2024

[youthathletics]

"Why is it congress/reps have such a low approval rating...~20% and yet a re-election rate almost the counter of that in percent."

Gerrymandered districts. They distort everything, including any semblance of democratic control of our trustees in the House.

I understand that, but I do not understand that.....

Some Q&A....
YA asks: If you are an elected democrat official in a heavily gerrymandered district and your district is heavily democratic (essentially a lock for you to win)....then, all of a sudden you see your district changing from (d) to (i) or (r)....how do you as the representative of that district handle that?

Have more moderate policies that appeal to more voters. SImple.

Or....lose. And get a new candidate that has more moderate policies that appeal to more voters.

The above is why gerrymandering is so dangerous, and why we have so many nutjobs in the House.

That is my point on why I am asking.....we are forcing their hand when they sense a loss by noticing the change in their gerrymandered base/territory, and the only way THEY change is IF we send a message for them to change and have more moderate policies....otherwise its status quo.

[NattyBohChamps04]

What I am saying is that we still have an opportunity to, without violence, reject the darkness that Biden and liberals represent.

I'd just like to comment on this because this is a point where we differ. You'll notice I changed the above names. I fully believe we are slated for just as much darkness with them. A different shade of darkness, admittedly--but darkness nonetheless.

Really. Biden represents darkness? Liberals represent darkness? Please explain fully.

Yes and yes and yes. Most to do with social issues in direct opposition to Judeo-Christian ethics. That's as fully as I'm going to explain. I'm sure you can figure it out from there.

Which is ironic because Democratic policies are much more in line with Christ's teachings than Republicans. Such as how we should treat one another, the poor, the sick, the needy, etc.

Unfortunately a Jesus' ideas are too liberal for a large chunk of America as they shift further and further right.

[Seacoaster(1)]

"Why is it congress/reps have such a low approval rating...~20% and yet a re-election rate almost the counter of that in percent."

Gerrymandered districts. They distort everything, including any semblance of democratic control of our trustees in the House.

I understand that, but I do not understand that.....

Some Q&A....
YA asks: If you are an elected democrat official in a heavily gerrymandered district and your district is heavily democratic (essentially a lock for you to win)....then, all of a sudden you see your district changing from (d) to (i) or (r)....how do you as the representative of that district handle that?

Have more moderate policies that appeal to more voters. SImple.

Or....lose. And get a new candidate that has more moderate policies that appeal to more voters.

The above is why gerrymandering is so dangerous, and why we have so many nutjobs in the House.

Yup. Beat me to it.

See also: https://redistricting.lls.edu/state/mic ... 2021-12-28

[a fan]

What I am saying is that we still have an opportunity to, without violence, reject the darkness that Biden and liberals represent.

I'd just like to comment on this because this is a point where we differ. You'll notice I changed the above names. I fully believe we are slated for just as much darkness with them. A different shade of darkness, admittedly--but darkness nonetheless.

Really. Biden represents darkness? Liberals represent darkness? Please explain fully.

Yes and yes and yes. Most to do with social issues in direct opposition to Judeo-Christian ethics. That's as fully as I'm going to explain. I'm sure you can figure it out from there.

Which is ironic because Democratic policies are much more in line with Christ's teachings than Republicans. Such as how we should treat one another, the poor, the sick, the needy, etc.

Unfortunately a Jesus' ideas are too liberal for a large chunk of America as they shift further and further right.

Wregget, I have to ask...when is it that you think America's government operated anywhere close to what's in the Talmud or Bible? I'm guessing you're not talking about the parts that endorse slavery, so what do you mean here?

We certainly have SOME features...things like sending our floating hospitals like the USNS Mercy to countries and regions that need help.

But in what world, for example, would a nation that follows J's teachings have the largest Army that the world has ever seen...and been at war almost nonstop since WWII?

Help us out here. You have to have more in mind .....

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

What I am saying is that we still have an opportunity to, without violence, reject the darkness that Biden and liberals represent.

I'd just like to comment on this because this is a point where we differ. You'll notice I changed the above names. I fully believe we are slated for just as much darkness with them. A different shade of darkness, admittedly--but darkness nonetheless.

Really. Biden represents darkness? Liberals represent darkness? Please explain fully.

Yes and yes and yes. Most to do with social issues in direct opposition to Judeo-Christian ethics. That's as fully as I'm going to explain. I'm sure you can figure it out from there.

Which is ironic because Democratic policies are much more in line with Christ's teachings than Republicans. Such as how we should treat one another, the poor, the sick, the needy, etc.

Unfortunately a Jesus' ideas are too liberal for a large chunk of America as they shift further and further right.

Judeo-Christian ethics are not comprised exclusively of Christ's teachings. They incorporate the teachings of the entire Bible. And Jesus's teachings included much more than how we should treat one another, the poor, the sick, the needy, etc. He also spoke about sexual immorality, which also falls under the heading of how we should treat one another.

Further--if you read my previous comments--I think both parties reek.

[MDlaxfan76]

What I am saying is that we still have an opportunity to, without violence, reject the darkness that Biden and liberals represent.

I'd just like to comment on this because this is a point where we differ. You'll notice I changed the above names. I fully believe we are slated for just as much darkness with them. A different shade of darkness, admittedly--but darkness nonetheless.

Really. Biden represents darkness? Liberals represent darkness? Please explain fully.

Yes and yes and yes. Most to do with social issues in direct opposition to Judeo-Christian ethics. That's as fully as I'm going to explain. I'm sure you can figure it out from there.

BTW, please don’t quote anyone falsely. If you want to “correct” someone by replacing their words with others contrary to the original intent, make that obvious and call it out as such. Some people say that’s what they are doing and bold or color the changed text. Just good forum manners.

What do you think this was?

"You'll notice I changed the above names."

See, this is why I took a long break from interacting with you. I wrote four sentences--one of which was letting you know directly, in quoting you, that I changed the names to make my point. But that's not enough of a heads up--and (*shocker*)--here comes the pedantic finger-wagging.

Welp--interacting with you was mildly interesting while it lasted.

I cut that reproof well before your response, having noticed those words after first being po’d that you had misquoted me without bolding or coloring the words.

Ok, as to your Judeo-Christian “ethics”.
I recall you waxing long and loudly on your faith views.

Dogma, not ethics, and I get it that you and millions of others believe you have the right to enforce your dogma, your religious preference on the majority who disagrees about what ethical construct they want from government. Not their own personal choices, government enforcement of the minority will.

That dogmatic view justifies authoritarian rule, because it’s so important to prevent women from controlling their own bodies and health or controlling who can be married to whom or when one can engage sexually with another consenting adult or…because “Judeo-Christian ethics”.

Freedoms preferred by the majority justify suppression by the minority.

In the name of God.

I’m Christian and was on the board of The Institute for Christian &Jewish Studies for 20 years, an organization devoted to the scholarly reading of scripture, including differing understandings of sacred text. I can assure that there are vast differences in conclusions based upon “Judeo-Christian ethics”. I helped shepherd the integration of Islam into this work, withe organization now The Institute for Islamic, Christian & Jewish Studies. Likewise, Islamic scholars represent a vast spectrum of thought when it comes to various social issues as well, applying their scholarly understanding of the core values within their faith traditions. Respecting and learning from others’ faith traditions is a core principle, including directly conflicting views.

Respecting dogmatic fundamentalists’ own views does not mean they should be able to control the majority who disagree. Not in our system.

But yeah, there are millions who disagree with our form of government, have lost faith in it, and would prefer some form of religious fascism instead. They have embraced Trump as their Savior.

Very dangerous strain of fascist belief.

[MDlaxfan76]

What I am saying is that we still have an opportunity to, without violence, reject the darkness that Biden and liberals represent.

I'd just like to comment on this because this is a point where we differ. You'll notice I changed the above names. I fully believe we are slated for just as much darkness with them. A different shade of darkness, admittedly--but darkness nonetheless.

Really. Biden represents darkness? Liberals represent darkness? Please explain fully.

Yes and yes and yes. Most to do with social issues in direct opposition to Judeo-Christian ethics. That's as fully as I'm going to explain. I'm sure you can figure it out from there.

Which is ironic because Democratic policies are much more in line with Christ's teachings than Republicans. Such as how we should treat one another, the poor, the sick, the needy, etc.

Unfortunately a Jesus' ideas are too liberal for a large chunk of America as they shift further and further right.

Wregget, I have to ask...when is it that you think America's government operated anywhere close to what's in the Talmud or Bible? I'm guessing you're not talking about the parts that endorse slavery, so what do you mean here?

We certainly have SOME features...things like sending our floating hospitals like the USNS Mercy to countries and regions that need help.

But in what world, for example, would a nation that follows J's teachings have the largest Army that the world has ever seen...and been at war almost nonstop since WWII?

Help us out here. You have to have more in mind .....

He turns to “whole Bible” to justify military and war, a lot of war pre Jesus part of Bible.

Interesting re emphasis on “sexual immorality”.

It’s all cherry picking. Not that there is anything wrong with holding strong faith based views. Rather it’s the demand that we agree, and more importantly that we must comply…and if compliance can’t be achieved through persuasion then utilizing authoritarian rule is justified.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

I cut that reproof well before your response, having noticed those words after first being po’d that you had misquoted me without bolding or coloring the words.

Ok, as to your Judeo-Christian “ethics”.
I recall you waxing long and loudly on your faith views.

Dogma, not ethics, and I get it that you and millions of others believe you have the right to enforce your dogma, your religious preference on the majority who disagrees about what ethical construct they want from government. Not their own personal choices, government enforcement of the minority will.

That dogmatic view justifies authoritarian rule, because it’s so important to prevent women from controlling their own bodies and health or controlling who can be married to whom or when one can engage sexually with another consenting adult or…because “Judeo-Christian ethics”.

Freedoms preferred by the majority justify suppression by the minority.

In the name of God.

I’m Christian and was on the board of The Institute for Christian &Jewish Studies for 20 years, an organization devoted to the scholarly reading of scripture, including differing understandings of sacred text. I can assure that there are vast differences in conclusions based upon “Judeo-Christian ethics”. I helped shepherd the integration of Islam into this work, withe organization now The Institute for Islamic, Christian & Jewish Studies. Likewise, Islamic scholars represent a vast spectrum of thought when it comes to various social issues as well, applying their scholarly understanding of the core values within their faith traditions. Respecting and learning from others’ faith traditions is a core principle, including directly conflicting views.

Respecting dogmatic fundamentalists’ own views does not mean they should be able to control the majority who disagree. Not in our system.

But yeah, there are millions who disagree with our form of government, have lost faith in it, and would prefer some form of religious fascism instead. They have embraced Trump as their Savior.

Very dangerous strain of fascist belief.

You asked me to explain why I thought Biden and the liberals were leading us into darkness. I told you. You can disagree with that. That's fine. But all the rest of what you wrote is a perfect example of what Trump does--introduce so many other topics so as to confuse the issue. I don't know whether it is intentional but it has the same effect.

Ok, as to your Judeo-Christian “ethics”.
I recall you waxing long and loudly on your faith views.

Yes? And what did I wax long and loud about that is applicable here? Are you insinuating that I am contradicting my previous statements? If so, which ones?

[PizzaSnake]

What I am saying is that we still have an opportunity to, without violence, reject the darkness that Biden and liberals represent.

I'd just like to comment on this because this is a point where we differ. You'll notice I changed the above names. I fully believe we are slated for just as much darkness with them. A different shade of darkness, admittedly--but darkness nonetheless.

Really. Biden represents darkness? Liberals represent darkness? Please explain fully.

Yes and yes and yes. Most to do with social issues in direct opposition to Judeo-Christian ethics. That's as fully as I'm going to explain. I'm sure you can figure it out from there.

BTW, please don’t quote anyone falsely. If you want to “correct” someone by replacing their words with others contrary to the original intent, make that obvious and call it out as such. Some people say that’s what they are doing and bold or color the changed text. Just good forum manners.

What do you think this was?

"You'll notice I changed the above names."

See, this is why I took a long break from interacting with you. I wrote four sentences--one of which was letting you know directly, in quoting you, that I changed the names to make my point. But that's not enough of a heads up--and (*shocker*)--here comes the pedantic finger-wagging.

Welp--interacting with you was mildly interesting while it lasted.

I cut that reproof well before your response, having noticed those words after first being po’d that you had misquoted me without bolding or coloring the words.

Ok, as to your Judeo-Christian “ethics”.
I recall you waxing long and loudly on your faith views.

Dogma, not ethics, and I get it that you and millions of others believe you have the right to enforce your dogma, your religious preference on the majority who disagrees about what ethical construct they want from government. Not their own personal choices, government enforcement of the minority will.

That dogmatic view justifies authoritarian rule, because it’s so important to prevent women from controlling their own bodies and health or controlling who can be married to whom or when one can engage sexually with another consenting adult or…because “Judeo-Christian ethics”.

Freedoms preferred by the majority justify suppression by the minority.

In the name of God.

I’m Christian and was on the board of The Institute for Christian &Jewish Studies for 20 years, an organization devoted to the scholarly reading of scripture, including differing understandings of sacred text. I can assure that there are vast differences in conclusions based upon “Judeo-Christian ethics”. I helped shepherd the integration of Islam into this work, withe organization now The Institute for Islamic, Christian & Jewish Studies. Likewise, Islamic scholars represent a vast spectrum of thought when it comes to various social issues as well, applying their scholarly understanding of the core values within their faith traditions. Respecting and learning from others’ faith traditions is a core principle, including directly conflicting views.

Respecting dogmatic fundamentalists’ own views does not mean they should be able to control the majority who disagree. Not in our system.

But yeah, there are millions who disagree with our form of government, have lost faith in it, and would prefer some form of religious fascism instead. They have embraced Trump as their Savior.

Very dangerous strain of fascist belief.

May their karma run over their dogma…

[MDlaxfan76]

I cut that reproof well before your response, having noticed those words after first being po’d that you had misquoted me without bolding or coloring the words.

Ok, as to your Judeo-Christian “ethics”.
I recall you waxing long and loudly on your faith views.

Dogma, not ethics, and I get it that you and millions of others believe you have the right to enforce your dogma, your religious preference on the majority who disagrees about what ethical construct they want from government. Not their own personal choices, government enforcement of the minority will.

That dogmatic view justifies authoritarian rule, because it’s so important to prevent women from controlling their own bodies and health or controlling who can be married to whom or when one can engage sexually with another consenting adult or…because “Judeo-Christian ethics”.

Freedoms preferred by the majority justify suppression by the minority.

In the name of God.

I’m Christian and was on the board of The Institute for Christian &Jewish Studies for 20 years, an organization devoted to the scholarly reading of scripture, including differing understandings of sacred text. I can assure that there are vast differences in conclusions based upon “Judeo-Christian ethics”. I helped shepherd the integration of Islam into this work, withe organization now The Institute for Islamic, Christian & Jewish Studies. Likewise, Islamic scholars represent a vast spectrum of thought when it comes to various social issues as well, applying their scholarly understanding of the core values within their faith traditions. Respecting and learning from others’ faith traditions is a core principle, including directly conflicting views.

Respecting dogmatic fundamentalists’ own views does not mean they should be able to control the majority who disagree. Not in our system.

But yeah, there are millions who disagree with our form of government, have lost faith in it, and would prefer some form of religious fascism instead. They have embraced Trump as their Savior.

Very dangerous strain of fascist belief.

You asked me to explain why I thought Biden and the liberals were leading us into darkness. I told you. You can disagree with that. That's fine. But all the rest of what you wrote is a perfect example of what Trump does--introduce so many other topics so as to confuse the issue. I don't know whether it is intentional but it has the same effect.

Ok, as to your Judeo-Christian “ethics”.
I recall you waxing long and loudly on your faith views.

Yes? And what did I wax long and loud about that is applicable here? Are you insinuating that I am contradicting my previous statements? If so, which ones?

No, I think it's consistent with your entry into the Politics threads some time ago, focused almost entirely on expressing your religious views. Long posts (nothing wrong with that! )
I'm not reading anything inconsistent.

I simply recall them now.

And I get it that the "darkness" you see from "Biden and liberals" involves those religious views being in conflict with a more libertarian posture on government intervention in the bedroom, reproductive health, gender, and other such issues.

...Which many fundamentalist Christians find SO repugnant to "God's word" that they are willing to demand that their minority, but "Judeo-Christian ethics" inspired, views should be enforced by government over the preferences of the majority (who, BTW, also claim an ethical view).

"Liberals" may feel differently than "conservatives" on specific issues, and may make different choices in their personal lives, but getting the government to enforce sanctions against those who choose differently is where most liberals and conservatives can agree can go beyond the bounds of our Constitutional democracy. Certainly true of libertarians who may be either liberal or conservative personally, though they used to be aligned more with Republicans that they are today with MAGA.

At the margins, we argue over whether a baker should have to serve someone whose race or gender or sexual preference or marriage or whatever may not align with the baker's specific religious dogma, fundamentally whether publicly offered services should be open to all or entirely up to the service provider...we disagree on these margins, but what we now have is a rise in demand that we not only reward the baker for their refusal to serve, but that we can attack those wishing to be served. We can threaten them, indeed we can outlaw their choice or even their existence if we follow the track as has been done in countries preceding our slide away from constitutional democracy. And people are explicitly calling for that to happen.

And this applies to each social issue which some claimants of "Judeo-Christian ethics" feel conflicts. Minority rule.

This is the very topic we've been discussing that is presented in the 2024 election.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Wregget, I have to ask...when is it that you think America's government operated anywhere close to what's in the Talmud or Bible?

Pre-1950's America.

I'm guessing you're not talking about the parts that endorse slavery, so what do you mean here?

Folks have been misinterpreting what Scripture teaches about slavery for centuries. What happened in this country and other countries down through the ages where folks were kidnapped, brought to other countries, and forced to be slaves is not espoused in any teaching found in the Bible.

We certainly have SOME features...things like sending our floating hospitals like the USNS Mercy to countries and regions that need help.

But in what world, for example, would a nation that follows J's teachings have the largest Army that the world has ever seen...and been at war almost nonstop since WWII?

Help us out here. You have to have more in mind .....

Again--Judeo-Christian ethics, which include the teachings of Christ. I'm not sure what having an army has to do with that. Jesus mentioned nations going to war multiple times. Why would it be against his teachings for a country to have an army to defend themselves and their allies?

[NattyBohChamps04]

Which is ironic because Democratic policies are much more in line with Christ's teachings than Republicans. Such as how we should treat one another, the poor, the sick, the needy, etc.

Unfortunately a Jesus' ideas are too liberal for a large chunk of America as they shift further and further right.

Judeo-Christian ethics are not comprised exclusively of Christ's teachings. They incorporate the teachings of the entire Bible. And Jesus's teachings included much more than how we should treat one another, the poor, the sick, the needy, etc. He also spoke about sexual immorality, which also falls under the heading of how we should treat one another.

Further--if you read my previous comments--I think both parties reek.

And there are more than 45,000 Christian denominations and 3,000 translations of the bible. Judeo-Christian ethics varies widely and wildly.

That's the fun part about religion. I could find a devout Christian who disagrees with your interpretations of the bible in about 10 seconds, just as you would disagree with his. And who gets to say what is immoral if it's not exclusively set forth in the bible (and which version)?


Courtesy of Emo Philips:

"Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over."

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

...there are more than 45,000 Christian denominations and 3,000 translations of the bible.

The Old Testament was written in one language--Hebrew. There was also a copy translated into Greek commonly referred to as the Septuagint. The translations are based on the same text. Some interpret and translate into word for word, some into thought for thought, and some into paraphrases. Yet--if one wants to find out what was actually written, copies of both Hebrew and Greek are available for the scholar who wants to read the Old Testament in the original language.

The New Testament is similar. Written in Greek. Still available to read and translate in/from the original language.

Judeo-Christian ethics varies widely and wildly.

That's the fun part about religion. I could find a devout Christian who disagrees with your interpretations of the bible in about 10 seconds, just as you would disagree with his. And who gets to say what is immoral if it's not exclusively set forth in the bible (and which version)?

I'm referring to what is exclusively set forth in the Bible as immoral.

[PizzaSnake]

...there are more than 45,000 Christian denominations and 3,000 translations of the bible.

The Old Testament was written in one language--Hebrew. There was also a copy translated into Greek commonly referred to as the Septuagint. The translations are based on the same text. Some interpret and translate into word for word, some into thought for thought, and some into paraphrases. Yet--if one wants to find out what was actually written, copies of both Hebrew and Greek are available for the scholar who wants to read the Old Testament in the original language.

The New Testament is similar. Written in Greek. Still available to read and translate in/from the original language.

Judeo-Christian ethics varies widely and wildly.

That's the fun part about religion. I could find a devout Christian who disagrees with your interpretations of the bible in about 10 seconds, just as you would disagree with his. And who gets to say what is immoral if it's not exclusively set forth in the bible (and which version)?

I'm referring to what is exclusively set forth in the Bible as immoral.[/]

Which version?

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

...there are more than 45,000 Christian denominations and 3,000 translations of the bible.

The Old Testament was written in one language--Hebrew. There was also a copy translated into Greek commonly referred to as the Septuagint. The translations are based on the same text. Some interpret and translate into word for word, some into thought for thought, and some into paraphrases. Yet--if one wants to find out what was actually written, copies of both Hebrew and Greek are available for the scholar who wants to read the Old Testament in the original language.

The New Testament is similar. Written in Greek. Still available to read and translate in/from the original language.

Judeo-Christian ethics varies widely and wildly.

That's the fun part about religion. I could find a devout Christian who disagrees with your interpretations of the bible in about 10 seconds, just as you would disagree with his. And who gets to say what is immoral if it's not exclusively set forth in the bible (and which version)?

I'm referring to what is exclusively set forth in the Bible as immoral.

Which version?

The original version, in the original languages--as I stated:

The Old Testament was written in one language--Hebrew. There was also a copy translated into Greek commonly referred to as the Septuagint. The translations are based on the same text. Some interpret and translate into word for word, some into thought for thought, and some into paraphrases. Yet--if one wants to find out what was actually written, copies of both Hebrew and Greek are available for the scholar who wants to read the Old Testament in the original language.

The New Testament is similar. Written in Greek. Still available to read and translate in/from the original language.

[a fan]

The Old Testament was written in one language--Hebrew. There was also a copy translated into Greek commonly referred to as the Septuagint. The translations are based on the same text. Some interpret and translate into word for word, some into thought for thought, and some into paraphrases. Yet--if one wants to find out what was actually written, copies of both Hebrew and Greek are available for the scholar who wants to read the Old Testament in the original language.

The New Testament is similar. Written in Greek. Still available to read and translate in/from the original language.

Didn't know we'd go this deep! Yes, one of the MAJOR dangers of religious texts shows up when you don't read it in the original.

And translations all have a not so transparent agenda. In particular, KJII and forward.

Edit to add: did you read either in the original? Kudos if you have!

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

The Old Testament was written in one language--Hebrew. There was also a copy translated into Greek commonly referred to as the Septuagint. The translations are based on the same text. Some interpret and translate into word for word, some into thought for thought, and some into paraphrases. Yet--if one wants to find out what was actually written, copies of both Hebrew and Greek are available for the scholar who wants to read the Old Testament in the original language.

The New Testament is similar. Written in Greek. Still available to read and translate in/from the original language.

Didn't know we'd go this deep! Yes, one of the MAJOR dangers of religious texts shows up when you don't read it in the original.

Agreed!

And translations all have a not so transparent agenda. In particular, KJII and forward.

How do you mean?

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

The Old Testament was written in one language--Hebrew. There was also a copy translated into Greek commonly referred to as the Septuagint. The translations are based on the same text. Some interpret and translate into word for word, some into thought for thought, and some into paraphrases. Yet--if one wants to find out what was actually written, copies of both Hebrew and Greek are available for the scholar who wants to read the Old Testament in the original language.

The New Testament is similar. Written in Greek. Still available to read and translate in/from the original language.

Didn't know we'd go this deep! Yes, one of the MAJOR dangers of religious texts shows up when you don't read it in the original.

And translations all have a not so transparent agenda. In particular, KJII and forward.

Edit to add: did you read either in the original? Kudos if you have!

To answer your edit--I have not. Also--what kind of agenda do you mean.

[cradleandshoot]

What I am saying is that we still have an opportunity to, without violence, reject the darkness that Biden and liberals represent.

I'd just like to comment on this because this is a point where we differ. You'll notice I changed the above names. I fully believe we are slated for just as much darkness with them. A different shade of darkness, admittedly--but darkness nonetheless.

Really. Biden represents darkness? Liberals represent darkness? Please explain fully.

Yes and yes and yes. Most to do with social issues in direct opposition to Judeo-Christian ethics. That's as fully as I'm going to explain. I'm sure you can figure it out from there.

Which is ironic because Democratic policies are much more in line with Christ's teachings than Republicans. Such as how we should treat one another, the poor, the sick, the needy, etc.

Unfortunately a Jesus' ideas are too liberal for a large chunk of America as they shift further and further right.

Except unborn babies, liberal Democrats prefer them dead. That was the vision of Jesus Christ after all. If you don't want the baby then just kill it. Jesus spoke frequently of that fact. If a large chunk of Americans turn their back on the liberal Democrats love of abortion then that is a good thing. I bet Jesus would feel the same way.
So Jesus was pro abortion, I never knew that. I always was led to believe that Jesus was pro life. The more you read this forum the more you learn.

[PizzaSnake]

...there are more than 45,000 Christian denominations and 3,000 translations of the bible.

The Old Testament was written in one language--Hebrew. There was also a copy translated into Greek commonly referred to as the Septuagint. The translations are based on the same text. Some interpret and translate into word for word, some into thought for thought, and some into paraphrases. Yet--if one wants to find out what was actually written, copies of both Hebrew and Greek are available for the scholar who wants to read the Old Testament in the original language.

The New Testament is similar. Written in Greek. Still available to read and translate in/from the original language.

Judeo-Christian ethics varies widely and wildly.

That's the fun part about religion. I could find a devout Christian who disagrees with your interpretations of the bible in about 10 seconds, just as you would disagree with his. And who gets to say what is immoral if it's not exclusively set forth in the bible (and which version)?

I'm referring to what is exclusively set forth in the Bible as immoral.

Which version?

The original version, in the original languages--as I stated:

The Old Testament was written in one language--Hebrew. There was also a copy translated into Greek commonly referred to as the Septuagint. The translations are based on the same text. Some interpret and translate into word for word, some into thought for thought, and some into paraphrases. Yet--if one wants to find out what was actually written, copies of both Hebrew and Greek are available for the scholar who wants to read the Old Testament in the original language.

The New Testament is similar. Written in Greek. Still available to read and translate in/from the original language.

So, only the Hebrew Bible? No later texts? No Council of Nicea? No Carthar texts?

It is actually complicated. Oh, and the Book of Mormon is out as well?