Is Pete Buttigieg Really a Christian?

[Jacob]

:think: 1 Corinthians 5:12,13
According to scriptures, including above, the Christian is supposed to judge those within the church.

Good point.

 

[annabenedetti]

Again, I think whether he/she should be president is indeed a political discussion and I believe you are correct, we have very few qualifications as a country for who can be seated in that office. For me, that alone is an incredibly interesting and meaningful thread all on its own. It seems the forefathers rested in the values of the people to filter political offices. We simply do not address "morally fit" for political office other than as we have insubstantial concerns. -Lon

The question is being asked because he's running for president. Nobody was asking when he was just mayor of South Bend, or at least not enough to matter, since not only was he elected by 74% of the voters, he was reelected by 80% of the voters. That's pretty impressive.

 

[Lon]

The question is being asked because he's running for president. Nobody was asking when he was just mayor of South Bend, or at least not enough to matter, since not only was he elected by 74% of the voters, he was reelected by 80% of the voters. That's pretty impressive.

100% of Jonestown followed Jim Jones to death. I wouldn't call "100%" impressive, however.

Seattle voted in Ed Murray for mayor twice as well. He resigned following his fifth allegation of child sexual abuse. There is a documentary produced in Seattle called "Seattle is Dying" and it is based off of policy Murray began and others in office carried out. Seattle boasted the largest gay community of any U.S. city, at the time. They boasted the first all-nude summer solstice festival at that time, and were proud of their 'progressive' permissive policies.

When data matches suspicion, it is no longer reasonable to doubt previous data given as 'inaccurate.' In this sense, it is important to connect the dots between what is actually accomplished over and above their popular status. It doesn't matter much, if a community is happily degrading and harming themselves, even if that number is 74% or 80%.

Pete Buttigieg's hometown has only 100k and was dying. Pete promised to bring in new growth for the dying community and so, by economics, he was able to deliver the one thing his town needed: Jobs, population growth, and economic stability.

The economy, reportedly, under Obama's second term and Trump's first, is growing and stabilizing (though numbers of who gets credit for what between the two are in contest). If it were up to 'just' economics, there was then, no marked difference between Democrats and Republicans, therefore, there will have to be other reasons for voting this particular one out of office.

When it comes to politics, I don't do 'sides' but rather try and look at all data. As far as I've ever found, it is ALWAYS a choosing of the lesser of two evils in office. I've never planted all my hopes in any one politician but I did like Huckabee and Ben Carson as candidates.

Conversely, I think Jimmy Carter was a great guy, lousy president.

It makes choosing a political candidate a sort of let-down every 4th year for me.

 

[annabenedetti]

100% of Jonestown followed Jim Jones to death. I wouldn't call "100%" impressive, however.

You can't really be trying to compare voter percentages to the mass suicide of a cult?

Seattle voted in Ed Murray for mayor twice as well. He resigned following his fifth allegation of child sexual abuse.

Now a comparison to a child molester?

It makes choosing a political candidate a sort of let-down every 4th year for me.

This I can understand, it probably happens to everyone at some point or another even if not at the same 4-year frequency as you.

 

[Lon]

You can't really be trying to compare voter percentages to the mass suicide of a cult?

You'd be missing my point, then. I'm saying percentages are neither impressive nor unimpressive, at least as far as I'm concerned. A disagreement? Perhaps, but more of just an observation out of the gate (at my thread mention). As I said, I'm not really arguing here. I'm not enough of a politician for that. I'm fairly disenfranchised with all politics at the moment. They 'may' reflect our current values as a nation, but I'm a cognizant dissenter in the midst. None of it looks like 'the right answer' to me currently.

Now a comparison to a child molester?

He WAS exactly as you see Buttigieg, 'just' a gay married man who won the Seattle office. Just a gay candidate. He was horrible for Seattle further than just his rape of young men. He caused the homeless crisis in Seattle directly. I'd think those who voted him in, would be more outraged at what he did to them, though I mourn with those who mourn and personally, am equally offended and disturbed not just for what he did to that city, but what he also has done to those young (now) men.

This I can understand, it probably happens to everyone at some point or another even if not at the same 4-year frequency as you.

Agree, we need to get together, all of us, one of these days and vote a huge change. :e4e:

 

[annabenedetti]

You'd be missing my point, then. I'm saying percentages are neither impressive nor unimpressive, at least as far as I'm concerned.

How about if we switched to "significant" which may remove a perception of emotion by bringing an element of statistics into it. Because such high election and reelection percentages for Buttigieg certainly are significant - the first shows significant expectation, the second shows significant satisfaction.

He WAS exactly as you see Buttigieg, 'just' a gay married man who won the Seattle office. Just a gay candidate.

I don't agree. You're projecting guilt by association onto Buttigieg.

Agree, we need to get together, all of us, one of these days and vote a huge change. :e4e:

I don't see that happening, Lon, the divide seems too great, unfortunately.

 

[Lon]

How about if we switched to "significant" which may remove a perception of emotion by bringing an element of statistics into it. Because such high election and reelection percentages for Buttigieg certainly are significant - the first shows significant expectation, the second shows significant satisfaction.

Yes, I think that best represents what you were trying to say without any reservation on my part (or anybody's I'd think).

I don't agree. You're projecting guilt by association onto Buttigieg.

Its a grand (large) experiment so we have to play the cards dealt, at least as far as I understand it. There has to be comparison when the base is so small.

I don't see that happening, Lon, the divide seems too great, unfortunately.

Wishful thinking then. A guy can dream. I think there truly are values where most of us are still united. I'm always looking for those. -Lon

 

[Town Heretic]

Then you obviously know nothing at all about Christianity.

That's what the 7th Day Adventist said to the Baptist.

God forgives those who repent of their sins.

To be sure.

Homosexual activity is a grievous sin

As opposed to a what sort of alternative sin?

& an abomination and this fool Buttigieg

Is calling someone who may be a Christian living in error a fool a grievous sin, or the other sort...whatever that is.

has neither the intention nor the desire of repenting of it. In fact I doubt if he even thinks it is a sin.

I suspect that's right.

He chooses to live in sin, he has no intention of repenting, therefore he is not forgiven and he is not a Christian.

So the sinner in any particular who hasn't begun to reach the point where he or she will see and repent of it is not a Christian at all and cannot be forgiven?

That is very simple. Only a fool who votes for Democrats could think otherwise.

Now that's not Biblical or reasonable.

Democrats = The party of infanticide, sexual perversion and socialism. That is not an opinion, that is a stone cold fact . Facts don't care about your feelings

Actually, there is a pro-life contingent within the Democratic Party, just as there is a pro-choice contingent in the Republican Party. And your linking sin with socialism is irrational.

As for the party of perversion title, I think there are enough practical examples of immoral behavior and blind eyed living to embarrass either party. I mean, look who leads the right these days and consider his sexual congress (either, though you'd have to capitalize).

 

[Lon]

Great to see you back posting on forums again, liar. I'm so sorry I ever thought you, Rusha and Art and eve Yen were actually friends. Trump wins again in 2020. Life just isn't fair is it?

I didn't see her as being mean to me here, if that set you off? I think you are carrying too much on your shoulders that should be on Another's? I'm not sure if there is a lot of pain still over something and I'm pretty sure I haven't seen this between any of your histories.

I appreciate your coming, seemingly to my defense, and the intervention here, but I don't want to see it cause you or another drama. We need to leave some of our burdens in His capable hands. Praying concerning this/for this In Him -Lon

 

[patrick jane]

I didn't see her as being mean to me here, if that set you off? I think you are carrying too much on your shoulders that should be on Another's? I'm not sure if there is a lot of pain still over something and I'm pretty sure I haven't seen this between any of your histories.

I appreciate your coming, seemingly to my defense, and the intervention here, but I don't want to see it cause you or another drama. We need to leave some of our burdens in His capable hands. Praying concerning this/for this In Him -Lon

I'm sorry to you, anna and TH, this has to do with her throwing personal information I shared back in my face in a PM and then blocking me from the ability to reply. I shared with her in trust and confidence and as far as I'm concerned she inferred spreading the info. As far as anna, no problems here except the way she leaves every so often. My outburst had nothing to do with this thread really, so that's the backstory. I'm done with it and moving on.

 

[JudgeRightly]

As opposed to a what sort of alternative sin?

Stealing a box of tic-tacs, perhaps?

Is calling someone who may be a Christian living in error a fool a grievous sin, or the other sort...whatever that is.

Not when they really are a fool.

 

[annabenedetti]

I'm sorry to you, anna and TH, this has to do with her throwing personal information I shared back in my face in a PM and then blocking me from the ability to reply. I shared with her in trust and confidence and as far as I'm concerned she inferred spreading the info.

None of us would know even as much as we do now if you hadn't exploded on her in public and yourself given us information we wouldn't have otherwise.

As far as anna, no problems here except the way she leaves every so often. My outburst had nothing to do with this thread really, so that's the backstory. I'm done with it and moving on.

You had no problem with me so you called me a liar? You know what patrick, time after countless time I've fallen on my face trying to live up to my own expectations, and I think it's finally it's sunk in there's not enough left to try to live up to anyone else's expectations, especially if that someone is determined to think the worst of me anyway.

You take care, and please leave Rusha alone.

 

[Town Heretic]

Stealing a box of tic-tacs, perhaps?

I meant is there a sin that doesn't grieve God?

Not when they really are a fool.

I don't recall that part of the scripture. That must be in the unabridged version. lain:

 

[Lon]

I don't recall that part of the scripture. That must be in the unabridged version. lain:

:doh: I TOLD you to stay away from the Readers Digest version!

 

[JudgeRightly]

Homosexual activity is a grievous sin

As opposed to a what sort of alternative sin?

Stealing a box of tic-tacs, perhaps?

I meant is there a sin that doesn't grieve God?

That wasn't what you asked.

You were responding to the claim that homosexuality was a grievous sin, by asking what it could be compared to that wasn't grievous.

So I answered with a relatively minor sin, stealing a tic-tac.

Stealing is certainly a sin, and all sin grieves God.

But you would be hard pressed to say that stealing a tic-tac is a grievous sin, at the same level as homosexuality.

You should be more careful in how you word things next time, so that your point is more clearly made.

 

[bibleverse2]

It doesn't matter much, if a community is happily degrading and harming themselves, even if that number is 74% or 80%.

Good point.

It brought to mind:

Proverbs 11:21 ¶Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished . . .

Proverbs 16:25 ¶There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Luke 16:15 . . . that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness . . .

-

This is a perfect description of "political correctness" in the light of YHWH God's own Word the Holy Bible (2 Timothy 3:15 to 4:4).

 

[Lon]

I meant is there a sin that doesn't grieve God?

That wasn't what you asked.

You were responding to the claim that homosexuality was a grievous sin, by asking what it could be compared to that wasn't grievous.

So I answered with a relatively minor sin, stealing a tic-tac.

Stealing is certainly a sin, and all sin grieves God.

But you would be hard pressed to say that stealing a tic-tac is a grievous sin, at the same level as homosexuality.

You should be more careful in how you word things next time, so that your point is more clearly made.

Brought to mind the first and second command "Love the Lord your God, and your neighbor as yourself."

It seems to me, all liberal churches start off conservative and living by their bible, but if it ever forgets they can be an affront to God, and believe sin is 'only' against people, then it is no longer a church 'of God.'

A sexual sin is certainly more harmful to an individual than taking their Tic Tac's. For me, I'm always trying to remember that our sins, whether against another human, is certainly against our God too, and often times, against just Him Psalm 51:4

I'm not sure if this carries your conversation into the meaningful between your posts, but it is what I was thinking while reading your two posts. In Him, -Lon

 

[Catholic Crusader]

I meant is there a sin that doesn't grieve God?

Do you think God is bothered more if I murder someone as opposed to shouting out a quick curse word?

Do you think God is bothered more if I rape someone as opposed to taking a stick of gum from the store?

Of course He is.

Homosexual sex is a mortal sin and an abomination before the Lord. Any Christian who says it is okay is a wolf among the sheep.

Likewise any self-proclaimed Christian who says outright that he will remain in his sin, celebrate his sin, and refuses to repent of his sin, is most likely damned. At this point, that is the good Mayor's situation.

 

[ok doser]

Is Pete Buttigieg Really a Christian?

Unless God has, in His infinite wisdom, delegated to the self-righteous conservatives in this Forum the authority to look into the hearts of mankind and determine who is/isn't a Christian,....

unrepentant sinners are not Christian

Buttigieg is an unrepentant sinner

therefore, buttigieg is not a Christian

 

[ok doser]

Given that we are all sinners, it would appear to be an exercise in futility to attempt to determine as to which sins would disqualify someone from becoming a Christian ...

not so, in fact it's quite easy

the only sins that disqualify someone from becoming a Christian are those which are not repented of

... if the Thief on the Cross can receive salvation....

only one of the two thieves alongside the crucified Savior received salvation

do you know which one?

the one who repented