Not found in the Bible.
-
In addition to being Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson has self appointed himself the new Antipope:
“Despite the unfounded claims of the Left, supporting a strong national border is a very Christian thing to do. The Bible tells us so,” he concluded.
Henceforth it is written he will be known as His antiHoliness, Mikey I.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/mike-johnson-mansplains-religion-to-the-pope/?v
Edit: On second thought maybe Mike should henceforth be referred to as His antiHoliness, Johnson I.
-
Not all Christians believe in the pope’s infallibility. Even those who do can have hand wavy rhetorical disagreements over word usage and emphasis. I doubt the pope would claim that borders are anti biblical. He might have some explaining to do about the Vatican.
Education is extremely important.
-
That is the thing about religion, you can almost always find some saying somewhere in the Bible that you use to back your argument. Does not matter which side you are on.
-
That is the thing about religion, you can almost always find some saying somewhere in the Bible that you use to back your argument. Does not matter which side you are on.
@taiwan_girl said in Not found in the Bible.:
That is the thing about religion, you can almost always find some saying somewhere in the Bible that you use to back your argument. Does not matter which side you are on.
Yes if you take the bible seriously it’s not easy to be a Christian, but that’s mostly to do with how strong and courageous and humble in your faith you are called to be. It’s easy to back political viewpoints any which way.
-
Not all Christians believe in the pope’s infallibility. Even those who do can have hand wavy rhetorical disagreements over word usage and emphasis. I doubt the pope would claim that borders are anti biblical. He might have some explaining to do about the Vatican.
@Horace said in Not found in the Bible.:
Not all Christians believe in the pope’s infallibility.
Regardless, the pope’s comments were not being made ex cathedra. Your point is moot.
Even those who do can have hand wavy rhetorical disagreements over word usage and emphasis.
True enough although I highly doubt the discourse on such are hand wavy. You should know that.
I doubt the pope would claim that borders are anti biblical. He might have some explaining to do about the Vatican.
The pope didn’t so why suggest he might have, or better, why did Johnson I feel the need to “mansplain” biblical passages in light of the Gregory XIV’s remarks which were not made ex Cathedra but presumably as head of the Vatican State?
-
@Horace said in Not found in the Bible.:
Not all Christians believe in the pope’s infallibility.
Regardless, the pope’s comments were not being made ex cathedra. Your point is moot.
Even those who do can have hand wavy rhetorical disagreements over word usage and emphasis.
True enough although I highly doubt the discourse on such are hand wavy. You should know that.
I doubt the pope would claim that borders are anti biblical. He might have some explaining to do about the Vatican.
The pope didn’t so why suggest he might have, or better, why did Johnson I feel the need to “mansplain” biblical passages in light of the Gregory XIV’s remarks which were not made ex Cathedra but presumably as head of the Vatican State?
@Renauda Johnson was speaking to the audience, not the pope. The pope’s arguments were sufficiently vague that they could be framed as a defense of essentially open borders, or a notion that once someone is in your country, regardless of how they came to be there, it is Christian to allow them to stay. It is fine to present alternative framings of the bible to address ill defined political battles over immigration.
-
Yes, I am familiar with the Southern Baptist heresy. No need to explain that in their minds they and only they are the final and absolute authority on all matters Scriptural.
I even recollect an outspoken Baptist of the southern persuasion, once telling a theologically learned and erudite RC he has a reading comprehension problem.
-
Papal infallibility
Hey, it's what, 1700 years since the last significant meeting when some blokes met to decide which of their theocratic writings ought to be included in their book of religious texts.
Is it time for a New Improved Version? Get rid of all the politics, misogyny etc.
-
Papal infallibility
Hey, it's what, 1700 years since the last significant meeting when some blokes met to decide which of their theocratic writings ought to be included in their book of religious texts.
Is it time for a New Improved Version? Get rid of all the politics, misogyny etc.
I believe Thomas Jefferson already purged the book - at least the New Testament version - of most, if not all, the superstitious magic and mythology.
Edit: here it is although I am not certain whether the archaic social and political lessons, assertions and aspersions were expunged:
