There are 7 comments.

  1. Arahant Member

    History is what we make it in the present. 🙄

    • #1
    • July 9, 2019, at 3:09 PM PDT
    • Like
  2. milkchaser Member

    am he as you are he as you are me and we are Eric Swallwell. … I am the eggman, they are the eggmen.

    • #2
    • July 10, 2019, at 6:09 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  3. LibertyDefender Member

    The title of this episode accurately reflects the astute analysis of the media’s dissembling re Clinton and Epstein by shifting blame to Acosta.

    HOWEVER,I think possibly the bigger story that Andrew told in this podcast is the establishment of Trump as prophet. Trump was prescient, dead-on correct when he predicted Thomas Jefferson’s fall from progressive grace. And yet I fear that the battle has only just begun.

    • #3
    • July 10, 2019, at 8:17 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  4. rdowhower Coolidge

    Several times, Andrew? Name them. The problem is that you proof text in the same way the reporters were doing. Either the Bible has meaning or it doesn’t. Didn’t you notice what happened in Germany in the late 19th Century? Jesus didn’t need to say anything about it because it was clear in the Jewish law, of which Jesus stated he is the fulfillment. This is why you are so frustrating when it comes to this issue. You acknowledge the negative impacts of sexual liberation so therefore…you just won’t connect the dots. You don’t have to judge, but you can’t rewrite natural law.

    • #4
    • July 10, 2019, at 10:31 AM PDT
    • Like
  5. LibertyDefender Member

    rdowhower (View Comment):

    Several times, Andrew? Name them. The problem is that you proof text in the same way the reporters were doing. Either the Bible has meaning or it doesn’t. Didn’t you notice what happened in Germany in the late 19th Century? Jesus didn’t need to say anything about it because it was clear in the Jewish law, of which Jesus stated he is the fulfillment. This is why you are so frustrating when it comes to this issue. You acknowledge the negative impacts of sexual liberation so therefore…you just won’t connect the dots. You don’t have to judge, but you can’t rewrite natural law.

    This might start an interesting discussion, but I’d need more careful identification of what you’re referencing.

    To the extent you are referring to Andrew’s argument that homosexuality is not a sin per se, I was struck by how starkly he consciously ignored his legitimate reason for leaving his church, when it endorsed the rainbow flag/pride movement.

    The slope is beyond slippery, it’s superlubricated. As Ben Domenech says, “you will be *made* to care.” As soon as the church accepts homosexuality, the church will receive demands that homosexuals be installed in positions of leadership.

    Where will you turn for protection, Andrew? You style yourself as a libertarian. Heck, the Libertarian Party candidate for President in 2016 said if marriage is on the church’s menu, then the church must serve it to anyone who asks for it.

    • #5
    • July 10, 2019, at 11:42 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  6. Arahant Member

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):
    As soon as the church accepts homosexuality, the church will receive demands that homosexuals be installed in positions of leadership.

    They’re there anyway. 😜

    • #6
    • July 10, 2019, at 3:56 PM PDT
    • Like
  7. rdowhower Coolidge

    @libertydefender Specifically, I was referring to the way Andrew plays fast and loose with the Bible and the impact of Higher Criticism that originated with liberal German protestants in the 19th Century. Andrew likes to focus on the “judge not lest you be judged” verse – I can only think of that phrase showing up once in the Bible, contra his claims that it is repeated several times, and has built his whole moral theology on that, while ignoring the obvious fact that for the vast majority of history of both Judaism and Christianity, traditional sexuality was seen as normative. And his discussion comparing questions of moral behavior with cultural dress or traditions was ridiculous, especially when sexual ethics in the Bible is taken, by both Jesus and St. Paul, back to the creation of Adam and Eve. This is why I can’t take his religion talk seriously. It’s clear he doesn’t even understand the doctrine of inerrancy, nor for all his claims to know about genre, does he understand how the different genres are at work in scripture.

    • #7
    • July 11, 2019, at 6:55 AM PDT
    • Like