What's wrong with Texas?

[PaloAltoCougar]

I understand that Talarico's statement that God is non-binary would disturb a lot of Texans, but wasn't that the belief of many of our founding fathers, most notably Jefferson, who were deists?

[frank ryan]

Pexton during midterms

Embedded Tweet

That's hilarious because it's accurate

[LVAllen]

I understand that Talarico's statement that God is non-binary would disturb a lot of Texans, but wasn't that the belief of many of our founding fathers, most notably Jefferson, who were deists?

Also the belief of Mormons, if you take the doctrine that one cannot be exalted alone at face value.

[frank ryan]

I understand that Talarico's statement that God is non-binary would disturb a lot of Texans, but wasn't that the belief of many of our founding fathers, most notably Jefferson, who were deists?

It's not unusual to view God vaguely, as a force or presence in the universe. Mormon beliefs are hella weird to most people.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Also the belief of Mormons, if you take the doctrine that one cannot be exalted alone at face value.

Huh?

[YOhio]

I understand that Talarico's statement that God is non-binary would disturb a lot of Texans, but wasn't that the belief of many of our founding fathers, most notably Jefferson, who were deists?

Maybe in the sense that they're both a rejection of an anthropomorphic "God is male" view? But I still think it's quite a stretch to say that was the belief of our deist founding fathers. Talarico is arguing a kind of progressive Christian reinterpretation of the Bible to oppose a bill requiring high school athletes participating in sports to align with their biological sex.
As far as I know, Jefferson's deism didn't address gender at all. God as a kind of supreme, non-interventionist architect who established natural laws and defied human category. Non-binary is only a thing when there is a binary presented. Jefferson's deism presents more of a unary God.

[Northwestcoug]

Maybe in the sense that they're both a rejection of an anthropomorphic "God is male" view? But I still think it's quite a stretch to say that was the belief of our deist founding fathers. Talarico is arguing a kind of progressive Christian reinterpretation of the Bible to oppose a bill requiring high school athletes participating in sports to align with their biological sex.
As far as I know, Jefferson's deism didn't address gender at all. God as a kind of supreme, non-interventionist architect who established natural laws and defied human category. Non-binary is only a thing when there is a binary presented. Jefferson's deism presents more of a unary God.

this is the second time this week that a real word make me think potty thoughts. The first one was when my daughter told me about working with uranyl acetate in the electron microscopy lab.

[YOhio]

this is the second time this week that a real word make me think potty thoughts. The first one was when my daughter told me about working with uranyl acetate in the electron microscopy lab.

Only the second time this week?! I'm impressed.

[LVAllen]

Huh?

If exaltation can only be achieved jointly, then "God" is properly viewed as a partnership. Neither male nor female alone, but both, sealed together for eternity. Even if gender is an eternal characteristic, God is not the Eternal Male. We refer to one part of the partnership as God the Eternal Father (when we aren't referring to Christ as the Father), but the Father is not alone, and would not be God if He was.

[Jeff Lebowski]

If exaltation can only be achieved jointly, then "God" is properly viewed as a partnership. Neither male nor female alone, but both, sealed together for eternity. Even if gender is an eternal characteristic, God is not the Eternal Male. We refer to one part of the partnership as God the Eternal Father (when we aren't referring to Christ as the Father), but the Father is not alone, and would not be God if He was.

Father in heaven. Mother in heaven. God is an exalted man. Gender is eternal. Etc.

If you polled church members, I would guess almost all would disagree with "God is non-binary".

[YOhio]

If exaltation can only be achieved jointly, then "God" is properly viewed as a partnership. Neither male nor female alone, but both, sealed together for eternity. Even if gender is an eternal characteristic, God is not the Eternal Male. We refer to one part of the partnership as God the Eternal Father (when we aren't referring to Christ as the Father), but the Father is not alone, and would not be God if He was.

This is great. I’ve been thinking a lot about this lately and this captured some of my thoughts better than I could. I don’t think what you’re describing is non-binary in the contemporary sense, but whatever.

[LVAllen]

Father in heaven. Mother in heaven. God is an exalted man. Gender is eternal. Etc.

If you polled church members, I would guess almost all would disagree with "God is non-binary".

Polling members doesn't change the doctrine. God the Father is an exalted man? That's doctrine, and I didn't say it wasn't. But exaltation requiring marriage is also doctrine, and so is the sealing power. To be exalted, you need to be sealed together. See some of the talks by Erastus Snow, as well as many, many talks by modern prophets who re-emphasize it. God is both male and female because there is a union involved.

Personally, I like that concept more than the traditional Christian view, in which God is a spirit without body, parts, or passions, and in which His spiritual being transcends male/female divisions. (Which sounds an awful lot like what Talarico said.)

[Maximus]

Embedded Tweet

[dabrockster]

Looks like Texas got it right this time..

Anthony found guilty of murder. That verdict came back pretty quick.

https://people.com/karmelo-anthony-f...paign=18496625

[BlueK]

Looks like Texas got it right this time..

Anthony found guilty of murder. That verdict came back pretty quick.

https://people.com/karmelo-anthony-f...paign=18496625

I agree with the verdict also based on the testimony of the witnesses and the definition of murder in Texas which I copied below.

I live here. TV and recording wasn't allowed by the judge, I am assuming because the case involved several minors as witnesses. One of the local news outlets though was relating everything word for word in text on their website. The defense had six witnesses but they all said the same thing as the prosecution ones did. The self defense idea didn't fit the law's definition. It wasn't in dispute that he said, touch me and see what happens. Legally that statement eliminates self defense. Also the response to a push can't be as disproportionate as a stab to the chest with a knife .

Do I think he really intended to kill him? No, I don't. He was a hothead kid trying to act tough and made an impulsive and horrible decision. Immediately afterwards he said a couple of things that indicated some concern for the victim and some remorse. After that he then asked if it could be self defense.

But given that the definition the jury was instructed to consider is below, it's not reasonable that Anthony did not understand that stabbing someone in the chest would cause serious bodily injury. Also no doubt that his act was intentional.

For sentence the jury needs to agree on anything between 5 and 99 years. But I don't think he should get life either.


Under ⁠Texas Penal Code Section 19.02, murder is defined as intentionally or knowingly causing the death of an individual, intending to cause serious bodily injury and committing an act clearly dangerous to human life that results in death, or committing a felony (excluding manslaughter) that causes a death. [1]