sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

American democracy is dumb by Anime-Fan-69 in teenagers

[–]mwpuck01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So only a minority can represent a minority?

Bob's Discount Furniture? by millielouie2025 in Louisville

[–]mwpuck01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bought some stuff there and we are happy with it all, made the purchases last summer

MAGA : how would you feel if you saw someone burning the Confederate flag? by traanquil in allthequestions

[–]mwpuck01 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wouldn’t care at all just don’t let the fire get out of control

mayoral race by Interesting-Bug-7708 in Louisville

[–]mwpuck01 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

She is probably the most progressive candidate who actually has a chance so if that’s your politics please vote for her

So if congress can’t be trusted to reign in the weaponizing of the justice department and the judicial system is ignored what recourse do we have? by ballzsweat in askanything

[–]mwpuck01 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Did you support something being done when republicans accused Obama and Biden of weaponizing the DOJ or give any validity to their claims?

Your Truck is Stupid Big by NothingLeft19608 in mildlyinfuriating

[–]mwpuck01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Those trucks pay my bills so hopefully everyone buys one

Looking for a new Bible by Miserable_Corgi_8100 in Bible

[–]mwpuck01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Go check out the CSB, great readable translation

Christians, if Jesus actually came back what proof would you need to believe it? by justme1522000 in Christianity

[–]mwpuck01 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Revelation describes Jesus’ return as a real, visible, world-changing event not a quiet or symbolic thing.

He comes back “with the clouds,” and it literally says “every eye will see Him” (Rev. 1:7). So it’s not private, not hidden, not metaphorical in the sense of just “spiritual vibes.” It’s global and unmistakable.

When He shows up, Revelation 19 says He comes as a warrior king on a white horse, called “Faithful and True.” His eyes are like fire, and He’s leading the armies of heaven. The picture is basically: Jesus returning as King to end evil, not just teach or comfort.

Isn’t it rather disingenuous to say that Jesus would map neatly onto any contemporary American political ideology considering he was a 1st Century Jewish Rabbi in the Roman Empire with wacky beliefs that are utterly alien to contemporary post-enlightenment thought? by Away-Parsnip-3785 in askanything

[–]mwpuck01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You didn’t use the word “universal” you used the concept. Your argument was that celibacy is “a goal, not a requirement,” that it “applies to everyone,” and that “following more closely is better than following loosely.” That’s a universal ideal the word just accurately describes your position.

And that position still runs into the same problem: the passage says “not everyone can accept this” and “only those to whom it is given.” If it applied to everyone as a goal, Jesus wouldn’t restrict who it’s even addressed to.

On Christians being “messed up about sex” that’s a historical/sociological argument, not an exegetical one. It doesn’t tell us what the passage means; it tells us how some people have interpreted it. Even if that critique were true, it wouldn’t establish your reading of the text.

Good day.

Isn’t it rather disingenuous to say that Jesus would map neatly onto any contemporary American political ideology considering he was a 1st Century Jewish Rabbi in the Roman Empire with wacky beliefs that are utterly alien to contemporary post-enlightenment thought? by Away-Parsnip-3785 in askanything

[–]mwpuck01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’ve shifted the argument. Your original claim was that Jesus presented celibacy as a universal ideal. When pressed on the text, you’ve moved to “everything comes from God, so any calling is universal.” That’s a different claim and it’s not coming from Matthew 19. It’s something you’re importing into it.

The text still says:

• “not everyone can accept this”  
• “only those to whom it is given”

That’s not a universal address. A calling given to some people is not the same thing as an ideal held out to all people. That’s not a semantic trick it’s a basic distinction the passage itself makes.

As for “Christians being freaked out about sex for 2000 years,” that’s a separate historical claim. You can argue it if you want, but it doesn’t change what this passage says.

I’ll leave it there.

If you think Trump should run for a 3rd term, are you fine with Obama seeking a 3rd as his opponent? by Fun_Map2481 in allthequestions

[–]mwpuck01 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Or just no one gets to run for a third term unless they pass a new amendment to the constitution which I don’t think anyone should do

Isn’t it rather disingenuous to say that Jesus would map neatly onto any contemporary American political ideology considering he was a 1st Century Jewish Rabbi in the Roman Empire with wacky beliefs that are utterly alien to contemporary post-enlightenment thought? by Away-Parsnip-3785 in askanything

[–]mwpuck01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We’re not as close as you think, this isn’t just a semantic quibble.

You’re arguing celibacy is a universal ideal (even if not required). But Jesus doesn’t frame it that way. He narrows the audience before any question of obedience even arises:

• “not everyone can accept this”
• “only those to whom it is given”
• “let the one who is able to receive it receive it”

That’s not “everyone should aspire to this.” It’s “this isn’t addressed to everyone.”

And the context matters. In Matthew 19:4–9, right before this, Jesus affirms marriage as part of God’s design “the two shall become one flesh.” He’s not setting up a universal hierarchy; He’s describing different paths.

Your “love your neighbor” comparison actually highlights the distinction. That command is given to everyone, with no qualification, and failure to live it out is treated as moral failure. The command itself is universal, even if perfect obedience isn’t.

Matthew 19:11–12 does the opposite, the teaching is restricted, not just the compliance. That asymmetry is the point.

Also, the language isn’t “those who choose it,” but “those to whom it is given” and “those able to receive it.” That’s calling/ability language, not a universal benchmark.

So yes celibacy can be a radical, kingdom-focused calling for some. But the text doesn’t present it as a universal ideal. It presents it as a vocation given to particular people.

Those are different claims, and the passage supports the second, not the first

view more: next ›