PaulS

Don't quote me on it, but I think that might be the only mention in the entire NT of Jesus interacting with a Roman (other than his arrest). There certainly isn't much to be said in the NT about Jesus acting positively towards Romans specifically. Bart Erhman sums it up like this: "Jesus really did see himself as the future king of the Jews, who would rule God’s people when the Son of Man arrived in judgment and overthrew the kingdoms aligned against God and set up a new kingdom here on earth." It's hard to imagine a Jesus who favours the Jews so much, to be as equally forgiving and loving toward the Romans who he simultaneously considered part of the kingdom aligned against God. I think he believed God would overthrow the Roman Empire and it was going to happen shortly, which is why he was warning Jews to get ready for the coming Kingdom.

Both - it just depends who you ask!

The only thing I'd say about that is that I think Jesus didn't particularly have time for the Romans and I think he was specifically preaching a message to Jews about preparing for the kingdom, in the context of the evil the Jews had suffered at the hands of the Romans, being dominated by them and all. I don't see Jesus as that all encompassing 'love everybody' figure that is often portrayed about him. I think he was a Jew with very human emotions, and these affected what he thought of the Romans, in my opinion, for what it's worth.

Maybe this is where conspiracy theory starts coming into it, but I didn't interpret his interview at all like you are portraying him. He just seemed to be being bluntly honest - that as a 14 year old kid, he didn't feel guilt because he was living while others were being shipped off. Rather he recognized that that could've been him otherwise, and this is what developed his character (so he says) concerning looking ahead and being forward planning. He didn't relish in people being taken away and he seems to be a huge philanthropist, which normally doesn't gel with being a nazi, I wouldn't have thought. But each to their own view I guess.

No, I don't subscribe to The Australian. I am very lucky - my state (Western Australia) is on the west coast of the country and has had zero cases of community transmission of covid19 for some time now, so our state is fully open and functioning within it's borders. But we did go hard early on with restrictions such as shutting pubs & restaurants down and basically stopping people from congregating in groups for a few weeks until we flattened the curve. Because of that we have been able to return to normal much earlier than elsewhere. We do maintain a border protocol and those people who are allowed into our state must undergo two weeks quarantine upon arrival. That's pretty much the case for 3/4 of the states here. Unfortunately our state of Victoria tried to reopen way too early. They had utilized some restrictions but just weren't strict enough to overcome the curve and then they reopened too early and suffered a signification outbreak of community spread, so they are now trying hard to recover the situation and stop the spread. An adjoining state to Victoria (New South Wales) is a little more affected, but Victoria by far is experiencing the worst of covid19 in Oz.

It happens. The trick is knowing it's happening before somebody has to point it out to you I guess, otherwise you're just contributing to the same old manufactured, false narrative. And of course it can also undermine one's credibility which nobody wants if they hope to be heard and/or understood..

This is the false statement you post earlier in this thread. It is fake news. It never happened. It is the epitome of propaganda. Did you post this because you were providing an example of fabrications to suit a manufactured narrative, or did you not use your critical thinking skills to discern a falsity, perhaps blinded by a bias you have for Soros?

So did you post that false statement attributed to Soros because you did not not use critical thinking skills to discern accuracy of the statement? Surely you don't want to be part of the propaganda spreading by attributing false statements to people, irrespective of what you otherwise think of them. Surely the truth is more important than the 'argument'?

Is that why you posted that false propaganda concerning George Soros? To demonstrate there are false absurdities out there like that, and we can expect people who don't use their critical thinking skills to swallow that manufactured narrative?

An overly simplistic view of a complicated matter. When thousands of people are around you and some start to get violent or destructive, it's possible you don't even know, then all of a sudden you can find you are caught up in the middle of it. Because of that, to then be labelled a violent protester yourself, guilt by association, is lunacy. It's not the law and it's not just.

We are humans and we love labels. It makes life a lot simpler if we can just put other people's opinions in a convenient box. In doing so we create two sides - apparently those violent 'cancel culture' protesters who only want anarchy and those we fear 'caving in' to such demands. Both of these groups miss the point entirely. As I said in my opening post "the term 'cancel culture' is getting thrown around fairly freely in a disparaging way by those opposed to people protesting about the existence of memorials to those who may be considered "yesterday's heroes" to those who were either racist or at least indifferent to racism, but there is an element of it I thought we could discuss." Is the removal of statues, memorials and other uses such as "naming rights", commemorating people who have played a major part in the historical repression, segregation and overall discrimination of black people (and by that term I mean African Americans in the US as well as indigenous Australians here in Oz) something whose time has come and should be considered for removal? I'm sorry I even used the term cancel culture as it seems to just give people an excuse to dismiss the underlying issue. These issues existed long before the media coined a convenient term to put everything related to these issues, in one simple box. I'd encourage people to look at the issue in depth, not get worried about the precise definition of a term created by the media, which in itself does not precisely capture all of the points associated with the issue in any case.

Well I can't really change then as they're not my odds, but the bookmakers. As I said when I last posted about the odds and Trump's chances I said "But I'm not saying he won't get there. I think it's up in the air at the moment." So I don't disagree with the article. My gut feel is that he won't win, but I'm not prepared to call it at this stage.

A majority wanted Hillary elected over Trump, but that wasn't fair you say - you preferred the weighted voting system where some votes count more than others. So why is it fair to blacks that in this instance the simple majority want to retain these things (if that claim is accurate)? Wouldn't weighted voting perhaps be appropriate so they would have a better voice instead of drowned out by majority whites who don't want change? I am certain your race relations there go beyond statues and monuments, but dealing with statues and monuments is one relatively easy step forward that you can take to help bridge the divide and help with the healing. I think the fact that you think it is 'caving in' to agree to remove the statues suggests something else may be affecting your view on the matter. I disagree with it being as simple as the statues only having the power you give to them - clearly the statues send a message to the community and in this case the message is "we don't care if you don't like a monument of somebody who fought for slavery - our reasons for wanting the display (purely historical purposes!) is more important than the hurt it gives you".

Now, will you rely on a simple majority Joseph (as you have said, that doesn't work when it comes to electing Presidents) or should your community voting be weighted to give justified bias to others?

That's the bit I just don't really get. White people, confederate supporters, other blacks, or whoever it is that want to retain these statues and monuments, do so deliberately knowing that a significant portion of their community is asking them to please understand their hurt and harm and do away with the icons in places of prominence in the community. Why is it so hard to say "fair enough, if it helps you and us as a community, let's do it, let's put them in a museum, then we can all move on. We hear you that to you they are symbols of oppression and racial hatred, and we don't want you to feel that way." I just don't see the downside other than maybe one side feels it has to give something up, even though it doesn't. The upside, even from a cynical point of view, is simply that there is no argument anymore. One less hurdle in helping the US heal and in Australia's case (not so much statues, more about names) one more step toward racial reconciliation.

Many, many people have broken the law and caused disruption to the majority, only to be viewed looking back as exceptional agents for change that we now look favourably on. Imagine if Rosa Parks had never defied the order to be a good nigger and sit at the back of the bus. What if nelson Mandela never fought against the majority rule of white apartheid. Martin Luther King was arrested for 5 times in his fight for civil rights of black people. The list goes on. Myself, I think the minority that are pushing for change regarding these confederate statues will be shown to be on the right side of history when generations look back on now.

'Patience Grasshopper' means (to me) - 'wait'. I think many people are tired of waiting as Thormas points out - for years upon years, decade upon decade (and longer). The point I was making about a black minority is that they can wait until the cows come home - they simply don't necessarily have a strong enough voice in a democracy dominated by whites who don't accept their side of the argument. It's not about 'offence', it's about what the statues stand for. The ones I am talking about, like the one in the photo above, are shrines to an out-of-date ideology. Time for them to go to a museum and not be given a position of prominence in the community. I would suggest the monument is to honour those innocents who died. No issue. Again, it honors those who died by terrible deeds and reminds the community how such trauma is not a good thing. What does the above statue of Genera Lee express to you? Just a little bit of history or do you think the noble steed and proud pose suggests a little more? Do you know what historical information is shared alongside this monument to Lee? What 'them' are you referring to? The ones who have been writing articles, posting on blogs, doing you-tube videos, talking on chat shows for years and years? I would suggest (as I have quite a few times now) you stop focusing on the ones who have vandalized and illegally removed statues and try to listen to the ones who are promoting their peaceful message and have been crying for change for years and years. New Orleans is not in isolation with removing these statues. Nor are Army Generals who peacefully want to change names of army bases. What about all the sports players taking a peaceful knee during the national anthem to demonstrate they think there is an issue. On and on and on it goes. I don't believe a majority of the confederate monuments were genuinely designed to only display history. Knowing the time most were constructed, the states in which they were constructed, and how black people have been treated in those parts makes it pretty clear to anybody open-minded that there were other intentions behind creating these grandiose statues other then explaining history. There are much better ways to share history and that is what many people are asking for. I hope others can listen to them and take affect and help your country heal.

I didn't put any words in your mouth - I was asking you questions. That's what the question marks mean. Society may reach a whole eventually, but I can't help but wonder if "patience grasshopper" wasn't a phrase that black slaves used when they were enslaved by the majority rule that existed at the time. I would encourage you to remember that society as a whole at one point thought that slavery of blacks was okay. At a later point society felt that such opinions needed changing. I think you would agree that as history demonstrates, just because a majority believe something to be right, doesn't make it right! Do you think the image I shared was simply a historical marker, or do you think it was a statue in honor of the person?

Actually, you are a democracy, and a Republic. The US is a republic that uses representative democracy to elect people to positions of government. Interestingly, in 2016, The Economist Intelligence Unit downgraded the United States from a “full democracy” to a “flawed democracy” in its Democracy Report, an annual study of the “state of democracy” around the world. There were a number of reasons the nation’s rating fell, but one of the most important was the American public’s declining trust in government. Our system of government depends on citizens being able to freely elect leaders who will represent their interests. Unfortunately, that doesn’t always happen. In a study published 2014, two political scientists found that, on average, the policies representatives pursue are not in fact dictated by public opinion. This is the mark of a flawed democracy/republic: election without true representation. Allegiance to the United States of America or to the Flag of such? I think your pledge says it is the flag that stands for the Republic. Which is all fine - that's the form of governance the US has. It just should be recognized that it doesn't recognize the majority necessarily and makes a nonsense of your statement that "the silent majority will speak when its time". It seems your 'fairer representation' does not consider majorities, again which is fine, that's your system, but it is what it is.

Some of the things Erhman's scholarship has to say about Paul (in no particular order): I do see some continuities between what Jesus had to say and what Paul had to say (about which I’ll say some things in my next post), but at the end of the day, it sure seems to me that they had different understandings of “salvation.” Jesus had an urgent message to deliver about the coming kingdom of God to be brought by the Son of Man for those who were obedient to God; and Paul had an urgent message to deliver about the return of Jesus for the “saved” – those who believed in Christ’s death and resurrection. Paul inherited his understanding of the death and resurrection of Jesus from those who came before him, even if he understood its significance for Gentiles differently from his predecessors. But I am asking if the gospel that Paul preached is essentially the same or different from the message of Jesus. A very good case can be made, of course, that they are fundamentally different. But it is safe to say that of all the early Christian thinkers and missionaries, Paul is the one we know best as the one who forcefully advocated this Christian message, in contradistinction to the message of Jesus. In the writings of Paul more clearly than almost anywhere else in the NT we see that the message *of* Jesus has become the message *about* Jesus: that is, the message that was preached by Jesus during his life was transformed into a message about the importance of his death. Differences Between Jesus and Paul Jesus taught that the coming cosmic judge of the earth who would destroy the forces of evil and bring in God’s good kingdom was a figure that he called the Son of Man, someone other than himself, who could come on the clouds of heaven in a mighty act of judgment. Paul taught that Jesus himself was the coming cosmic judge of the earth who would destroy the forces of evil and bring in God’s good kingdom, who would come on the clouds of heaven in a mighty act of judgment. Jesus taught that to escape judgment, a person must keep the central teachings of the Law as he himself interpreted them. Paul taught that reliance on the observance of the Law in no sense would bring salvation; to escape the coming judgment a person must, instead, believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Jesus taught that “faith” involves trusting God, as a good parent, to bring his future kingdom to his people; Paul taught that “faith” involves trusting in the past death and resurrection of Jesus. It wasn’t only faith in God but faith in the death and resurrection of Christ. For Jesus, his own importance lay in his proclamation of the coming of the end and his correct interpretation of the Law. For Paul, Jesus’ importance had nothing to do with Jesus’ own teachings (which Paul hardly ever quotes) but strictly in his death and resurrection. For Jesus, people could begin to experience what life would be like in the future kingdom if they would accept his teachings and begin to implement his understanding of the Jewish law in their lives. For Paul, people could begin to experience life in the kingdom when they “died with Christ” by being baptized and thus overcame the power of sin.

I disagree - Paul is the reason 'Pauline Christianity' is the foundation of western civilization. Paul changed Jesus' version of Christianity for how he interpreted the Jesus he never met.

So you think blacks have had no issues being represented in your democracy where they are a minority group? It's all been hunky dory and equally fair for all? You don't think the odds are ever against them in any way? I think it's a little naive to think that black people have complete and utter equal opportunity in democracy when they are only 14% of the electorate. How many statues have the Florida Marker Program erected? Statues have ever only been put in place to honor the individual or honor their ideals and what they stood for. They were never installed as balanced, historical markers telling all sides of a story. The Florida Historical Marker Program is a much, much better approach where marker's are used to tell a story, and not just one side of the story. Efforts from the likes of the Florida Program are used to balance the story. I don't see any cancel culture oriented people wanting to change history or change the past, they just want it acknowledged that hero worship of racist figures should not continue unchallenged. Such statues should be removed and replaced with a marker that accurately tells the story. That would actually provide better context of the time period without it appearing as a form of status. Proper historical markers properly explain history and don't just display a statue honoring one side of the story. Here's a 'historical marker' of Robert Lee in Virginia. Can you seriously say this is just a simple historical marker that explains history and not an idol of hero worship to somebody who the majority of whites in that area praised for his anti-black ideals?

Well actually the majority spoke last Presidential election, but your electoral system doesn't allow for democracy to be that simple.

Personally, I think you would probably benefit from understanding the science of evolution, but it's your choice.

I don't think we can know accurately what Paul actually thought about women being involved in the Church. It seems to me that there appears to be some passages indicating Paul supported the involvement of women, and other passages indicating his desire to control how women may be involved or how they should behave in Church. This brief article points to some of those. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29513427 Jesus seemed to welcome women's involvement and participation, but we now better understand that Paul was treading a different path to Jesus, so who knows for sure where his thoughts lay on that matter.