Well, if you take cops off the street and tell the rest that you won’t support them, there will be consequences. If I were a citizen in a neighboring community, I would be calling my mayor/alderman and insisting that we don’t send our officers to Minneapolis to risk their lives.
Minneapolis is scrambling to draft in cops from outside the city’s force to help fight a wave of violent crime just months after it began moves to defund its police.
The city is pleading for reinforcements from the sheriff’s office and the transit authority to help respond to a surge in violent 911 calls.
It comes after dozens of officers quit the force in protest at a $1million budget cut and promises from city leaders to scrap the entire department following the death of George Floyd in May.
Since then, violent crime in the city has soared – with homicide, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft and arson all up on last year’s figures.
The proposal to fund the reinforcements – which will cost almost $500,000 – is due to be voted on by the City Council before going to the mayor approval, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reports.[…]
At the start of the year, the Minneapolis police force employed 1,053 staff – 877 of them officers and 176 civilian staff.
That number had dropped to 987 as of last month – 844 officers and 143 civilians.
In July, the city council voted to move $1.1million from the police department’s budget and fund ‘civilian violence interrupters’ instead.
The ‘well-trained and unarmed’ staff are designed to ‘mediate violent conflicts and help prevent further trouble’.
Against that backdrop, violent crime has soared.
Liberals silent on the defund the police movement causing this!
Just more evidence that liberalism is a mental illness.
Still waiting for Nord’s righteous support of law enforcement on this one….crickets.
At least choke out a …”my liberal buddies in Minneapolis were wrong to defund and demorilize the police here.”
k:
Your authoritarian panties are on too tight and cutting off blood flow to your brain. I have espoused my support for law enforcement many times here. Once again your selective memory kicks in.
BTW: I don’t have any buddies in Minneapolis, liberal, or otherwise. You are wrong again.
Nord,
So you denounce these Minneapolis officials for destroying police and police protection?
Prove it, sociopath. I don’t recall you supporting the police.
Show us the quote. Show us the link.
Kevin, I think everyone here would be happier if you never used questions that include “do/so/will you denounce…” on this blog ever again. It is tired, childish and meaningless anyway. I have read numerous times someone say ‘yes’ to your question and you never accept it anyway. You qualify, quantify or reword your question again and again until they stop answering you. Please stop. It has never once been a meaningful part of any comment thread.
Tuerqas,
It is a typical left wing media tactic whenever some conservative does something stupid.
Are you saying conservatives cannot use typical left wing media tactics?
Minneapolis liberals did something extremely stupid. I would like to know if average liberals, like Nord, stand with the stupid or denounce the stupid. Nord tends to be silent against the stupid, thereby expressing his subtle support.
Do you stand with the Minneapolis officials against police?
k:
I have never, ever, encouraged or supported defunding law enforcement. Nor have I ever supported or encouraged violating any law(s). Unlike you who openly supported trump, who encouraged folks to vote twice, violence against elected officials, etc.
And I am far from silent on stupidity, as I call you out frequently. Again, you are making stuff up to prop up your ego.
Nord,
Great!
So you will join me in denouncing these heinous, liberal, Minneapolis officials?
We seem to agree, why do you resist making such a clear statement against those that openly hurt law enforecment?
Are you saying conservatives cannot use typical left wing media tactics?
No, I am saying this one is a bad tactic and question why a ‘conservative’ would want to use it.
Kevin, on this blog you are the one that uses this ‘tactic’. I do not see this as a ‘liberal’ tactic here. Here it is a Schuenemann tactic and you can continue to waste commenter space or not as you choose, I cannot force you. However, it is not in any way at all productive and no liberal is using this tactic here. So by using it yourself with little evidence of use of the quite stupid line of commentary by the local liberals you are, in effect, the only one here who seems to think it is good. So all you are saying here is that you think the ‘typical left wing media’ does it right and is a good and beneficial institution.
Let’s try it this way: Q1) Do you denounce the left wing media for using this tactic of asking for denouncements? If not, why are you disparaging the left wing media? Q2) If so, do you denounce yourself for using it so constantly?
Does that help show my point just a little? If not, I expect answers to the above two questions.
And yet the sociopath supports terrorist groups like Black Lives Matters and Antifa.
Just shows what a hypocrite the fool is.
mar:
Could you provide the quote, in context, where I said that? Betcha can’t. You are soooo predictable.
Tuerqas
1.) No, I do not denounce it because I have a good sense of right and wrong. I was not disparaging, just indicating their primary playbook….you seem to have a problem with it.
2.) no, I do not denounce myself. I just want to see if people are serious about supporting law enforcement.
When someone,like Nord cannot utter a peep against these awful liberal politicians in Minnespolis destroying law enforcement…they are NOT serious in supporting law enforcement.
Moral cowardice is the #1 problem in our society.
Nord,
Great! 2nd Request.
So you will join me in denouncing these heinous, liberal, Minneapolis officials?
We seem to agree, why do you resist making such a clear statement against those that openly hurt law enforecment?
k:
You are limited to one request per decade to me, unless you pay a small fee (cash only), forgo ever making false and hyperbolic comments ever again, denounce trump and his enablers, and apologize for all the insults, names, slurs, and downright lies you have hurled at me.
And in case you forgot, you haven’t earned any right to make demands of me.
Nord,
So you will not openly support law enforcement in this case?
Disappointing….and awful.
I cannot you idiot because you have have never called them out by name.
You support those racists and terrorists and if you don’t, for once, use their name in a sentence and say you disown.
What an idiot.
Yes mar, you certainly are. You can’t prove anything you claim, yet blame others. Another epic fail by the master!
k:
I already did. See above.
Not specifically in this case.
I asked for your agreement with my statement that these specific liberal officials were awful and anti-police.
You did not say that.
So, the sociopath refuses to call out the terrorist and racist Antifa and BLM.
Not surprising since they are racist hate groups and the sociopath is a racist hater.
Not surprising at all.
Sorry k, but you haven’t complied with the terms (above). Until you do there is no recourse for you but to sue. It looks Like rudy g. will be looking for a new gig soon, try him.
mar:
As I have told you numerous times in the past, I don’t hate anyone, not even you. But most rational folks would agree that you deserve some sort of repudiation, but that will come 1-20-2020. Enjoy.
indeed, the little racist boy, sociopath, supports racists and haters and then lies about it.
Shocking, I know.
Nord,
Then you cannot be pro police, when you refuse to call out liberal, anti-police politicians specifically warring on police you claim to love.
That is moral cowardice.
Nord,
You are going to stand by and say nothing against these heinous, liberal politicians, while the officers, you claim to support, cry for help?
https://www.dailywire.com/news/our-city-is-bleeding-minneapolis-police-chief-pleads-for-outside-help-amid-hemorrhaging-police-force
k:
I don’t have to be proving anything to you (or anyone else) on this blog. I am pro police and law enforcement, by words, by actions, by philosophy, and have been all my life. Your beliefs to the contrary mean nothing to me, as you are just a petulant and immature , small-thinking minor distraction in the scheme of life. My recommendation – grow up, grow a pair.
>I don’t have to be proving anything to you (or anyone else) on this blog.
We already know this, you never do prove anything here.
Nord,
Great!
Then join me in saying these liberal politicians are awful, an enemy of policing, and an enemy of law and order.
Should not be hard for a “pro-police” guy like you….
Why is it so hard, if you are being honest about being pro-law enforcement?
Good point Jason.
Isn’t Nord always the one screaming for “proof” from others?
Here, the “proof” for him to demonstrate is honestly on being “pro law enforcement” is so easy.
I guess he fails to live by his own standards. Very disappointing.
>Here, the “proof” for him to demonstrate is honestly on being “pro law enforcement” is so easy.
Actually, I’m with Tuerqas on this one… your constant nagging about denouncements is annoying and pedantic. You’re both, you and Leroy, failing to live by your individual standards as far as I am concerned.
Kevin, so just to be clear, you are saying that the Dem playbook is right and you believe this because you have a good sense of right and wrong. Got it. If you think it is a good strategy and attribute getting it from Dems without hypocrisy, I guess you should go ahead and use it to your heart’s content(though I still think it has gotten zero good commentary, I see your name and the word denounce in your comment and ignore it, along with all of the “K” responses it elicits). I just didn’t think you had ever attributed anything good to Dems, certainly not their ‘playbook’ so I did not think that was the case(most conservatives do have a problem with ‘the Dem playbook’). I thought it was more that you thought ‘Dems are using mob logic so I will too’. That is the common conservative consensus on forcing admissions in my opinion, but you can certainly be you.
Personally, I disagree. First, lack of morals in the first place is the way I would put it and I would add lack of critical thinking skills. In this case, people are taught a moral set by rote (from church, parents, peers and schools), rather than given any instruction on how to come to a conclusion concerning each moral and the ability to decide for themselves where they stand on it. Second, I would call ignorance the #1 problem in our society.
T:
I agree, ignorance is #1, closely followed by reliance on ideology (be it religion, politics, etc) to solve all the world’s problems. In my opinion #3 is lack of curiosity, as it applies to #2.
Jason,
So asking someone, who claims to be pro-law enforcement, to indicate these liberal politicians are wrong for attacking police is a problem?
It gets to the heart of the issue. We have a lot of people claiming to be pro-police, but will not lift somuch as a finger to criticize awful liberalpoliticians attacking police.
I will stand “guilty as charged” if my challenge on this is annoying.
Tuerqas,
So are you saying you will never denounce anything? All evil action, like the politicians in Minneapolis, must be embraced,or stay silent?
>So asking someone, who claims to be pro-law enforcement, to indicate these liberal politicians are wrong for attacking police is a problem?
Asking it once, generally, I feel is tolerable. Asking it daily with every new story, is childish. You are doing it with every new story that comes out. Grow up.
Pretty much ditto to Jason’s comment for me. Your constant calling for denouncements has a couple of major flaws inconsistent with your conclusions, imo.
You speaking out against the attacks on the Minneapolis police dept is fine. (I could argue semantics on what good that does on a blog versus ‘staying silent’, but let’s forego that kettle of fish). You are not staying silent, great. You demanding other people to join you or be an awful person is the disconnect, and what is bad. What if you are wrong on something or are only acknowledging one point of view? The ‘dem playbook tactic’ as generally understood, uses it most commonly to attack people that they don’t think are being politically correct on an issue. It encourages, nay forces a mob mentality on any given topic. ‘You believe exactly as we do or you are bad!’ That is why my sense of right and wrong, calls the tactic wrong. Yours tells you it is right and on that we will probably continue to disagree for obvious reasons, imo. You have been trying to force your opinion on others exactly like liberals have been doing for decades, by saying that either they denounce or they are not only wrong but often, in your terms, evil, awful, deplorable, etc. You are no different than the liberal PC crowd. You would be one of the people carrying extra rope in a lynch mob, having judged the situation from your personal color of glasses and called it right, regardless of whether you have all of the facts.
So to directly answer your question above: I will denounce all the time. I doubt you could find more than a very few acts of State or National Government with which I approve and won’t denounce at least several aspects of, and I’ll tell you all about them in detail BUT. I would never say to you: “And if you don’t denounce all those aspects too, you are awful.”
Forcing agreement is a Fascist ideal and I don’t hold to it. Currently, you do.
Tuerqas,
Like it or not, that is state of politics today.
This is no great revelation, except for the fact I use it against liberal causes.
I find it fascinating Nord refuses to denounce these monstrous liberal minneapolis politicians attacking and destroying police.
Jason,
I do it with law enforcement issues with Nord, and any really heinously evil liberal position we should be all unified against.
It is not every issue.
First, why? You have rarely if ever denounced a religious institution. Dad29 does not constantly denounce the Catholic church for its abuse allegations or how the church handled them and would certainly not appreciate constantly being asked to.
Second, Nord has many (or at least several) times denounced specific acts which you have called for, yet you don’t let up. According to you, he has to say it again and again.
Can you give me a couple of examples of threads where there was a post concerning a ‘liberal issue’ that you commented significantly, but did not include calls for denouncements? “Every” is rarely the case for anything, but I would say 90% or more. Just give me the post title and approximate date, and I will go back and find it myself. Maybe you have interesting commentary.
As I said before, you can continue this constant line of questioning, but I am surprised anyone answers that question from you at all anymore, despite your incessant continuing comments like “crickets’ or “Still waiting” (though I suspect I know why they do). I know I would never bother. That constant line of questioning is beneath my contempt, unworthy of being noticed. Use it once a month or so on less obvious topics and it may have a lot more impact. But thanks for listening and having a decent back and forth on it.
Tuerqas, with Le Roi, the sociopath, he will claim many things and lies about most things.
He might say he denounces violent crime but he refuses to say that groups like Antifa and BLM are bad. He refuses to call them by name, thus the hypocrisy.
He refuses to say anything bad about liberals.
Thus, I think it is fair game to go after him.
>He refuses to call them by name, thus the hypocrisy.
>He refuses to say anything bad about liberals.
He is a liberal, it’s settled science, there’s no guessing. He’s admitted he is one. Any attempts to further prove it are a waste of time.
No offense, you may be a teensy bit biased when it comes to Le Roi:). Personally, I don’t think the majority of BLM ‘members’ are bad either, except in the sense that they are willing to turn a blind eye to what others do under the same aegis. So if someone were to try and force me to denounce a specific nasty act, I would. However, try and force me to say that the group of people associated with BLM are bad, I would not. If the only manner in which the query were addressed was a blanket question telling me to denounce the entire BLM, I would ignore it once or twice and then get somewhat nasty in a reply if it gets incessant to where the thread is being hi-jacked or turned turned down that rabbit-hole. For the record, I don’t think Le Roi is a pathological liar at all, rather I would agree that he relies on news sources with specific agendas and so his facts are colored, to say it politely. And so most every conservative will do the same thing. I used to be able to read articles with both slants and sift for the truth pretty accurately. Today you can’t do that anymore. Each side uses a completely different set of fact manipulations so there is rarely even a small amount of content that agrees. You can call him a liar all you want and under the same rule set, he can say the same thing about you and you would both completely right. Using liberal media ‘facts’ you are lying and he is right all of the time. and vice-versa.
LOL!
“He is a liberal, it’s settled science, there’s no guessing. He’s admitted he is one.”
Not so. As I have explained several times, I have voted for folks in both parties, and still do, was raised in a hard core Eisenhower R family. Heck, I even voted for Nixon, Ford, Bush I. I started trending more centrist with Reagan and his outright attack on established bi-partisan environmental policy. Remember Watt and Gorsuch (yup, SC Justice Gorsuch’s mom)? And then there was Iran-Contra. Couldn’t stomach that.
So call me a liberal if you want, but that doesn’t make it true.
Tueqas,
Have you met Nord? He constantly is upset by my crticism of Pope, Roman Catholic church. He constantly misconstrues my criticism as well.
I constantly criticize church bodies for godlessly rejecting literal 7 day Creation, the Gospel, embracing baby killing, rejecting marriage under God’s design, etc!
I especially criticize Islam.
Where do you get this absurd notion that I do not criticize religious institutions?
Make an argument with facts next time.
Why don’t we stop with moral cowardice?
Those that support politicians that defund police hate everything that is good and right. Silence against those politicians is just as bad, morally.
“However, try and force me to say that the group of people associated with BLM are bad, I would not.”
So which people associated with BLM are good people?
The rioters and looters?
The people who assault innocent bystanders? And cops?
Those who want to turn the US into a communist country?
Those who don’t give a crap about the killings in inner cities?
Those who go to private homes and scream, yell, cuss and threaten?
Those who hate cops and want them dead?
Or those who say they support BLM because they want to be the cool kids?
So, which of these parts of BLM are the good guys?
k:
I don’t think I have met anyone here on B&S, including you. So quit propping yourself up with falsehoods. Were I to meet any of the frequents guests, I might enjoy a beer with a couple, but for the most part would stay away from most. I have higher standards for truthiness than they exhibit.
“I have higher standards for truthiness than they exhibit.”
Bahahahahaha.
Sociopath wins the funniest post of the short week so far
Well, I admit, it is a low bar, but you will never clear it, mar.
Do you ever tell the truth, sociopath? Serious question.
When was the last time you told the truth?
And find 1 out right lie I have said. Not mistakes but out right lies
Go ahead. I’ll wait.
Hey, little fella, it is my bar, I set the height. And you will never, ever, clear it. No lie there, just a fact.
So, you got nothing but another lie.
How pathetic.
Mar
None of those, but you missed a few groups. The hundreds of thousands of marchers nationwide that did none of those things.
The people who do recognize that there are inequalities against people of color and want to do something, but see this support as the only thing they can do.
People with empathy towards the people of color who have done no crime, but are treated as if they have by most every cop everywhere at all times and many shop owners as well. The idea behind the BLM movement has merit, the problem is that it has been politicized and Democratic officials actually benefit from escalations to rioting and looting so they pay their organizers to encourage it.
Le Roi
Sorry, the joke was in the ‘settled science’ and ‘no guessing’ to me. It does seem like every issue that has been brought up here has had you on the liberal side of it. The iron mining topic that came up recently was a good example. You have to have read and believed only the liberal ‘facts’ to have been against the mining project. The only really true Dem fact was that Walker would have picked up votes if he had gotten the mining reforms done in time and WI picked up the business. You have voted for both sides, but on what topic(s) would you consider yourself a conservative?
Kevin
Certainly I should have clarified “Christian institution” and as you say you will criticize other sects. Ever criticize your own church and the people in it? I was also speaking about recently, as in the last 6 months or so, and I find very little commentary that does not have either ‘liberals are awful’ or ‘denounce’ in it. So, apologies for not using ‘Christian’ and accidentally trying to fit ALL instead of just most commentary into those two categories.
Quick question, I assume you believe God made the entire universe. God created ‘light’ which I assume we both believe means all the suns in the universe, if that is ‘non-factual’ please correct me again. So God made every light in the universe on Day one, but he used the rotation of a single planet in the universe that had not even been created yet to measure how long it took him? It just makes a lot more sense to me that God let his prophets use terms that were understood by the eventual followers, rather than explaining unexplainable terms back then.
I have no idea what you meant by “Why don’t we stop with moral cowardice?” Was that directed in a specific direction?
Lastly, there are alternatives to police departments, I think we probably both agree that none of them seem like workable solutions, but I would not condemn a city for attempting them. I would condemn a political party for pretending to offer usable alternatives when they have no intention of following through and are just reducing police funding to encourage politically helpful rioting in order to gain political seats.
Tuerqas,
When it comes to Genesis, God created the heavens and earth before light. The earth was also created, but was “formless”, not even the sky was separated from the sea at this point. (If you read further in Genesis 1)
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said,“Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good,and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God calledthe light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
Why would I criticize my church body openly? If there is hearesy being preached, which is rare, I correct it with the person. Why would you even belong to a church body that runs counter to truth of the Gospel?
In the case of Minneapolis, alternatives to police means much higher violent crime. that is what the article above is callling alarm to! If you side with those alternatives instead of good policing, you essentially are siding with violent criminal evil. It is wrong to leave innocents at the mercy of criminal evil because of some sick leftist agenda that thinks all police are inherently evil or racist. That makes you part of the enabling of evil.
Nord,
That comment was somewhat sarcastic meaning “have you ever read anything written by you”?
You constantly parsing my criticisms of religions leaders and institutions. So it made sense to hold you out as evidence that I do criticize religious leaders and institutions fairly vigorously at times. Just holding you out as fact witness to the non-truth Tuearqas put out that I never criticize religious institutions.
T:
I guess we can agree to disagree on the G-Tac project. In my opinion at the time, and later when the applicant withdrew the proposal, was that there were too many environmental issues (mainly with the feds and Native Americans), and the deposit was of such low grade ore as to make it economically infeasible to extract, especially in light of existing operations in MN were closing at the time due to depressed prices. The deposit is still there, and won’t be going anywhere, so maybe some one will resurrect the project in the future.
As far as me taking the “liberal side”, I don’t don’t agree with that, either. Everybody to the left of Genghis Khan is labeled a “liberal” on this site, and I guess I qualify in that regard, but I am fiscal conservative, own guns (and use them), support law enforcement and following the laws ( the motto where I worked was “Firm, Fair, and Consistent Enforcement”), and I know the difference between a marxist and a fascist. I don’t tolerate BS, exaggeration, or self-promoting zealots very well, and will call it out when I see/hear it.
So call me a “Wise Use Conservative”, or as we were taught almost 50 years ago, a Leopold-White Conservative. Use your natural, fiscal, and personal resources wisely, and we will all be better off.
You are so full of crap sociopath, it’s coming out of the top of your head.
Nord,
A “Leopold-White Conservative” would chastise Minneapolis politicians for their liberal foolishness on their open disdain for law enforcement. will you do that? Or are you just pretending to be something you are not?
Sorry Kevin, but that works out worse than they other way around. God called the first two 24 hour periods of earth’s rotation around the sun before he made the sun?
Why indeed? And yet you expect all liberals (and even partial liberals) to criticize the actions of their party in front of you rather than their party. You keep any dirty laundry of yours hidden and expect them to air theirs to everyone. See, that is a classic definition of hypocrisy, practice it in peace.
I’d go along with that characterization from what I have read. You have not talked against guns and have noted you own them, you did criticize Minneapolis before regardless of what Kevin keeps saying and you have pointed out the true definitions of Marxism and Fascism when others misuse them.
Fiscal conservatism is the most important conservatism in regards to how it is applied to Government, in my opinion. Do you believe the Government should run even more of our health, the greatest single expense already? In 2019 we spent 718 billion on defense an expense I agree with, though it could be reduced considerably, and 1.2 trillion on health. If you rolled in the income losses due to forced shut downs and the money given out to help cover those losses, I can’t even imagine that did not triple in 2020. I thought that overall, you have sided with shutdowns and the idea that Government should run our healthcare, in the past.
Not following your issue on Genesis.
Are you implying sun was not created the first day?
If you read further into your bible, you will learn human reason is so corrupt, so depraved, that any attempt to rationalize the divine, you will fall short.
I’ll bite. What should I be criticizing about my church body?
Last I checked, it does not embrace baby killing, hate on cops, or endorse overt evil like Minneapolis politicians. If you demand I criticize those embracing Godly things the same as those openly embracing evil, you are lost.
And yet you trust that the entire concept of creation fits into the understanding of an ancient prophet simplified to seven 24 hour periods? Creation seems a little more complicated than that. I think I am the one who believes that the divine is so far beyond even modern conception that it is ludicrous to think God didn’t simply put things into terms an ancient could comprehend. I am not the one falling short here, in my opinion. It is a relatively small group of Christians that insist on the Bible as perfect truth for their faith to make sense. God created us and gave us free will so that our paths were not pre-ordained. Why is it un-fathomable that he did the same for the universe? All stars, meteors, global killer asteroids are pre-ordained? Everything is pre-destined except the will of humans?
I am sure I do not know, that wasn’t the point. The point was that you would and should not criticize them in public. If some scandal ever arose from your church, I would not expect you to give out private details or commentary or denouncements to this blog. You expect others to do those same things on topics they have differing opinions on, though. That is the point. You just might try accepting that others have valid reasons for reticence too. No one on this blog knows enough details of the Minneapolis police force enough to have a truly valid opinion. I personally think it was all a political maneuver and that portion is certainly denouncible. However, I did watch an MPD officer kill someone on-line with other MPDs defending him. Something does need to be done, in my opinion and it should be to the detriment of the MPD, in the sense that it would be ‘for their own good’. I do NOT support the MPD killing people at will and neither should you, Christian. Demonstrations should have been held against the MPD with demands for some kind of change and Christians should have supported that. And we could all have done that without supporting the police defunding that resulted.
Do unto others has pretty much been my point all along on the original issue. You are using an old political tactic (it has not always been just out of the ‘Dem playbook’) on people who are not using it on you. I will use a disagreeable tactic on one who is trying to use it on me. I don’t use it first or pre-emptively for multiple reasons, disingenuous, forcing thoughts on others, distasteful shuts down conversations rather than building on them, etc. You said the tactic was not disagreeable to you and that Dems are being good and fair when they use it so I said ‘go ahead’ a while ago. Not sure why you are keeping it alive if you think forcing others to agree with you is fine. To me that is precisely what the PC movement does to control thought and I believed you were anti-PC. Am I putting words in your mouth again?
Btw, I notice no denouncement demands in your commentary over the last few days. Thank you very much!
Tuerqas
As far as your first thought, one needs to answer 2 questions.
1.) is Jesus your Savior from sin?
2.) Is the bible the inerrant Word of God?
I need to know if you are an unbeliever needing to be evangelized, or a believer needing to be corrected under Matthew 18.
As far as second point, this thread was about awful, liberal anti-cop politicians in Minneapolis and their enablers of the evil. It was not about my church body. It is absurd to demand I denounce some ficticious thing/issue that neither exists or was part of the article. That demand makes you indecent.
Why can’t you just say these liberal politicians are acting badly. If you cannot say these politicians are acting badly, why would you be able to criticize any smaller acts of overt evil in others?
………and as it turned out, a Minneapolis cop did NOT kill Jacob. He killed himself with a Fentanyl overdose, as the M.E. up there reported.
There are bad cops, bad politicians, bad mechanics, bad priests, bad women, ………how far should we take it? Original Sin has its effects on mankind.
But evil does not permeate every single soul at all times in all places.
Except, maybe, Democrats in D.C.
Yes, Jesus is my personal Savior.
The Bible is a perfect tool to find God if you are looking for him. I have also seen it used ‘factually’ as a tool to lose God. It is what you bring to the table that makes the Bible perfect, not each word. If each word written in a Bible were 100% factual, every single one of the perfect truth believers like yourself would have to have the same Bible as different versions have been interpreted differently enough to have entirely different meanings in certain passages. To teach, Jesus uses fables in the NT and the OT uses metaphors. These are not perfectly true stories, they are stories meant to clarify understanding, to teach about the word of God. Different interpretations of the same passages that both lead to a better understanding of the love of the Trinity are the measure of its perfection.
The second point was meant to help show you how demanding denunciations was wrong, it never had a single tiny thing to do with you actually criticizing your church NOR DID I EVER ASK YOU TO. It was a story meant to teach.
Why can’t you read? I did say the liberal politicians are acting badly, multiple times. So has Le Roi. Just like above, you refuse to either read the words or to understand them, again and again. I honestly don’t know which.
Aarrrrghhhh……….did not kill FLOYD. Jacob wasn’t there.
Dad29, I could go along with blaming the people who trained Minneapolis police in the maximum restraint knee job, but I have not seen any factual reports that he overdosed. The ME noted he had (prescribed) drugs in his system and that the Fentanyl level in his system was high, but Baker still ruled it a homicide and that report has not changed. Maybe it was a factor in why the MR technique killed him, but Baker concluded that death was cause by the below.
That was Baker’s conclusion. It is truly foolhardy, in my opinion, to defend the cop’s actions when there was a cruiser right there. Throw him in the back seat with restraints. But that cop did not seem scared and he definitely was not concerned about the safety of others. In fact, they threatened others in the gathering crowd with similar violence while killing Floyd.
My burning question on the rest of your comment is: Why on earth would you stop at just the Democratic politicians in DC? Oh, I get it, ‘every single’ may only apply to DC…Okay that makes sense:).
Tuerqas,
So are you denying literal 7 day Creation?
If so, you reject Genesis 3 as a “fable”?
Tuerqas,
You denounced these Minneapolis politicans for lacking mercy toward the innocent by warrring on police? I think you spent more time denouncing me for calling out the evil of these liberal politicians….curious, don’t you think?
k:
Can you describe what a “Leopold-White Conservative” is, in your own words? I don’t think you have a clue, so prove me wrong. Here is a great chance for you. I look forward to your response.
Nord
Someone who claims to support law enforcement, but then suffers from moral cowardice when asked to specifically oppose putrid, liberal, cop hating politicians?
Do I think it is possible, as in could God do it? I think he could. Do I think it happened that way? No. I think God never put more into the head of a Prophet than they or His people could comprehend. Creating a universe from a central point and letting it build on its own where Earth is just one small speck in a single Galaxy of hundreds of thousands of stars, with millions of planets of their own and there are thousands of Galaxies each with their millions of planets might have been a bit more than the Genesis writer could take in. Imagine if God had told ancient man about billions of planets. Should He have told them exactly how many were habitable, or should He have told them that in all creation, he made life on just one of billions (at least) of planets? I could imagine what kind of mania and cult action there would be in the world even if God just revealed that today. No, I don’t pretend to know God’s motives, but if History and science fiction agree on one thing, giving knowledge to people before they are ready is almost always a bad thing.
Most Christians including yourself (and I) love to say how God works in mysterious ways and that we cannot comprehend all (or any) of his designs, yet you believe God made the universe in 6 easy 24 hour periods and that there is no mystery to it at all. We don’t even have to agree to disagree, but you won’t pull me into the Belief that God is so simple with respect to Creation.
Not at all, the Minneapolis politicians didn’t talk back. I wouldn’t have spent more than one comment on you if you had said something like, ‘Yeah, calling for denouncements hasn’t really been fruitful, but I’ll still use it when a liberal uses it first. High ground and all.’ If a liberal politician joined this blog, I would be in the forefront burying him/her.
Meant to say: If a liberal politician from Minneapolis joined this blog, I would be in the forefront burying him/her. I have no idea if there are currently any liberal politicians on this blog. If there is, I wasn’t referring to you there unless you represent Minneapolis:).
Tuerqas,
So you are rejecting Genesis 3 and the problem of sin entering Creation?
Careful answering this one, because if you reject the foundation of literal 7 day Creation and problem of sin entering the world in Genesis 3…why would you need Christ as your Savior from sin? In that case, I would have to ask you again, is Jesus REALLY your Savior and redeemer from sin? (At that point, if you reject the problem of sin from Genesis 3 and after, you are rejecting the basic need for Jesus to be your Savior.)
This is what happens when you reject biblical inerrancy. .
What does Genesis 3 have to do with the 7 days of creation again? I see no relation and have not commented on it to this point. Isn’t Genesis 1 and 2 about creation? So, new topic? ‘kay.
Do I think Genesis 3 is literal history? I don’t know, Genesis 3:14 says
I don’t think we have lived and proliferated eating dust all of our lives as we have ever defined it so yes, I would say there is metaphor used in Genesis 3. However, the meaning is pretty clear, that we are flawed and born sinful. That, in my opinion, was the takeaway from Genesis 3. The lessons in the Bible are perfect if you wish to find God. Much of the wording, however, is simplified or metaphorical.
How do you interpret ‘eating nothing but dust’ to be literal truth? The obvious to me is that God is saying that ‘in comparison to food in Eden’ you shall be eating dust, but clearly it is metaphorical. “Dust” is not our food.
TUERQAS,
Sin entered the world through Adam and Eve, if you accept that you have to accept bible as literal on the point.
Do you accept bible as literal on that point?
This is the correct quotation of Genesis 3:19 on God’s punishment for sin:
By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”
What are you reading?
Kevin, do you think I believe the whole Bible is metaphor? I don’t. I fully believe man was created by the Christian God I believe in, not evolved.
I said passage 3:14 not 3:19. You can’t just pop to a different verse for a different/better understanding (I can). Every word is 100% factual, remember?
The correct quote of Genesis 3:14, which you did not specify originally, is:
14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.”
This passage refers to ther serpant,(Satan), not man. God is indicating punishment for sin, starting with serpant in verse 14 and then going on to Adam and Eve later in Chapter.
Would you like to come to a bible study?
Simple misunderstanding aside, it seems you are embracing a literal/inerrant Genesis 3. Why does a sinner, fallen from grace, like ourselves, get to pick and choose which parts of bible are inerrant?
That selective, depraved, flawed human reason in rejecting biblical inerrancy is as dangerous as unbelief to our souls.
I hope you get back to embracing biblical inerrancy.
Nope, you are right on who God was talking to, but I am pretty sure Serpents don’t eat dust either. So please answer the question of how serpents literally eat dust and if you can, I will try and make it to a bible study.
You have changed words I will note. ‘Inerrancy’ has some room for metaphor. A metaphor is not fact but can teach a true lesson. Are you backing off on the Bible being 100% literal truth? Because then you have joined me and that is great. The Bible teaches perfect truth, I go by that.
Tuerqas,
You went from man eating dust in your first response (which is why I thought you were rerally talking verse 19)….I then corrected you that the verse 14 passage applied to the serpant only.
Now you want to talk about the serpant eating dust? (which is more of a metaphor to indicate Satan’s cursed position in Creation.)
We need to get clear on your standard for ignoring biblical instruction. I indicated “literal Creation”, I did not say everything in bible was literal.
Is the bible the inerrant Word of God, or not? You seen to dodge the question.
I guess this explains why you are against simple moral clarity, like asking others if supporting police in their job against violent criminal evil is important.
Meanwhile, I guess the rest of are going to hell….
Mar,
Is Jesus your redeemer from sin?
Yes and I will say this: there is no perfect religion, Christian or otherwise.
k:
Wrong again, and you doubled-down with a great job of contradicting yourself. BRAVO !
Mar,
Then it should not be a problem to embrace inerrancy of the bible.
Nord,
I’ll bite. What contradiction?
I am in no position to argue religion.
I respect your religous beliefs,Kevin, and Tuerqas’s and most religions, even if they are not Christian.
I think there is a loving God who judges a person by their character and how they lived their lives, not necessarily if they have an absolute belief in the Christian God..
But that’s just me.
Mar,
That is not Christianity.
We are not saved by our works, but by faith in Christ. It is not of ourselves, it is a gift of God.
If we rely on our good works and merit for salvation, we are without Christ. Rejecting Christ is the ultimate sin that dooms our soul, not whether we are a good (or bad) person.
No one is innocent before the throne of God without Christ….even if you lived the life of Mother Theresa in practice.
Here, again, we need to put these false Gospels to death because they harm souls in eternity. That requires open moral judgement to say the false Gospel is evil, like the open cop hating politicians in Minneapolis are evil.
Why is it such a challenge to have simple moral clarity in our society? Especially among admitted “Christians”?
Faith, yes. Works, yes. But not ‘by works’ without faith, and not ‘by faith alone.’ The usual exceptions apply.
I would find it hard to believe a loving God would exclude billions and billions of souls from heaven if they did not have the Christian faith.
Just saying.
Maybe that is the tiniest piece of liberalism I have.
Mar,
That is where depraved human reason leads people astray.
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
That’s why it is even more insidiuous that this concept of universalism, “many roads to heaven”, and denial of absolute truth is all the more tragic. Jesus is the only way, human merit is irrelevant.
Think of it this way, God invites you in with his free gift of salvation as his guest through Christ. Your rejection of the specific invitation is on you when you think some other invitation to anywhere but heaven through Christ is better.
It is an unfortunate reality that our natural, corrupted human reason thinks that is unfair…but it is merely a sign of how corrupted, wicked, our human reason really is in relation to the divine.
k:
If you can’t find it on your own, then you probably wouldn’t pay any attention to me pointing it out for you.
You still didn’t answer. Can’t, won’t?
Nord,
Since there is no contradiction, except the fiction in your mind…I’m not wasting any time on your unicorns.
And you still didn’t answer the question.
Nord,
What question?
LeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeRoy, HQC is not “debunked.” You refer to studies run in the NEJM and Lancet.
Sadly, both those studies were withdrawn for blatant falsification of the data.
Thought you’d like to keep up with real news, instead of CNN.
You’re welcome.
k:
Don’t fake illiteracy, you always have bragged about your superior intellect.
dud:
So, provide the retractions.
And the sociopath loses again.
And obviously doesn’t read the news, which explains his ignorance.
No Mar, he reads the “news”. He’s shared it here before, complete with the Facebook tracking in his links. He thinks Facebook is a great news source.
Nord,
Maybe you should share the fiction you are talking about. So we can all be amused.
Besides, you should never lecture anyone about failing to answer questions when you cannot answer the basic question to your covenant of “proof” when it comes to: “Where did all the material leading up to the Big Bang come from?”
You have, laughably, failed to answer that question time and again.
If you have a question, you should articulate it first? I’ll decide whether it is worth my time.
So k, rather than answer the question (you know, sentences that end with ?), you make up a bunch of other nonsense. I’ll assume you can’t answer.
>So k, rather than answer the question (you know, sentences that end with ?), you make up a bunch of other nonsense. I’ll assume you can’t answer.
Hahaha, our northern hick is showing just how stupid he is. Leroy, he answered your ignorant question. Keep questioning other people’s ability to comprehend, it shows how stupid you are.
“So, which of these parts of BLM are the good guys?
None of those, but you missed a few groups. The hundreds of thousands of marchers nationwide that did none of those things.”
Those people do not belong to BLM, the organization
Nord,
I asked “what question?”
You failed to answer that.
Please stop holding others to standards you openly fail to hold yourself to.
The sociopath asks: “k:
Can you describe what a “Leopold-White Conservative” is, in your own words?”
I highly doubt that the sociopath
even knows what it is since nothing is listed under that title in Google.
Must be another illusion/delusion in his feeble little mind.
Mar,
I did answer that question.
Nord just hates the answer.
Well, according to numerous search engines, the sociopath believes in conservation and white supremacy.
Kind of figured.
Kevin
Well, you have before and so has my Pastor. So great, you and I agree on that now. Now can you answer how anyone is supposed to decide unequivocally what is metaphor and what is absolute or literal truth? There are no ‘literal’ or ‘metaphor’ markings in any Bible I have looked at. Why would it be wrong for a major or minor Christian sect to believe that the creation story is another metaphor? God created the universe. That is what early Genesis is teaching and what believers should take away from it. Why is a literal 6 day interpretation required for that part, but not for genesis 3?
You are right, I did not answer this question directly before because according to my Pastor, the statement: “The Bible is the inerrant Word of God” directly means that all of the Bible is 100% factual so I would be inconsistent to make that statement while not believing that the entire book is 100% factual. I do not believe that. If your church accepts that as well, it may very well be worth coming to, but I think you should ask that question of your religious leader because accepting that then opens up the Pandora’s box of “What is passage literal and what is not.” Most churches don’t allow that can of worms to be opened. It is the meanings in the bible that is the inerrant word of God, in my opinion, and that allows for each person to have slightly different opinions on what is literal and what is metaphorical and what they mean. For instance, we both believe that God created the universe, you think he did it in 6 days, I think He created it and put it all in motion, and our blink of an eye existence (to date) is just one mote in His eye of very many. On that topic our final belief is the same really, just the details differ.
6 day creation, 6,000 year old earth is really just a political invention to be an answer to Darwinism and I can see the reasons why, (one was a failed attempt to keep God in schools to some degree, for instance) but it shut belief in God into a tight corner so in the end I believe it is a dis-service Christianity. People believing in a God that also matches scientific knowledge, is not a bad thing in His eyes and the only way for Christians to ‘disprove’ that is to put forth the belief that the Bible is 100% factual. The only way for you to condemn me in my faith is if you have some way to prove or some basis for absolute faith in the idea that 6 days of creation was literal, while other parts of the Bible are not. Who made those decisions? God didn’t say ‘take my word for this, but you can call that part metaphor’ Prophets didn’t make those claims. Other people, imperfect people, Kings with imperfect agendas did it, not God. God’s ways are way mysterious, the making of the universe should be heartily recognized as one of those mysteries.
Why/how do you accept that 6 day creation is factual, but that other biblical passages are not?
T,
Taking first item separately. I cannot improve on what my church body says on topic of biblical intepretation:
“The goal of biblical interpretation is to understand the words in the way the author intended. Allow me to distinguish among and explain several terms of biblical interpretation. When we accept at face value the ordinary meanings of words, we are following a literal interpretation. When figures of speech or genre make it clear that the author is using figurative or symbolic language, we interpret figuratively. If we disregard figures of speech and genre and interpret literally, we are interpreting literalistically—and that is wrong.
We confess this in This We Believe: “We believe and accept the Bible on its own terms, accepting as factual history what it presents as history and recognizing as figurative speech what is evident as such. We believe that Scripture must interpret Scripture, clear passages throwing light on those less easily understood. We believe that no authority–whether it is human reason, science, or scholarship–may stand in judgment over Scripture. Sound scholarship will faithfully search out the true meaning of Scripture without presuming to pass judgment on it.”
t,
On your second item. Do you believe Genesis 3 literally happened (as a historical event)?
That is an interesting work around, and I have seen it before, didn’t know you used it.
I have always thought it was kind of a crock, in the sense that regardless of how it is worded, exactly what to ‘take as fact and what to take as metaphor’ is still just an accepted interpretation of WELS and only WELS while other sects may interpret them differently. Also what to interpret as ‘scripture proving scripture’ is by WELS (and whether they want to word it this way or not the writers of WELS are indeed standing judgment over scripture interpretation if they are stating that, for example, the universe was certainly created in six 24 hour periods). We had a Baptist Pastor growing up that argued that a ‘day’ for God may well be a millenium or even a billion years to us, we can’t comprehend any of His ways. I took that to heart. Being everywhere and everywhen at once might just make God wax metaphorical when it comes to time measurements that we had no conception of.
As for the second comment/question, No the person (me) who has been arguing against the Bible being 100% perfect truth or inerrant as I understand the word, does not believe that snakes live on dust. It is questions from you like that, (not any moral cowardice)that make me want to ask you stop asking stupid questions which had included a constant barrage of denouncement demands in the past. How can I think you have understood (or at least read) one sentence I have written when you ask that question?
T,
You keep avoiding question. Is Genesis 3 literal history?
No.
(I thought maybe if I left it to just one word you’d see it this time.)
Btw, what did you think
meant if not no?
Tuerqas,
If you reject the foundational history of the problem of sin and death entering the world in Genesis 3….what does that say about Jesus as your redeemer from sin?
(Redemption from sin, death, and the devil, is the foundational conviction of Christianity).
In other words, how much of bible can one reject before you reject what it means to be Christian?
It is not the Bible I question, it is your terminology.