Rush Limbaugh finally dead!

[happyninja42]

I'm not entirely comfortable with all the cheering. Its clear as day the man's legacy is overwhelmingly negative and probably maliciously so but his opponents should have some dignity about this. Same as people cheering when Thatcher the elderly Alzheimer patient died. Its not very tasteful.

If HE had had some dignity in his life, I might agree with you. But he did not. He was a horrible person, who trafficked in hate speech and outright lies, and made millions of dollars, weaponizing the idiots of his base, and aiming them at the rest of the world. And I also don't really care if it's tasteful or not. People like limbaugh have made it abundantly clear over the years that they don't have any dignity, or human decency in them, so I feel no shame in lacking said feelings upon hearing that he's dead. Fuck him, I'm glad he's dead.

My only regret about his death, is very quickly, his people will try and martyr him going forward, and make him out to be some kind of prophet sent by god to "show them the way" or some such bullshit.

 

[CM156]

Same as people cheering when Thatcher the elderly Alzheimer patient died. Its not very tasteful.

I remember when Bin Laden died back in '11. I was taking class at a local college, and there were impromptu celebrations by the students on campus. Nothing major, just everyone coming out and cheering, small dance parties and some drinking. In one of my classes the next day, we talked about what had happened, and one of the students there made a very passionate argument as to why it's never a good idea to celebrate the death of anyone. I found myself quite convinced.

Then 2013 came around and I saw him celebrating the death of Maggie Thatcher on Facebook. With gusto.

 

[Baffle]

Then 2013 came around and I saw him celebrating the death of Maggie Thatcher on Facebook. With gusto.

She probably wasn't bothered.

 

[SilentPony]

Textbook example of a tu quoque

Hey you're the one judgmentally quoting Bible verses to claim some sorta moral high-ground, so I assume you knew all about the various sins. Was it not Jesus who said he who is without sin cast the first stone? So surely you're without sin to judge others.

I mean its not like you post shit you have no idea about and desperately attempt to backtrack in a sad attempt to avoid a ban, while falsely claiming to have an education, all the while check right-wing Meme website for what you think are clever responses. I can't imagine someone like that having the audacity and shame to quote the bible at others. Can you imagine the kind of sinner that person would be? Can you imagine how much the Judeo-Christian God would punish someone like that in the afterlife?

Why such a person would be not unlike Rush Limbaugh, may Satan feast upon his soul.

 

[CM156]

She probably wasn't bothered.

No doubt. She, after all, had other concerns. But people arguing one thing but behaving in a completely different way has always bothered me. And I suppose it always will.

 

[MrCalavera]

I'm not gonna celebrate Limbaugh's death, because, honestly he was a bit before my time. So i don't really have strong feelings about the guy.
But from what i've seen about him, i get why some people would, and i won't police their vitriol either.

 

[Baffle]

snip

sO mUcH fOr ThE ToLeRaNt LeFt! ShOwIng whO thEy rEALLy ArE nOw!

 

[Houseman]

Hey you're the one judgmentally quoting Bible verses to claim some sorta moral high-ground, so I assume you knew all about the various sins. Was it not Jesus who said he who is without sin cast the first stone? So surely you're without sin to judge others.

Doing a second, even harder, tu quoque doesn't cancel out the first one.

But actually, no, Jesus never said that. The earliest manuscripts don't include that "let he who is without sin..." line, but the later manuscripts do, which likely means that this verse was a forgery and is excluded from most modern bibles. If it isn't excluded, there'll be a huge asterisk or otherwise a conspicuous disclaimer alerting you to that fact.

You shouldn't get your biblical knowledge from Robot Chicken

 

[dreng3]

The entire notion that death provides some sort of immunity from ones previous actions seem laughable. You don't suddenly become a saint just because you go all horizontal, and death certainly doesn't absolve you from whatever crap you spewed in life.

And the idea that we shouldn't take pleasure in the deaths of some people? Ridiculous. One could argue that we shouldn't wish death upon others (at least there is some sort of high ground there), but the notion that we cannot consider someone so harmful to society that we'd appreciate them not being a part of it anymore? Laughable.

Limbaugh isn't high on the list of people whose deaths I'd celebrate, but he was still the kind of scum that defended and presented ideas that clearly opposed reality and he garners no sympathy from me.

 

[dreng3]

But actually, no, Jesus never said that. The earliest manuscripts don't include that "let he who is without sin..." line, but the later manuscripts do, which likely means that this verse was a forgery and is excluded from most modern bibles. If it isn't excluded, there'll be a huge asterisk or otherwise a conspicuous disclaimer alerting you to that fact.

Didn't you quote the gospel of James which isn't even acknowledged by most of mainstream christianity and was even condemned by Innocent? At least most modern bibles still include the gospel of John (and the part about being without sin is actually included).

 

[Trunkage]

I'm not saying that you're all going to turn into murderers, but I think there's a causal chain that goes from "publicly celebrating the death of your political/ideological opponents" to "committing acts of violence, including murder".

James 1:13-15

Rush destroyed the GOP many years ago. He attacked many good people with his lies so he manipulate the party. He fabricate evidence to make people loose jobs.

Republicans used to stand for something. Now they only stand for Rush

Yes, he deserves peace. So does America

 

[Houseman]

Didn't you quote the gospel of James which isn't even acknowledged by most of mainstream christianity and was even condemned by Innocent? At least most modern bibles still include the gospel of John (and the part about being without sin is actually included).

The Book (or letter) of James is not the same thing as the gospel of James. I quoted from the former, not the latter. The former is acknowledged by most, if not all, of mainstream Christianity.

 

[SilentPony]

SNIP

Actually the Authorized King James version does include that phrase, as does the New Jerusalem Bible approved by the Apostolic See and the Conference of Bishops, which makes is approved verse and the word of God according to the Pope. As in fact does the English Standard, again approved by the Church.

In fact the New Jerusalem Bible from 2019 says:
"Let the one among you who is guiltless be the first to throw a stone at her.'"

Also you're initial quote is from the Gospel of James, so you're understanding of what is the Papyrus scrolls have in them is at best Housemen level, and at worse a dirty dirty sinner going to a very scary place level.

 

[dreng3]

The Book (or letter) of James is not the same thing as the gospel of James. I quoted from the former, not the latter. The former is acknowledged by most, if not all, of mainstream Christianity.

Ahh, so an epistle that actually runs counter to entire intent of the new testament, how can you have letters telling you to abide by the Law when the core tenet of the new testament is that the Law is revoked and that salvation is achieved through abiding by the intent?

 

[Worgen]

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

 

[Houseman]

Actually the Authorized King James version does include that phrase, as does the New Jerusalem Bible approved by the Apostolic See and the Conference of Bishops, which makes is approved verse and the word of God according to the Pope. As in fact does the English Standard, again approved by the Church.

I don't care what they think, I'm not a Catholic.

FORGERY IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

Also you're initial quote is from the Gospel of James

Again, no it's not. There are two different "books" of James. One is non-canon and there other is. I quoted from the canon one. You're getting them confused and then accusing me of not understanding.

Ahh, so an epistle that actually runs counter to entire intent of the new testament, how can you have letters telling you to abide by the Law when the core tenet of the new testament is that the Law is revoked and that salvation is achieved through abiding by the intent?

Which verses, specifically are you talking about?

 

[dreng3]

Which verses, specifically are you talking about?

2:12 - 13 and 1:22 - 25. The law is clearly old testament references and supports a notion of a deotological approach to faith, whereas the new testament focuses far more on the individualized faith and the need for actual faith as opposed to adherence to Law.

 

[dreng3]

I don't care what they think, I'm not a Catholic.

My protestant bible includes a similar verse (following translation) so wherein lies you complaint about the section about the sinless having the right to condemn?

 

[happyninja42]

I see the resident troll has already derailed the topic into a biblical debate about passages. 2 pages, that's pretty quick I must say.

 

[Houseman]

2:12 - 13 and 1:22 - 25. The law is clearly old testament references and supports a notion of a deotological approach to faith, whereas the new testament focuses far more on the individualized faith and the need for actual faith as opposed to adherence to Law.

What translation are you reading from? I don't see a reference to the Law Covenant at James 2:12-13, but rather, a new law, the "law of freedom".
The is the "law" also referred to at James 1:25.

Just because it says the word "law" it doesn't mean it's referring to the Mosaic law. For example, Jeremiah 31:33 speaks of a new law that is written upon one's heart. This is that.

My protestant bible includes a similar verse

The NIV has a disclaimer around this section

Bible Gateway passage: John 7:53-8:11 - New International Version

[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.] Then they all went home, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in...

www.biblegateway.com

[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]

If your bible has these verses included without any sort of disclaimer, it is quite simply, a bad bible, compiled by people who either ignore or are ignorant of these facts.

But that's just my opinion. I have yet to hear any sort of defense for leaving these verses in, and what explanation they give regarding these manuscripts.