political and economic philosophy that advocates for limited government, individual rights, and a free-market economy. Is that what you meant, or are you claiming longer standing progressive values have, in a vacuum, shifted toward identity politics?

If the former, I’d agree that liberalism/neo-liberalism has given way to MAGA’s version of identity politics.
Example #1 - Kirk’s countless comments on Islam, the LGTBQ community, immigrant communities, people of color.
Example #2 - Every single DJT tweet.

Division and fear are useful tools when your goal is to control the masses. Hegelian dialectics.

Order of operation - there is no movement without a cause or a need. No one would have pushed for women’s suffrage if there wasn’t codified resistance to women voting. It’s the same with gay marriage, etc. When the ruling party targets specific groups of people, those groups of people and their allies coalesce. Thus, the dawn of identity politics.

[Phalanx]

Revelations 14:3 -
“And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth.”

There are ~2.4 billion Christians currently on earth and likely 10’s of billions in total across history. There were a total of ~55 million people across the Roman Empire in 100AD, few of whom were Christians. That 144,000 made a lot more sense then. Go ahead and devoutly acknowledge that Heaven must have locked the gates some 1500 years ago, so as not to erode meaning from the scriptures. Anything less is to casually adapt to changing times.

This is exactly what I am talking about. I'm not trying to be hostile, but quoting scripture is like a shibboleth. Some people know what they are talking about, or can at least present a solid case, and some people are just looking for a prooftext and obviously have done no actual study. Let me show you just a small amount of context for the verse you quoted:

3 And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders; and no one was able to learn the song except the 144,000 who had been purchased from the earth. 4 These are the ones who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are celibate. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These have been purchased from mankind as first fruits to God and to the Lamb. 5 And no lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless.

So you take this to mean the sum total of followers of Yeshua (this site won't let me write the Greek name) throughout history, and you use this as evidence that we must recalibrate all of the Bible, including dismissing Romans 1 or whatever other passage you don't like? Those 144,000 are a specific group of men, 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel, who have survived after all of the scrolls of war, famine, death, martyring, etc have been unleashed onto the world. The fact that they are celibate should give you a hint that we are not talking about a larger population of Christians. Read Rev 6-7 for more info. I've been married for 25 years and have children to demonstrate that i am not part of the 144,000 in verse 3.This is a remnant; it is not meant to represent any population from any other part of history other than the day of fulfillment of John's vision, whenever that will be. In Elijah's day, the remnant was only 70. The number is SUPPOSED to be small. That's the point.

The thing is, you did not study this passage and then conclude from your meditation on it that we have to recalibrate and update everything. You already wanted to recalibrate and update and then you went hunting for an example that might justify your agenda, and you didn't even stop to read the next verse before using it to question the last 2000 years of Biblical study. Maybe you have other examples as well. I am not an MDiv or a DD, or even Charlie Kirk, but I am happy to help you read through scripture if I can. Prooftexting doesn't work. Read the context.

[duckpoint]

Revelations 14:3 -
“And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth.”

There are ~2.4 billion Christians currently on earth and likely 10’s of billions in total across history. There were a total of ~55 million people across the Roman Empire in 100AD, few of whom were Christians. That 144,000 made a lot more sense then. Go ahead and devoutly acknowledge that Heaven must have locked the gates some 1500 years ago, so as not to erode meaning from the scriptures. Anything less is to casually adapt to changing times.

Anyway, I could care less if you think God welcomes the LGBTQ population in heaven, but, so long as an argument for a separation of church and state is still worth anything, and Kirk told us, again and again, that the US was intended to be a theocracy, I very much care whether politically-inclined people are pushing policy that prevents LGBTQ couples from fostering/adopting.

I’ve spent years of my life working in congregate care settings for children, and you’d have to be pretty damn evil to keep a child in a place like that when a loving family is willing to take them in.

I'll call your assertion that "Kirk told us, again and again, that the US was intended to be a theocracy" a bold face lie! I challenge you find anything to support this claim.

I thought Charlie's political views were dismissed as the source of hate for Charlie Kirk in the previous posts and discussion. If you wish reopen that discussion, feel free. If you do so, please review what has already been posted and come back with more than a libelous claim.

[duckpoint]

Duckpoint, Classical liberalism is a political and economic philosophy that advocates for limited government, individual rights, and a free-market economy. Is that what you meant, or are you claiming longer standing progressive values have, in a vacuum, shifted toward identity politics?

If the former, I’d agree that liberalism/neo-liberalism has given way to MAGA’s version of identity politics.
Example #1 - Kirk’s countless comments on Islam, the LGTBQ community, immigrant communities, people of color.
Example #2 - Every single DJT tweet.

Division and fear are useful tools when your goal is to control the masses. Hegelian dialectics.

Order of operation - there is no movement without a cause or a need. No one would have pushed for women’s suffrage if there wasn’t codified resistance to women voting. It’s the same with gay marriage, etc. When the ruling party targets specific groups of people, those groups of people and their allies coalesce. Thus, the dawn of identity politics.

Almost everything in this post is 'projection'. Not really worth addressing at all...

[whosyourwally]

Revelations 14:3 -
“And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth.”

There are ~2.4 billion Christians currently on earth and likely 10’s of billions in total across history. There were a total of ~55 million people across the Roman Empire in 100AD, few of whom were Christians. That 144,000 made a lot more sense then. Go ahead and devoutly acknowledge that Heaven must have locked the gates some 1500 years ago, so as not to erode meaning from the scriptures. Anything less is to casually adapt to changing times.

Anyway, I could care less if you think God welcomes the LGBTQ population in heaven, but, so long as an argument for a separation of church and state is still worth anything, and Kirk told us, again and again, that the US was intended to be a theocracy, I very much care whether politically-inclined people are pushing policy that prevents LGBTQ couples from fostering/adopting.

I’ve spent years of my life working in congregate care settings for children, and you’d have to be pretty damn evil to keep a child in a place like that when a loving family is willing to take them in.

I'll call your assertion that "Kirk told us, again and again, that the US was intended to be a theocracy" a bold face lie! I challenge you find anything to support this claim.

I thought Charlie's political views were dismissed as the source of hate for Charlie Kirk in the previous posts and discussion. If you wish reopen that discussion, feel free. If you do so, please review what has already been posted and come back with more than a libelous claim.

Pre-MAGA Charlie Kirk, sure, but let me introduce you to post-MAGA Charlie Kirk:

“There is no separation of church and state. It's a fabrication. It's a fiction. It's not in the Constitution. It's made up by secular humanists. It's derived from a single letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Convention.”

Here’s the video:

https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-ki ... -and-state

[whosyourwally]

Duckpoint, Classical liberalism is a political and economic philosophy that advocates for limited government, individual rights, and a free-market economy. Is that what you meant, or are you claiming longer standing progressive values have, in a vacuum, shifted toward identity politics?

If the former, I’d agree that liberalism/neo-liberalism has given way to MAGA’s version of identity politics.
Example #1 - Kirk’s countless comments on Islam, the LGTBQ community, immigrant communities, people of color.
Example #2 - Every single DJT tweet.

Division and fear are useful tools when your goal is to control the masses. Hegelian dialectics.

Order of operation - there is no movement without a cause or a need. No one would have pushed for women’s suffrage if there wasn’t codified resistance to women voting. It’s the same with gay marriage, etc. When the ruling party targets specific groups of people, those groups of people and their allies coalesce. Thus, the dawn of identity politics.

Almost everything in this post is 'projection'. Not really worth addressing at all...

Let me give you an example. The Freedom Riders and the violence they incurred during the civil rights moment, as well as the deaths of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner.

Charlie Kirk had this to say:

“We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.”
“We created a beast, and that beast has now turned into an anti-white weapon.”

Identity politics, yes? Or no, because diversify, equity, and inclusion justifiably terrify the American white man?
(Picture the hyenas shuttering at the mention of the word “Mufasa”.)

[GDuck]

Revelations 14:3 -
“And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth.”

There are ~2.4 billion Christians currently on earth and likely 10’s of billions in total across history. There were a total of ~55 million people across the Roman Empire in 100AD, few of whom were Christians. That 144,000 made a lot more sense then. Go ahead and devoutly acknowledge that Heaven must have locked the gates some 1500 years ago, so as not to erode meaning from the scriptures. Anything less is to casually adapt to changing times.

Anyway, I could care less if you think God welcomes the LGBTQ population in heaven, but, so long as an argument for a separation of church and state is still worth anything, and Kirk told us, again and again, that the US was intended to be a theocracy, I very much care whether politically-inclined people are pushing policy that prevents LGBTQ couples from fostering/adopting.

I’ve spent years of my life working in congregate care settings for children, and you’d have to be pretty damn evil to keep a child in a place like that when a loving family is willing to take them in.

I'll call your assertion that "Kirk told us, again and again, that the US was intended to be a theocracy" a bold face lie! I challenge you find anything to support this claim.

I thought Charlie's political views were dismissed as the source of hate for Charlie Kirk in the previous posts and discussion. If you wish reopen that discussion, feel free. If you do so, please review what has already been posted and come back with more than a libelous claim.

Pre-MAGA Charlie Kirk, sure, but let me introduce you to post-MAGA Charlie Kirk:

“There is no separation of church and state. It's a fabrication. It's a fiction. It's not in the Constitution. It's made up by secular humanists. It's derived from a single letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Convention.”

Here’s the video:

https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-ki ... -and-state

What’s inaccurate about Kirk’s position? Media Matters - one of the biggest offenders of the truth.

Your previous posts have so much inaccuracy in them it’s not worth even responding because as stated, you aren’t using data to inform your opinion- you have unchanging opinions and you are trying to support it with inaccurate information/understandings.

[Phalanx]

I don't know what Charlie meant when he says separation of Church and State is a fiction. He certainly doesn't go into it in the video you posted - I would think you would actually want to find a place where he explained his position, but I guess more prooftexting. Anyway, I don't believe there is a separation of Church and State. I wish there was. Contrary to popular opinion, the idea was not hatched by enlightened atheists. It was a belief by religious Protestants in the colonies in response to the tyranny of the Church of England. Google Roger WIlliams, circa 1644. Jefferson was not inventing anything when he wrote to the Danbury Baptists, he was assuring them that something they already believed would be included.

If we had separation of church and state today, the Federal government would not have the power to tax churches if they don't adhere to 501c3 rules, including not getting involved in elections. John Marshall's famous quote: "The power to tax is the power to destroy" applies well here: the fact that government reserves the right to tax churches if they get out of line means that they are not separated. Another example is when the politicians in L.A. demanded that John MacArthur stop meeting and singing hymns during Covid. If there was actual separation, this would not have been possible. Separation of Church and State means that one does not exercise authority over the other.

[GDuck]

Separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution. That is accurate. What Jefferson’s letter was all about was protecting the Church from the State. Not vice versa. The Church definitely impacted the State with regards to our laws and such - look at our Constitution and dollar bills. The intent was not to have a theocracy and not have the clergy/pastors in the Church hold both religious and political position at the same time. Need to think what the definition of “separation” and the intent of Jefferson’s comment regarding who it was to protect.

[UOducksTK1]

Separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution. That is accurate. What Jefferson’s letter was all about was protecting the Church from the State. Not vice versa. The Church definitely impacted the State with regards to our laws and such - look at our Constitution and dollar bills. The intent was not to have a theocracy and not have the clergy/pastors in the Church hold both religious and political position at the same time. Need to think what the definition of “separation” and the intent of Jefferson’s comment regarding who it was to protect.

Yup.

[duckpoint]

I can add this 9 min video to introduce what Charlie actually says about 'theocracy'.

[whosyourwally]

Revelations 14:3 -
“And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth.”

There are ~2.4 billion Christians currently on earth and likely 10’s of billions in total across history. There were a total of ~55 million people across the Roman Empire in 100AD, few of whom were Christians. That 144,000 made a lot more sense then. Go ahead and devoutly acknowledge that Heaven must have locked the gates some 1500 years ago, so as not to erode meaning from the scriptures. Anything less is to casually adapt to changing times.

The thing is, you did not study this passage and then conclude from your meditation on it that we have to recalibrate and update everything. You already wanted to recalibrate and update and then you went hunting for an example that might justify your agenda, and you didn't even stop to read the next verse before using it to question the last 2000 years of Biblical study. Maybe you have other examples as well. I am not an MDiv or a DD, or even Charlie Kirk, but I am happy to help you read through scripture if I can. Prooftexting doesn't work. Read the context.

Admittedly, I’m way off track here, trying to defend the Bible by citing the Bible. That’s not a corner of the strike zone I cover well. It’s like when I let myself get pulled into arguments over the four (?) houses in Harry Potter. Here I am, going against my own values, acting like there’s merit to Slytherin’s self-serving intellectualism, when in reality, it’s just long-winded fiction, written at a fourth grade level, from the mind of a human looking to make some money.

I’m familiar with the take that the author did not intend for the 188,000 virgin men to represent the entirety of those saved and I found it equally bizarre, as the Bible is, at no other point, against sex within the confines of marriage, and no religion is sustainable if it demands celibacy. Admittedly, I have no idea what John (maybe the apostle, old, deranged, and maybe high, or maybe some dude named John the Elder hundreds of years later) meant at any point in the book of Revelations. I’ve landed on that it’s most like the incoherent mumblings of a psychotic man, but that the early Catholic Church found (or added) the portions about celibacy and the end times to be useful in asserting control over their rapidly expanding empire.

I realize I started down a road here that won’t win me any points… that the Bible is, at times, a contorted account of history, a tool of man, weaponized to gain power, control, and wealth, and that it often illustrates a wrathful, violent, and horribly ethnocentric God, who gaslights his followers into giving him (and by association, the church) credit (and money) for any good and wearing the blame for any bad, and so of course, the more “devout” His followers, the more those traits would shape/align with their world views.

Wrapping this up — For me, it’s way less about reinterpreting the Bible to make it fit alongside my woke-ass agenda, and way more about keeping it out of policy all together.

Empathy has always existed independent of — and is not depended on — organized religion.

I’ll tap out so I can get back to reading Oregon football clickbait.

[duckpoint]

Duckpoint, Classical liberalism is a political and economic philosophy that advocates for limited government, individual rights, and a free-market economy. Is that what you meant, or are you claiming longer standing progressive values have, in a vacuum, shifted toward identity politics?

If the former, I’d agree that liberalism/neo-liberalism has given way to MAGA’s version of identity politics.
Example #1 - Kirk’s countless comments on Islam, the LGTBQ community, immigrant communities, people of color.
Example #2 - Every single DJT tweet.

Division and fear are useful tools when your goal is to control the masses. Hegelian dialectics.

Order of operation - there is no movement without a cause or a need. No one would have pushed for women’s suffrage if there wasn’t codified resistance to women voting. It’s the same with gay marriage, etc. When the ruling party targets specific groups of people, those groups of people and their allies coalesce. Thus, the dawn of identity politics.

Almost everything in this post is 'projection'. Not really worth addressing at all...

Let me give you an example. The Freedom Riders and the violence they incurred during the civil rights moment, as well as the deaths of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner.

Charlie Kirk had this to say:

“We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.”
“We created a beast, and that beast has now turned into an anti-white weapon.”

Identity politics, yes? Or no, because diversify, equity, and inclusion justifiably terrify the American white man?
(Picture the hyenas shuttering at the mention of the word “Mufasa”.)

On the two quotes above, please let me know if those are a single assertion or separate. I'll also ask you to come with more than a sound bite quote. Please provide source and full context. I'll also ask you to read (or listen to) the full context prior to posting. it may give you some clarity in what was actually being said.

Identity politics? Please clarify what a yes or no answer would indicate. I'll say this if it helps, the now illegal practice of affirmative action was racist policy. DEI expands that to other beneficiaries of identity politics. Some DEI goals may be achieved without changing qualifications, but often require lowering of the bar to be met. DEI policies prejudice identity over merit. Apply DEI policy to the NBA and get back to me. Thank you though for introducing me to a new phobia... DEIphobia.