Justice Kennedy Tells October 2018 Clerkship Applicants He’s Considering Retirement, Right Before 20

[Madmallard]

Big news hiding in Nina Totenberg’s story on Justice Gorsuch voting 100% with Justice Thomas:

But it is unlikely that Kennedy will remain on the court for the full four years of the Trump presidency. While he long ago hired his law clerks for the coming term, he has not done so for the following term (beginning Oct. 2018), and has let applicants for those positions know he is considering retirement.

Kennedy’s position on the court is more than consequential. In the most hotly contested and closely divided cases, his vote often decides the outcome. With every passing day, it has become more clear that President Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, is probably even more conservative than the justice he replaced, Antonin Scalia.

This would put Justice Kennedy’s retirement right before the 2018 midterms, giving the Republican base reasons to turn out and keep the Senate with a Republican majority (already a strong possibility in 2018).

He’ll be able to go out on a high note, deciding the fate of partisan gerrymandering, gay rights, and who knows what else.

Justice Kennedy Tells October 2018 Clerkship Applicants He’s Considering Retirement, Right Before 2018 Midterms | Election Law Blog

 

[Snappo]

Big news hiding in Nina Totenberg’s story on Justice Gorsuch voting 100% with Justice Thomas:

But it is unlikely that Kennedy will remain on the court for the full four years of the Trump presidency. While he long ago hired his law clerks for the coming term, he has not done so for the following term (beginning Oct. 2018), and has let applicants for those positions know he is considering retirement.

Kennedy’s position on the court is more than consequential. In the most hotly contested and closely divided cases, his vote often decides the outcome. With every passing day, it has become more clear that President Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, is probably even more conservative than the justice he replaced, Antonin Scalia.

This would put Justice Kennedy’s retirement right before the 2018 midterms, giving the Republican base reasons to turn out and keep the Senate with a Republican majority (already a strong possibility in 2018).

He’ll be able to go out on a high note, deciding the fate of partisan gerrymandering, gay rights, and who knows what else.

Justice Kennedy Tells October 2018 Clerkship Applicants He’s Considering Retirement, Right Before 2018 Midterms | Election Law Blog

What was Trump Train's short list for Neil? If Kennedy and Bader croak or retire, he could slot 2 other conservatives he was previously thinking of. Hopefully folks in their late 30s or early 40s. Don't laugh - but you know who might be a solid SCOTUS judge? Ted Cruz......... <ducking now>........

 

[fartgamer]

The Senate is all that matters, it is a slim 2 vote majority right now, we(not matter if you hate the Republicans or not) cannot afford to lose the Senate.

 

[Snappo]

The Senate is all that matters, it is a slim 2 vote majority right now, we(not matter if you hate the Republicans or not) cannot afford to lose the Senate.

If Trump doesn't solve lowering the budget considerably, replacing ACA with something that doesn't leave tens of millions uninsured, doesn't fix the VA, and doesn't solve North Korea; you can pretty much assume GOP will end up with about 45 seats in the Senate in 2018 instead of 50+. Now if he does all that shit he promised; I bet we could see 55+ GOP seats in 2018.

 

[fartgamer]

If I heard correctly the Dems have many more seats up for election in 2018, but you are correct, issues loom large and it appears at least some of the natives are restless.
Turn out will be huge in these midterms, who will galvanize their people?

 

[Saltwater60]

If I heard correctly the Dems have many more seats up for election in 2018, but you are correct, issues loom large and it appears at least some of the natives are restless.
Turn out will be huge in these midterms, who will galvanize their people?

Yes the republicans are in a better area to keep or pick up seats from what I have read as well.

 

[Shadow2]

I'm not sure why everyone feels the right is the saveing grace for this country... they have barely done shit for 2A and they are an bunch of elitists themselves. They only pass laws to support there corporate sponsors.

 

[Blimey]

What was Trump Train's short list for Neil? If Kennedy and Bader croak or retire, he could slot 2 other conservatives he was previously thinking of. Hopefully folks in their late 30s or early 40s. Don't laugh - but you know who might be a solid SCOTUS judge? Ted Cruz......... <ducking now>........

Cruz would have made a good president. He would make an excellent scotus judge, but then it means he's unlikely to try and aspire to running for potus again.

 

[kev74]

I'm not sure why everyone feels the right is the saveing grace for this country... they have barely done shit for 2A and they are an bunch of elitists themselves. They only pass laws to support there corporate sponsors.

The republicans are Russian roulette, the leftists are Russian roulette with all the cylinders loaded.

 

[Snappo]

Cruz would have made a good president. He would make an excellent scotus judge, but then it means he's unlikely to try and aspire to running for potus again.

I watched those debates. Trump was a circus side-show; and I think Cruz and Rubio properly represented conservative ideals. I just think Americans by and large are rather simplistic in their thought processes, and Trump appealed to that lower threshold of thought capability. Intellectual conservatives probably gravitated more towards Rubio and Cruz. But conservative Americans that struggle due to under-education, living check to check, etc. really resonated with Trump parroting "drain the swamp" over and over; as if the beltway could somehow fix them stopping academia somewhere between high school and a 2 year technical college and replace their bad life decisions with magical laws that fix their budgets. What percentage of people with IQ's of 120+ and graduate level educations preferred Trump to Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal? I don't suspect many did, TBH.

 

[Snappo]

I'm not sure why everyone feels the right is the saveing grace for this country... they have barely done shit for 2A and they are an bunch of elitists themselves. They only pass laws to support there corporate sponsors.

What scares me about the right is the quality of their critical thinking skills. How illogical is it to believe that it rained 6,200 inches per hour for 40 days and nights across the entire planet? How illogical is it to believe that the first man was created from dirt, the first woman from his rib, and that an entire species is based on the children those two people created? Considering the fossil record, how light travels, general relativity, and quantum physics, how logical is it to believe that the entire universe and all living beings came over a 6 day period? Considering fluid dynamics, how reasonable is it to believe an entire sea was parted in half in a matter of seconds? The religious right scares the heck out of me. Zero critical thinking abilities.

 

[Snappo]

If I heard correctly the Dems have many more seats up for election in 2018, but you are correct, issues loom large and it appears at least some of the natives are restless.
Turn out will be huge in these midterms, who will galvanize their people?

The left, or the right? I think the left will fail because they will again let Schumer, Pelosi, and Warren lead the charge. That will be their undoing. The right will splinter away from Trump and find leadership with Ryan and Cruz if Trump Train doesn't work magic with healthcare and the budget. As it stands, Trump already screwed the pooch with regard to the budget, did nothing to enact legislation to limit terms ("cleaning out the swamp"), and it looks like "Repeal and replace" is not going to happen in any elegant fashion. The smartest thing the DNC can do is delete the old guard and try something new; and the smartest thing GOP can do is step away from Trump and go back to conservative fiscal ideals on the heals of people like Ryan, Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal. I am not sure either party is planning on making good decisions next year.

 

[spat]

What scares me about the right is the quality of their critical thinking skills. How illogical is it to believe that it rained 6,200 inches per hour for 40 days and nights across the entire planet? How illogical is it to believe that the first man was created from dirt, the first woman from his rib, and that an entire species is based on the children those two people created? Considering the fossil record, how light travels, general relativity, and quantum physics, how logical is it to believe that the entire universe and all living beings came over a 6 day period? Considering fluid dynamics, how reasonable is it to believe an entire sea was parted in half in a matter of seconds? The religious right scares the heck out of me. Zero critical thinking abilities.

What percentage of "the right" believes that those are literal facts ?

Much smaller than the % on the left that think you can tax your way into prosperity, that think you can give everyone healthcare by taking some rich guys yacht.

I don't know about you, but I find the last one of those to be the bigger fantasy.....

 

[Snappo]

What percentage of "the right" believes that those are literal facts ?

By definition Christians are required to. As I mentioned either previously or in another thread, many Americans are under-educated; and pertaining to religion this is highly evident. Most have done little or no study on the subject and just parrot whatever their parents and pastors told them were the facts on Sunday mornings. But in reality, two very critical components of Christianity are called "Biblical Inerrancy" and "Biblical Infallibility". Together these two concepts form "Biblical Integrity". Take 5 minutes to gander at their definitions (start with Wiki and go to the sources).

Biblical inerrancy - Wikipedia

Biblical infallibility - Wikipedia

 

[Cooolone]

If Trump doesn't solve lowering the budget considerably, replacing ACA with something that doesn't leave tens of millions uninsured, doesn't fix the VA, and doesn't solve North Korea; you can pretty much assume GOP will end up with about 45 seats in the Senate in 2018 instead of 50+. Now if he does all that shit he promised; I bet we could see 55+ GOP seats in 2018.

A failed assumption that those districts would "flip"... Senate may change some seats, but they won't go from Republucan to Democrat, that's for sure. But some of the old hat may change for new blood.

And why do you keep dragging Religion into all your arguments? Issues much? The big so called game changer election down south whereas the democraps proclaimed it was time for a change and would show what was coming in the mid-term ended badly. They outspent their Republican opponent 7-1 and still lost badly. But like the presidential election, if you read the media reports, it was all but done, times were a changin! Nothing changes that fast. They can keep trying, but the country has spoken very loudly to the Ultra Progressive Liberal Agenda of the last 8 years under the previous administration.

 

[GOPerfect]

I'm not sure why everyone feels the right is the saveing grace for this country... they have barely done shit for 2A and they are an bunch of elitists themselves. They only pass laws to support there corporate sponsors.

Yeah... Cause the Left and the Liberals have done such great things in the past fifty years or so.

I love how all think that everything revolves around the 2A, it is very small in comparison with everything that needs to be fixed in this Country.

 

[spat]

By definition Christians are required to. As I mentioned either previously or in another thread, many Americans are under-educated; and pertaining to religion this is highly evident. Most have done little or no study on the subject and just parrot whatever their parents and pastors told them were the facts on Sunday mornings. But in reality, two very critical components of Christianity are called "Biblical Inerrancy" and "Biblical Infallibility". Together these two concepts form "Biblical Integrity". Take 5 minutes to gander at their definitions (start with Wiki and go to the sources).

Biblical inerrancy - Wikipedia

Biblical infallibility - Wikipedia

Bible says no divorce either, but people manage to get past that just fine.

Are you saying that there aren't very many "real" Christians in the country ? If that's the case, then they aren't really very important politically, so aren't much of a consideration.

You can't simultaneously argue that a belief is widespread, and rare at the same time.

 

[Snappo]

Bible says no divorce either, but people manage to get past that just fine.

Are you saying that there aren't very many "real" Christians in the country ? If that's the case, then they aren't really very important politically, so aren't much of a consideration.

You can't simultaneously argue that a belief is widespread, and rare at the same time.

86% of Americans believe in omnipotent and omniscient beings. Christianity by definition involves biblical infallibility and inerrancy. I never said this is rare. Perhaps you did? I just believe if people had the brain power to research and understand infallibility and inerrancy; they might walk away from Christianity and perhaps find a religion that aligns with science.

 

[@thewheels]

86% of Americans believe in omnipotent and omniscient beings.

That doesn't make one a Christian. Hindus, Daoists and a host of other religions more or less do as well.
Many denominations, sects and cults can find room under the "Christianity" umbrella.
Baptists and Amish certainly don't prioritize the same things in their Bible. They may agree on a lot but there's plenty they don't.

 

[Snappo]

That doesn't make one a Christian. Hindus, Daoists and a host of other religions more or less do as well.
Many denominations, sects and cults can find room under the "Christianity" umbrella.
Baptists and Amish certainly don't prioritize the same things in their Bible. They may agree on a lot but there's plenty they don't.

First off a typo. 86% should have been 76%. That retraction having been posted; of the estimated 76% of Americans that are Fideist, 71% are Christian. Within the Christian group, 47% are Protestant, and 21% are Roman Catholic. The noon-Christian Fideists (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc) make up 6%.

Protestants:
* The Protestant Church founded the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, and their published finding are referred to as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. 200 evangelical leaders of the Protestant Church and other Christian denominations signed that.
* Scholars compare the Chicago Statement to the Second Vatican Council Decree, Dei Verbum; which the Protestant Church also supports.
* Only a small fraction of the Protestant Church are made up of leaders and scholars that deviate from the official position on inerrancy.

Roman Catholicism:
* I just mentioned Dei Verbum as it relates to Protistantism; but the RC Church created the Second Vatican Council and the RC Church treats Dei Verbum as a primary document. DV is "Word of God" and the Church basically voted 2,344 to 6 that the Bible was inerrant and infallible.

Some quotes that prove the church's position on biblical infallibility and biblical inerrancy:

Augustine of Hippo (canonized theologian and architect of Western Christianity)
"For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it."

Council of the Vatican (they confirmed the position of the Council at Trent)
"The books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council [Trent] and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without errors, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their Author."

Pope Benedict XV:
'It would be wholly impious to limit inspiration to only certain portions of Scripture or to concede that the sacred authors themselves could have erred"

"The biblical narrative is as necessary to salvation as is belief in the doctrines of the faith"

Pope Leo XIII
"For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and Trent, and finally and more expressly formulated by the [First] Council of the Vatican."

Pope Pius XII
"For as the substantial Word of God became like to men in all things, except sin, so the words of God, expressed in human language, are made like to human speech in every respect, except error."

"The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that 'the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.' ... When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the 'entire books with all their parts' as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as "obiter dicta" and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter 'Providentissimus Deus' ... justly and rightly condemned these errors."

 

[spat]

First off a typo. 86% should have been 76%. That retraction having been posted; of the estimated 76% of Americans that are Fideist, 71% are Christian. Within the Christian group, 47% are Protestant, and 21% are Roman Catholic. The noon-Christian Fideists (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc) make up 6%.

Protestants:
* The Protestant Church founded the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, and their published finding are referred to as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. 200 evangelical leaders of the Protestant Church and other Christian denominations signed that.
* Scholars compare the Chicago Statement to the Second Vatican Council Decree, Dei Verbum; which the Protestant Church also supports.
* Only a small fraction of the Protestant Church are made up of leaders and scholars that deviate from the official position on inerrancy.

Roman Catholicism:
* I just mentioned Dei Verbum as it relates to Protistantism; but the RC Church created the Second Vatican Council and the RC Church treats Dei Verbum as a primary document. DV is "Word of God" and the Church basically voted 2,344 to 6 that the Bible was inerrant and infallible.

Some quotes that prove the church's position on biblical infallibility and biblical inerrancy:

Augustine of Hippo (canonized theologian and architect of Western Christianity)
"For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it."

Council of the Vatican (they confirmed the position of the Council at Trent)
"The books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council [Trent] and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without errors, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their Author."

Pope Benedict XV:
'It would be wholly impious to limit inspiration to only certain portions of Scripture or to concede that the sacred authors themselves could have erred"

"The biblical narrative is as necessary to salvation as is belief in the doctrines of the faith"

Pope Leo XIII
"For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and Trent, and finally and more expressly formulated by the [First] Council of the Vatican."

Pope Pius XII
"For as the substantial Word of God became like to men in all things, except sin, so the words of God, expressed in human language, are made like to human speech in every respect, except error."

"The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that 'the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.' ... When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the 'entire books with all their parts' as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as "obiter dicta" and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter 'Providentissimus Deus' ... justly and rightly condemned these errors."

Your original claim was essentially that people believe the world is 6000 years old. The number of people who believe that is literally true is very small.

Then you go off on a tangent about how many people are Christian, and that to be Christian you have to believe everything in the bible is literally true.

So, either Christians are a very small minority, or you don't really have to believe the world was created 6000 years ago to be Christian, which is it ?

 

[Snappo]

Your original claim was essentially that people believe the world is 6000 years old. The number of people who believe that is literally true is very small.

Then you go off on a tangent about how many people are Christian, and that to be Christian you have to believe everything in the bible is literally true.

So, either Christians are a very small minority, or you don't really have to believe the world was created 6000 years ago to be Christian, which is it ?

Wrong. You are the one asserting Christians no longer believe in biblical infallibility and biblical inerrancy. So YOU should show links of the leaders of the RC church and Protestant Church recently saying that, since that is your assertion. I showed the RC Popes and leaders of the Protestant Church, as well as the founder of Western Christianity clearly saying the bible is inerrant and infallible. Just because you do not understand what biblical infallibility and biblical inerrancy are (no doubt because you NEVER heard of those terms in your life) and do not seem to understand (or more to the point didn't even bother to read) the statements of these church leaders; does not mean you somehow have an understanding of what these church's believe. If you want to talk from personal experience; go to any RC church and ask the Priest if the bible is inerrant and infallible. Just get a yes or no answer from him. Perhaps even bring the quotes I gave you that Popes have said in the past 50 years on the subject of infalliblity and inerrancy. Let me know what his response is. I have actually done that since my wife was RC; but you should. If he asks you for an example, ask for the Vatican position on Deluvial Flood Geology. Have fun learning - if you even want to learn and aren't just trolling to pass the boredom of the day.

 

[spat]

Wrong. You are the one asserting Christians no longer believe in biblical infallibility and biblical inerrancy. So YOU should show links of the leaders of the RC church and Protestant Church recently saying that, since that is your assertion. I showed the RC Popes and leaders of the Protestant Church, as well as the founder of Western Christianity clearly saying the bible is inerrant and infallible. Just because you do not understand what biblical infallibility and biblical inerrancy are (no doubt because you NEVER heard of those terms in your life) and do not seem to understand (or more to the point didn't even bother to read) the statements of these church leaders; does not mean you somehow have an understanding of what these church's believe. If you want to talk from personal experience; go to any RC church and ask the Priest if the bible is inerrant and infallible. Just get a yes or no answer from him. Perhaps even bring the quotes I gave you that Popes have said in the past 50 years on the subject of infalliblity and inerrancy. Let me know what his response is. I have actually done that since my wife was RC; but you should. If he asks you for an example, ask for the Vatican position on Deluvial Flood Geology. Have fun learning - if you even want to learn and aren't just trolling to pass the boredom of the day.

There are many people who consider themselves Christians who do not fit the mold you are trying to paint all Christians with. I offered the modern divorce rate as proof.

I care not what a few church leaders claim. My question to you is are you trying to describe the ~75% of Americans who describe themselves as Christian, or are you only referring to the few "hardcore" types who dont believe in geology ?

There are any number of churches that both claim to be Christian and officially endorse things like homosexuality, and divorce that you seem to claim "no true christian" endorses ?

You seem to be following the same track that the gun graabbers do when they claim that law enforcemrnt overwhelming supports ban on X, because the chiefs of police in a couple big cities do.

 

[spat]

Christianity by definition involves biblical infallibility and inerrancy.

Ahh, rereading, now I see the flaw in your logic. You are working from a false premise. Christianity demands no such thing. You can be a good Christian *and* believe that the bible was put together by the Catholic church for its own purposes.

Your logic would lead to the dubious conclusion that none of the apostles were Christian for instance, since the bible wasn't compiled for 300 years after they lived, or that no one besides the Catholics are Christian, because if the infallibility and inerrancy are true, all the protestants must also all be wrong.

 

[Exonautic]

The republicans are Russian roulette, the leftists are Russian roulette with all the cylinders loaded.

Reading through this thread, my thoughts were along these lines also.

 

[Exonautic]

I watched those debates. Trump was a circus side-show; and I think Cruz and Rubio properly represented conservative ideals. I just think Americans by and large are rather simplistic in their thought processes, and Trump appealed to that lower threshold of thought capability. Intellectual conservatives probably gravitated more towards Rubio and Cruz. But conservative Americans that struggle due to under-education, living check to check, etc. really resonated with Trump parroting "drain the swamp" over and over; as if the beltway could somehow fix them stopping academia somewhere between high school and a 2 year technical college and replace their bad life decisions with magical laws that fix their budgets. What percentage of people with IQ's of 120+ and graduate level educations preferred Trump to Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal? I don't suspect many did, TBH.

Agreed for the most oart, but how many intelligent republicans do you think saw this prior to the primaries. I know i did. Cruz was probably the best candidate this election cycle, but like you said, trump appealed to the lower class, hard working Republican. The type of people who are better won over by campaign slogans than charts and figured. I'd be safe to say that those who recognize this and did not want a dem inn office under any circumstances would have voted for trump because overall he had a Better chance of winning regardless of not being the best candidate.

 

[Snappo]

Ahh, rereading, now I see the flaw in your logic. You are working from a false premise. Christianity demands no such thing. You can be a good Christian *and* believe that the bible was put together by the Catholic church for its own purposes.

Your logic would lead to the dubious conclusion that none of the apostles were Christian for instance, since the bible wasn't compiled for 300 years after they lived, or that no one besides the Catholics are Christian, because if the infallibility and inerrancy are true, all the protestants must also all be wrong.

The Protestant Church position is also of infallibility and inerrancy. I gave you the link to their position (Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy). The leaders of the Protestant movement signed it. Protestantism started with Martin Luther when he wrote Disputatio pro declaratione virtutis indulgentiarum in 1517. Both Luther and Calvin (founders of Prostistantism) spoke about biblical inerrancy, you know. It's not something secret - they were very loud in their assertions.

"This is a principle which distinguishes our religion from all others, that we know that God hath spoken to us, and are fully convinced that the prophets did not speak at their own suggestion, but that, being organs of the Holy Spirit, they only uttered what they had been commissioned from heaven to declare. . . . Moses and the prophets did not utter at random what we have received from their hand, but, speaking at the suggestion of God, they boldly and fearlessly testified, what was actually true, that it was the mouth of the Lord that spake".

I do not see how one can be Christian and yet somehow believe the Bible is errant and fallible. Because if that's the case, then the existence of Christ is possibly fictitious and that even if he existed his message is a man-made interpretation by unknown authors of the period. As such, to be Christian one must hold that Bible to be free of error and written by the Holy Spirit.

 

[spat]

By definition Christians are required to. As I mentioned either previously or in another thread, many Americans are under-educated; and pertaining to religion this is highly evident. Most have done little or no study on the subject and just parrot whatever their parents and pastors told them were the facts on Sunday mornings. But in reality, two very critical components of Christianity are called "Biblical Inerrancy" and "Biblical Infallibility". Together these two concepts form "Biblical Integrity". Take 5 minutes to gander at their definitions (start with Wiki and go to the sources).

Biblical inerrancy - Wikipedia

Biblical infallibility - Wikipedia

The Protestant Church position is also of infallibility and inerrancy. I gave you the link to their position (Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy). The leaders of the Protestant movement signed it. Protestantism started with Martin Luther when he wrote Disputatio pro declaratione virtutis indulgentiarum in 1517. Both Luther and Calvin (founders of Prostistantism) spoke about biblical inerrancy, you know. It's not something secret - they were very loud in their assertions.

"This is a principle which distinguishes our religion from all others, that we know that God hath spoken to us, and are fully convinced that the prophets did not speak at their own suggestion, but that, being organs of the Holy Spirit, they only uttered what they had been commissioned from heaven to declare. . . . Moses and the prophets did not utter at random what we have received from their hand, but, speaking at the suggestion of God, they boldly and fearlessly testified, what was actually true, that it was the mouth of the Lord that spake".

I do not see how one can be Christian and yet somehow believe the Bible is errant and fallible. Because if that's the case, then the existence of Christ is possibly fictitious and that even if he existed his message is a man-made interpretation by unknown authors of the period. As such, to be Christian one must hold that Bible to be free of error and written by the Holy Spirit.

To be a Christian means that you take the existance and significance of Christ on faith, not because its written in some book. You've got it backwards.

So, the protestants say they've got it right, and are infallible, and so do the Catholics. You do see the inherent contradiction, right ?

And they all do work on Sundays, so that kind of blows your whole theory out of the water anyway.

Bottom line is that the vast majority of Americans consider themselves Christian, and the vast majority do not believe that the world is 6000 years old. You can quote whatever you want about biblical infallibility, but apparently anyone who believes that *doesn't* believe the Bible says what you think it says about the history of the world.

You are making claims about Christians (as a group) being ignorant in a way that just doesn't match the real world, and if I were at all a religious man i would find it quite insulting.

 

[swilliams]

Interesting to me, Snappo, that you find Cruz or Rubio to be good choices for president, given their religious backgrounds. Rubio, more than Cruz, but still, if you think the religious right aren't very intelligent, why would you want one as leader of the country?

As for the original intent of the thread, lol, I hope he does retire so there's a better chance of not having some loony Ginsberg-esque justice appointed later on.

 

[Snappo]

To be a Christian means that you take the existance and significance of Christ on faith, not because its written in some book. You've got it backwards.

So, the protestants say they've got it right, and are infallible, and so do the Catholics. You do see the inherent contradiction, right ?

And they all do work on Sundays, so that kind of blows your whole theory out of the water anyway.

Bottom line is that the vast majority of Americans consider themselves Christian, and the vast majority do not believe that the world is 6000 years old. You can quote whatever you want about biblical infallibility, but apparently anyone who believes that *doesn't* believe the Bible says what you think it says about the history of the world.

You are making claims about Christians (as a group) being ignorant in a way that just doesn't match the real world, and if I were at all a religious man i would find it quite insulting.

Meh. Let them be insulted. I find the Abrahamic religions offensive for a vast array of reasons. Anyhow - talked enough about Christianity. Kinda bored. This thread is supposed to be about Kennedy. I hope he and Bader retire tomorrow morning.