A clip from The West Wing in which President Bartlet (himself a Roman Catholic) responds to hate towards homosexuals based on the Bible. Season 2 Episode 3
EXCEPT practically everything the fake Marxist president was either not even what the Bible said or twisted of all contest. The "selling" of a woman into slavery quote that the guy quoted was concerning BUYING A BRIDE! It was reimbursing a family for losing a daughter and worker and showing them he had enough money to provide and PROTECT her! It wasn't Democrat slavery where people were beaten and worked to death. Heck the Biblical Law was that if you even struck a slave and knocked out a TOOTH, he would be set free. Plus they only worked for 7 years, had to be fed and provided for and were taught a trade. It was much more like a work program than slavery and many poor sold THEMSELVES into slavery. Plus the fake Pres didn't know anything about the NT and Jesus declaring all foods to be spiritually clean, therefore declaring the dietary laws to be fulfilled because salvation was coming to the Gentiles along with the Jews since the dietary and fabric laws were in place to keep the Hebrew people separate from the wicked pagan gentile tribes they were going to invade and take their land from? All this "takedown" showed was Sorkin knows practically nothing about actual Biblical Law and context.
Jesus said that it's not what goes in your mouth that makes you impure, but what comes out of it. There's debate about what this means, although it's a reasonable interpretation that this meant a relaxation of the dietary restrictions and a focus on giving up your material possessions and following him.
@@MrYouarethecancer If he wasn't, then why is there a grave with the mans name in Jerusalem? You don't make a grave for someone that doesn't exist. So even if the bible and somehow God wasn't real, we cannot say that an actual man that was here on this planet wasn't here. Just because you cannot see or do not believe, does not mean that it is not real. There's actual parts of the bible that are actually true. The actual Ark of Noah was found in Turkey, which is actually not far at all from the Middle East considering how the planet was back then. They even found traces of the special type of wood used in the dirt and measured how big it was or at least as much as they could since it was so closely merged with the dirt and hardened mud it was covered in. You should actually take the time to look things up for yourself instead of just trying to say nonsense the entire time.
@@dietrichmyatt9813 the flagrant display of disrespecting that decorum is, in actuality, the most galling part. She can have her opinions, despite those opinions harming the safety of innocent people, but to bald-faced bring a 'fuck you' like she did needed to be addressed. The dressing down was what she got for the effort.
Thank you for uploading this, my friend just sent it to me. As a Catholic and a pansexual, I'm about to stand up and start applauding. I can't stand when people pick and choose which parts of the Bible conform to them and then use the parts they like to dehumanize others. It's hypocrisy, at the end of the day.
Many would. My only conniption to hypothetically voting for him was his stance on guns. Him and his staff constantly used old, debunked, horribly inaccurate "facts" or anti-gun terms that showed them being unable to learn something or using fear to restrict rights. But it did make them flawed and human, which added to the writing and story.
"I will not commit a bad deed to someone simply because the Bible said so" And this is proof that there is a superior secular morality guiding your actions that did NOT come from Bible. You have come to realize that the Bible is one of the most intolerant books in the whole world. The only way a Christian can avoid going to prison is to cherry pick which of the 613 Commandments he actually follows - which means that you aren't really following the Bible at all but your own code of morality.
rpsyco 99% of Christians dont follow the bible as it is written. I think this shows how irrelevant religion is nowadays. Religions provided a moral compass in a time when there were none, but now, those morals have morphed and evolved into a completely different form. These morals have been imbedded into our society for generations, and they arent going away, rendering texts, such as the bible, and their set of morals and commandments outdated and useless. Society is full of enough good people to uphold the most fundamental morals and to do whats right. Religion does nothing but hold back society.
@@2headedtasman200 It wasn't just a moral compass, it also answered questions that most wanted to know, like what happens after death, how did the world come about, where did we come from, the history of the world.
This is proof that there are parts of the Bible that were meant for a different time. But it is not proof that someone as incredibly religious as president Bartlet who bases his morals on his religiosity, would assume some supposedly secular morality for his actions.
Time has vindicated the Barlet character. For all the ways in which comments below make claims that they can be good Christians and demand the slaughter of those who are different, the venom and sadism of this sort of person has been exposed. When these supposed moral paragons aligned themselves with a racist, misogynist monster guilty of adultery, sexual harassment, degenerate incestuous desires, an arrogant refusal to ask God for forgiveness (which is allegedly a cornerstone of their faith) and a painfully obvious disinterest in Christianity apart from as a vehicle for his own bigotry, they truly showed themselves up. Even by their own standards. They are guilty of breaking the First Commandment: look at the way the idolise the beast that squats in the White House.
I'm here in July of 2024, right after the Supreme Court has ruled that a president is essentially above the law, and I only wish that our politicians had half the sense of this president. I only hope that we can be saved from ourselves. I don't mean to be so pessimistic, but optimism seems to be in short supply these days.
Sadly, I agree. This show was what we dream how our politicians would act. I don't agree with everything the administration goes for (such as using anti-gun rhetoric after Bartlet was shot) ... but that's going to happen. You can't make everyone happy.
Ahhh, I LOVE this clip. Everything I always wanted to say at "home group" every time I was forced to attend and listen to them tell me my loved ones who happened to be gay were going to burn in hell! I settled for placing a few choice pieces of chocolax in the candy dish at the following event. I was 13 and proud as hell!
If I were the director I would have put a few more biblical quotes from the New Testament:Women should remain in silence,cover their heads,and never doubt he authority of men.😜
More like the West Wing writers for President, although Martin Sheen himself would not have been a bad choice and certainly better than either alternative.
Martin Sheen himself said he’d be a terrible president, as he is a pacifist. Also, an anti-war, but also anti-abortion candidate would have trouble securing a nomination from either political party. Aaron Sorkin is a much better option, sense he actually wrote the show and came up with these ideas.
It's a last little poke at her (as well as most religious people's) idiotic, hypocritical, cherry picking stupidity. And if you look at her jacket, her brooch is of a crustacean. Something forbidden by the bible.
I'll admit, I know jack shit about biblical hermeneutics. Regardless, I do know that all disciplines consist of discoursive enviornments detailed with clashing interpretations at every level. Hardly any discipline or science ever functions as a wildcard that silences all debates. No two scholars can agree on their understanding of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, but somehow the Bible, a millenary collection of books written throughout several stages of history by countless authors in different languages (some of which nobody speaks anymore), merrits a univocal interpretation? While you ponder that, I'd like to hear a "mundane" moral objection to homosexuality. By this I mean providing a concrete reason as to how it raises any real-life insurmountable concern, baring in mind we live in an age in which no serious medical or scientific organization considers it any form of sickness or disfunction.
By "a moral objection to homosexuality" do you mean homosexual impulses or homosexual acts? As far as I am aware, and I'm pretty sure psychology backs me up on this, people do not get to choose their impulses. But of course Jesus said we are responsible for having impulses (Matt. 5:28) - so it's no wonder Christians are so filled with self-loathing and so quick to project it on others when Trump triggers them with his horror stories of impure immigrants storming the border. (Notwithstanding that a majority of said immigrants are themselves some flavor of fellow Christians.)
The foundations of ethical dealings within society promote the furtherance of the singularly paramount resource within the universe: consciousness. The ability of the universes self sentience gives validity and credence to the universe itself. Without it, all is for naught. All of light, sound, matter, form, and art are but darkness and meaningless collisions without a viewer. Therefore, a fault within the system which causes reward without replication of sentience is truly destructive to all that is valuable within the universe.
He didn't say anything about anything being abolished. What he was getting at is that because of Christ the laws of God were altered in a way so that you could repent instead of being put to death for sinning. Although he never mentioned Christ's name, that's where he was going and the point he was making trying to make clear to her. In my opinion, pretty much telling her that it's not her job to judge anyone for their sins against God and under the new law they will be forgiven if they seek it.
"That's how I beat him" is the only weak point of this scene. Hsve it included absolutely, but in a private conversation with Toby after the fact. Jacobs has already been well and truly put in her place. Anything else is just overkill
Nowhere in this verse does Yeshua (Jesus) abolish the Sabbath. It is in response to the Pharisees who claimed the plucking of corn on the Sabbath violated it. . The Sabbath was made on account of man, not man on account of the Sabbath. The disciples hungered and their hunger allowed the Sabbath observance to be set aside while their physical needs of hunger were satisfied. Yeshua reminds the Pharisees of this fact and continued to observe it himself as did Paul. blessings.
Of course, in the real world? Had that same scene occurred? The rest of the assembled would have burst into spontaneous applause. Talk about your third degree burns!!
It's a great show, but it's really dated in the drama area sometimes as it talks about specific events in reality as part of the show. I still highly recommend it, though.
Yes, definitely watch. You'll wish for an administration like this with people actually caring about the country rather than just their personal rise to power.
I like these teachings Pastor ANDREW Farley. You remind me of the Socratic tongue-lashing President Bartlett (West Wing-TV fame) gave the Laura Schleshinger character about Old Testament biblical laws.
"But shows like this only feed ignorance because the majority have not read the bible." ---Considering that President Bartlet is a devout Catholic, your argument has no standing. When you read something that literally says what President Bartlet quotes, it's hard to not come to a conclusion that what you're reading is dangerous. As for the new testament overriding the old testament, tell that to those who still follow the old testament. You will quickly come across opposition.
They are chosen from such people, because that's the whole point behind cherry picking. Religious groups choosing to follow only what they want to believe, or twist the original text to their own goals, is the definition of religious cherry picking. How many versions of the bible are there and how many people did the revisions? Since the answer is more than 1 for both, it proves that the rules can change based solely upon who is in power and what beliefs they want to enforce upon others.
" If Bartlett tried to follow the law he would have been assassinated by the CIA within a week of taking office" ---Ugh.....seriously??? "I was only making a comment of what his position would have been in a real life situation." ---What you're missing is that there is a difference between a religious claim being true, which is then broadcasted as propaganda (hatred towards gays), and government. You can't pick and choose what you believe is true in a religion. That's Bartlet's point.
In a legal sense, the safest way is to allow everyone to their belief since it is free after all and is constitutionally recognized as such. But i think, on a personal note, if people see religion as a way to validate the acts of others causing hate and division, it is a very unhealthy way of living and is contradictory to the context of supposed love which it teaches to its core like that of Christianity. But if the man made laws allow freedom of belief and nigh limit acts performed based on that free belief, then we cannoy really invade men's minds and tell them what is right from wrong based on religious grounds since man is free to think for himself. I think that that freedom of choice to beliefs affects the very nature of a person's manner of living and just affects everything entirely. But then again, the law itself allows that freedom.. Such a difficult situation really if you look at it.
No intolerance is what cause problems in the world. I myself I'm fairly religious but I will not commit a bad deed to someone simply because the Bible sad so.
And I'm not saying nobody does that. I'm sure there are Christians who feel, "But I like lobster, so forget that rule, but I'm not gay so I'm fine with the Bible condemning THEM." But I still say that just assuming that's where everyone's coming from is simplistic and arbitrary. That's my only point on that. As far as the 1st Amendment goes, individuals may oppose marriage equality solely for religious reasons, but in the Prop 8 case before the Supreme Court neither side argued religion.
If I could simply press a button and instantly eliminate all religious belief from the minds of all people on the planet I would press that button right now.... Nothing can get so many good people to do bad things like religion can.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets." Matthew 5:17. "“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished." Matthew 5:18. ""Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation..." 2 Peter 20. "For Moses said, 'Honor your father and mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.'" Mark 7:10. (All Jesus).
Actually, the commandment about not planting different crops side by side or wearing garments made of more than one type of fabric say nothing about the penalty for doing so.
@@cnault3244 You very clearly didn't get it and chose to play semantics instead of understanding the point. She was breaking the very rules she supposedly upholds as absolute truths and he called her on it. She talks about how "god hates gays" because it's in the bible....while eating a crustacean (Leviticus 11:9-12), wears a broach of a crustacean made of gold (so that's 2 in 1)(1 Timothy 2:9-10), and wears clothing of different cloths (Deuteronomy 22:11) She fucked up. Get over it.
@@Soldier4USA2005 "You very clearly didn't get it and chose to play semantics instead of understanding the point." The point was some of the president's scripted lined were fallacious. In this show that is surprising because usually the scripts are excellent. The writers ( in this instance) fucked up. Get over it.
@@cnault3244 I'm talking about the point of the scene. And you don't know what fallacious means. It means a non-valid argument. And what that means is for the argument to not have only 1 conclusion. NOT whether or not the argument was good. His entire speech is valid from that point of view. He's using her own religion to show how hypocritical she is. She's breaking multiple rules of her own religion, while holding others to the same standard. All while VERY clearly misusing her "Doctor" title from her PhD to get people to think she's actually a doctor of relevant subjects like marriage and medicine. THAT ... is ... the ... point. Not how accurate his scripture quoting is or how the writers "fucked up". It's her religious fanaticism he's putting to task and how she demonizes people because "god said so".
A very obviously hypocritical woman, who uses her credentials to trick people into thinking she's a doctor of relevant training, who uses religion to justify her hate, makes the conscious choice to NOT stand when POTUS enters the room in the FUCKING WHITE HOUSE, he calls her on it, and he's bullying? 🤣🤣🤣
We've probably taken this as far as it can go, so I'll just repeat that I can't see telling other people what the "rules of their religion" are. You don't seem to be willing to accept that they may simply believe those AREN'T the "rules", and that they believe this in good faith, and not from self-serving reasons. The issue over O.T. rules and Christians isn't something that was just invented so Christians could bash gays and still enjoy their lobster, it's a centuries-old internal faith debate.
I agree. What our Lord was doing was pointing out that one shouldn't use strict observance of the Law to prevent good from being done. Just as President Bartlett is doing in this clip. Christians still observe the Sabbath (as laid out by Justin Martyr and Aquinas). Go see "Chariots of Fire".
Yes, I've seen a zillion (only slight exaggeration) comments along the lines of "The Bible says it's wrong so that's it." Our country doesn't work that way, obviously. But that doesn't dispose of the issue. The arguments pro and con before the Supreme Court were entirely secular. In a previous comment you were pretty explicit in saying "you can't" pick and choose which biblical laws to follow, etc. Personally, I'd be uncomfortable making that judgment for other people and their beliefs.
There are a lot of Christian sects, and a minority believes that all of the O.T. laws are still in force, others (I guess the majority) that believe some are and some aren't, and a few that believe that NONE of the O.T. laws are binding on Christians. I'm not making a case for any of these views, but I think using the pejorative 'cherry picking' is unjust, with its implicit presumption that these views aren't sincerely held. but chosen from self-serving and opportunistic motives,
I disagree. It's like saying if people have differing views on any issue they're "twisting" things--sometimes people just have different views. If anything is open to interpretation it's the Bible(!), and I maintain it's presumptuous to assume this or that opinion comes from self-serving "goals" rather than honest belief. And besides, the people who say Christians should abandon the Bible's take on homosexuality (as they see it, that is) are themselves telling them to "cherry pick".
the fact that she is quite does not mean that the guy is right...he is being ignorant....because all the excuses he gave were no longer mentioned in new testament except homosexuality... even the Sabbath was overturned by Jesus....
That's not the point. The point is bigotry and hatred for a group of people simply because some old book says that they are evil and against god, with nothing to support the claim to begin with other than ignorance. The whole thing is about the inconsistencies and "cherry picking fallacies of many christians regarding the bible and what "rules" they follow and one they don't. The President was making the point of "all of the or nothing".
"You asked "What the hell does hat mean?" I told you what a hat was." ---Don't patronize me. if you had thought about what I typed in response to your comment, you would thought the following. 1) Is he asking what "hat" means? 2) Is he asking what the quote means? Which is more likely of the two? As for your explanation, it's just more quotes. It's not an answer.
False. Merely stating what you like best isn't saying that's all there is to the person. There may be several things that you like about someone, but there is always one special thing about them that you like. That's not cherry picking. That's answering the question. It would be no different than saying what you favorite song is from a movie soundtrack. Cherry picking is choosing to accept only certain things as true/false, then to completely disregard the rest as if they didn't exist.
@@waynejohnson4211 You're responding to a 7 year old comment that you clearly have no context for since the comment I responded to isn't part of the conversation. Also, the Merriam-Webster definition doesn't agree with you. No people are mentioned.
@@waynejohnson4211 You didn't read the entire comment .... did you? You straight up ignored the entire first sentence so you can try to dick measure. Hilarious.
@@waynejohnson4211 I doubt you did. If you had read the whole comment, then you would know you don't understand the point behind my use of the term "cherry picking". You're making an assumption on how it was used and are responding accordingly.
@@waynejohnson4211 Now you're using fallacies to try to ignore the fact that ..... you have NO IDEA WHY I used the term cherry picking. You tried to correct a 7 YEAR OLD COMMENT!! The level of arrogance is mind blowing.
@@waynejohnson4211 The level of arrogance in that comment is astounding. You assume you're right because "to your knowledge". Cherry picking is a form of fallacy, like the one you made regarding "I'm English" (appeal to authority fallacy).... as if that means anything. Someone can be Japanese, but it doesn't mean they're an expert on Japanese culture or language. Either you're an idiot, or a troll. I think both.
No it's not saying that. People having different ideas is what furthers democracy, as well as equality. What cherry picking is, is choosing only certain things to believe in, or promote, to further a political goal that has nothing with what you truly believe. And if it is something someone truly believes, they do this in such a manner as to force said beliefs upon others. The 1st Amendment declares separation of church and state, as well as the Supreme Court in Everson v Board of Education.
No she wouldn't have because that wasn't what the scene was about. It was about how religious people only followed the rules they wanted to, thus being "cherry pickers". The "murders" comment is just sad. That's a mind projection fallacy. You obviously don't like war and call a fictional character a "murderer" because you don't agree with what he did. Also, you obviously haven't watched the show at all because if you had, you would know Bartlet tries to follow the law in every episode.
the guy below cannot understand the bible, directing him to go read the bible is of no use.... the bible is spiritual and a man with such canal attitude will find it hard to comprehend it..... look at him askin "Do you follow EVERY single rule in the bible, no matter the version you're using"... I actually stopped arguing with him cause it was really going no where...lets just pray for him, thats the best we can do
It's not a judgment. It's making sure people follow the rules of their religion. You can't choose what rules to follow, like you can't choose what laws to obey. It's that simple. Either you obey all the rules, or you're a hypocrite and a cherry picker. "I don't like how I can't mix threads, so I won't follow that rule. And lobster is tasty, so I won't follow that rule. But god says gays are evil, so I must force that rule upon others." That's what the majority of theists look like to society.
Cherry picking ? Read Acts 15. Its for the same reason Gentiles are not required to be circumcised. So no, its not cherry picking at all. It what was laid down and affirmed by Christ and his apostles.
There's a difference between the natural law and the ceremonial law. It's a common misunderstanding folks have about Biblical interpretations and the role of Jesus Christ who came to fulfill the old law. This understanding is pretty common to most Christian denominations. Here, Jesus reveals the pedagogical approach of God's instructions in the ceremonial law, and in the process explains the reason in the natural law. This natural law, is founded in reason, the Logos in whom we believe we were created in image and likeness; hence humans are rational souls. It's not cherry picking what we like or don't like (if we do that, we're actually violating the natural law, and it is sinful) but the work of the Church, the Body of Christ, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is a discernment of the law and its meaning. Here, I'm speaking more as a Catholic, but again the general principle is more or less. shared across most Christian denominations. The Natural Law is not restricted to Jews and Christians. Indeed, it is proper to Man's nature, as the name suggests. This is one of the reasons why many Early Church Fathers respected many pagan philosophers like Socrates, referring to them as "Christians before Christ", as their endeavor in philosophy was seen as a devotional act of love for the Logos, though in a somewhat hidden manner. Same great respect and veneration was given to men like Cicero and others, whether in their philosophical works in Stoicism or even their legal expertise. A more religiously literate way of objecting to a teaching, would be to challenge a moral opinion based in the reason of NL. I think quoting scripture by conflating ceremonial and natural commands is the where cherry-picking lies. Maybe not in this case (referring to the video) but in most of these objections, I find that it is a case of misplaced hyper-focus on the scriptures, whereas authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures (and the Good News in general) lies with the Church. To quote the catechism of the Catholic Church: "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God." 88 "But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me" That last quote is from St Augustine.
Adque You don't get to chose which rules to follow. Either follow them all, or don't follow any of them. If the rules says "no crab" or "don't mix clothing materials"....you don't do it. The point behind the character was to show how such hateful assholes only follow the rules they agree with. We see her eating crab, wearing mixed clothes, while also insulting the president. Try again.
Irrelevant, and I never said they were invented to bash gays. I am saying that the rules in place, are twisted and misinterpreted on purpose so they can bash gays. Since the bible is filled with metaphors, it allows the reader to come up with their own interpretation. As a result, you get fundamentalists preaching their own version of religion. Not following all the rules in whatever version of the bible you read, makes you a cherry picker. It's that simple. Not my fault you don't like it.
Incorrect. I never asked if you have seen god. I asked if you have evidence to prove his existence. As for the "know" comment, that is incorrect as well. I can prove the existence of air, by examining the contents of a sample of a planets atmosphere. And air isn't what what keeps us alive. It's a general label for the contents of a planets atmosphere. Try again, without the red herring fallacy this time.
You asked "What the hell does hat mean?" I told you what a hat was. If you had asked about how Christians keep the Sabbath I would refer you to St. Thomas Aquinas "The Jews kept holy the Sabbath in memory of the first creation; but Christ at His coming brought about a new creation. For by the first creation an earthly man was created, and by the second a heavenly man was formed." I neither have the space, time nor inclination to write out the whole Catechism of St. Thomas. You can Google it.
You guys do realise that the New Testament of 2 laws over rides the 613 in the Old Testament? Rule 1. There is only the one true God. Rule 2. Love your neighbour as you love yourself. It's not a Christians place to judge anyone and if they do, they've lost the message. But shows like this only feed ignorance because the majority have not read the bible. Start at in the beginning and end at Amen then make judgement.
I never said everyone who is a theist thinks X. I said "another theist who thinks X". There is a difference. As for Prop 8, you know for a fact that those who oppose same sex marriage do it from a religious point of view. or at least a simple bigot's point of view. Nearly all hate can be traced back to a religion. Prop 8 supporter "Traditional marriage is between a man and a woman." My response is, "Who's tradition?" Nearly every answer is "God's and the bible".
No, he didn't. She sat there while everyone else stood up. She disrespected him by not showing him the respect of his office. And by disrespecting him, he called her out on her idiocy and hypocrisy. It's against the bible to eat crustations (she has a crab puff. She even has a broach of a crab on her blouse.) She's wearing two different threads. She acts like she has knowledge about stuff, when her degree is in English Literature. That's the "doctor" part. The whole thing is a massive jab at Dr. Laura Catherine Schlessinger and how her "Advice" is based upon religion and she consistently insults people who live in ways that are "against her beliefs". She calls a man and a woman living together as "shacking up". A way of demeaning their choice to live together unmarried. I used to listen to her show when I did kitchen/bathroom remodeling because my boss listened to her. In 1998, she claimed a magazing in a surf shop to be "stealth pornography". When the owner of the store publicly denied that she found pornography in his store, Schlessinger sued him for lying, claiming that his denial had hurt her reputation. The store owner counter sued and won. Millions. That same year, nude photos of her were released on the internet. That's pretty hypocritical of her, to call a magazine porn when she HERSELF made pron. She tried to justify it by saying she was in a bad place because of a divorce and said she had "no moral authority"....whatever the hell that means. She's also a racist. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Schlessinger Her doctoral thesis? The effect of insulin on lab rats. She is a horrible person who basically gives advice on things she knows nothing about. If it's against god, it's against her. This scene is all about calling "advice" people out on their intent to use a certain title to give a false impression about what they actually know about. "Dr" Laura is no different.
The bible isn't the evidence. It's the claim. Not only that, but it's a collection of contradictory stories, mostly written by people who weren't even there, over the course of several centuries, and edited by those in power to further their goals. Do you follow ALL of the rules set forth by the bible? Can you prove the existence of god? What proves your religion correct and others false? Until you answer those questions with falsifiable evidence, there is no reason to accept the claim.
Really, are you going to the point of asking have you seen God. Really.... well at this point, I rest my case....hopefully u will find out some day...but until then just know that JESUS LOVES YOU, and he is more real than the very air you breathe.... and oh let me know when ever you see the "air " you breathe....
Another theist that's completely missing the point of the scene and video. You can't cherry pick what "laws" you wish to follow, be them religious or of the government.
Poisoning the well fallacy. It's a legitimate question regarding the subject at hand. Laws/rules of the bible. As for the "canal attitude" comment, that's just childish. I'm using logic to defeat both of your claims and you insult me? Are you fucking serious? You stopped arguing because I caught you in a hole in your logic, just like this guy. You misquoted me and I called you on it. he made a double standard and I called him on it. Your argument is invalid.
![Eminem - Like My Shit [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vx_IMvFkrfA/mqdefault.jpg)
Now THAT is how to put someone in their place!
Greatest scene, greatest takedown in all of West Wing and maybe in all of TV. I LOVED that scene. Always will.
The one in the pilot was good too, with his granddaughter
EXCEPT practically everything the fake Marxist president was either not even what the Bible said or twisted of all contest. The "selling" of a woman into slavery quote that the guy quoted was concerning BUYING A BRIDE! It was reimbursing a family for losing a daughter and worker and showing them he had enough money to provide and PROTECT her! It wasn't Democrat slavery where people were beaten and worked to death. Heck the Biblical Law was that if you even struck a slave and knocked out a TOOTH, he would be set free. Plus they only worked for 7 years, had to be fed and provided for and were taught a trade. It was much more like a work program than slavery and many poor sold THEMSELVES into slavery. Plus the fake Pres didn't know anything about the NT and Jesus declaring all foods to be spiritually clean, therefore declaring the dietary laws to be fulfilled because salvation was coming to the Gentiles along with the Jews since the dietary and fabric laws were in place to keep the Hebrew people separate from the wicked pagan gentile tribes they were going to invade and take their land from? All this "takedown" showed was Sorkin knows practically nothing about actual Biblical Law and context.
"I'm just gonna take that crab puff". The bible forbids eating shellfish if I'm not mistaken XD
Jesus said that it's not what goes in your mouth that makes you impure, but what comes out of it. There's debate about what this means, although it's a reasonable interpretation that this meant a relaxation of the dietary restrictions and a focus on giving up your material possessions and following him.
@@paxton_wulgus Jesus was the first Reform Jew
@@raytylicki9001 Jesus wasn't fucking real and religion is a fairy tale.
@@MrYouarethecancer If he wasn't, then why is there a grave with the mans name in Jerusalem? You don't make a grave for someone that doesn't exist. So even if the bible and somehow God wasn't real, we cannot say that an actual man that was here on this planet wasn't here. Just because you cannot see or do not believe, does not mean that it is not real. There's actual parts of the bible that are actually true. The actual Ark of Noah was found in Turkey, which is actually not far at all from the Middle East considering how the planet was back then. They even found traces of the special type of wood used in the dirt and measured how big it was or at least as much as they could since it was so closely merged with the dirt and hardened mud it was covered in. You should actually take the time to look things up for yourself instead of just trying to say nonsense the entire time.
@@Rodikaku65 You can.
I can go out and make a grave for voldemort right now, or Zeus, doesn't make them real.
"..In this building, when the president stands, NOBODY sits."
That's what bothered him most which was ironic lol. She didn't respect him lol.
@@dietrichmyatt9813 the flagrant display of disrespecting that decorum is, in actuality, the most galling part. She can have her opinions, despite those opinions harming the safety of innocent people, but to bald-faced bring a 'fuck you' like she did needed to be addressed. The dressing down was what she got for the effort.
I've watched all 7 seasons 3 times and this is still one of my favourite scenes.
what are the others?
The grand daughter scene.
The argument with God.
The Debate.
Allison Janney at 1:41 is so brilliant, you can just see CJ knows exactly what's about to go down and is living for it
Martin Sheen acting as a president who is acting confused.
This is not only actception but also well executed. Bravo mister Sheen, bravo.
He was less confused and more perturbed
Best part?
The "dr" eating crab puffs ...
Thank you for uploading this, my friend just sent it to me. As a Catholic and a pansexual, I'm about to stand up and start applauding. I can't stand when people pick and choose which parts of the Bible conform to them and then use the parts they like to dehumanize others. It's hypocrisy, at the end of the day.
Catholic pansexual???
Interesting.
Soldier4USA2005 Well, Catholic means "universal," after all... ;)
So I'm guessing your position is that the anti-gay lady should stop eating shellfish AND be against gays?
That's what it meant in the year 100 ... but since then consistant corruption has made it non-universal.
What is pansexual? In love with frying pans? Just kidding but seriously whats that?
This man NEVER won an Emmy for playing Bartlet.
Un. . .REAL.
I WISH Jed Bartlett was a real POTUS, I’d definitely vote for him
Many would. My only conniption to hypothetically voting for him was his stance on guns. Him and his staff constantly used old, debunked, horribly inaccurate "facts" or anti-gun terms that showed them being unable to learn something or using fear to restrict rights. But it did make them flawed and human, which added to the writing and story.
Soldier4USA2005 Would you still vote for him?
@@alexratnakar I would dispite his gun stance.
No candidate is perfect and no president will ever be able to threaten gun rights.
And I love that she was eating crab-puffs.
Also a Biblical abomination.
One of the best scenes of all time!
"I will not commit a bad deed to someone simply because the Bible said so"
And this is proof that there is a superior secular morality guiding your actions that did NOT come from Bible. You have come to realize that the Bible is one of the most intolerant books in the whole world. The only way a Christian can avoid going to prison is to cherry pick which of the 613 Commandments he actually follows - which means that you aren't really following the Bible at all but your own code of morality.
6 years later, do you still believe the same?
rpsyco 99% of Christians dont follow the bible as it is written. I think this shows how irrelevant religion is nowadays. Religions provided a moral compass in a time when there were none, but now, those morals have morphed and evolved into a completely different form. These morals have been imbedded into our society for generations, and they arent going away, rendering texts, such as the bible, and their set of morals and commandments outdated and useless. Society is full of enough good people to uphold the most fundamental morals and to do whats right. Religion does nothing but hold back society.
@@2headedtasman200 It wasn't just a moral compass, it also answered questions that most wanted to know, like what happens after death, how did the world come about, where did we come from, the history of the world.
This is proof that there are parts of the Bible that were meant for a different time. But it is not proof that someone as incredibly religious as president Bartlet who bases his morals on his religiosity, would assume some supposedly secular morality for his actions.
@@rpsyco 10 years later I still believe the same as TRUTH does not change.
The West Wing - The President detroys #KimDavis
There. Fixed it! :) :)
One of my favorite scenes of the show.
A president with a fucking spine AND a genuine sense of morality. Might as well be a superhero.
Crab puff...
perfect.
Bam. In the words of Tag Team:
"WHOOMP THERE IT IS, WHOOMP THERE IT IS, WHOOMP THERE IT IS..."
Time has vindicated the Barlet character. For all the ways in which comments below make claims that they can be good Christians and demand the slaughter of those who are different, the venom and sadism of this sort of person has been exposed. When these supposed moral paragons aligned themselves with a racist, misogynist monster guilty of adultery, sexual harassment, degenerate incestuous desires, an arrogant refusal to ask God for forgiveness (which is allegedly a cornerstone of their faith) and a painfully obvious disinterest in Christianity apart from as a vehicle for his own bigotry, they truly showed themselves up. Even by their own standards. They are guilty of breaking the First Commandment: look at the way the idolise the beast that squats in the White House.
I'm here in July of 2024, right after the Supreme Court has ruled that a president is essentially above the law, and I only wish that our politicians had half the sense of this president. I only hope that we can be saved from ourselves. I don't mean to be so pessimistic, but optimism seems to be in short supply these days.
Sadly, I agree.
This show was what we dream how our politicians would act. I don't agree with everything the administration goes for (such as using anti-gun rhetoric after Bartlet was shot) ... but that's going to happen. You can't make everyone happy.
Ahhh, I LOVE this clip. Everything I always wanted to say at "home group" every time I was forced to attend and listen to them tell me my loved ones who happened to be gay were going to burn in hell! I settled for placing a few choice pieces of chocolax in the candy dish at the following event. I was 13 and proud as hell!
This is a television President I could be proud of.
As the president walks away, the background music should be Whoop That Trick
Wish real presidents sounded like that . . .
“…When the President stands nobody sits”(Dr. Laura) I mean Jacobs
If I were the director I would have put a few more biblical quotes from the New Testament:Women should remain in silence,cover their heads,and never doubt he authority of men.😜
Martin sheen for president 2016..got my vote
More like the West Wing writers for President, although Martin Sheen himself would not have been a bad choice and certainly better than either alternative.
Martin Sheen himself said he’d be a terrible president, as he is a pacifist. Also, an anti-war, but also anti-abortion candidate would have trouble securing a nomination from either political party. Aaron Sorkin is a much better option, sense he actually wrote the show and came up with these ideas.
Got to love when Sam Seaborn takes the creampuff.
It's a last little poke at her (as well as most religious people's) idiotic, hypocritical, cherry picking stupidity.
And if you look at her jacket, her brooch is of a crustacean. Something forbidden by the bible.
Fortunately, the only laws that count are the legislated ones.
I'll admit, I know jack shit about biblical hermeneutics. Regardless, I do know that all disciplines consist of discoursive enviornments detailed with clashing interpretations at every level. Hardly any discipline or science ever functions as a wildcard that silences all debates. No two scholars can agree on their understanding of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, but somehow the Bible, a millenary collection of books written throughout several stages of history by countless authors in different languages (some of which nobody speaks anymore), merrits a univocal interpretation?
While you ponder that, I'd like to hear a "mundane" moral objection to homosexuality. By this I mean providing a concrete reason as to how it raises any real-life insurmountable concern, baring in mind we live in an age in which no serious medical or scientific organization considers it any form of sickness or disfunction.
Hah ha ha. Good luck.
By "a moral objection to homosexuality" do you mean homosexual impulses or homosexual acts? As far as I am aware, and I'm pretty sure psychology backs me up on this, people do not get to choose their impulses. But of course Jesus said we are responsible for having impulses (Matt. 5:28) - so it's no wonder Christians are so filled with self-loathing and so quick to project it on others when Trump triggers them with his horror stories of impure immigrants storming the border. (Notwithstanding that a majority of said immigrants are themselves some flavor of fellow Christians.)
The foundations of ethical dealings within society promote the furtherance of the singularly paramount resource within the universe: consciousness. The ability of the universes self sentience gives validity and credence to the universe itself. Without it, all is for naught. All of light, sound, matter, form, and art are but darkness and meaningless collisions without a viewer. Therefore, a fault within the system which causes reward without replication of sentience is truly destructive to all that is valuable within the universe.
This would never happen. A person not standing up when the president walks in.
He didn't say anything about anything being abolished. What he was getting at is that because of Christ the laws of God were altered in a way so that you could repent instead of being put to death for sinning. Although he never mentioned Christ's name, that's where he was going and the point he was making trying to make clear to her. In my opinion, pretty much telling her that it's not her job to judge anyone for their sins against God and under the new law they will be forgiven if they seek it.
"That's how I beat him" is the only weak point of this scene. Hsve it included absolutely, but in a private conversation with Toby after the fact. Jacobs has already been well and truly put in her place. Anything else is just overkill
Nowhere in this verse does Yeshua (Jesus) abolish the Sabbath. It is in response to the Pharisees who claimed the plucking of corn on the Sabbath violated it. .
The Sabbath was made on account of man, not man on account of the Sabbath. The disciples hungered and their hunger allowed the Sabbath observance to be set aside while their physical needs of hunger were satisfied. Yeshua reminds the Pharisees of this fact and continued to observe it himself as did Paul.
blessings.
Of course, in the real world? Had that same scene occurred? The rest of the assembled would have burst into spontaneous applause. Talk about your third degree burns!!
I’ve never seen this show, but now I want to
It's a great show, but it's really dated in the drama area sometimes as it talks about specific events in reality as part of the show.
I still highly recommend it, though.
Yes, definitely watch. You'll wish for an administration like this with people actually caring about the country rather than just their personal rise to power.
Toby: “That’s how I did it.”
I like these teachings Pastor ANDREW Farley. You remind me of the Socratic tongue-lashing President Bartlett (West Wing-TV fame) gave the Laura Schleshinger character about Old Testament biblical laws.
"But shows like this only feed ignorance because the majority have not read the bible."
---Considering that President Bartlet is a devout Catholic, your argument has no standing.
When you read something that literally says what President Bartlet quotes, it's hard to not come to a conclusion that what you're reading is dangerous.
As for the new testament overriding the old testament, tell that to those who still follow the old testament. You will quickly come across opposition.
Love this scene. He really let her have it! She wasn't so smug then.
I thought the exact same thing when I first saw this episode.
They are chosen from such people, because that's the whole point behind cherry picking.
Religious groups choosing to follow only what they want to believe, or twist the original text to their own goals, is the definition of religious cherry picking.
How many versions of the bible are there and how many people did the revisions?
Since the answer is more than 1 for both, it proves that the rules can change based solely upon who is in power and what beliefs they want to enforce upon others.
It is noun referring to a shaped covering for the head worn for warmth, as a fashion item or as part of a uniform.
I like how he tried to refute her position of the moral law with the ceremonial law. This guy obviously doesn't know the difference.
Dude, hate is hate. Period.
Try again.
I think the objection is to the sub-intellectual content of his argument.
"The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" Mark 2:27
" If Bartlett tried to follow the law he would have been assassinated by the CIA within a week of taking office"
---Ugh.....seriously???
"I was only making a comment of what his position would have been in a real life situation."
---What you're missing is that there is a difference between a religious claim being true, which is then broadcasted as propaganda (hatred towards gays), and government.
You can't pick and choose what you believe is true in a religion.
That's Bartlet's point.
Israel Folau should watch this on loop.
In a legal sense, the safest way is to allow everyone to their belief since it is free after all and is constitutionally recognized as such. But i think, on a personal note, if people see religion as a way to validate the acts of others causing hate and division, it is a very unhealthy way of living and is contradictory to the context of supposed love which it teaches to its core like that of Christianity. But if the man made laws allow freedom of belief and nigh limit acts performed based on that free belief, then we cannoy really invade men's minds and tell them what is right from wrong based on religious grounds since man is free to think for himself. I think that that freedom of choice to beliefs affects the very nature of a person's manner of living and just affects everything entirely. But then again, the law itself allows that freedom.. Such a difficult situation really if you look at it.
Sebastian kolroW That's the catch-22 of the 1st Amendment.
John 7:21-24, Luke 13:10-17, Matt 12:1-8, Mark 2:27-28, I wouldnt say he abolished it, but he redefined it..
Selective obedience. The worst sin of the Bible followers!! Amazing!!
Imagine if after he said all that she just pulled out a pair of crutches cause he had a broken leg or something haha
No intolerance is what cause problems in the world. I myself I'm fairly religious but I will not commit a bad deed to someone simply because the Bible sad so.
And I'm not saying nobody does that. I'm sure there are Christians who feel, "But I like lobster, so forget that rule, but I'm not gay so I'm fine with the Bible condemning THEM." But I still say that just assuming that's where everyone's coming from is simplistic and arbitrary. That's my only point on that.
As far as the 1st Amendment goes, individuals may oppose marriage equality solely for religious reasons, but in the Prop 8 case before the Supreme Court neither side argued religion.
If I could simply press a button and instantly eliminate all religious belief from the minds of all people on the planet I would press that button right now....
Nothing can get so many good people to do bad things like religion can.
I LOVE this scene.
what does rob lowe say at 3:40??
thanks
I'm just going to take the crab puff.
Soldier4USA2005 thanks - now where do I go to join the ignorant tight ass club?
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets." Matthew 5:17. "“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished." Matthew 5:18. ""Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation..." 2 Peter 20. "For Moses said, 'Honor your father and mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.'" Mark 7:10. (All Jesus).
Actually, the commandment about not planting different crops side by side or wearing garments made of more than one type of fabric say nothing about the penalty for doing so.
Irrelevant.
The point is it's against the rules, she did it anyways, and is being called out on it (subtly).
@@Soldier4USA2005 The point is Bartlett was saying that breaking those commandments carried the penalty of death but he was mistaken.
@@cnault3244 You very clearly didn't get it and chose to play semantics instead of understanding the point.
She was breaking the very rules she supposedly upholds as absolute truths and he called her on it.
She talks about how "god hates gays" because it's in the bible....while eating a crustacean (Leviticus 11:9-12), wears a broach of a crustacean made of gold (so that's 2 in 1)(1 Timothy 2:9-10), and wears clothing of different cloths (Deuteronomy 22:11)
She fucked up. Get over it.
@@Soldier4USA2005 "You very clearly didn't get it and chose to play semantics instead of understanding the point."
The point was some of the president's scripted lined were fallacious. In this show that is surprising because usually the scripts are excellent.
The writers ( in this instance) fucked up. Get over it.
@@cnault3244 I'm talking about the point of the scene. And you don't know what fallacious means.
It means a non-valid argument. And what that means is for the argument to not have only 1 conclusion. NOT whether or not the argument was good. His entire speech is valid from that point of view.
He's using her own religion to show how hypocritical she is.
She's breaking multiple rules of her own religion, while holding others to the same standard. All while VERY clearly misusing her "Doctor" title from her PhD to get people to think she's actually a doctor of relevant subjects like marriage and medicine.
THAT ... is ... the ... point. Not how accurate his scripture quoting is or how the writers "fucked up".
It's her religious fanaticism he's putting to task and how she demonizes people because "god said so".
I'm at least as liberal as Jed Bartlet, but that was bullying.
A very obviously hypocritical woman, who uses her credentials to trick people into thinking she's a doctor of relevant training, who uses religion to justify her hate, makes the conscious choice to NOT stand when POTUS enters the room in the FUCKING WHITE HOUSE, he calls her on it, and he's bullying?
🤣🤣🤣
We've probably taken this as far as it can go, so I'll just repeat that I can't see telling other people what the "rules of their religion" are. You don't seem to be willing to accept that they may simply believe those AREN'T the "rules", and that they believe this in good faith, and not from self-serving reasons. The issue over O.T. rules and Christians isn't something that was just invented so Christians could bash gays and still enjoy their lobster, it's a centuries-old internal faith debate.
I agree. What our Lord was doing was pointing out that one shouldn't use strict observance of the Law to prevent good from being done. Just as President Bartlett is doing in this clip.
Christians still observe the Sabbath (as laid out by Justin Martyr and Aquinas). Go see "Chariots of Fire".
Yes, I've seen a zillion (only slight exaggeration) comments along the lines of "The Bible says it's wrong so that's it." Our country doesn't work that way, obviously. But that doesn't dispose of the issue. The arguments pro and con before the Supreme Court were entirely secular.
In a previous comment you were pretty explicit in saying "you can't" pick and choose which biblical laws to follow, etc. Personally, I'd be uncomfortable making that judgment for other people and their beliefs.
Please tell me where Jesus abolishes the Sabbath ? I would love to know ??
You need to uppercase the word DESTROYS if you want the title to look more like a RUclips video title.
There are a lot of Christian sects, and a minority believes that all of the O.T. laws are still in force, others (I guess the majority) that believe some are and some aren't, and a few that believe that NONE of the O.T. laws are binding on Christians.
I'm not making a case for any of these views, but I think using the pejorative 'cherry picking' is unjust, with its implicit presumption that these views aren't sincerely held. but chosen from self-serving and opportunistic motives,
I disagree. It's like saying if people have differing views on any issue they're "twisting" things--sometimes people just have different views. If anything is open to interpretation it's the Bible(!), and I maintain it's presumptuous to assume this or that opinion comes from self-serving "goals" rather than honest belief. And besides, the people who say Christians should abandon the Bible's take on homosexuality (as they see it, that is) are themselves telling them to "cherry pick".
the fact that she is quite does not mean that the guy is right...he is being ignorant....because all the excuses he gave were no longer mentioned in new testament except homosexuality... even the Sabbath was overturned by Jesus....
That's not the point.
The point is bigotry and hatred for a group of people simply because some old book says that they are evil and against god, with nothing to support the claim to begin with other than ignorance.
The whole thing is about the inconsistencies and "cherry picking fallacies of many christians regarding the bible and what "rules" they follow and one they don't.
The President was making the point of "all of the or nothing".
"You asked "What the hell does hat mean?" I told you what a hat was."
---Don't patronize me. if you had thought about what I typed in response to your comment, you would thought the following.
1) Is he asking what "hat" means?
2) Is he asking what the quote means?
Which is more likely of the two?
As for your explanation, it's just more quotes. It's not an answer.
Do you follow EVERY single rule in the bible, no matter the version you're using?
If not, then you're cherry picking. Period.
False.
Merely stating what you like best isn't saying that's all there is to the person. There may be several things that you like about someone, but there is always one special thing about them that you like.
That's not cherry picking. That's answering the question.
It would be no different than saying what you favorite song is from a movie soundtrack.
Cherry picking is choosing to accept only certain things as true/false, then to completely disregard the rest as if they didn't exist.
@@waynejohnson4211 You're responding to a 7 year old comment that you clearly have no context for since the comment I responded to isn't part of the conversation.
Also, the Merriam-Webster definition doesn't agree with you.
No people are mentioned.
@@waynejohnson4211 You didn't read the entire comment .... did you?
You straight up ignored the entire first sentence so you can try to dick measure.
Hilarious.
@@waynejohnson4211 I doubt you did.
If you had read the whole comment, then you would know you don't understand the point behind my use of the term "cherry picking".
You're making an assumption on how it was used and are responding accordingly.
@@waynejohnson4211 Now you're using fallacies to try to ignore the fact that ..... you have NO IDEA WHY I used the term cherry picking.
You tried to correct a 7 YEAR OLD COMMENT!!
The level of arrogance is mind blowing.
@@waynejohnson4211 The level of arrogance in that comment is astounding.
You assume you're right because "to your knowledge".
Cherry picking is a form of fallacy, like the one you made regarding "I'm English" (appeal to authority fallacy).... as if that means anything.
Someone can be Japanese, but it doesn't mean they're an expert on Japanese culture or language.
Either you're an idiot, or a troll.
I think both.
No it's not saying that. People having different ideas is what furthers democracy, as well as equality.
What cherry picking is, is choosing only certain things to believe in, or promote, to further a political goal that has nothing with what you truly believe. And if it is something someone truly believes, they do this in such a manner as to force said beliefs upon others.
The 1st Amendment declares separation of church and state, as well as the Supreme Court in Everson v Board of Education.
Like a Baws
Well played mr President well played
No she wouldn't have because that wasn't what the scene was about.
It was about how religious people only followed the rules they wanted to, thus being "cherry pickers".
The "murders" comment is just sad. That's a mind projection fallacy. You obviously don't like war and call a fictional character a "murderer" because you don't agree with what he did.
Also, you obviously haven't watched the show at all because if you had, you would know Bartlet tries to follow the law in every episode.
And what "misery" would that be???
the guy below cannot understand the bible, directing him to go read the bible is of no use.... the bible is spiritual and a man with such canal attitude will find it hard to comprehend it..... look at him askin "Do you follow EVERY single rule in the bible, no matter the version you're using"... I actually stopped arguing with him cause it was really going no where...lets just pray for him, thats the best we can do
It's not a judgment. It's making sure people follow the rules of their religion. You can't choose what rules to follow, like you can't choose what laws to obey.
It's that simple. Either you obey all the rules, or you're a hypocrite and a cherry picker.
"I don't like how I can't mix threads, so I won't follow that rule. And lobster is tasty, so I won't follow that rule. But god says gays are evil, so I must force that rule upon others."
That's what the majority of theists look like to society.
Brilliant!
Fabulous
Cherry picking ? Read Acts 15. Its for the same reason Gentiles are not required to be circumcised. So no, its not cherry picking at all. It what was laid down and affirmed by Christ and his apostles.
There's a difference between the natural law and the ceremonial law. It's a common misunderstanding folks have about Biblical interpretations and the role of Jesus Christ who came to fulfill the old law. This understanding is pretty common to most Christian denominations. Here, Jesus reveals the pedagogical approach of God's instructions in the ceremonial law, and in the process explains the reason in the natural law. This natural law, is founded in reason, the Logos in whom we believe we were created in image and likeness; hence humans are rational souls.
It's not cherry picking what we like or don't like (if we do that, we're actually violating the natural law, and it is sinful) but the work of the Church, the Body of Christ, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is a discernment of the law and its meaning. Here, I'm speaking more as a Catholic, but again the general principle is more or less. shared across most Christian denominations.
The Natural Law is not restricted to Jews and Christians. Indeed, it is proper to Man's nature, as the name suggests. This is one of the reasons why many Early Church Fathers respected many pagan philosophers like Socrates, referring to them as "Christians before Christ", as their endeavor in philosophy was seen as a devotional act of love for the Logos, though in a somewhat hidden manner. Same great respect and veneration was given to men like Cicero and others, whether in their philosophical works in Stoicism or even their legal expertise.
A more religiously literate way of objecting to a teaching, would be to challenge a moral opinion based in the reason of NL. I think quoting scripture by conflating ceremonial and natural commands is the where cherry-picking lies.
Maybe not in this case (referring to the video) but in most of these objections, I find that it is a case of misplaced hyper-focus on the scriptures, whereas authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures (and the Good News in general) lies with the Church. To quote the catechism of the Catholic Church:
"It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards
a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred
Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a
firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the
manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement
of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and
ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God." 88
"But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me"
That last quote is from St Augustine.
Adque You don't get to chose which rules to follow.
Either follow them all, or don't follow any of them.
If the rules says "no crab" or "don't mix clothing materials"....you don't do it.
The point behind the character was to show how such hateful assholes only follow the rules they agree with. We see her eating crab, wearing mixed clothes, while also insulting the president.
Try again.
@Joseph Fiore Uhhh.....what?
Irrelevant, and I never said they were invented to bash gays.
I am saying that the rules in place, are twisted and misinterpreted on purpose so they can bash gays.
Since the bible is filled with metaphors, it allows the reader to come up with their own interpretation. As a result, you get fundamentalists preaching their own version of religion.
Not following all the rules in whatever version of the bible you read, makes you a cherry picker.
It's that simple.
Not my fault you don't like it.
Incorrect.
I never asked if you have seen god. I asked if you have evidence to prove his existence.
As for the "know" comment, that is incorrect as well. I can prove the existence of air, by examining the contents of a sample of a planets atmosphere.
And air isn't what what keeps us alive. It's a general label for the contents of a planets atmosphere.
Try again, without the red herring fallacy this time.
You asked "What the hell does hat mean?" I told you what a hat was. If you had asked about how Christians keep the Sabbath I would refer you to St. Thomas Aquinas "The Jews kept holy the Sabbath in memory of the first creation; but Christ at His coming brought about a new creation. For by the first creation an earthly man was created, and by the second a heavenly man was formed." I neither have the space, time nor inclination to write out the whole Catechism of St. Thomas. You can Google it.
What the hell does hat mean?
You can not recover from tho
You guys do realise that the New Testament of 2 laws over rides the 613 in the Old Testament? Rule 1. There is only the one true God. Rule 2. Love your neighbour as you love yourself. It's not a Christians place to judge anyone and if they do, they've lost the message. But shows like this only feed ignorance because the majority have not read the bible. Start at in the beginning and end at Amen then make judgement.
I never said everyone who is a theist thinks X. I said "another theist who thinks X".
There is a difference.
As for Prop 8, you know for a fact that those who oppose same sex marriage do it from a religious point of view. or at least a simple bigot's point of view. Nearly all hate can be traced back to a religion.
Prop 8 supporter "Traditional marriage is between a man and a woman."
My response is, "Who's tradition?"
Nearly every answer is "God's and the bible".
beautiful
And your so called response to my typo is simply childish.
You knew exactly what I meant, yet you chose to be a smart ass.
Considering that the sabbath is a religious event and not a physical item, your answer is completely false.
Try again.
Holy shit!!! I didn't even think about that.
More evidence of the hypocritical and cherry picking attitudes of religious idiots.
She was just there, she wasnt there to argue but he just attacked her out of the blue....
No, he didn't.
She sat there while everyone else stood up. She disrespected him by not showing him the respect of his office. And by disrespecting him, he called her out on her idiocy and hypocrisy.
It's against the bible to eat crustations (she has a crab puff. She even has a broach of a crab on her blouse.) She's wearing two different threads. She acts like she has knowledge about stuff, when her degree is in English Literature.
That's the "doctor" part.
The whole thing is a massive jab at Dr. Laura Catherine Schlessinger and how her "Advice" is based upon religion and she consistently insults people who live in ways that are "against her beliefs". She calls a man and a woman living together as "shacking up". A way of demeaning their choice to live together unmarried.
I used to listen to her show when I did kitchen/bathroom remodeling because my boss listened to her.
In 1998, she claimed a magazing in a surf shop to be "stealth pornography". When the owner of the store publicly denied that she found pornography in his store, Schlessinger sued him for lying, claiming that his denial had hurt her reputation. The store owner counter sued and won. Millions.
That same year, nude photos of her were released on the internet. That's pretty hypocritical of her, to call a magazine porn when she HERSELF made pron. She tried to justify it by saying she was in a bad place because of a divorce and said she had "no moral authority"....whatever the hell that means.
She's also a racist.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Schlessinger
Her doctoral thesis? The effect of insulin on lab rats.
She is a horrible person who basically gives advice on things she knows nothing about. If it's against god, it's against her.
This scene is all about calling "advice" people out on their intent to use a certain title to give a false impression about what they actually know about.
"Dr" Laura is no different.
The bible isn't the evidence. It's the claim.
Not only that, but it's a collection of contradictory stories, mostly written by people who weren't even there, over the course of several centuries, and edited by those in power to further their goals.
Do you follow ALL of the rules set forth by the bible? Can you prove the existence of god? What proves your religion correct and others false?
Until you answer those questions with falsifiable evidence, there is no reason to accept the claim.
Really, are you going to the point of asking have you seen God. Really.... well at this point, I rest my case....hopefully u will find out some day...but until then just know that JESUS LOVES YOU, and he is more real than the very air you breathe.... and oh let me know when ever you see the "air " you breathe....
Another theist that's completely missing the point of the scene and video.
You can't cherry pick what "laws" you wish to follow, be them religious or of the government.
Poisoning the well fallacy.
It's a legitimate question regarding the subject at hand. Laws/rules of the bible. As for the "canal attitude" comment, that's just childish. I'm using logic to defeat both of your claims and you insult me?
Are you fucking serious?
You stopped arguing because I caught you in a hole in your logic, just like this guy. You misquoted me and I called you on it. he made a double standard and I called him on it.
Your argument is invalid.
Anyone could re
President'd.