Polds4OSU
Marshall
FCC chair Brendan Carr says the agency is looking into 'enforcement action' against 'The View' over James Talarico's recent appearance on the talk show.
The Texas Democrat Joe Rogan wants to run for POTUS
- Thread starter Polds4OSU
- Start date
Yet another reason for them to work so hard to keep everyone divided.
In the long run, electoral reform is the biggest impact "vote" one could potentially have out of every race nationally. And the only think preventing it from being enacted is:
1) Signatures to get on the ballot
2) Votes to make it law/amend the constitution (the latter is preferred if available in one's state)
3) Defense of said law/amendment when the powers that be inevitably try to get it thrown out
That is really it. I wish more people were talking about this.
Last edited:
Polds4OSU
Marshall
BREAKING: In a powerful moment, James Talarico just dropped the hammer on Lauren Boebert calling her out for supporting putting the Ten Commandments in classrooms while not actually following the Ten Commandments.
www.threads.com
Democratic Wins Media (@democraticwinsmedia) on Threads
BREAKING: In a powerful moment, James Talarico just dropped the hammer on Lauren Boebert calling her out for supporting putting the Ten Commandments in classrooms while not actually following the Ten Commandments. Wow.
www.threads.com
Nice. Next chance I get, I’ll be pulling up this episode of Real Time with Bill Maher.BREAKING: In a powerful moment, James Talarico just dropped the hammer on Lauren Boebert calling her out for supporting putting the Ten Commandments in classrooms while not actually following the Ten Commandments.
Democratic Wins Media (@democraticwinsmedia) on Threads
BREAKING: In a powerful moment, James Talarico just dropped the hammer on Lauren Boebert calling her out for supporting putting the Ten Commandments in classrooms while not actually following the Ten Commandments. Wow.
Polds4OSU
Marshall
Maher: So being Christian is an important part of being truly American?
Boebert: Absolutely
@JamesTalarico: As a Christian, I was taught that we're supposed to follow Jesus' two commandments — love God and love neighbor. There was no exception to that second commandment.
I always speak up on behalf of my Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, agnostic, and atheist neighbors. Because we as Christians are called to love them as ourselves, and forcing my religion down their throats is not love.
www.threads.com
Boebert: Absolutely
@JamesTalarico: As a Christian, I was taught that we're supposed to follow Jesus' two commandments — love God and love neighbor. There was no exception to that second commandment.
I always speak up on behalf of my Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, agnostic, and atheist neighbors. Because we as Christians are called to love them as ourselves, and forcing my religion down their throats is not love.
Team Talarico (@teamtalaricohq) on Threads
Maher: So being Christian is an important part of being truly American? Boebert: Absolutely @JamesTalarico: As a Christian, I was taught that we're supposed to follow Jesus' two commandments — love God and love neighbor. There was no exception to that second commandment. I always speak up on...
www.threads.com
I've always looked at moderate as a policy thing not attitude thing. Not saying you are right or wrong just that I never thought of it like that.
Stillwater Townie
Ranger
At least she admitted, "That is a problem." Regarding something else she said where are schools teaching kids how to masturbate? He should have asked her to name one school where that is going on. It is about as credible as teachers setting out litterboxes for students pretending to be cats.BREAKING: In a powerful moment, James Talarico just dropped the hammer on Lauren Boebert calling her out for supporting putting the Ten Commandments in classrooms while not actually following the Ten Commandments.
Democratic Wins Media (@democraticwinsmedia) on Threads
BREAKING: In a powerful moment, James Talarico just dropped the hammer on Lauren Boebert calling her out for supporting putting the Ten Commandments in classrooms while not actually following the Ten Commandments. Wow.
Last edited:
Not posting this because I agree with it at all. But, this is some influencer from Missouri. They are scared. Like real scared. Posting strawman arguments to beat up:
My last post about James Talarico's progressive Christian theology generated hundreds of conversations. The most interesting ones were with progressive Christians themselves… sincere, thoughtful people who love Jesus and genuinely believe they're following Him more faithfully than the traditional church has.
After engaging in several of these conversations, I noticed a pattern underneath every progressive argument… a shared worldview that produces them. And I think understanding that worldview is more important than debating any single issue, because until you see the operating system, you'll keep getting lost in the apps.
So this isn't an attack on progressive Christians. It's an honest attempt to describe what I think their worldview gets wrong.
I'll start with their core move…
Every conversation came back to some version of this: "Jesus summarized everything as love God and love your neighbor, and that overrides the harder moral teachings."
But I see two problems here.
One is simply a breakdown in what we mean by "love".
Progressive Christians tend to hear that word and translate it into merely compassion, empathy, and understanding… which then becomes affirmation, tolerance, and acceptance. By that definition, any moral boundary starts to feel unloving.
But that's not the biblical definition. Thomas Aquinas defined love (agape) not as mere emotion, but as a conscious decision to "will the good of the other" which sometimes means saying the hard thing, not the comfortable thing.
For example, no one would look at an 80-pound anorexic girl who believes she's overweight and say the loving thing is to affirm her. We all understand that sometimes the most loving thing you can do is refuse to affirm what someone genuinely believes about themselves because affirming it might destroy them.
Even Jesus in His most intimate, final moment demonstrated this while hanging next to two thieves in agony.
Jesus didn't remove their suffering or tell them their choices didn't matter. He offered truth. And one of the thieves accepted it, but only after saying, "we are receiving the due reward of our deeds" (Luke 23:41). Repentance came before redemption. That's what love looked like from Jesus when it mattered most.
The other problem is that this worldview ignores where Jesus said all the Law and the Prophets "hang" on these two commandments (Matthew 22:40). That word "hang" matters.
The law hangs on love the way a picture hangs on a nail. The nail holds up the picture, but it doesn't replace it. Remove the nail and the picture falls. But remove the picture and you just have a nail in the wall.
In other words, love and obedience aren't in tension. They're inseparable. Jesus Himself said: "If you love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15).
And then there's the question no one could answer…
Several people told me their faith is grounded in experiencing Jesus in their hearts… that a personal relationship with God supersedes strict adherence to a text.
I don't dismiss that the Holy Spirit works in believers' hearts.
But here's the question I kept asking, and no one could answer:
(well, they tried, but every answer relied on the same circular reasoning the question was designed to expose)
If what you feel in your heart can override what the text says, doesn’t that make Christianity infinitely malleable? In other words, how do you ever know when you're wrong?
For example, slaveholders in the antebellum South believed God ordained their way of life. They felt it in their hearts. They were wrong even though they were sincere.
The text was the corrective that eventually dismantled their position. Abolitionists didn't win by saying "I feel in my heart that slavery is wrong." They won by showing, from Scripture, that the trajectory of the biblical narrative demanded liberation. They appealed to the text, not away from it.
If feelings had been the final authority, slavery might never have been abolished… because the slaveholders' hearts told them they were right, too.
And here's why it's so hard to argue with progressive Christianity…
In my previous post I mentioned Jonathan Haidt (a social psychologist who is not religious, not conservative, and has described his own political leanings as liberal).
Haidt wrote The Righteous Mind about why good people are divided by politics. His research isn't about theology. But it explains why progressive Christianity is so effective and so persuasive to so many.
His core finding was this: conservatives draw from a broader moral palette including care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity, and liberty. Progressives weight care and fairness far above the others.
In chapter 12, Haidt himself wrote: "When I speak to liberal audiences about the three 'binding' foundations — Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity — I find that many in the audience don't just fail to resonate; they actively reject these concerns as immoral. Loyalty to a group shrinks the moral circle; it is the basis of racism and exclusion, they say. Authority is oppression. Sanctity is religious mumbo-jumbo whose only function is to suppress female sexuality and justify homophobia."
Progressive Christianity does the same thing theologically. It elevates the care and fairness dimensions of Jesus's teaching above everything else… then treats anyone who draws from the other moral foundations as a Pharisee.
The result sounds like pure love. But it's a narrowed moral vision that has quietly set aside half the palette and declared the remaining half to be the whole gospel.
In one of my conversations, a self-described progressive Christian told me plainly: "The vast majority of progressive Christians aren't against border enforcement, traditional marriage, or institutional order. The difference is we don't see those as moral issues."
That's not underweighting those foundations. That's removing them from the moral category entirely which is exactly the pattern Haidt describes.
Ultimately, I don't doubt the sincerity of the progressive Christians I spoke with this week. But sincerity isn't the same as accuracy.
A worldview that makes your own heart the final authority (above the text, above 2,000 years of consistent teaching) is a worldview that can never be corrected. Every hard teaching gets replaced by "but love." Every moral boundary gets reframed as legalism.
But that's not freedom.
Anyone who's loved an addict knows that removing every boundary doesn't set someone free. It just removes the only things that might have saved them. It's a prison with no walls… a place where you can wander anywhere, but no one can ever tell you you've gone the wrong way.
The deep end of Christianity isn't the version that tells you what you want to hear. It's the one that loves you enough to tell you what you need to hear.
My last post about James Talarico's progressive Christian theology generated hundreds of conversations. The most interesting ones were with progressive Christians themselves… sincere, thoughtful people who love Jesus and genuinely believe they're following Him more faithfully than the traditional church has.
After engaging in several of these conversations, I noticed a pattern underneath every progressive argument… a shared worldview that produces them. And I think understanding that worldview is more important than debating any single issue, because until you see the operating system, you'll keep getting lost in the apps.
So this isn't an attack on progressive Christians. It's an honest attempt to describe what I think their worldview gets wrong.
I'll start with their core move…
Every conversation came back to some version of this: "Jesus summarized everything as love God and love your neighbor, and that overrides the harder moral teachings."
But I see two problems here.
One is simply a breakdown in what we mean by "love".
Progressive Christians tend to hear that word and translate it into merely compassion, empathy, and understanding… which then becomes affirmation, tolerance, and acceptance. By that definition, any moral boundary starts to feel unloving.
But that's not the biblical definition. Thomas Aquinas defined love (agape) not as mere emotion, but as a conscious decision to "will the good of the other" which sometimes means saying the hard thing, not the comfortable thing.
For example, no one would look at an 80-pound anorexic girl who believes she's overweight and say the loving thing is to affirm her. We all understand that sometimes the most loving thing you can do is refuse to affirm what someone genuinely believes about themselves because affirming it might destroy them.
Even Jesus in His most intimate, final moment demonstrated this while hanging next to two thieves in agony.
Jesus didn't remove their suffering or tell them their choices didn't matter. He offered truth. And one of the thieves accepted it, but only after saying, "we are receiving the due reward of our deeds" (Luke 23:41). Repentance came before redemption. That's what love looked like from Jesus when it mattered most.
The other problem is that this worldview ignores where Jesus said all the Law and the Prophets "hang" on these two commandments (Matthew 22:40). That word "hang" matters.
The law hangs on love the way a picture hangs on a nail. The nail holds up the picture, but it doesn't replace it. Remove the nail and the picture falls. But remove the picture and you just have a nail in the wall.
In other words, love and obedience aren't in tension. They're inseparable. Jesus Himself said: "If you love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15).
And then there's the question no one could answer…
Several people told me their faith is grounded in experiencing Jesus in their hearts… that a personal relationship with God supersedes strict adherence to a text.
I don't dismiss that the Holy Spirit works in believers' hearts.
But here's the question I kept asking, and no one could answer:
(well, they tried, but every answer relied on the same circular reasoning the question was designed to expose)
If what you feel in your heart can override what the text says, doesn’t that make Christianity infinitely malleable? In other words, how do you ever know when you're wrong?
For example, slaveholders in the antebellum South believed God ordained their way of life. They felt it in their hearts. They were wrong even though they were sincere.
The text was the corrective that eventually dismantled their position. Abolitionists didn't win by saying "I feel in my heart that slavery is wrong." They won by showing, from Scripture, that the trajectory of the biblical narrative demanded liberation. They appealed to the text, not away from it.
If feelings had been the final authority, slavery might never have been abolished… because the slaveholders' hearts told them they were right, too.
And here's why it's so hard to argue with progressive Christianity…
In my previous post I mentioned Jonathan Haidt (a social psychologist who is not religious, not conservative, and has described his own political leanings as liberal).
Haidt wrote The Righteous Mind about why good people are divided by politics. His research isn't about theology. But it explains why progressive Christianity is so effective and so persuasive to so many.
His core finding was this: conservatives draw from a broader moral palette including care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity, and liberty. Progressives weight care and fairness far above the others.
In chapter 12, Haidt himself wrote: "When I speak to liberal audiences about the three 'binding' foundations — Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity — I find that many in the audience don't just fail to resonate; they actively reject these concerns as immoral. Loyalty to a group shrinks the moral circle; it is the basis of racism and exclusion, they say. Authority is oppression. Sanctity is religious mumbo-jumbo whose only function is to suppress female sexuality and justify homophobia."
Progressive Christianity does the same thing theologically. It elevates the care and fairness dimensions of Jesus's teaching above everything else… then treats anyone who draws from the other moral foundations as a Pharisee.
The result sounds like pure love. But it's a narrowed moral vision that has quietly set aside half the palette and declared the remaining half to be the whole gospel.
In one of my conversations, a self-described progressive Christian told me plainly: "The vast majority of progressive Christians aren't against border enforcement, traditional marriage, or institutional order. The difference is we don't see those as moral issues."
That's not underweighting those foundations. That's removing them from the moral category entirely which is exactly the pattern Haidt describes.
Ultimately, I don't doubt the sincerity of the progressive Christians I spoke with this week. But sincerity isn't the same as accuracy.
A worldview that makes your own heart the final authority (above the text, above 2,000 years of consistent teaching) is a worldview that can never be corrected. Every hard teaching gets replaced by "but love." Every moral boundary gets reframed as legalism.
But that's not freedom.
Anyone who's loved an addict knows that removing every boundary doesn't set someone free. It just removes the only things that might have saved them. It's a prison with no walls… a place where you can wander anywhere, but no one can ever tell you you've gone the wrong way.
The deep end of Christianity isn't the version that tells you what you want to hear. It's the one that loves you enough to tell you what you need to hear.
UpGrayedd Double Dose
Deputy
I don't know why I keep getting sucked into this thread, because I really don't have an opinion of James Talarico one way or the other. However, I'm confused. What is this blogger scared of and where are the strawman arguments?
Unless there is more to the post, I see this as an argument against progressive Christianity not the election of James Talarico. Accordingly, unless the blogger is lying about the comments section and/or Jonathan Haidt (honestly I didn't check), then where is the strawman?
I'm not trying argue with you, but I honestly don't see the big deal. Christians argue with each other online all the time. This progressive vs. traditional Christianity is nothing. You should see them go at it about Calvinism vs. Arminianism.
He quoted:
Every conversation came back to some version of this: "Jesus summarized everything as love God and love your neighbor, and that overrides the harder moral teachings."
I have never heard Talarico say something even close to "this overrides harder moral teachings." That isn't even a paraphrase. That is what is called a strawman argument. It is like saying, every conversation with a pro-life person comes back to some version of "The baby is a person so only their rights matter until born, then we aren't worried what happens as they are on their own." A strawman is taking a person's reasonable point and changing it to make an easily defeatable argument.
I hardly ever hear Christians arguing with Christians. Until now. I do not agree with the point you felt dragged into trying to make. This is a Christian from Missouri making several long posts about what HE calls "James Talarico's progressive Christian theology" that was reposted by an Oklahoman on social media who posts a lot of politics but doesn't post about theology otherwise. The person they are referring to is running for office in a state neither is in, and it is 9 months before the election. Somehow you think that just happens to be common bickering about Christianity and not about the person they refer to by name in the post?
In this country, "progressive" Christianity is nearly an afterthought. In Australia, it is just called Christianity. This isn't a battle about theology. This is using theology to try to stop people from liking a popular politician as they don't like the hopeful message and prefer the divisive "winning" they have been enjoying.
The irony of that "influencer"s comments is that Jesus' gospel teachings are the moral teachings of the NT. That is the whole point. Most of them are criticisms of legalism and how power operated in society, primarily religious power, but also political and social power. How many prostitutes is that guy friends with? How many foreigners is that guy looking out for? My guess would be none.
When people like that influencer make these comments, it gets really clear that he just wants iron age judaism which is incredibly legalistic, judgemental and punitive, but only wants to apply those practices outwards on others of course. Not to himself or people who he identifies with.
People lists things from the comments and the comment may not have been generated by a human at all......or it may be a human wanting to cause trouble.....or it may a total idiot.
Anecdotal ramblings from individuals being giving validity is part of the problem. There are no shortage of idiots on both sides......giving them a voice is the issue cause you aren't ever going to rid the world of idiots seeking attention. Stuff gets posted here like "Trump supporting minister says women should submit in all ways to their husband" or some dumb mess. Ok......there have been churches that handle snakes and dumb crap forever. You look up the church and it has an insignificant amount partitioners.....but the crazy minister was just given a voice anyone the world could look up. Same on the left....."Portland city council meeting has residents advocating for furries in the classroom" or some dumb mess. Then you find it was less than a dozen people in open part of the meeting where you could literally use you 5 minutes to sing a song if you wanted. Then both sides say "see the left/right is crazy they want to put women in cages/kids to act like cats" No a handful of 350 million think that way.
Anecdotal ramblings from individuals being giving validity is part of the problem. There are no shortage of idiots on both sides......giving them a voice is the issue cause you aren't ever going to rid the world of idiots seeking attention. Stuff gets posted here like "Trump supporting minister says women should submit in all ways to their husband" or some dumb mess. Ok......there have been churches that handle snakes and dumb crap forever. You look up the church and it has an insignificant amount partitioners.....but the crazy minister was just given a voice anyone the world could look up. Same on the left....."Portland city council meeting has residents advocating for furries in the classroom" or some dumb mess. Then you find it was less than a dozen people in open part of the meeting where you could literally use you 5 minutes to sing a song if you wanted. Then both sides say "see the left/right is crazy they want to put women in cages/kids to act like cats" No a handful of 350 million think that way.
Last edited:
BoTh SidEs dO It
But then you have THE LEADERS of the MAGA party saying similarly crazy crap (Haitians are eating all the cats and dogs in Ohio amongst others) and we can be relatively sure that the crazies at the top got elected at least in part by the crazies on the bottom.....so it's not like we can just ignore it.
I'm done with just dismissing/ignoring and thereby normalizing the madness. That's how we got where we are right now with a lunatic authoritarian in the White House.
UpGrayedd Double Dose
Deputy
Thanks for the education, but I know what a strawman argument is. However, from your example you claim he is referring to Talarico, but you conveniently left out the part where he was referring to progressive Christians in general and not Talarico, specifically: "I'll start with their core move…"
To answer your questions, why I felt the need to comment. It's to point out my belief that your bias has you seeing boogeymen where they don't exist. If your whole argument is that the right/conservatives/Republicans (whatever you want to call them) are running scared because some random, unnamed blogger in Missouri made a post that mentioned James Talarico, I think you might need to take another look.
Finally, if haven't noticed Christians arguing with each other, you either don't know many Christians or you haven't been paying attention to them, because they argue all the time. I gave you a prime example, Google it and you'll see it's very common for Christians to argue.
Oh, ok.
A core move of dudes on the internet being huge pricks is saying "thanks for the education."
Don't worry, I'm talking about dudes on the internet in general. I'll conveniently let you know that's not referring to you, specifically.
"My whole argument?" Was that straw man purposeful to prove you know how to do it? I mean, reading the thread title shows how silly that is.
Yes, I am biased toward a candidate whose views and treatment of people I respect in this world of idiocracy. What a crazy bias to have.
I'll take your word for it that you like to argue matters of faith unlike my Christian friends. The other option you ignored is that the Christians I hang out with just are not dickheads who argue about the unknowable all the time. After all, with an estimated 30 trillion hyperlinks a few years back, I just used Google to prove "arguments about Shinto" are common with 34 pages of hits on that subject.
UpGrayedd Double Dose
Deputy
Look in the mirror dude and get a grip.
I looked in the mirror and I'm the same me I've always been.
This Talarico guy got you and the "alphabet person" Christian to show your true colors.
UpGrayedd Double Dose
Deputy
My true colors... Like I said, step back off the ledge and get a grip. You're a doctor, but you're acting like a child.
Similar threads
