Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The entire hurricane tracking community also thought that hurricane might hit Alabama. And you blame Trump for this, as if he lied and tried to deceive us, and now needs to repent?


If TDS has got you thinking like this, why are you not out condemning every meteorologist in the world? This is so crazy!

It might have been at the extremes of a very early forecast, but had been eliminated long before Trump repeated it. And they never had a map that looked like that. It was a fabrication.

I never once said the word "repent." But it is clear that even if there was a remote possibility in tracking toward Alabama when the thing was actually many days away from even hitting the east coast, that had long been abandoned when Trump started talking about it. And it would suggest how little he actually keeps up with much of anything. It is almost like someone said this hurricane in the mid-Atlantic might even hit Alabama. Trump says, "Got it. Don't bother me with any updates now." And that, as they say, is the end of the story.

Reminds me of my dad's talk about weather forcasting at Carswell AFB in Ft Worth back in 1957-58. The Canadian or Pacific Northwest activity suggests a cold front with likely snow to reach the DFW area in a few days. It even seems to be tracking along at the projected speed. Then it slows down or even stops before reaching the area. And even if the cold front eventually makes — though a day or two late — the snow just stops 30-60 miles north of DFW. There is no way to assert that it will happen that way, though it is likely. But not because of anything concrete known at the time.

Even today, they do better at it, but the same delays or stops continue to occur. They just hedge their bets now and say it might make it and it might not. But I don't know what it is like where you live, but a 5 to 10-day forecast is often not even reliable in the always-hot summer in DFW. And if there are expected changes, it is even less reliable. So hunkering down on a very early (and very large range of possibilities) forecast as something to go with while ignoring what is now actually happening just underscores Trump's lack of concern for facts. Facts just get in the way.

This argument is pointless anyway. You are sold on the guy no matter what he says or does while I cab find no redeeming value to his leadership. His moral and social behavior are different from, but definitely not better than that of Hilary Clinton. And despite all about her that I do not like, I think that she would have been a better president. It would have been better if we could have chosen between Clinton and Kasich, or one of the other governors. (Unfortunately, my opinion of Pence is clouded by his association with Trump.) I think I could even take Cruz over Trump and that is quite a stretch for me.

I just cannot fathom how Christians can refer to such a man as Trump as their Cyrus.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

It might have been at the extremes of a very early forecast, but had been eliminated long before Trump repeated it. And they never had a map that looked like that. It was a fabrication.

I just cannot fathom how Christians can refer to such a man as Trump . . .

I'll concede that Trump has no business in Meteorology. But for you to buy into this part of the media smear job displays more about your judgment.

I'll skip by your preference for Hilary Clinton.

Your last comment defies all common sense. Trump is pro-life. He is against abortion. On this matter alone, Trump gets the support of real Christians.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Your last comment defies all common sense. Trump is pro-life. He is against abortion. On this matter alone, Trump gets the support of real Christians.

That is a significant issue. But it is not the entirety of morality.

And even yet another conservative judge on SCOTUS is not going to end abortion. It is engrained in the minds of people as a legitimate option. They do not agree that life begins at conception. If they did, they could not simply declare it to be a "choice." Or a "right." The most that SCOTUS could do is remove some of the federal-level control on the issue. So it reverts to the states where people have generally ceased thinking of abortion as a basis for voting for or against particular persons. As long as there is major support, we are just moving the issue downhill. And the result will be, at best, that there is more restriction on late-term abortions. And that might happen anyway. But it will not go away — even in the most conservative states.

The need is not for heightened criminalization, but changes in the thinking of the people who somehow think they have no other choice (thus elimination the perception of choice in the matter). They need support and help from loving people, not angry shouts from the Pharisees who think this is a theocracy and are trying to avert God's banishing us to a new Babylon.

And what did we get for our compromise? For our trading of one moral issue for all others? Mostly meaningless support for an issue that will probably not be impacted at the levels imagined anyway. No matter what the justices personally think, they tend to reject taking on cases that involve decided issues. So even the hotly-contested Cavenaugh will likely have no impact on the issue.

And on the flip side, we accepted a man worse than the one we tried to impeach 20+ years ago for just being a philanderer and trying to hide it. We declare him to be our Cyrus. Really? More like Jezebel. And we invite him into our churches. We are doing exactly what the church did when Constantine came along. Accepting state invovlement so we can dictate how things will be.

Blessed are those who gain access to the power of the state for they shall be able to bring in the kingdom of God quicker than God could without it.

Blessed are they who demonize everyone who is not like them or come from s#!t#0l3 nations.

Blessed are they who praise filth in the hopes that they might gain the right to punish sinners in this age rather than allowing them to wait for whatever punishment is to come in the next age.

I'm sorry. That part of the beatitudes is missing from my Bible!

And vilifying certain non-Christians just because some of their numbers might be terrorists doesn't fit with loving your neighbor as yourself. From where I sit, it suggests either some extreme self-loathing . . . or rejection of that particular command as just being over. As Lee would say, because the law has ended.

I likely won't return on this topic, so save your breath (and electrons). Mark Galli was absolutely right. There are a lot of evangelicals that need to rethink what it means to be spiritual.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

That is a significant issue. But it is not the entirety of morality.

And even yet another conservative judge on SCOTUS is not going to end abortion. It is engrained in the minds of people as a legitimate option. They do not agree that life begins at conception. If they did, they could not simply declare it to be a "choice." Or a "right." The most that SCOTUS could do is remove some of the federal-level control on the issue. So it reverts to the states where people have generally ceased thinking of abortion as a basis for voting for or against particular persons. As long as there is major support, we are just moving the issue downhill. And the result will be, at best, that there is more restriction on late-term abortions. And that might happen anyway. But it will not go away — even in the most conservative states.

The need is not for heightened criminalization, but changes in the thinking of the people who somehow think they have no other choice (thus elimination the perception of choice in the matter). They need support and help from loving people, not angry shouts from the Pharisees who think this is a theocracy and are trying to avert God's banishing us to a new Babylon.

And what did we get for our compromise? For our trading of one moral issue for all others? Mostly meaningless support for an issue that will probably not be impacted at the levels imagined anyway. No matter what the justices personally think, they tend to reject taking on cases that involve decided issues. So even the hotly-contested Cavenaugh will likely have no impact on the issue.

And on the flip side, we accepted a man worse than the one we tried to impeach 20+ years ago for just being a philanderer and trying to hide it. We declare him to be our Cyrus. Really? More like Jezebel. And we invite him into our churches. We are doing exactly what the church did when Constantine came along. Accepting state involvement so we can dictate how things will be.

And vilifying certain non-Christians just because some of their numbers might be terrorists doesn't fit with loving your neighbor as yourself. From where I sit, it suggests either some extreme self-loathing . . . or rejection of that particular command as just being over. As Lee would say, because the law has ended.

I likely won't return on this topic, so save your breath (and electrons). Mark Galli was absolutely right. There are a lot of evangelicals that need to rethink what it means to be spiritual.

OBW, your arguments are so flawed in the minds of his supporters, evangelical or otherwise, but I'm starting to think that you, like Galli, are more upset with Christians who dare to support Trump, than Trump himself. A sure sign of the deleterious effects of Trump Derangement Syndrome. And Galli is now "spiritual" because he rejects President Trump?

How interesting that you dismiss all of Trump's judicial appointments, some saying his greatest accomplishment to date, because they are "not going to end abortion." Conservatives have witnessed the eroding of civil and religious liberties for centuries, and Trump is attempting to reverse that, by ending judicial activism. Obviously, by siding with the atheistic and amoral Left, you don't think any of Trump's appointments are beneficial. Glad to hear that you are not a Pharisee in this matter! Regarding the slaughter of the unborn, at least you are "compassionate" towards the abortion industry.

Only you could think that Trump is worse than the one impeached 20 years ago. Trump threw Jeffrey Epstein out of MaraLago, Clinton however joined him, enabled him, played with him, and protected him. Epstein had a huge painting of Clinton in a blue dress. The two of them mocked the impeachment affair. Dozens of underage pretties have identified Clinton at his island parties. Is there some moral equivalency here? Forget about the actual crimes Clinton was impeached for, (perjury, witness tampering, obstruction of justice, etc.) he raped numerous women, seduced interns, and corrupted minors. Some of it in the White House! Real Christians see some differences here.

Interesting that you refer to Brett Kavanaugh as "hotly contested." Obviously you believed some of his accusers. That alone discredits your ability to discern false witnesses and unrighteousness.

Seems like you got issues with those who refer to Trump as Cyrus. Are you serious? Was Cyrus a holy and godly man? His notable feature was the support of Israel, permitting the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple. Has not God promised to bless those who bless Israel? Trump moved the embassy. More than any president in history, Trump has blessed Israel. Ask them, they will tell you. But you tend to fault-find and curse those whom God blesses. I'm not excusing anyone's sins, but neither am I going to side against God.

Your comments about "vilifying certain non-Christians" are straight from the democratic talking points. Before Trump was elected, Obama said the same things about illegal aliens. Hey did you see that Trump locked kids in cages? Oops, that pic was during the Obama administration. Don't let facts get in the way of your Trump hate! But when Obama did the same, no one accused him of "not loving his neighbor as himself."

Anyways, this is America, and you are free to believe whatever the media tells you about Evangelical Christians, but don't expect me to not push back occasionally on the disinformation and deception.

[OBW]

. . . but I'm starting to think that you, like Galli, are more upset with Christians who dare to support Trump, than Trump himself. A sure sign of the deleterious effects of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Trump derangement syndrome is really a delusion that Trump is the god that he thinks he is. I do not necessarily disagree with the politics of people who decided that Trump was the lesser evil in the 2016 election. But I disagree that the whole of Christian morality and action should be in ranting about abortion and LGBQ?? issues in a manner that is more like the heathen we claim to be trying to stop.

And once again you conflate disagreement with the manner of how evangelicals have gone about trying to force their morality on the heathen (and once again gotten into bed with the world of politics) with agreement with the other side of the issues in question. Just one more proof that your head is stuck in the same mire that those Christian leaders are stuck in.

Conservatives have witnessed the eroding of civil and religious liberties for centuries, and Trump is attempting to reverse that, by ending judicial activism.

And is it the Christian thing to do to force Christian morality on the world, and insist on our "right" to have it better than anyone else in the entire world? I am not sure what Bible you have been reading.

Obviously, by siding with the atheistic and amoral Left . . .

Do you see everything so harshly black-and-white that disagreeing on anything is to side with the opponents? Do you suppose that every Republican who does not go along with the Jack-booted, xenophobic, racist nonsense of the most extreme right-wing of the party must be bleeding liberals? If you do then . . . well, we are not supposed to talk about others on the forum in such derogatory terms. Do you presume that every issue is simply divided between "righteous Republicans" and "communist/socialist liberal Democrats?" Then you deserve the narcissistic buffon that turns every issue into one about himself.

My complaint is not just that Jeffress and the rest are supporting Trump, but that they are going all-in on forcing some kind of theocratic law of morality that we would never allow for if it was Islamic law or Buddhist law. We even go so far as to assert that Islamic regimes should simply be overthrown and turned into democratic republics.

The sin of abortion does not reflect on you. America is not going to return to some nation "blessed by God" if we manage to brow-beat all the lawyers into changing the laws. The church should be finding a way to take stands that encourage change in the minds and hearts of the people, preferably resulting in bringing them into the kingdom of light. We have taken the moniker of "Christian soldiers" much farther than was ever intended. Paul never intended to unleash a gang of political thugs on the nations of the world (of which America is just one of many) to force them to act like the kingdom of God without actually being in the kingdom of God.

We are to be salt and light, not battering ram and noose.

I don't like Trump. I honestly believe that he has committed crimes worthy of impeachment. I don't care whether you agree with me on that. I don't care whether Republicans or Democrats agree or disagree with me on it.

But no matter what, until he is removed from office by election or impeachment (which is also what Galli said) I believe that the country will survive. Even 4 more years. But I do believe that allowing things to stand as they are will damage this republic much more greatly than impeaching a president will. My opinion. Not influenced by Nancy, Cooper, Cuomo, or any of the others who also oppose him.

Only you could think that Trump is worse than the one impeached 20 years ago. Trump threw Jeffrey Epstein out of MaraLago, Clinton however joined him, enabled him, played with him, and protected him.

Only me? You haven't been paying attention. Whether or not impeachment is justified or succeeds, many, if not most, people think that. To say that "ony I" could think that is nothing short of a lie. Or evidence that you are only getting your news from one source.

Interesting that you refer to Brett Kavanaugh as "hotly contested." Obviously you believed some of his accusers. That alone discredits your ability to discern false witnesses and unrighteousness.

Saying it was hotly contested did not make any comment on the quality of the contest other than its problems. However, as poor and questionable as some of the stories that surfaced were, they were neven simply dismissable because of the way they were introduced or the questions raised about the events mentioned. I would admit to having reservations given the nature of what he DID somewhat admit to, but was also inclined to allow for a length of time with a completely different demeanor and a decent body of legal and judicial work to indicate that the person being considered was not (or at least no longer) that youthful fool that was being charged.

But I also took note of some of the testimony concerning questions by both sides trying to get some kind of "litmus" read on him, and unless he was lying, do not see him as ready to overturn Roe v Wade or so many other rulings since.

Your comments about "vilifying certain non-Christians" are straight from the democratic talking points.

I have never heard any Democrats say anything like that. It is my own observation as a human and moderate/conservative Republican. Go lie about someone else.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Trump derangement syndrome is really a delusion that Trump is the god that he thinks he is. I do not necessarily disagree with the politics of people who decided that Trump was the lesser evil in the 2016 election.

Trump is a god? Trump thinks he is a god? The most hated man in this country, daily fueled by vile media lies, and he is a god? Wow, first you blasted Christians for saying Trump is Cyrus. Sorry bro, the only political "deity" in America was Obama. Numerous claims I have read/heard over the years that he was the Messiah.

But I disagree that the whole of Christian morality and action should be in ranting about abortion and LGBQ?? issues in a manner that is more like the heathen we claim to be trying to stop.

Abortion is murder. Murder of the most innocent of all. Dogs have more rights. If standing against it is "ranting" then count me in.

But you sound just like CNN. They smeared those Covington kids for ranting, and then called them racists, and worse. Sorry OBW, but you missed the fact that the only person at that pro-life rally who behaved as an adult, and was praying the whole time, was Nick Sandmann.

God judged Sodom, and Paul wrote against it. But you condemn Christians who stand against it. Sorry, but you are on the wrong side of these issues.

And once again you conflate disagreement with the manner of how evangelicals have gone about trying to force their morality on the heathen (and once again gotten into bed with the world of politics) with agreement with the other side of the issues in question. Just one more proof that your head is stuck in the same mire that those Christian leaders are stuck in. And is it the Christian thing to do to force Christian morality on the world, and insist on our "right" to have it better than anyone else in the entire world? I am not sure what Bible you have been reading.

I don't see you fighting for anything good. At least give other Christians the right to fight for the truth on behalf of succeeding generations. And I think you got Christians mixed up with the Muslams, it is they who force their morality on the rest of the world.

Do you see everything so harshly black-and-white that disagreeing on anything is to side with the opponents? Do you suppose that every Republican who does not go along with the Jack-booted, xenophobic, racist nonsense of the most extreme right-wing of the party must be bleeding liberals?

There you go parroting leftist media lies. I see no racist Republicans. All the racists I see are those who constantly accuse others of racism. They also scream a whole litany of smears, without a shred of evidence. Too bad your head is stuck in fake media. Did you say "mired?"

If you do then . . . well, we are not supposed to talk about others on the forum in such derogatory terms. Do you presume that every issue is simply divided between "righteous Republicans" and "communist/socialist liberal Democrats?" Then you deserve the narcissistic buffon that turns every issue into one about himself.

I never said Republicans are all righteous, but yes, as a matter of fact, I do presume that nearly all media reporting is sourced in communist/socialist liberal Democrats. On a case-by-case basis, they have to prove me wrong. I can dissect every major political story of the last 3 years into facts and lies. And all the lies come from the left.

My complaint is not just that Jeffress and the rest are supporting Trump, but that they are going all-in on forcing some kind of theocratic law of morality that we would never allow for if it was Islamic law or Buddhist law. We even go so far as to assert that Islamic regimes should simply be overthrown and turned into democratic republics.

Haven't heard that. Sounds more like the NeoCon Bushes. But Trump can choose his own pastor, right? Obama had Jeremiah Wright and Al Sharpton, and preached in all the black churches, didn't he? Where's your outrage? Jeffress is better than that Paula White, however, who married that Journey keyboardist who wrote "Don't stop believin."

I don't like Trump. I honestly believe that he has committed crimes worthy of impeachment. I don't care whether you agree with me on that. I don't care whether Republicans or Democrats agree or disagree with me on it. But no matter what, until he is removed from office by election or impeachment (which is also what Galli said) I believe that the country will survive. Even 4 more years.

Helluva democracy when you get to impeach a duly elected President that you don't like. Can't you accept the will of those who elected him? Won't the country survive 8 years of Trump. Perhaps with fewer abortions, and fewer wars, and fewer illegal aliens? Is that so bad?

Why don't you take an honest and fair approach to Trump. Go back and examine all the many claims against him and see which ones were true, and which were lies. Add up the columns. Do some accounting work, with asset and debit columns. Perhaps you will find something good in Trump.

For example, we heard endlessly for 3 years that Trump was a Russian asset, a Putin Puppet. Those were all lies. Muller and his team proved that conclusively. Do you still believe Trump is a Russian traitor? You really need to examine how many of your "beliefs" are based on falsehoods. You got the skills. You did that with LC teachings, didn't you?

[Ohio]

Concerning the Kavanaugh accusations ...

Originally Posted by OBW

Saying it was hotly contested did not make any comment on the quality of the contest other than its problems. However, as poor and questionable as some of the stories that surfaced were, they were never simply dismissable because of the way they were introduced or the questions raised about the events mentioned. I would admit to having reservations given the nature of what he DID somewhat admit to, but was also inclined to allow for a length of time with a completely different demeanor and a decent body of legal and judicial work to indicate that the person being considered was not (or at least no longer) that youthful fool that was being charged.

OBW, this statement above was quite telling. It shows just how effective biased media propaganda can be to influence the public. Kavanaugh was a public servant in the Bush administration and a distinguished judge. His life record was perfectly flawless. He was acclaimed with multiple accolades from those of both parties, but was now viewed as a dangerous addition to the high court because Trump had appointed him.

You, however, seem to have given him no benefit of the doubt in the face of these wild accusations. Kavaaugh admitted to nothing, yet you apparently saw incriminating evidence. You call him a "youthful fool," yet his academic accomplishments during his youth were exemplary. Everything he did had the highest honors. Perhaps your anti-Catholic bias is on display, who knows? But this Kavanaugh character, at least in your mind, deserved everything he got because Trump appointed him. Merely guilt by association and guilt by accusation.

Perhaps you might want to remember his chief antagonist during this time -- Michael Avenatti. Some of the media saw him as a savior of sorts, and even the leading candidate for the 2020 Democratic nomination. Except for your anti-Trump attitudes, my how things have changed in the last year and a half!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Concerning the Kavanaugh accusations ...


OBW, this statement above was quite telling. It shows just how effective biased media propaganda can be to influence the public. Kavanaugh was a public servant in the Bush administration and a distinguished judge. His life record was perfectly flawless. He was acclaimed with multiple accolades from those of both parties, but was now viewed as a dangerous addition to the high court because Trump had appointed him.

You, however, seem to have given him no benefit of the doubt in the face of these wild accusations. Kavaaugh admitted to nothing, yet you apparently saw incriminating evidence. You call him a "youthful fool," yet his academic accomplishments during his youth were exemplary. Everything he did had the highest honors. Perhaps your anti-Catholic bias is on display, who knows? But this Kavanaugh character, at least in your mind, deserved everything he got because Trump appointed him. Merely guilt by association and guilt by accusation.

Perhaps you might want to remember his chief antagonist during this time -- Michael Avenatti. Some of the media saw him as a savior of sorts, and even the leading candidate for the 2020 Democratic nomination. Except for your anti-Trump attitudes, my how things have changed in the last year and a half!

That's it. Shoot the messenger.

As I recall, BK did not admit to the serious charges, but did admit to issues with drinking — even underage. And some of his friends said that there was something that occasionally almost went off the rails when he was drinking. I think that would qualify as youthful foolishness, at a minimum.

And you really didn't read what I said, because I did not say he was unqualified or that he had done anything since college other than live and act in a very sound and professional manner. And I did not say he would be a bad judge. I did mention that both sides were looking to pigeon-hole any nominee as either for or against certain things — abortion issues being predominant — and that he did not really give cause for either side to think they had him in their pocket. And for that I respect him. We will see how well he actually lives up to the ideal of a constitutional scholar, though if he does, it will not make either side as happy as they might like.

It is clear that there was something amiss in the way opponents waited to spring the charges. But that does not prove anything to be untrue. And there were a variety of eye-witness accounts that suggested problems with both the charges as stated, and with claims of purity in the matter. I give both sides the benefit of the doubt and concluded that he would make a good judge. I just wished that it would have been without a cloud over character. Trump had the opportunity to move on to another nominee that might have a better record.

But if they really believed that they had someone who would truly rule to overturn aspects of Roe v Wade, then they had private conversations indicating that he would simply rule in certain ways without reference to rules of precedence or law, or to the constitution. The constitution does not simply lean conservative or liberal. It is not a sword that favors Republicans over Democrats (or the other way around for those looking in from the left). It is a sound framework in which the government has limitations and guidelines within which it must operate. It has less to say about the people who the government "rules." Therefore it should be understood more a limiter on how rules restrict the people and a block against excessive restriction against the people.

And abortion is a problematic issue. Most Christians accept that the Bible establishes life at conception. Under the constitution, you cannot deprive anyone of life without due process. And if we all (believers and unbelievers) accepted that life begins at conception, then that would mean that a separate determination (judicial proceeding) would be required to cause the death of any fetus. No blanket law could be understood as due process. Neither could a single prior court ruling. It would be like trying a murderer and seeking the death penalty.

But we do not have a nation-wide consensus on the point at which a fetus becomes a separate life subject to its own claims under the constitution. Maybe we are sufficiently there on the 3rd trimester. But less likely on the 2nd trimester. And depending on which poll you accept, there might be a slim majority that would even say the 1st trimester. But at "slim majority" you tend to fail with respect to other aspects of constitutional bounds.

But more important is that our calling should not just to be to "speak for the voiceless" by demanding that there be an end to all abortion as we hurl insults at those who disagree, but more importantly that we seek to help those who might otherwise feel compelled to take the route of abortion, whether just to change their mind on that issue, or even to find their hope in Christ. And also to help those who live on under a personal cloud because of past actions.

I agree that we need to speak for the voiceless. But somehow we need to find a way that is not simply to demonize or criminalize everyone on the other side of the issue.