Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[zeek]

Here is a sample of the LCM teaching on politics and the church:

POLITICS
AND RELIGION

Separation of politics and religion is a fine teaching in the Bible. "You know that those who are esteemed as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it is not so among you [the Christians]" (Mark 10:42-43). The Lord Jesus declared that His kingdom is not of this world. Hence, the church, which is subject to the Lord, does not need to go to war. But the question now is much deeper than that of separation between politics and religion.

Many believers think that it is good for politics and religion to be separated one from the other, that the church should not bother itself with politics, and that politics should not interfere with the church. But they think that the church should declare its stand and express its view concerning current issues and that believers can join political movements and serve as government officials. What they say seems to be reasonable, because they say that since believers are also citizens of a country, they have their works as citizens. We should look at the teaching in the Bible. The Lord Jesus left us "a model so that you may follow in His steps" (1 Pet. 2:21). The Lord is our example in everything. We will not go wrong if we follow Him in respect to our relationship to politics. Was the Lord Jesus a politician? Did He pay attention to the politics of His country? Did He ever represent the voice of the people to criticize the officers of Palestine? Did He ever rebuke the political oppressors on behalf of the politically oppressed? Did He ever rally any political power around Him? Please read Luke 12:14; 13:1-3; Matthew 17:24; 22:21.

Christians are merely strangers and sojourners on earth (Heb. 11:13-16; 1 Pet. 2:11). Who can interfere or participate in the politics of a country? Only those who are the citizens of that country can do this. Those Chinese who reside in Japan have no right to interfere with the politics of Japan. The fact that we are strangers and sojourners shows that we have nothing to do with the politics of this world.

Some have said, "Who can be more qualified to be government officers? Are they not more just and morally qualified than others?" The answer in the Bible is that Christians are the most unqualified to be government officers. A government officer is one who executes the law. The laws in the world are based on justice, and all transgressors have to be punished. However, the principle of conduct of Christians today is mercy (Matt. 5:38-48). Can world politics act according to the teaching on the Mount? The words "do not judge, that you be not judged" (Matt. 7:1) have forever disqualified believers from interfering with politics or being executors of law.

The Lord Jesus forever separated politics from the church of God in Matthew 22:21. Since believers do not belong to Caesar (who represents politics), they should never do the work of Caesar. Let those who belong to Caesar do the work of Caesar. We who belong to God should be separated solely unto God.

The Bible only commands believers to be obedient citizens of a country and obey the officers; it has not commanded the believers to be officers themselves and be obeyed. Please read Titus 3:1; Romans 13:1, 5-7. If we are pressured to act contrary to God's commands, we have to act according to Acts 5:29. Matthew 10:23 is also a good solution. We can choose to disobey, but we must never become non-submissive or rebel.

If God's children try to be officers at the gate of Sodom, they will find that before Lot had a chance to convert Sodom, Sodom had converted Lot! Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 1) Vol. 07: The Christian (5)

According to Nee the Bible teaches that it is wrong for a Christian to hold political office. So, professing Christians should not run for or hold public office or work for the government. The business of government should be left to unbelievers.

I worked for the State of Florida for 37 years. It never occurred to me that I was acting unchristian. How about that?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

According to Nee the Bible teaches that it is wrong for a Christian to hold political office. So, professing Christians should not run for or hold public office or work for the government. The business of government should be left to unbelievers.

I worked for the State of Florida for 37 years. It never occurred to me that I was acting unchristian. How about that?

Given the kind of politics that some push (as you linked in a recent post elsewhere), there is an aspect in which the Christian is better of to not be in politics. But that extreme is no different than the one that says you should have nothing to do with it. Somewhere in between is the real biblical position.

I assume that your service in government was both valuable and worthy of your efforts. (Not saying you always may have felt that way.)

And even to hold public office is a noble task. But forcing Christian morality onto the world through such position is a different thing. And sticking your head in the sand is just as poor.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

According to Nee the Bible teaches that it is wrong for a Christian to hold political office. So, professing Christians should not run for or hold public office or work for the government. The business of government should be left to unbelievers.

Then I suppose that the only "proper" occupations in the Bible for Christians are fishing (Peter), medical doctors (Luke), preaching (Apollos), and tent-making (Paul). Perhaps I missed a couple others. Ahh yes, slaves and slave owners.

And all you computer guys, engineers, day-traders, fashionistas, garbage men, landscapers, sales people, car mechanics, etc. are all on notice for being too worldly.

Btw, Nee took his political views from Darby. Perhaps the exclusives posted spies at the polling booths to see if any of their members had become "worldly." I read what Nee taught on politics, and I am shocked at the poor teachings supposedly supported by scripture. Think of his logic: The Lord Jesus was not a politician, so neither should we be. But the Lord was neither in pharmaceuticals like Nee was. Didn't he know that "pharma," the root word for pharmaceuticals, is the Greek word for demons?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Then I suppose that the only "proper" occupations in the Bible for Christians are fishing (Peter), medical doctors (Luke), preaching (Apollos), and tent-making (Paul). Perhaps I missed a couple others. Ahh yes, slaves and slave owners.

And all you computer guys, engineers, day-traders, fashionistas, garbage men, landscapers, sales people, car mechanics, etc. are all on notice for being too worldly.

Btw, Nee took his political views from Darby. Perhaps the exclusives posted spies at the polling booths to see if any of their members had become "worldly." I read what Nee taught on politics, and I am shocked at the poor teachings supposedly supported by scripture. Think of his logic: The Lord Jesus was not a politician, so neither should we be. But the Lord was neither in pharmaceuticals like Nee was. Didn't he know that "pharma," the root word for pharmaceuticals, is the Greek word for demons?

Good points bro Ohio. Nee was so against government that he didn't pay 'em taxes (didn't render to Caesar). That got him arrested. Then he relented toward government ... and changed his mind, to get a lighter sentence ... and admitted many more sins toward those efforts ... damaging many, and his ministry, in the process. Martyr my behind. Witness Lee go tell it to those who don't know you, or Nee.

Should we trust Nee, or Lee, about anything?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Good points bro Ohio. Nee was so against government that he didn't pay 'em taxes (didn't render to Caesar). That got him arrested. Then he relented toward government ... and changed his mind, to get a lighter sentence ... and admitted many more sins toward those efforts ... damaging many, and his ministry, in the process. Martyr my behind. Witness Lee go tell it to those who don't know you, or Nee.

Should we trust Nee, or Lee, about anything?

An ad hominem argument is a fallacy unless it can be shown that the character of the proposer is relevant to the truth of his/her proposition. Even a pathological liar may correctly observe that the sky is blue. So, it doesn't necessarily follow that if Nee transgressed then his propositions regarding politics are false. If you wish to refute Nee's points, you can't just attack Nee. You actually have to show how they are false.

[testallthings]

WE WILL NEVER SAY THAT WE CAN NEVER BE WRONG! (WATCHMAN NEE)

"We will never say that we can never be wrong! Even if all others approve us, we will be the last to approve ourselves. It may be that our mistakes are more numerous than those of others! But, dear brothers, we are willing to follow the Bible literally. If we are wrong, we are indeed willing to be corrected. We would ask those who know where we are wrong to please point out to us our mistakes from the teachings of the Bible, and not from the opinions of men. We know that we are not trustworthy. This is why we trust in the Bible. Since we know that we are not trustworthy, we would also ask your forgiveness in our unwillingness to trust in any famous Bible expositor. We admit that the exposition in The Christian is quite different from the traditional interpretations of men. We are definitely not for our readers to follow us blindly. If they do this, it would be better for The Christian to cease its publication. We can only proclaim the truth that we know. Our readers should never think that what The Christian has said can never contain any mistake. We have to tell the brothers frankly that we do not believe we are like the biblical prophets who wrote the Scriptures by divine inspiration. We can make mistakes. Even though those who love The Christian are increasing day by day, perhaps no one is more aware of the shortcomings of the magazine than the editor himself. The Lord also knows our shortcomings. We hope that every reader will check our messages against the teachings of the Bible. If they are the same, then please pay the price to follow these teachings. If they are not the same, we advise you to refuse them totally. Never follow blindly just because you trust The Christian and its editor. Our unique goal is to lead people closer to God's living word and His written Word. If a man can be drawn closer to Christ and to the Bible, our work has received its great reward. I wish that The Christian would simply be something like a pontoon bridge, something that is used and then forgotten, with itself receiving no recognition at all."

COLLECTED WORKS OF WATCHMAN NEE, THE (SET 1) VOL. 07: THE CHRISTIAN (5)

Chapter 19 Section 1

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Then I suppose that the only "proper" occupations in the Bible for Christians are fishing (Peter), medical doctors (Luke), preaching (Apollos), and tent-making (Paul). Perhaps I missed a couple others. Ahh yes, slaves and slave owners.

Yeah the only occupation of Christians should be those found in the Bible. And their only allowed to dress like back then too ...

And David was a king, and Jesus too ... so government is allowed ... especially President, our version of king. Obama, for example, is king of Babylon ... and he's a Christian. Cruz? I don't know. He's a Canuck. Has birther issues. Unlike Obama.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yeah the only occupation of Christians should be those found in the Bible. And their only allowed to dress like back then too ...

And David was a king, and Jesus too ... so government is allowed ... especially President, our version of king. Obama, for example, is king of Babylon ... and he's a Christian. Cruz? I don't know. He's a Canuck. Has birther issues. Unlike Obama.

Unlike yobama??? They proved he was a Mooslim born in Kenya. I've seen how they forgered his birth certificate.

I'm starting to feel the "Bern." I'm going to vote for Sanders. He just seems so sincere, compared to all the other guys. I figure I'll get free education, free health care, free food and housing, and free bus tickets. And Hillary and Trump will pay for it all! How could I pass up such a great deal?

I need to get it in writing, though, you know how those lawyers and politicians are.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by testallthings

WE WILL NEVER SAY THAT WE CAN NEVER BE WRONG! (WATCHMAN NEE)

"We will never say that we can never be wrong! Even if all others approve us, we will be the last to approve ourselves. It may be that our mistakes are more numerous than those of others! But, dear brothers, we are willing to follow the Bible literally. If we are wrong, we are indeed willing to be corrected. We would ask those who know where we are wrong to please point out to us our mistakes from the teachings of the Bible, and not from the opinions of men. We know that we are not trustworthy. This is why we trust in the Bible. Since we know that we are not trustworthy, we would also ask your forgiveness in our unwillingness to trust in any famous Bible expositor. We admit that the exposition in The Christian is quite different from the traditional interpretations of men. We are definitely not for our readers to follow us blindly. If they do this, it would be better for The Christian to cease its publication. We can only proclaim the truth that we know. Our readers should never think that what The Christian has said can never contain any mistake. We have to tell the brothers frankly that we do not believe we are like the biblical prophets who wrote the Scriptures by divine inspiration. We can make mistakes. Even though those who love The Christian are increasing day by day, perhaps no one is more aware of the shortcomings of the magazine than the editor himself. The Lord also knows our shortcomings. We hope that every reader will check our messages against the teachings of the Bible. If they are the same, then please pay the price to follow these teachings. If they are not the same, we advise you to refuse them totally. Never follow blindly just because you trust The Christian and its editor. Our unique goal is to lead people closer to God's living word and His written Word. If a man can be drawn closer to Christ and to the Bible, our work has received its great reward. I wish that The Christian would simply be something like a pontoon bridge, something that is used and then forgotten, with itself receiving no recognition at all."

COLLECTED WORKS OF WATCHMAN NEE, THE (SET 1) VOL. 07: THE CHRISTIAN (5)

Chapter 19 Section 1

These are great words from Nee. Nee said a lot of great things. But in the end, from what I've learned, and seen with my own eyes in Lee's movement in America, he says one thing and produces another ; not to mention is own personal sexual improprieties, in his hidden personal life.

So what was your purpose in posting it testallthings?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by testallthings

WE WILL NEVER SAY THAT WE CAN NEVER BE WRONG! (WATCHMAN NEE)




"We will never say that we can never be wrong! Even if all others approve us, we will be the last to approve ourselves. It may be that our mistakes are more numerous than those of others! But, dear brothers, we are willing to follow the Bible literally. If we are wrong, we are indeed willing to be corrected. We would ask those who know where we are wrong to please point out to us our mistakes from the teachings of the Bible, and not from the opinions of men. We know that we are not trustworthy. This is why we trust in the Bible. Since we know that we are not trustworthy, we would also ask your forgiveness in our unwillingness to trust in any famous Bible expositor. We admit that the exposition in The Christian is quite different from the traditional interpretations of men. We are definitely not for our readers to follow us blindly. If they do this, it would be better for The Christian to cease its publication. We can only proclaim the truth that we know. Our readers should never think that what The Christian has said can never contain any mistake. We have to tell the brothers frankly that we do not believe we are like the biblical prophets who wrote the Scriptures by divine inspiration. We can make mistakes. Even though those who love The Christian are increasing day by day, perhaps no one is more aware of the shortcomings of the magazine than the editor himself. The Lord also knows our shortcomings. We hope that every reader will check our messages against the teachings of the Bible. If they are the same, then please pay the price to follow these teachings. If they are not the same, we advise you to refuse them totally. Never follow blindly just because you trust The Christian and its editor. Our unique goal is to lead people closer to God's living word and His written Word. If a man can be drawn closer to Christ and to the Bible, our work has received its great reward. I wish that The Christian would simply be something like a pontoon bridge, something that is used and then forgotten, with itself receiving no recognition at all."

COLLECTED WORKS OF WATCHMAN NEE, THE (SET 1) VOL. 07: THE CHRISTIAN (5)

Chapter 19 Section 1

Humble words those, but when others actually did say "we" were wrong 'we" sued the pants off of them. So "we" said one thing and did another. Let me know if I'm "wrong" but I think that's called hypocrisy.

[Ohio]

Separation of politics and religion is a fine teaching in the Bible. "You know that those who are esteemed as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it is not so among you [the Christians]" (Mark 10:42-43). The Lord Jesus declared that His kingdom is not of this world. Hence, the church, which is subject to the Lord, does not need to go to war. But the question now is much deeper than that of separation between politics and religion.

This is similar to Jefferson's federalist statement "the separation of church and state." It was not that the church could not be a part of the state, but that the state could not rule the church. That was the separation the framers intended.

Jesus said, "it is not so among you," meaning that in the church no leader should exercise authority as the Gentiles do. Jesus never said that His children could not engage in any politics. Where is that specific verse? Notice how many liberties Nee takes to promulgate his own opinions.

Note that in this first paragraph, Nee's most provocative point was that the church does not need to go to war. He got that from Mark 10.42-43? Seriously? Is that like Cassius Clay becoming a "conscientious objector" so that he could dodge the draft and remain a professional boxer? Pulleeease! What about all those verses about submitting to authorities? Jesus said "His kingdom is not of this world," does that also mean that we should not live in houses because we are the "house of God?"

[Ohio]

We should look at the teaching in the Bible. The Lord Jesus left us "a model so that you may follow in His steps" (1 Pet. 2:21). The Lord is our example in everything. We will not go wrong if we follow Him in respect to our relationship to politics. Was the Lord Jesus a politician? Did He pay attention to the politics of His country? Did He ever represent the voice of the people to criticize the officers of Palestine? Did He ever rebuke the political oppressors on behalf of the politically oppressed? Did He ever rally any political power around Him? Please read Luke 12:14; 13:1-3; Matthew 17:24; 22:21.

I agree, the Lord Jesus was our model, and He was never a politician. He surely did, however, pay attention to the leaders of Israel. Remember our Lord was not sent to Rome or Greece or Egypt, He came to Israel as the prophets have told us. And Jesus did indeed publicly chastise the Jewish leaders for oppressing the children of God! Go read about how He rebuked the Pharisees and scribes. He shamed the Sanhedrin, the political leaders of the day, telling them "woe to you ..."

Jesus came as the Lamb of God to redeem God's people. There are lots of things He did and did not do. Jesus was not an Architect. He cared little for Herod's gorgeous temple, even prophesying that no stone would remain on another. Does this mean that no Christian should be an Architect?

What about a bazillion other professions? Jesus was silent on them all, especially computers and smart phones. Hear ye, hear ye, all you backsliding Christians! Come out of her My people! And throw all your computers and smart phones in the fire! And be faithful to follow Jesus the carpenter!

In my neighborhood there are lots of nice houses going up all around, and the Amish do the rough carpentry on them all. According to Nee's hermeneutic, all of us Christians should be carpenters like Jesus, just like the Amish are. (And, btw, the Amish don't pay taxes either!)

[testallthings]

1. (Deuteronomy 24:16)--"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."
2. (Ezekiel 18:20)--"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."


To awareness:

Nee was trying to present what he understood from the Bible. He didn't pretend to be correct all the time, so he asked his readers to check with the Bible and if they found him wrong to correct him. That was my point (actually Nee's point). He accepted correction from the Bible but not from the opinions of men. So far I haven't seen a single verse (maybe allusions), from anyone, disproving what Nee said.


The second thing is, if you believe he sinned in an horrible way, why are you still concerned about what he wrote. It seems that to prove his point was wrong you have to attack his person. If his point was wrong it would be wrong even if he was “perfect” in his conduct.


To all:

Nee was Nee. Lee was Lee.
Please, do not judge Nee's writing by what Lee or Lee's coworkers did or said.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is similar to Jefferson's federalist statement "the separation of church and state." It was not that the church could not be a part of the state, but that the state could not rule the church. That was the separation the framers intended.

No. The first amendment to the US Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It cuts both ways. Jefferson wanted to prevent state churches like they had in Europe.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by testallthings

1. (Deuteronomy 24:16)--"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."
2. (Ezekiel 18:20)--"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."


To awareness:

Nee was trying to present what he understood from the Bible. He didn't pretend to be correct all the time, so he asked his readers to check with the Bible and if they found him wrong to correct him. That was my point (actually Nee's point). He accepted correction from the Bible but not from the opinions of men. So far I haven't seen a single verse (maybe allusions), from anyone, disproving what Nee said.


The second thing is, if you believe he sinned in an horrible way, why are you still concerned about what he wrote. It seems that to prove his point was wrong you have to attack his person. If his point was wrong it would be wrong even if he was “perfect” in his conduct.


To all:

Nee was Nee. Lee was Lee.
Please, do not judge Nee's writing by what Lee or Lee's coworkers did or said.

Yes they were different guys and their teaching should not be conflated. However, The Lord's Recovery Movement claims allegiance to both. So, the faithfulness of the movement to Nee's teachings ought to be evaluated. For that matter, Nee's adherence to his own teaching can be assessed. His teachings over time can be also be compared for consistency.

Was the teaching you shared an early one? Did Nee remain that humble? If he claimed to be the minister of his age, what possible meaning could that title have if he admits that anything he teaches could be wrong and that we ought not follow him blindly? If you accept that a guy is God's sole minister of the age, aren't you obligated to follow him blindly? Of course, why anyone would accept that claim from anybody is another question.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

No. The first amendment to the US Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It cuts both ways. Jefferson wanted to prevent state churches like they had in Europe.

Yep. What I said.

[testallthings]

To Zeek

I'll try to find if Nee remained humble or not (although I don't see the connection with Politics and the Church). The quote I posted refers to the same magazine you took your quote from, probably is the same year (I am not sure).

Would you please tell me where Nee says that he is was the minister of his age?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by testallthings

To Zeek

I'll try to find if Nee remained humble or not (although I don't see the connection with Politics and the Church). The quote I posted refers to the same magazine you took your quote from, probably is the same year (I am not sure).

Would you please tell me where Nee says that he is was the minister of his age?

I haven't seen that Nee did make that claim explicitly but the LSM defends the claim that he was the MOTA. My impression is that he implied it. http://www.afaithfulword.org/article...yMinister.html Whether or not Nee considered himself the unique MOTA is presently a controversy between LSM and Nigel Tomes and others.

As if that isn't problem enough, the anonymous author of the piece states "At the end of his ministry Brother Nee expressed his feeling that the Lord desired to turn the age from the age of spiritual giants to the age of the whole Body serving." Yet Witness Lee claimed to be the MOTA so the putative Lord's desire was delayed while he was alive according to the LSM.

In my opinion, these preachers should really have stuck to reading the Bible rather then all this speculation about people being the MOTA, an issue which really can't rise beyond the level of opinion. To any somewhat objective observer it looks pretty silly. Don't you agree?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by testallthings

1. (Deuteronomy 24:16)--"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."
2. (Ezekiel 18:20)--"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."


To awareness:

Nee was trying to present what he understood from the Bible. He didn't pretend to be correct all the time, so he asked his readers to check with the Bible and if they found him wrong to correct him. That was my point (actually Nee's point). He accepted correction from the Bible but not from the opinions of men. So far I haven't seen a single verse (maybe allusions), from anyone, disproving what Nee said.


The second thing is, if you believe he sinned in an horrible way, why are you still concerned about what he wrote. It seems that to prove his point was wrong you have to attack his person. If his point was wrong it would be wrong even if he was “perfect” in his conduct.


To all:

Nee was Nee. Lee was Lee.
Please, do not judge Nee's writing by what Lee or Lee's coworkers did or said.

Good post TAT. I'd like to hear more about how the verses you provided relate, but that can be set aside.

First. Are you saying that the con of a preacher conman can be dismissed as long as he teaches the Bible?

Second. Zeek's quote of Nee, and his teaching that Christians should not be involved in government, can be Biblically disproven by the fact that there are many examples in the Bible of men of God who were involved in government. King David comes to mind. And even Jesus provides an example. He was executed because he was King of the Jews. Doesn't the position of king involve government? Plus, Jesus said the 12 disciples would rule over the 12 tribes of Israel. Again, isn't that government?

Then, according to the Bible, we've got both God and Jesus sitting on thrones.

So Nee was wrong, concerning Christians and government, according to the Bible.

Third. I have no quibble with your quote:

WE WILL NEVER SAY THAT WE CAN NEVER BE WRONG! (WATCHMAN NEE)

In fact I proved with the Bible that Nee was wrong.

Fourth. We're getting our quotes from Living Stream Ministry. So Nee is too connected with Lee, and Lee to Nee.

Thanks for your input TAT. I'm anxious to learn more about where you are going.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yep. What I said.

...Not!...

[awareness]

R.I.P Antonin Scalia. Obama will need to replace him. We should all be praying for Obama.

1Ti 2:1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people,
1Ti 2:2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.
1Ti 2:3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior,

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

...Not!...

Just for clarity:

Not being able to ignore Jefferson, the Christian right has decidedcided to deliberately misinterpret his message. Anti-separationists deny that Jefferson's term "wall of separation between Church and State" meant anything like what modern "liberals" mean by the phrase. But if we read the whole passage from which this phrase was extracted, it really seems that he did:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State [italics mine]. (from his [Jefferson] letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, January I, 1802)"

Brooke Allen. Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers (Kindle Locations 802-805). Kindle Edition.

[testallthings]

Joh 18:23 Jesus answered him, "If I have said anything wrong, tell me what it was. But if I have told the truth, why do you hit me?"

Could this verse be used in our discussion? Can we just tell what the wrong was without hitting the person who spoke (Nee in this case)? It seems to me, that the tendency is not to prove but just to hit.

Regarding, “He says one thing and produces another.” Do you refer to Lee? The Lord Jesus said (for example), love your enemy, do not love mammon, etc.. If we fail in obeying His word, should someone be entitled to blame the Lord for the bad result? About Nee's sins, I have not yet investigated or read about it. But if, every time there is an issue about what Nee taught, and the only way to win the argument is always to refer to his sins,(or to what Lee did) then there isn't anything to discuss, we just condemn in toto what he said and that is the end of the story. On the other end, if we are interested in proving from the Bible if what he said is right or wrong, well then let's do it.

Now to your points:

“First. Are you saying that the con of a preacher conman can be dismissed as long as he teaches the Bible?” In another post you said, “These are great words from Nee. Nee said a lot of great things.” I guess you are the one who should answer your question.

“Second. Zeek's quote of Nee, and his teaching that Christians should not be involved in government, can be Biblically disproven by the fact that there are many examples in the Bible of men of God who were involved in government. King David comes to mind. And even Jesus provides an example. He was executed because he was King of the Jews. Doesn't the position of king involve government? Plus, Jesus said the 12 disciples would rule over the 12 tribes of Israel. Again, isn't that government?

Then, according to the Bible, we've got both God and Jesus sitting on thrones.

So Nee was wrong, concerning Christians and government, according to the Bible.”


Here you have proved that David (a Jew) ruled as king of Israel. (Are we talking about Christians or not?)

You have proved that Jesus was the King of Israel. Yes, and this is what he told Pilate, “Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom belonged to this world, my servants would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But for now my kingdom is not from here." If His kingdom was not of this world, then should Christians rule as kings (or as presidents) in this world? Jesus answer seems to reject this thought.

Joh 18:37 Pilate asked him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. I was born for this, and I came into the world for this: to testify to the truth. Everyone who is committed to the truth listens to my voice." Here the Lord Jesus continues to show Pilate the kind of king He was (at His first coming). His job was to testify to the truth. Should this be our job, too?
So, the Lord Jesus was a king, but did He really reigned as such? Where was His throne?

Joh_6:15 Then Jesus, realizing that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, withdrew again to the hillside by himself.
What should be our reaction in a similar situation? Shall we accept what the Lord refused?

The Lord is surely the King, and at His second coming He will rule forever and ever.



You have proved that the Lord “Jesus said the 12 disciples would rule over the 12 tribes of Israel.”


Here is the verse, “Mat_19:28 Jesus told them, "I tell you with certainty, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne in the renewed creation, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, governing the twelve tribes of Israel.”
This was a promise that will be fulfilled at the Lord second coming when He will sit on His glorious throne. Could the disciples sit on thrones before He sits on His? Did the disciples reign as kings in the Acts period? When they were persecuted did they proclaim to be kings and so be the only one entitled to rule and judge? Does anyone have in his Bible the Gospel according to King Matthew? Or the 1 & 2 King Peter? Or the 1, 2, & 3 King John?

“Third. I have no quibble with your quote:

WE WILL NEVER SAY THAT WE CAN NEVER BE WRONG! (WATCHMAN NEE)

In fact I proved with the Bible that Nee was wrong.”

Good for you. You “proved with the Bible that Nee was wrong.” Did you?

“Fourth. We're getting our quotes from Living Stream Ministry. So Nee is too connected with Lee, and Lee to Nee.”

Yes, but this should not be a pretext to use the teaching of one to condemn what the other didn't say. Here again I quote the 2 verses:
1. (Deuteronomy 24:16)--"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."
2. (Ezekiel 18:20)--"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."


In conclusion, I tried to answer your disprove. I hope in doing so I didn't hit anyone, in that case I ask your forgiveness.

________________
Notes:
today I am quoting from the ISV (no particular reason). If you have something against this version let me know.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by testallthings

Joh 18:23 Jesus answered him, "If I have said anything wrong, tell me what it was. But if I have told the truth, why do you hit me?"

Could this verse be used in our discussion? Can we just tell what the wrong was without hitting the person who spoke (Nee in this case)? It seems to me, that the tendency is not to prove but just to hit.

Your statement reinforces what I already proposed below, i.e. that we judge Nee's propositions not Nee. Now if Jesus or the authors of the Bible thought it was wrong for Christians to hold political office, why didn't they just say so directly? Why beat around the bush?

Nee states "A government officer is one who executes the law. The laws in the world are based on justice, and all transgressors have to be punished. However, the principle of conduct of Christians today is mercy (Matt. 5:38-48). Can world politics act according to the teaching on the Mount? The words "do not judge, that you be not judged" (Matt. 7:1) have forever disqualified believers from interfering with politics or being executors of law."

If mercy is the principle that Jesus taught us to practice, then why not practice it in every sphere of life including government? Didn't Jesus expect his followers to bring the practice of the Kingdom of God to the world? Wouldn't practicing mercy in government be doing exactly that?

According to Nee's teaching, since Jesus' principle is mercy we should avoid situations where think mercy is inappropriate. According to Nee then, should we just avoid people and situations where we don't wish to show mercy? So, if I don't like you, I should just stay away from you because if I'm around you, I might have to show mercy toward you. Avoidance including avoidance of political office seems to be a poor standard of practice for Christian life that would lead to social isolation rather then bringing the Kingdom of God into the world like Jesus did.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by testallthings

Joh 18:23 Jesus answered him, "If I have said anything wrong, tell me what it was. But if I have told the truth, why do you hit me?"

Could this verse be used in our discussion? Can we just tell what the wrong was without hitting the person who spoke (Nee in this case)? It seems to me, that the tendency is not to prove but just to hit.

Regarding, “He says one thing and produces another.” Do you refer to Lee? The Lord Jesus said (for example), love your enemy, do not love mammon, etc.. If we fail in obeying His word, should someone be entitled to blame the Lord for the bad result? About Nee's sins, I have not yet investigated or read about it. But if, every time there is an issue about what Nee taught, and the only way to win the argument is always to refer to his sins,(or to what Lee did) then there isn't anything to discuss, we just condemn in toto what he said and that is the end of the story. On the other end, if we are interested in proving from the Bible if what he said is right or wrong, well then let's do it.

Now to your points:

“First. Are you saying that the con of a preacher conman can be dismissed as long as he teaches the Bible?” In another post you said, “These are great words from Nee. Nee said a lot of great things.” I guess you are the one who should answer your question.

“Second. Zeek's quote of Nee, and his teaching that Christians should not be involved in government, can be Biblically disproven by the fact that there are many examples in the Bible of men of God who were involved in government. King David comes to mind. And even Jesus provides an example. He was executed because he was King of the Jews. Doesn't the position of king involve government? Plus, Jesus said the 12 disciples would rule over the 12 tribes of Israel. Again, isn't that government?

Then, according to the Bible, we've got both God and Jesus sitting on thrones.

So Nee was wrong, concerning Christians and government, according to the Bible.”


Here you have proved that David (a Jew) ruled as king of Israel. (Are we talking about Christians or not?)

You have proved that Jesus was the King of Israel. Yes, and this is what he told Pilate, “Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom belonged to this world, my servants would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But for now my kingdom is not from here." If His kingdom was not of this world, then should Christians rule as kings (or as presidents) in this world? Jesus answer seems to reject this thought.

Joh 18:37 Pilate asked him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. I was born for this, and I came into the world for this: to testify to the truth. Everyone who is committed to the truth listens to my voice." Here the Lord Jesus continues to show Pilate the kind of king He was (at His first coming). His job was to testify to the truth. Should this be our job, too?
So, the Lord Jesus was a king, but did He really reigned as such? Where was His throne?

Joh_6:15 Then Jesus, realizing that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, withdrew again to the hillside by himself.
What should be our reaction in a similar situation? Shall we accept what the Lord refused?

The Lord is surely the King, and at His second coming He will rule forever and ever.



You have proved that the Lord “Jesus said the 12 disciples would rule over the 12 tribes of Israel.”


Here is the verse, “Mat_19:28 Jesus told them, "I tell you with certainty, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne in the renewed creation, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, governing the twelve tribes of Israel.”
This was a promise that will be fulfilled at the Lord second coming when He will sit on His glorious throne. Could the disciples sit on thrones before He sits on His? Did the disciples reign as kings in the Acts period? When they were persecuted did they proclaim to be kings and so be the only one entitled to rule and judge? Does anyone have in his Bible the Gospel according to King Matthew? Or the 1 & 2 King Peter? Or the 1, 2, & 3 King John?

“Third. I have no quibble with your quote:

WE WILL NEVER SAY THAT WE CAN NEVER BE WRONG! (WATCHMAN NEE)

In fact I proved with the Bible that Nee was wrong.”

Good for you. You “proved with the Bible that Nee was wrong.” Did you?

“Fourth. We're getting our quotes from Living Stream Ministry. So Nee is too connected with Lee, and Lee to Nee.”

Yes, but this should not be a pretext to use the teaching of one to condemn what the other didn't say. Here again I quote the 2 verses:
1. (Deuteronomy 24:16)--"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."
2. (Ezekiel 18:20)--"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."


In conclusion, I tried to answer your disprove. I hope in doing so I didn't hit anyone, in that case I ask your forgiveness.

________________
Notes:
today I am quoting from the ISV (no particular reason). If you have something against this version let me know.

Well I feel good and beat up. And prolly deserve it. But actually, brother TAT has set me straight. And as Nee taught, we should admit it when we're wrong.

So, Nee is right, Christians should not be in government. That means, those running for office today, that claim to be Christian, are not living by Biblical teachings.

Good job TAT.

Okay, let's move on to a question that came up in our discussion. Did Watchman Nee claim to be the MOTA?

I know Lee did, cuz I was booted out over it. So from where did Lee get that notion? Did it come from Nee, or did Lee make it up?

If there's continuing interest in this, we can prolly get down to the truth of the matter.

More if interested.

Thanks TAT.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Your statement reinforces what I already proposed below, i.e. that we judge Nee's propositions not Nee. Now if Jesus or the authors of the Bible thought it was wrong for Christians to hold political office, why didn't they just say so directly? Why beat around the bush?

Nee was gifted at waxing flamboyant with scripture. Not just with this minor concern, of Christians and government, but with his flagship doctrine ; that of the ground of the church. Nowhere in the New Testament is the doctrine or principle of one church one city explicitly developed. Nee embellished it into an extra-Biblical doctrine and dogma, and made it the bases of his movement.

Same with the MOTA ... that we've yet to discuss.

[awareness]

To TAT,

You say:

You have proved that Jesus was the King of Israel. Yes, and this is what he told Pilate, “Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom belonged to this world, my servants would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But for now my kingdom is not from here." If His kingdom was not of this world, then should Christians rule as kings (or as presidents) in this world? Jesus answer seems to reject this thought.

But then, if historically factual, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey:

Joh 12:15 "Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, your king is coming, sitting on a donkey's colt!"
.
Publicly displaying that he's the king of the Jews. His kingdom then would be of this world, and a government figure, by more than implication.

It's interesting that both not of this world, and king of the jews appear in the gospel of john:

Joh 12:15 "Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, your king is coming, sitting on a donkey's colt!"

Joh 18:35 Pilate answered, "Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?"
Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."


So we're back to Nee being Biblically wrong. To bad he's not here to admit to it.

[testallthings]

DID NEE REMAIN THAT HUMBLE?

Originally Posted by zeek

Was the teaching you shared an early one? Did Nee remain that humble? If he claimed to be the minister of his age, what possible meaning could that title have if he admits that anything he teaches could be wrong and that we ought not follow him blindly? If you accept that a guy is God's sole minister of the age, aren't you obligated to follow him blindly? Of course, why anyone would accept that claim from anybody is another question.

Not Taking What We See Today
as the Whole Truth

We cannot judge God's word by what we see in this age. What we see today is still limited. Perhaps fifty years from now, other brothers will rise up to say that we are in darkness. We only wish we could climb higher than we are to see God's word. Just as we are not saved and then regenerated, in the same way we do not first receive an individual life and then come to realize the Body life. Just as salvation and regeneration happen at the same time, the realization of the individual life and the Body life happen at the same time (Acts 9:17-18). In every age there are truths of that age. There are also errors of that age. We cannot make the truth of an age become an error just because we do not have enough knowledge about that truth. Take again the example of baptism and the laying on of hands. The two things should happen at the same time. After a person is baptized, he should immediately experience the laying on of hands, and he should immediately be brought to see the coordination, the Body, and be joined to the brothers and sisters. Due to the fact that some truths were recovered first and some later, men set a sequence to the order of the truth. This is wrong. This is why we cannot consider what we have seen today as the whole truth, nor can we judge God's word by our own experience. Never forget that we are ministers of God's word.(Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 3) Vol. 57: The Resumption of Watchman Nee's Ministry, Chapter 6, Section 2) [emphasis added](These words were spoken in 1948).

I am not sure if this can answer your question. I will still look for more.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by testallthings

DID NEE REMAIN THAT HUMBLE?

Not Taking What We See Today
as the Whole Truth

We cannot judge God's word by what we see in this age. What we see today is still limited. Perhaps fifty years from now, other brothers will rise up to say that we are in darkness. We only wish we could climb higher than we are to see God's word. Just as we are not saved and then regenerated, in the same way we do not first receive an individual life and then come to realize the Body life. Just as salvation and regeneration happen at the same time, the realization of the individual life and the Body life happen at the same time (Acts 9:17-18). In every age there are truths of that age. There are also errors of that age. We cannot make the truth of an age become an error just because we do not have enough knowledge about that truth. Take again the example of baptism and the laying on of hands. The two things should happen at the same time. After a person is baptized, he should immediately experience the laying on of hands, and he should immediately be brought to see the coordination, the Body, and be joined to the brothers and sisters. Due to the fact that some truths were recovered first and some later, men set a sequence to the order of the truth. This is wrong. This is why we cannot consider what we have seen today as the whole truth, nor can we judge God's word by our own experience. Never forget that we are ministers of God's word.(Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 3) Vol. 57: The Resumption of Watchman Nee's Ministry, Chapter 6, Section 2) [emphasis added](These words were spoken in 1948).

I am not sure if this can answer your question. I will still look for more.

Interesting. I remember Witness Lee saying the same kind of thing from time to time.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by testallthings

The Resumption of Watchman Nee's Ministry,

But why was Nee being humble?

Talking about the resumption of Nee's ministry, in 1942 was the "SCA Storm" as it was called. It was when Nee was dis-fellowhipped for scandals with a couple of sisters:

"After his arrest, Nee disclosed the names of the two victims, MYC and ZQN. Not until 1956 did we know of Nee’s affair with ZQN. Yet the discovery of his affair was the underlying cause of the “SCA Storm” in 1942."
~ Hsu M.D, Lily M.; Roberts M.A M.T.S, Dana (2013-04-02). My Unforgettable Memories:Watchman Nee and Shanghai Local Church (Kindle Locations 2061-2063). Xulon Press. Kindle Edition.

After the SCA Storm and with many coworkers alienated from him, Nee had nowhere to go but back to his hometown, Fuzhou.
~Hsu M.D, Lily M.; Roberts M.A M.T.S, Dana (2013-04-02). My Unforgettable Memories:Watchman Nee and Shanghai Local Church (Kindle Locations 2928-2929). Xulon Press. Kindle Edition.

Then in 1949 Witness talked Nee back. So of course Nee would be humble.

The Prelude to Nee’s Resumption
Witness Lee Convinced coworkers to Accept Nee Lee was unswervingly loyal to Nee. He realized there were bitter feelings toward Nee among SCA leaders because of the “SCA Storm in 1942.”(1) Upon his arrival Nanjing and Shanghai, he talked to most of the senior coworkers, including Li Yuanru, Zhang Yuzhi, Xu Dawei (David Hsu), Du Zhongchen, and Yu Chenghua. He persuaded them by saying that the cause of their spiritual back-sliding was their focusing on “Was something truly wrong with Watchman Nee?” They forgot to show gratitude to Nee for his spiritual help. Also, he repeatedly emphasized: “The issue is of ‘the Tree of Knowledge’ versus ‘the Tree of Life.’”

Kinnear writes: Already in 1946 Witness Lee had challenged the Shanghai elders: “Were you in the Spirit when you made the decision to reject him? And what was the effect? Can you say it brought life?” “No,” they had replied sorrowfully to each question.(2)

The coworkers accepted Lee’s viewpoint of “considering ‘life,’ but not ‘the knowledge of good and evil.’” The previous grudge was then resolved.

Lee and Wang Prompted the Resumption of Nee
Witness Lee and Wang Peizhen were eager to have Nee returning to his ministry. Lee said: By being in Shanghai again, I had much opportunity to see Brother Nee after a separation of more than six years. .*.*. Also, at this time Peace Wang [Wang Peizhen] and I were concerned for the recovery of Watchman’s ministry. For this reason we both took every opportunity to have fellowship with him.*.*.*. We presented to him the urgent need to resume his ministry because of the restoration of the church in Shanghai and the wide doors opened in new fields. I asked him to resume his ministry, but he told me that because of certain rebellious brothers, his ministering spirit would not allow him to minister to the church in Shanghai. I realized from this that in order to recover his ministry, there was the crucial need of a revival among us.(3)
~Hsu M.D, Lily M.; Roberts M.A M.T.S, Dana (2013-04-02). My Unforgettable Memories:Watchman Nee and Shanghai Local Church (Kindle Locations 857-859). Xulon Press. Kindle Edition.


So Nee was being humble because he was like a little boy coming back after being punished.

[testallthings]

To zeek “Your statement reinforces what I already proposed below, i.e. that we judge Nee's propositions not Nee.”

Isn't that the purpose of this (your) thread?


“Now if Jesus or the authors of the Bible thought it was wrong for Christians to hold political office, why didn't they just say so directly? Why beat around the bush?”


You could turn your question around and ask, Now if Jesus or the authors of the Bible thought it was right for Christians to hold political office, why didn't they just say so directly? Why beat around the bush? Of course the answer is a bit more complicated.

“Or second, He might command the angels to proclaim His word. The Bible does record some instances of angels delivering the word of God, but these are very rare and only used as an exceptional or emergency measure. This is not the normal and regular way of God’s speaking. Nevertheless, should it please God to propagate His word by the angels, He could simply compile many articles similar to the Ten Commandments and command the angels to deliver them to men to learn. No personal experience would be involved, and no human error would be possible. We might think this would eliminate many theological problems, arguments, and heresies. How simple it would be if God’s word were reduced to the form of a law of five or six hundred articles. By hearing or reading these items men would know God’s word in total. Perhaps many believe that the Bible would be easier to comprehend if it were one thousand one hundred and eighty-six articles instead of that many chapters. It would not be unlike a handbook of Christianity. A quick glance would give a general summary of the Christian faith. But God has not so done.” The Ministry of God's Word, chapter 2, page 21, Watchman Nee, Christian Fellowship Publishers, Inc. New York Copyright ©1971[emphasis added]


“A New Testament believer prays, gives thanks, praises, or seeks after the Lord without the need of a prophet to act on his behalf. The greatest blessing for a New Testament believer is the ability to receive the leading of the Holy Spirit, as Hebrews 8:11 says, "And they shall by no means each teach his fellow citizen and each his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for all will know Me from the little one to the great one among them." We have many fellow citizens and brothers, but there is no need for them to teach us, saying, "Know the Lord." We have the Holy Spirit within us. The Spirit is our prophet today. In the Old Testament there was Nathan, Gad, and many other prophets, in addition to many "fellow citizens." But in the New Testament, we do not need all these "fellow citizens" to teach and guide us......A prophet cannot give anyone personal guidance; this is the essence of the New Testament. In the New Testament there are no personal prophets. Everyone can know God directly and be led of God and know God's will directly. Do you have a prophet? I am ashamed that many people have considered me a prophet, that is, the kind of personal prophet mentioned above. The danger of a worker is to burden himself with the work of a prophet. When there are too many personal prophets, the proper place of the new testament prophet is annulled. The New Testament church does not need any spiritual giants to act as personal prophets to teach others what they should do. That is the work of the Holy Spirit, not the work of the prophets. The main work of the new testament prophets is for building up, encouraging, and consoling men. This is the work that God's workers should do today.”
(Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 2) Vol. 42: Conferences, Messages, and Fellowship (2), Chapter 3, Section 1)[emphasis added]


“Nee states "A government officer is one who executes the law. The laws in the world are based on justice, and all transgressors have to be punished. However, the principle of conduct of Christians today is mercy (Matt. 5:38-48). Can world politics act according to the teaching on the Mount? The words "do not judge, that you be not judged" (Matt. 7:1) have forever disqualified believers from interfering with politics or being executors of law."

“If mercy is the principle that Jesus taught us to practice, then why not practice it in every sphere of life including government? Didn't Jesus expect his followers to bring the practice of the Kingdom of God to the world? Wouldn't practicing mercy in government be doing exactly that?”


This is what in a 2006 speech, then-Sen. Barack Obama, in a mocking way, said, “Jesus' Sermon on the Mount was so radical the Defense Department wouldn't survive its application.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWpAQDx1iVQ

What shall a Christian do if, being the president of a country, he faces war? Shall he follow the Lord Jesus teaching, “But *I* say unto you, not to resist evil; but whoever shall strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other”, and so condemn to death millions of his own people, who probably do not share his belief, or shall he use the sword and in so doing going against the Lord's commandments and his own conscience?


“According to Nee's teaching, since Jesus' principle is mercy we should avoid situations where think mercy is inappropriate. According to Nee then, should we just avoid people and situations where we don't wish to show mercy? So, if I don't like you, I should just stay away from you because if I'm around you, I might have to show mercy toward you. Avoidance including avoidance of political office seems to be a poor standard of practice for Christian life that would lead to social isolation rather then bringing the Kingdom of God into the world like Jesus did.”


I am not sure what you are saying. Could you clarify, just for me, please.


Many Christians had a strong aversion about politics, (Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, the Brethren, Nee, etc..)

“I owe no duty to forum, campaign, or senate. I stay awake for no public function. I make no effort to occupy a platform. I am no office seeker. I have no desire to smell out political corruption. I shun the voter’s booth, the juryman’s bench. I break no laws and push no lawsuits; I will not serve as a magistrate or judge. I refuse to do military service. I desire to rule over no one – I have withdrawn from worldly politics! Now my only politics is spiritual – how that I might be anxious for nothing except to root out all worldly anxieties and care.”- Tertullian

In us, all ardor in the pursuit of glory and honor is dead. So we have no pressing inducement to take part in your public meetings. Nor is there anything more entirely foreign to us than affairs of state. – Tertullian

Celsus also urges us to “take office in the government of the country, if that is required for the maintenance of the laws and the support of religion.” But we recognise in each state the existence of another national organization founded by the Word of God, and we exhort those who are mighty in word and of blameless life to rule over Churches. Those who are ambitious of ruling we reject; but we constrain those who, through excess of modesty, are not easily induced to take a public charge in the Church of God. And those who rule over us well are under the constraining influence of the great King, whom we believe to be the Son of God, God the Word. And if those who govern in the Church, and are called rulers of the divine nation–that is, the Church–rule well, they rule in accordance with the divine commands, and never suffer themselves to be led astray by worldly policy. And it is not for the purpose of escaping public duties that Christians decline public offices, but that they may reserve themselves for a diviner and more necessary service in the Church of God–for the salvation of men. And this service is at once necessary and right. They take charge of all–of those that are within, that they may day by day lead better lives, and of those that are without, that they may come to abound in holy words and in deeds of piety; and that, while thus worshipping God truly, and training up as many as they can in the same way, they may be filled with the word of God and the law of God, and thus be united with the Supreme God through His Son the Word, Wisdom, Truth, and Righteousness, who unites to God all who are resolved to conform their lives in all things to the law of God. – Origen

http://unsettledchristianity.com/the...ublic-service/



Still, every Christian should decide by/for himself, according to the Word and the leading of the Spirit (and his own conscience).

Col 3:1 If therefore ye have been raised with the Christ, seek the things which are above, where the Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God: Col 3:2 have your mind on the things that are above, not on the things that are on the earth.

[testallthings]

To awareness
“So we're back to Nee being Biblically wrong. To bad he's not here to admit to it.”
First, you have to prove that he was wrong on this point, then I am sure if he was here he would gladly admit to it.




“But then, if historically factual, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey:
Joh 12:15 "Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, your king is coming, sitting on a donkey's colt!"
Publicly displaying that he's the king of the Jews. His kingdom then would be of this world, and a
government figure, by more than implication.”
'Now, do I understand you correctly, with this one verse you are proving that Christians should be involved in politic, in government office, etc.? Should you not provide at least two witnesses?

But, again, you are proving that the Lord Jesus was/is a King. On this point, let me assure you, I know no Christian who would object to it. The Magi from the East, and the Romans (Pilate) from the West, recognized Him as the king of the Jews, in accord with the tenor of the Gospel of Matthew. Those who didn't accept Him as Messiah-King were the Jews.

Joh 19:14 (now it was the preparation of the passover; it was about the sixth hour and he [Pilate] says to the Jews, Behold your king!
Joh 19:15 But they cried out, Take him away, take him away, crucify him. Pilate says to them, Shall I crucify your king? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.


Act 3:13 The God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus, whom *ye* delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when *he* had judged that he should be let go.
Act 3:14 But *ye* denied the holy and righteous one, and asked that a man that was a murderer should be granted to you;

Furthermore, let's look at Luke 19:11-27, “But as they were listening to these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem and they thought that the kingdom of God was about to be immediately manifested. He said therefore, A certain high-born man went to a distant country to receive for himself a kingdom and return. And having called his own ten bondmen, he gave to them ten minas, and said to them, Trade while I am coming. But his citizens hated him, and sent an embassy after him, saying, We will not that this man should reign over us. And it came to pass on his arrival back again, having received the kingdom, that he desired these bondmen to whom he gave the money to be called to him, in order that he might know what every one had gained by trading. And the first came up, saying, My Lord, thy mina has produced ten minas.
And he said to him, Well done , thou good bondman; because thou hast been faithful in that which is least, be thou in authority over ten cities. And the second came, saying, My Lord, thy mina has made five minas. And he said also to this one, And *thou*, be over five cities. And another came, saying, My Lord, lo, there is thy mina, which I have kept laid up in a towel. For I feared thee because thou art a harsh man: thou takest up what thou hast not laid down, and thou reapest what thou hast not sowed. He says to him, Out of thy mouth will I judge thee, wicked bondman: thou knewest that *I* am a harsh man, taking up what I have not laid down and reaping what I have not sowed. And why didst thou not give my money to the bank; and *I* should have received it, at my coming, with interest? And he said to those that stood by, Take from him the mina and give it to him who has the ten minas. And they said to him, Lord, he has ten minas. For I say unto you, that to every one that has shall be given; but from him that has not, that even which he has shall be taken from him. Moreover those mine enemies, who would not have me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me.”


What I understand from this parable (you might have another understanding, I don't know) we see this:

1. He said this parable because many believed the kingdom of God was going to be manifested (it didn't happen).
2. The Lord Jesus had to go first in a far away country to get the kingdom and to return.
3. His disciples/believers had to exercise, trade, their talents.
4. At Christ's return He will reward His servant. Then, and only then, they shall rule over cities.
5. He will be avenged of His enemy.

He will exercise His right to reign at His second coming, and so will his disciples.



That He would be rejected at His first coming we can see it from the story of Joseph and Moses, too.

Gen 37:5 And Joseph dreamed a dream, and told it to his brethren, and they hated him yet the more. And he said to them, Hear, I pray you, this dream, which I have dreamt: Behold, we were binding sheaves in the fields, and lo, my sheaf rose up, and remained standing; and behold, your sheaves came round about and bowed down to my sheaf. And his brethren said to him, Wilt thou indeed be a king over us? wilt thou indeed rule over us? And they hated him yet the more for his dreams and for his words.

His brothers sold him. Later, in a “distant country” he became the second in power. After that his brothers bowed to him.

Concerning Moses we read, Act 7:23 And when a period of forty years was fulfilled to him, it came into his heart to look upon his brethren, the sons of Israel;
Act 7:24 and seeing a certain one wronged, he defended him , and avenged him that was being oppressed, smiting the Egyptian.
Act 7:25 For he thought that his brethren would understand that God by his hand was giving them deliverance. But they understood not.”

Moses, too, went to a “distant country” Act 7:30 And when forty years were fulfilled, an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sinai, in a flame of fire of a bush...and now, come, I will send thee to Egypt.
Act 7:35 This Moses, whom they refused, saying, Who made thee ruler and judge? him did God send to be a ruler and deliverer with the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush.


It is interesting that the Lord Jesus himself quoted this same words in the Gospel of Luke 12:13-14, Luk 12:13 “And a person said to him out of the crowd, Teacher, speak to my brother to divide the inheritance with me.
Luk 12:14 But he said to him, Man, who established me as a judge or a divider over you?”

Being the King of the Jews, why did he refuse to judge?


Another case.


Pro 20:8 A king sitting on the throne of judgment scattereth away all evil with his eyes.

Pro 14:35 The king's favour is toward a wise servant; but his wrath is against him that causeth shame.

Pro 20:26 A wise king scattereth the wicked, and bringeth the wheel over them.

In the Gospel of John we have a famous story.
Joh 12:3 Mary therefore, having taken a pound of ointment of pure nard of great price, anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair, and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.
Joh 12:4 One of his disciples therefore, Judas son of Simon, Iscariote, who was about to deliver him up, says,
Joh 12:5 Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?
Joh 12:6 But he said this, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief and had the bag, and carried what was put into it .
Joh 12:7 Jesus therefore said, Suffer her to have kept this for the day of my preparation for burial;
Joh 12:8 for ye have the poor always with you, but me ye have not always.

Did the Lord Jesus judge Judas? Shouldn't this be the case for those who hold a government office? Shall he condone thieves, murderers, etc.?

There will be a time for His judgment.

Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goes a sharp two-edged sword, that with it he might smite the nations; and he shall shepherd them with an iron rod; and he treads the wine-press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.
Rev 19:16 And he has upon his garment, and upon his thigh, a name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords.


And for His kingdom to come.
Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded his trumpet: and there were great voices in the heaven, saying, The kingdom of the world of our Lord and of his Christ is come, and he shall reign to the ages of ages.
Rev 11:16 And the twenty-four elders, who sit on their thrones before God, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God,
Rev 11:17 saying, We give thee thanks, Lord God Almighty, He who is, and who was, that thou hast taken thy great power and hast reigned.


May He come quickly.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by testallthings

To zeek “Your statement reinforces what I already proposed below, i.e. that we judge Nee's propositions not Nee.”

Isn't that the purpose of this (your) thread?


“Now if Jesus or the authors of the Bible thought it was wrong for Christians to hold political office, why didn't they just say so directly? Why beat around the bush?”


You could turn your question around and ask, Now if Jesus or the authors of the Bible thought it was right for Christians to hold political office, why didn't they just say so directly? Why beat around the bush? Of course the answer is a bit more complicated.

Gee I don't know...could it be that God allows humans free will and doesn't coerce them or is that a foreign concept to you?

“Or second, He might command the angels to proclaim His word. The Bible does record some instances of angels delivering the word of God, but these are very rare and only used as an exceptional or emergency measure.

Right after you figure out how many angels fit on the head of a pin you'll figure out the answer to this angel question.

This is not the normal and regular way of God’s speaking.

What exactly is the NORMAL AND REGULAR way of God's speaking? It seems pretty normal for him to be silent outside of the Bible for most people.

This is what in a 2006 speech, then-Sen. Barack Obama, in a mocking way, said, “Jesus' Sermon on the Mount was so radical the Defense Department wouldn't survive its application.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWpAQDx1iVQ What shall a Christian do if, being the president of a country, he faces war? Shall he follow the Lord Jesus teaching, “But *I* say unto you, not to resist evil; but whoever shall strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other”, and so condemn to death millions of his own people, who probably do not share his belief, or shall he use the sword and in so doing going against the Lord's commandments and his own conscience?

“Be gone, Satan! For it is written,
“‘You shall worship the Lord your God
and him only shall you serve.’”

[Ironically, most Right-wing Christians these days are war hawks who would agree that national defense cannot be run on a policy of love, mercy and forgiveness if it wasn't Barack Obama making the proposition. There is also a smaller group who are of the libertarian-isolationist persuasion like Ron and Rand Paul]

Still, every Christian should decide by/for himself, according to the Word and the leading of the Spirit (and his own conscience).

Exactly

[awareness]

Originally Posted by testallthings

To awareness
“So we're back to Nee being Biblically wrong. To bad he's not here to admit to it.”
First, you have to prove that he was wrong on this point, then I am sure if he was here he would gladly admit to it.

Did Jesus tell the tax collectors that he hung with to get out of gov'ment?

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by awareness

Did Jesus tell the tax collectors that he hung with to get out of gov'ment?

No, He didn't.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Did Jesus tell the tax collectors that he hung with to get out of gov'ment?

I wish He would hang out with some of those IRS agents.

[awareness]

So have we shown that Nee was wrong concerning the gov'ment ... according to even Jesus?

[zeek]

If the kingdom of God is within us as Jesus said didn't Christianity betray this crucial insight early on, whether by transferring the kingdom into the next world world and thereby devaluing this life, or by becoming political and seeking salvation through organizations, sacraments, and the clergy?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

If the kingdom of God is within us as Jesus said didn't Christianity betray this crucial insight early on, whether by transferring the kingdom into the next world world and thereby devaluing this life, or by becoming political and seeking salvation through organizations, sacraments, and the clergy?

YES

The kingdom is first and foremost right here among us because it is in us. And what is seen of that kingdom is what we display. If we display political ambition and a desire to criminalize/marginalize everyone that does not follow our God, then that is what is seen of that Kingdom in this life.

If we cannot find the way to display the Kingdom that Jesus taught, then we are going to be very surprised by what comes our way in the next age since we really didn't understand it in the first place.

[testallthings]

THE SILENCE OF SCRIPTURE

Originally Posted by awareness:

Did Jesus tell the tax collectors that he hung with to get out of gov'ment?

Originally Posted by testallthings

No, He didn't.

Originally Posted by awareness

So have we shown that Nee was wrong concerning the gov'ment ... according to even Jesus?

Proving something from what Jesus didn't say can lead to very dangerous conclusions. If we apply the same kind of reasoning awareness used to prove Nee wrong (and with Nee many, many servants of God, from the church fathers to Spurgeon, etc.) then we can show:

1. That Jesus was for soldiers, the army, for the sword, for war, for killing people, etc., because he didn't tell the centurion to leave the army (Mat. 8:5-13).

2. That Jesus was for thieves, for stealing, because He didn't tell Judah not to steal money from the bag he carried (John 12:6).

3. That Jesus didn't care about sinning, because when He healed the sick of palsy and forgave his sins He didn't tell him to sin no more (Mat. 9:2-7).

4. That Jesus was for worldly government (even for Caesar's kingdom, because the tax collectors worked for Rome) and for sinners! (because in the same passage where He didn't say to the tax collectors to leave their job, He didn't say, either, to the sinners to sin no more) (Mat. 9:9-13)

Other things could be added to the list, but I think everyone can see the absurdity of these conclusions.

JESUS THE FRIENDS OF SINNERS

It is very interesting how Jesus came in contact with tax collectors (or publicans).

Mat 9:9 And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him. Mat 9:10 And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. Mat 9:11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? Mat 9:12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. Mat 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (KJV)

Luk 5:27 And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he said unto him, Follow me. Luk 5:28 And he left all, rose up, and followed him.Luk 5:29 And Levi made him a great feast in his own house: and there was a great company of publicans and of others that sat down with them. Luk 5:30 But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners? Luk 5:31 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. Luk 5:32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Mar 2:14 And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him. Mar 2:15 And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. Mar 2:16 And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?
Mar 2:17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

It is the call of Matthew (or Levi). Jesus called Matthew to follow Him, and so he left his job. He didn't serve the Lord part time. Jesus was a friends of tax collectors and sinners, but He made sure that among His disciples there were no tax collectors.

THE CHURCH'S (BELIEVERS) ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE WORLD (SINNERS)

1Co 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
1Co 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 1Co 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 1Co 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Am I wrong if I understand that Paul was saying that we can have sinners friends in this world, but not sinners brothers in the church? If that is correct isn't this what the Lord Jesus did in the Gospels? He was the friend of sinners (tax collectors included) but in the church (His disciples) the story is different.

Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

[awareness]

TAT, you are so serious. But a lot of fun. Except your posts are like doing homework. But you're so intriguing they're worth the read.

So now, we come back full circle to the conclusion that Nee was right : get out of gov'ment. Did you get that zeek?

And then we learn that Paul advocated staying away from sinning brothers (and sisters, surely, we're left to presume).

Which means we can't keep company with brother zeek, who worked for the gov'ment more than 3 decades. But it's to late for me. I already love the brother before finding all this out. And how do you unlove someone?

But ... if we take all of Paul's admonitions then, we'd have to stay away from pretty much everyone (since elsewhere he says, "all have sinned and come short ...") That would mean we should all become anchorites.

Are you an anchorite bro TAT? Except for the internet, I pretty much am.

And I never worked for the gov'ment to boot. But I've sinned in other ways. So ... best to stay away from me.

What say ye, all of you?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by testallthings

THE SILENCE OF SCRIPTURE

Originally Posted by awareness:

Did Jesus tell the tax collectors that he hung with to get out of gov'ment?

Proving something from what Jesus didn't say can lead to very dangerous conclusions. If we apply the same kind of reasoning awareness used to prove Nee wrong (and with Nee many, many servants of God, from the church fathers to Spurgeon, etc.) then we can show:

1. That Jesus was for soldiers, the army, for the sword, for war, for killing people, etc., because he didn't tell the centurion to leave the army (Mat. 8:5-13).

2. That Jesus was for thieves, for stealing, because He didn't tell Judah not to steal money from the bag he carried (John 12:6).

3. That Jesus didn't care about sinning, because when He healed the sick of palsy and forgave his sins He didn't tell him to sin no more (Mat. 9:2-7).

4. That Jesus was for worldly government (even for Caesar's kingdom, because the tax collectors worked for Rome) and for sinners! (because in the same passage where He didn't say to the tax collectors to leave their job, He didn't say, either, to the sinners to sin no more) (Mat. 9:9-13)

Other things could be added to the list, but I think everyone can see the absurdity of these conclusions.

Indeed.

JESUS THE FRIENDS OF SINNERS

It is very interesting how Jesus came in contact with tax collectors (or publicans).

Mat 9:9 And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him. Mat 9:10 And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. Mat 9:11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? Mat 9:12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. Mat 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (KJV)

Luk 5:27 And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he said unto him, Follow me. Luk 5:28 And he left all, rose up, and followed him.Luk 5:29 And Levi made him a great feast in his own house: and there was a great company of publicans and of others that sat down with them. Luk 5:30 But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners? Luk 5:31 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. Luk 5:32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Mar 2:14 And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him. Mar 2:15 And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. Mar 2:16 And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?
Mar 2:17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

It is the call of Matthew (or Levi). Jesus called Matthew to follow Him, and so he left his job. He didn't serve the Lord part time. Jesus was a friends of tax collectors and sinners, but He made sure that among His disciples there were no tax collectors.

THE CHURCH'S (BELIEVERS) ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE WORLD (SINNERS)

1Co 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
1Co 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 1Co 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 1Co 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Am I wrong if I understand that Paul was saying that we can have sinners friends in this world, but not sinners brothers in the church? If that is correct isn't this what the Lord Jesus did in the Gospels? He was the friend of sinners (tax collectors included) but in the church (His disciples) the story is different.

Paul's teaching is different then Jesus' teaching. Paul's seems the more practical of the two. But, time showed that it wasn't. That a church without sinners is empty has been proven over and over throughout it's history. Paul's teaching always leads to the sinners of the church in-crowd "putting away" the sinners of the out-crowd. If you associate with humans, you associate with sinners.

In point of fact, Jesus was overturning the purity customs and laws of his society. He ate with the cast-offs, the dregs, the untouchables. Everybody was welcome at the "Lord's table" and that was a radical rejection of the dominant culture which consisted of the Romans and the Jews who collaborated with them. We could call that "anti-political" but to be anti-political in that sense has profound political implications which is probably why they crucified Jesus.

Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

It's unlikely that historical Jesus taught that. It's based on Deut. 19:15:

“A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established.

It probably reflects a useful standard of evidence that "Matthew's" church used in the process of settling disputes.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

If the kingdom of God is within us as Jesus said didn't Christianity betray this crucial insight early on, whether by transferring the kingdom into the next world world and thereby devaluing this life, or by becoming political and seeking salvation through organizations, sacraments, and the clergy?

The Gospel of Thomas V. (3)

"Yeshua said,
If your leaders tell you, “Look, the kingdom is in heaven,”
then the birds of heaven will precede you.
If they say to you, “It’s in the sea,”
then the fish will precede you.
But the kingdom is inside you and it is outside you.
When you know yourselves, then you will be known,
and you will understand that you are children of the living father.
But if you do not know yourselves,
then you dwell in poverty and you are poverty."

V (113)

"His students said to him,
When will the kingdom come?

Yeshua said,
It will not come because you are watching for it.
No one will announce, “Look, here it is,”
or “Look, there it is.”
The father’s kingdom is spread out upon the earth
and people do not see it."

[testallthings]

THE CHURCH AND THE SINNING BROTHERS

Let's consider few passages:

1Co 5:11 but now I write unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat.

1Co 6:9 Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,
1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1Co 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they which practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Eph 5:1 Be ye therefore imitators of God, as beloved children;
Eph 5:2 and walk in love, even as Christ also loved you, and gave himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for an odour of a sweet smell.
Eph 5:3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as becometh saints;
Eph 5:4 nor filthiness, nor foolish talking, or jesting, which are not befitting: but rather giving of thanks.
Eph 5:5 For this ye know of a surety, that no fornicator, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, which is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
Eph 5:6 Let no man deceive you with empty words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the sons of disobedience.
Eph 5:7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them;

Rev 22:15 Without are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie.


Some are concerned that if we apply these verses the church would be empty. True. Even people like

Noah, who “drank of the wine, and was drunken” (Gen. 9:21),
David who committed adultery and murdered an innocent man (2Sa 12:9 Wherefore hast thou despised the word of the LORD, to do that which is evil in his sight? thou hast smitten Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.)
Peter, who denied the Lord three times (Mat_26:75 And Peter remembered the word which Jesus had said, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.), and
John, who for two times bowed down to worship (did he really worship him?) an angel (Rev 19:10 And I fell down before his feet to worship him. And he saith unto me, See thou do it not: I am a fellow-servant with thee and with thy brethren that hold the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Rev 22:8 And I John am he that heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
Rev 22:9 And he saith unto me, See thou do it not: I am a fellow- servant with thee and with thy brethren the prophets, and with them which keep the words of this book: worship God.), would have to be removed from its midst (and would have no part in the kingdom of God).

Now it is clear from the Word that David, Peter an John (can we include Noah?) would be in the kingdom of God, and even have a prominent position. So what did Paul mean in his epistles when he listed those sinners? He was referring to people (brothers) who didn't not just slip few times in an horrible sin, but that habitually were living and practicing them ( that they which practise such things, Ga:5:21).

Noah was drunken, he was not a drunkard.
David committed adultery and killed an innocent man, he did not practice those sins as his habit (he repented, see Ps. 51)
Peter denied the Lord once (three times), it was not his practice to deny the Lord (see how he testified to the high priest, Acts 4), and he repented.
John fell two times in trying to worship an angel, it was not his practice to worship other beings).


1Jn 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye may not sin. And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 1Jn 2:2 and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.

WHAT, THEN, IS THE PURPOSE OF THE CHURCH'S DISCIPLINE.

The church should be holy as God is holy. It cannot tolerate a brother who lives continually in sin. The church should admonish the sinning person few times first, but if he/she doesn't listen to the church, the church cannot have fellowship with the sinning one.

This seems so tragic, but there is still hope. Hope that the brother would repent and be reinstated in the fellowship. That seems the case with the sinning brother in 1 Co. 5. Let's see what happened.

2Co 2:1 But I determined this for myself, that I would not come again to you with sorrow.
2Co 2:2 For if I make you sorry, who then is he that maketh me glad, but he that is made sorry by me?
2Co 2:3 And I wrote this very thing, lest, when I came, I should have sorrow from them of whom I ought to rejoice; having confidence in you all, that my joy is the joy of you all.
2Co 2:4 For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears; not that ye should be made sorry, but that ye might know the love which I have more abundantly unto you.
2Co 2:5 But if any hath caused sorrow, he hath caused sorrow, not to me, but in part (that I press not too heavily) to you all.
2Co 2:6 Sufficient to such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the many;
2Co 2:7 so that contrariwise ye should rather forgive him and comfort him, lest by any means such a one should be swallowed up with his overmuch sorrow.
2Co 2:8 Wherefore I beseech you to confirm your love toward him.
2Co 2:9 For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye are obedient in all things.
2Co 2:10 But to whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also: for what I also have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, for your sakes have I forgiven it in the person of Christ;
2Co 2:11 that no advantage may be gained over us by Satan: for we are not ignorant of his devices.

From this passage, the sinning brother in 1 Co. 5, after been “punished” he repented with much sorrow. So Paul wrote to the Church in Corinth to “confirm your love toward him”, to forgive in the person of Christ .

The church's discipline should aim at regaining the sinning brother.
Praise the Lord for the forgiveness, and for the love of the saints!

[OBW]

Good post. But is it about Politics and the Church?

[awareness]

TAT,

Paul's got more books in the New Testament than Jesus, even if we discount the disputed books.

So the church ended up becoming more Paul than Jesus. And so has lost track of Jesus.

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by OBW

Good post. But is it about Politics and the Church?

What can I say? I agree with you.

Originally Posted by awareness

TAT,

Paul's got more books in the New Testament than Jesus, even if we discount the disputed books.

So the church ended up becoming more Paul than Jesus. And so has lost track of Jesus.

Do you really believe what you said in your last sentence?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by testallthings

THE CHURCH AND THE SINNING BROTHERS

Let's consider few passages:

1Co 5:11 but now I write unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat.

1Co 6:9 Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,
1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1Co 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they which practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Eph 5:1 Be ye therefore imitators of God, as beloved children;
Eph 5:2 and walk in love, even as Christ also loved you, and gave himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for an odour of a sweet smell.
Eph 5:3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as becometh saints;
Eph 5:4 nor filthiness, nor foolish talking, or jesting, which are not befitting: but rather giving of thanks.
Eph 5:5 For this ye know of a surety, that no fornicator, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, which is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
Eph 5:6 Let no man deceive you with empty words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the sons of disobedience.
Eph 5:7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them;

Rev 22:15 Without are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie.


Some are concerned that if we apply these verses the church would be empty. True. Even people like

Noah, who “drank of the wine, and was drunken” (Gen. 9:21),
David who committed adultery and murdered an innocent man (2Sa 12:9 Wherefore hast thou despised the word of the LORD, to do that which is evil in his sight? thou hast smitten Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.)
Peter, who denied the Lord three times (Mat_26:75 And Peter remembered the word which Jesus had said, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.), and
John, who for two times bowed down to worship (did he really worship him?) an angel (Rev 19:10 And I fell down before his feet to worship him. And he saith unto me, See thou do it not: I am a fellow-servant with thee and with thy brethren that hold the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Rev 22:8 And I John am he that heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
Rev 22:9 And he saith unto me, See thou do it not: I am a fellow- servant with thee and with thy brethren the prophets, and with them which keep the words of this book: worship God.), would have to be removed from its midst (and would have no part in the kingdom of God).

Now it is clear from the Word that David, Peter an John (can we include Noah?) would be in the kingdom of God, and even have a prominent position. So what did Paul mean in his epistles when he listed those sinners? He was referring to people (brothers) who didn't not just slip few times in an horrible sin, but that habitually were living and practicing them ( that they which practise such things, Ga:5:21).

Noah was drunken, he was not a drunkard.
David committed adultery and killed an innocent man, he did not practice those sins as his habit (he repented, see Ps. 51)
Peter denied the Lord once (three times), it was not his practice to deny the Lord (see how he testified to the high priest, Acts 4), and he repented.
John fell two times in trying to worship an angel, it was not his practice to worship other beings).


1Jn 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye may not sin. And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 1Jn 2:2 and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.

WHAT, THEN, IS THE PURPOSE OF THE CHURCH'S DISCIPLINE.

The church should be holy as God is holy. It cannot tolerate a brother who lives continually in sin. The church should admonish the sinning person few times first, but if he/she doesn't listen to the church, the church cannot have fellowship with the sinning one.

This seems so tragic, but there is still hope. Hope that the brother would repent and be reinstated in the fellowship. That seems the case with the sinning brother in 1 Co. 5. Let's see what happened.

2Co 2:1 But I determined this for myself, that I would not come again to you with sorrow.
2Co 2:2 For if I make you sorry, who then is he that maketh me glad, but he that is made sorry by me?
2Co 2:3 And I wrote this very thing, lest, when I came, I should have sorrow from them of whom I ought to rejoice; having confidence in you all, that my joy is the joy of you all.
2Co 2:4 For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears; not that ye should be made sorry, but that ye might know the love which I have more abundantly unto you.
2Co 2:5 But if any hath caused sorrow, he hath caused sorrow, not to me, but in part (that I press not too heavily) to you all.
2Co 2:6 Sufficient to such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the many;
2Co 2:7 so that contrariwise ye should rather forgive him and comfort him, lest by any means such a one should be swallowed up with his overmuch sorrow.
2Co 2:8 Wherefore I beseech you to confirm your love toward him.
2Co 2:9 For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye are obedient in all things.
2Co 2:10 But to whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also: for what I also have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, for your sakes have I forgiven it in the person of Christ;
2Co 2:11 that no advantage may be gained over us by Satan: for we are not ignorant of his devices.

From this passage, the sinning brother in 1 Co. 5, after been “punished” he repented with much sorrow. So Paul wrote to the Church in Corinth to “confirm your love toward him”, to forgive in the person of Christ .

The church's discipline should aim at regaining the sinning brother.
Praise the Lord for the forgiveness, and for the love of the saints!

Look at your post. You NEVER cite Jesus. Do you prefer Paul and John to Jesus? Can you unite the three? Jesus speaks in terms of universal ethics whereas Paul and John speak to the church as if to a special class.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by awareness

TAT,

Paul's got more books in the New Testament than Jesus, even if we discount the disputed books.

So the church ended up becoming more Paul than Jesus. And so has lost track of Jesus.

What bro zeek said.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by testallthings

Do you really believe what you said in your last sentence?

I don't know about awareness (although I bet I can guess) but I believe it. Not because I think Paul said things incorrectly. But I think we read Paul as if he is the source, therefore do not consider how it is seen through the lens of the gospel as presented by Jesus. Instead we too often read Paul incorrectly, then layer that analysis over the gospel thereby making it into something else.

Lee was a master at this. But at somewhat lesser levels, many Evangelical teachings do some of the same things. We read how it is "by faith alone" and layer that over everything so that we can ignore Jesus' clear command to obey and do. Just one example.

We need to read the gospels, and use that as the lens whereby we read and understand Paul and the others. If Jesus said that how we teach and act under an expanded version of the law has an effect on our place in the kingdom, then to read Paul to say that there is no more law is to misread Paul. Or to read Paul to say that we don't need to try to be righteous (it will just fall on us after we spend enough time sitting around soaking up spiritual stuff) is an error. It is contradictory to the source — God — who said otherwise. Unless your righteousness exceed that of . . . . That requires doing, not soaking.

[awareness]

I'm kinda waiting to see if TAT is willing to have a discussion and conversational discourse. So far he's just stuck his toe in.

We don't even know if he was ever in the local church, that came out of Nee and Lee.

[testallthings]

I have been accused by awareness and zeek to not have quoted the Lord Jesus in one of my last post (like this was a crime). Instead I quoted from Paul and John. In my post number 40 I showed how the Lord Jesus was a friend of sinners and how He made a difference between the sinners of the world and those who sin in the church. I quoted the Lord Jesus' words from Mat. 9:9-13; Luke 5:27-32 and Mk. 2:14-17. I quoted from 1 Cor. 5:9-13 (from Paul) and finally, again the Lord Jesus' words in Mat. 18:17.
(To this verse zeek said, “It's unlikely that historical Jesus taught that. It's based on Deut. 19:15.
What he meant by the “historical Jesus” raised some doubts in me, but I didn't asked him for an explanation. At this point I would like to ask zeek, do you believe the Bible is God's inspired Word. If those in Mat. 18:17 are not the words of the Lord Jesus whose words are they?)
Then, in a following post I continued on the same topic quoting from Paul and John.

Awareness responded with such a comment:

"Paul's got more books in the New Testament than Jesus, even if we discount the disputed books.
So the church ended up becoming more Paul than Jesus. And so has lost track of Jesus."

Now, if you know of books that the Lord Jesus wrote, would you like to share them with us? The Lord Jesus wrote no books and yet all the books are His (or the word of God).

__________________________________________________ ______________________
In my posts I have quoted or given reference to:

Gen. 37:5 Deut. 24:16 Ez. 18:20 Gen. 9:21 2Sam. 12:9 Ps. 51 Pro. 20:8 Pro. 14:35 Pro. 20:26 Mat. 8:5-13 Mat. 9:2-7 Mat. 9:9-13 Mat. 18:17 Mat. 19:28 Mat. 26:75 Mk. 2:14-17 Luke 5:27-32 Luke 19:11-27 Luke 12:13-14 John 6:15 John 2:1-2 John 12:3-8 John 18:23 John 18:37 John 19:14-15 Acts 4 Acts 7:23-25, 30, 35 Acts 13:13-14 1 Cor. 5:9-13 1 Cor. 6:9-11 Gal. 5:19-21 Eph. 5:1-7 Col. 3:1-2 Rev. 11:15-17 Rev. 19:10, 15-16 Rev. 22:8-9

That's about 36 references from 16 books of the Bible of which 3 by Paul.

I quoted Tertullian and Origen and Obama (once), too.

__________________________________________________ ________
Let's see what awareness quoted:

1 Ti. 2:1-3 John 12:15 John 18:35-36 (he mentioned King David and the promise the Lord Jesus gave the 12 to sit on 12 thrones)

Then he quoted the Gospel of Thomas (it is from here that you get to know our Lord Jesus?)

He mentioned Antonin Scalia, Obama (4 times) and a quote from

Brooke Allen. Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers (Kindle Locations 802-805). Kindle Edition.


If you are really concerned about the Lord Jesus why do you quote Him so rarely? And why in your signature you have a quote from Jimi Hendrix and not from the Lord Jesus?
Would you like to explain where did you get your last quote and what it means? It sounds like that there is no need to look for the “historical Jesus” (the same words zeek used commenting on Mat. 18:17) because He never existed, like the false gods of old?)

"Job 25:6 how much less man, who is a maggot, and the son of man, who is a worm!"
No amount of intellect or education can grant one immunity where matters of the heart and faith are concerned.
So watch out! There's a serpent in every paradise!
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." - Jimi Hendrix
Heroes fail, when you get to know them ... then they fall, just like the gods of old. Why else quest for the historical Jesus?"
__________________________________________________ _______
Now let's see what zeek quoted:

“Be gone, Satan! For it is written,
“‘You shall worship the Lord your God
and him only shall you serve.’”


And Deut.19:15 to disprove that the words in Matthew 18:17 probably were not uttered by the “historical Jesus”.

Then he mentioned
The first amendment to the US Constitution, Jefferson, right wing Christians, Barack Obama, Ron and Rand Paul.

Not much about the Lord Jesus.


__________________________________________________ ________

OBW,

I don't think Paul is the source. The source is God Himself who spoke in the Son.
The word of the Lord Jesus are the words of God, and so were those of the apostles.

Joh 12:49 For I spake not from myself; but the Father that sent me, he hath given me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
Joh 12:50 And I know that his commandment is life eternal: the things therefore which I speak, even as the Father hath said unto me, so I speak.

Joh 7:16 Jesus therefore answered them and said, My teaching is not mine, but his that sent me.

He also said,


Joh 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come.
Joh 16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall take of mine, and shall declare it unto you.
Joh 16:15 All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he taketh of mine, and shall declare it unto you.


If we believe His words then we know that the words of Peter, James, John, Jude and Paul are the word of God.

1Th 2:13 And for this cause we also thank God without ceasing, that, when ye received from us the word of the message, even the word of God, ye accepted it not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God, which also worketh in you that believe.


You mentioned the importance of doing. It is a very important issue, but before that we should know who we are. Are we Jews? Are we Gentiles? I am a Gentile, and for such as me God prepared and apostle (as He appointed the 12 to send them to the lost sheep of the house of Israel), Paul.

Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles)


1Ti 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

2Ti 1:11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.

If he was the apostle and teacher of the Gentiles, and he was, he knew exactly how to teach and what to teach to us Gentiles.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by testallthings

I have been accused by awareness and zeek to not have quoted the Lord Jesus in one of my last post (like this was a crime). Instead I quoted from Paul and John. In my post number 40 I showed how the Lord Jesus was a friend of sinners and how He made a difference between the sinners of the world and those who sin in the church.

I was referring only to post #44.

(To this verse zeek said, “It's unlikely that historical Jesus taught that. It's based on Deut. 19:15.
What he meant by the “historical Jesus” raised some doubts in me, but I didn't asked him for an explanation. At this point I would like to ask zeek, do you believe the Bible is God's inspired Word. If those in Mat. 18:17 are not the words of the Lord Jesus whose words are they?)

In John 10:24, the "Jews" accused Jesus of making them doubt. Jesus is the Word according to John 1:1. The Bible never makes the claim that it is the Word of God. How could it? It was written by a group of authors some of who were unaware of others who's writings would eventually become part of the canon.

Now I'm not certain who wrote the Gospel of Matthew but, as I understand it, it is merely a matter of tradition that it was written by Matthew. If you have better information on that, please, let me know.

Now let's see what zeek quoted...Deut.19:15 to disprove that the words in Matthew 18:17 probably were not uttered by the “historical Jesus”.

No, Deut. 19:15 I cited as the probable origin of the principle the author appropriates in Matthew 18:17. You know, the four Gospels never themselves make the claim that they are historically accurate in the modern sense like a news story claims to be. Why do people assume that they are? The short answer for many of us is that it was the indoctrination we received. If we are called on to back it up, we can't. But, maybe you are the exception. So, by all means, make your case for an historically accurate Bible and I'll read it happily.

If Bible stories are not historical they still may embody spiritual truth. We don't suppose that Jesus' parables are literally true and they require us to interpret them metaphorically, but yet convey deep truths. If other Bible stories are parables, that doesn't necessarily make them less meaningful, does it? Witness Lee used to give allegorical interpretations of what had been previously viewed by most fundamentalists as merely factual historical accounts. Whether you agree with his interpretation or not, he did demonstrate that the stories have meaning on another level than the mere historical-factual one.

Lee also drew our attention to passages in which Paul allegorized the Old Testament. For example, Lee notes that "an example of this insight is Paul's allegorizing Sarah, Abraham's wife, and Hagar, Abraham's concubine, as two covenants (Gal. 4:22-26). Apart from Paul's allegorizing of these women in Galatians 4, we could read Genesis again and again without seeing that Sarah and Hagar signify two covenants." (Life-Study of Acts, Chapter 64, Section 1) Allegorizing is a method of interpretation that is effective for interpreting Greek and other pagan mythologies despite the fact that few people take them to be literally historical. To what degree can Bible stories be demonstrated more accurate than Greek myths? Doesn't each story have to be evaluated in terms of what can be verified by independent historical documents? So, for example the claim that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified has some independent historical documentation although none that is contemporary with him whereas the story of him raising Lazarus from the dead has none even in the other Gospels.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by TAT

Let's see what awareness quoted:

1 Ti. 2:1-3 John 12:15 John 18:35-36 (he mentioned King David and the promise the Lord Jesus gave the 12 to sit on 12 thrones)

Then he quoted the Gospel of Thomas (it is from here that you get to know our Lord Jesus?)

He mentioned Antonin Scalia, Obama (4 times) and a quote from

Brooke Allen. Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers (Kindle Locations 802-805). Kindle Edition.


If you are really concerned about the Lord Jesus why do you quote Him so rarely? And why in your signature you have a quote from Jimi Hendrix and not from the Lord Jesus?
Would you like to explain where did you get your last quote and what it means? It sounds like that there is no need to look for the “historical Jesus” (the same words zeek used commenting on Mat. 18:17) because He never existed, like the false gods of old?)

"Job 25:6 how much less man, who is a maggot, and the son of man, who is a worm!"
No amount of intellect or education can grant one immunity where matters of the heart and faith are concerned.
So watch out! There's a serpent in every paradise!
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." - Jimi Hendrix
Heroes fail, when you get to know them ... then they fall, just like the gods of old. Why else quest for the historical Jesus?"

Well, now we're getting somewhere ; a conversation. I'm only addressing what was directed at me.

One thing I can say bro Tat, is that, you are very astute. But I failed big time from the get-go with you. Cuz I failed to say:

Welcome to Alternative Views.

Where I am the moderator ... cuz I'm prooly the most alternative out here.

So let's have some fun. Is fun okay bro TAT?

Originally Posted by TAT

Let's see what awareness quoted:

1 Ti. 2:1-3 John 12:15 John 18:35-36 (he mentioned King David and the promise the Lord Jesus gave the 12 to sit on 12 thrones)

Then he quoted the Gospel of Thomas (it is from here that you get to know our Lord Jesus?)

Well your verse quotations sure got me beat. I'll have to work harder. I can cut and paste whole gospels ... and thrown in some Gospel of Thomas to boot. Can you beat that bro TAT?

But why do that? Y'all can read 'em on your own.

I quoted the GoT in support of bro zeek's question about the kingdom of heaven being within us. And by the way, there are early Christian and New Testament scholars that believe the GoT came up from the oral period, before any of the books of the NT were written; even Paul's, the earliest.

So the words of Jesus in the GoT may be more accurate than those found in the canon, written decades later, by God knows who, or whom. Only God knows.

In the end, we can not only not get at any of the autograph copy's of the books of the NT, we can't get at the autograph copy of any of the books Jesus wrote. So the actual historic Jesus is lost to us. Maybe if, all the books of him that, "the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen," we'd have a better chance at getting at the historic Jesus. And all the Jesus scholars, seeking to find the historic Jesus, wouldn't be so frustrated.

To save everybody from having to read a bodacious long post, I won't comment on, Jimi Hendrix, that we're worms, the intellect, and the serpent in every paradise. They're in my tag line, and the purpose of them is to make people think. I see they've done a fine job of it. Amen Jesus. Thank you for people that think. Where would we be without 'em? Tho I can find no Bible verse to support that thinkers have any special access to the kingdom of heaven, I think it might be so. Jesus was obviously a thinker. That much we know about him.

Now let's get back to politics and the church.

Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell Jr. have endorsed Trump. Shouldn't Jerry Falwell Sr. be spinning in his grave? Wasn't it Cruz than announced his run at Liberty U.?

[awareness]

When I remarked that Bernie was pretty light on fear, Ohio responded:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yeah, at least they promise the forgiveness of sins and a future in heaven, and God can deliver on that promise!

I guess the gospel of fear works in both religion and politics.

But what about crazy? Lindsey Graham said: 'My party has gone 'bat[fecal matter] crazy.' I think this whole election has gone bat[fecal matter] crazy.

Especially that Evangelicals support Trump.

What say ye, all ya Evangelicals? Has your evangelical camp gone bat[fecal matter] crazy too?

Untohim, come and save the day.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

When I remarked that Bernie was pretty light on fear, Ohio responded:

I guess the gospel of fear works in both religion and politics.

But what about crazy? Lindsey Graham said: 'My party has gone 'bat[fecal matter] crazy.' I think this whole election has gone bat[fecal matter] crazy.

Especially that Evangelicals support Trump.

What say ye, all ya Evangelicals? Has your evangelical camp gone bat[fecal matter] crazy too?

Untohim, come and save the day.

Why have all the liberal Christians gone bat[fecal matter] crazy for Sanders?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why have all the liberal Christians gone bat[fecal matter] crazy for Sanders?

I must be missing something. That evangelicals are going for Trump is easy enough to prove. But I haven't seen that liberal Christians are going for Sanders. Please educate me bro Ohio. To me that would be a sensational as evangelicals going for Trump. Have all Christians gone bat[fecal matter] crazy? Has the whole world?

[awareness]

Hey bro TAT. You didn't answer. Have you ever been in the local church that came out of Nee and Lee?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I must be missing something. That evangelicals are going for Trump is easy enough to prove. But I haven't seen that liberal Christians are going for Sanders. Please educate me bro Ohio. To me that would be a sensational as evangelicals going for Trump. Have all Christians gone bat[fecal matter] crazy? Has the whole world?

I dont know any Trump-crazy Christians, but I know some who are feeling the Bern, including some here.

[zeek]

Here's some actual evidence about how professing Christians will vote for those who prefer empirical research over fantasy. http://www.christianitytoday.com/gle...r-tuesday.html

[testallthings]

MISS ME YET?

[QUOTE=awareness;47423]

So let's have some fun. Is fun okay bro TAT?...


Now let's get back to politics and the church.
QUOTE]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hey bro TAT. You didn't answer. Have you ever been in the local church that came out of Nee and Lee?

Fun is OK.

[Ohio]

Here's proof that Jesus would vote for the Bern


Here's the Biblical argument for Bernie Sanders

[awareness]

Originally Posted by awareness

So let's have some fun. Is fun okay bro TAT?...

Hey bro TAT. You didn't answer. Have you ever been in the local church that came out of Nee and Lee?

Well that sure was a fun dodge ... maybe ... possibly ...

It doesn't matter if you were never in the LC, but are a fan of Nee ... just sayin ....

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here's proof that Jesus would vote for the Bern


Here's the Biblical argument for Bernie Sanders

That's interesting bro Ohio. On more than one level. Thanks for the link

Quote:
"I actually wouldn’t have been able to post onto that Reddit board and say that I’m supporting Bernie. There is an Honor Code at Liberty University, and while it’s not always enforced, if you support a candidate who is pro-choice or pro-gay marriage, you can be punished by the University, up to and including expulsion from the school."
End quote.

So Liberty U. is a mind controlling cult. Not surprising. And the personality cult leader is Jerry Falwell Sr. ... tho dead ... like Witness Lee.

Funny how we need leaders in the flesh ... must be a need of the flesh.

In passing: Politically God is on the far right, and Jesus on the far left ... and they get along just fine. And so should we. Something far greater than politics connects us.

[zeek]

There is an element of truth in Ohio's view. If there is one thing that Trump and Sanders have in common it is that they have picked up on the public's anxieties about the US economy. The USA suffered a heart attack in the 2008 recession. The nation may be off life-support now but its recovery has been slow and patchwork and many American's are still suffering. The establishment elite seem indifferent to our concerns. So Trump and Sanders represent different alternative solutions to the real economic dilemmas of many voters.

[Ohio]

In passing: Politically God is on the far right, and Jesus on the far left ... and they get along just fine. And so should we. Something far greater than politics connects us.

Then we have to define "left" and "right."

What do these terms mean to you?

I grew up in blue collar Cleveland, which was strongly Democratic. I was a Kennedy Democrat, "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," who got abandoned by "leftist extremists in the party." One particular cause that affected me was when all the abortion clinics came to town. I led a huge parade through town with a coffin on the roof with baby body parts hanging out just to draw attention to this atrocity. Yet today even "liberal" Christians care little for life, saying "a woman has rights" and we don't need any more "unwanted babies."

My personal conviction is that all personal rights end when someone else gets hurt.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

There is an element of truth in Ohio's view. If there is one thing that Trump and Sanders have in common it is that they have picked up on the public's anxieties about the US economy. The USA suffered a heart attack in the 2008 recession. The nation may be off life-support now but its recovery has been slow and patchwork and many American's are still suffering. The establishment elite seem indifferent to our concerns. So Trump and Sanders represent different alternative solutions to the real economic dilemmas of many voters.

My son is a hedge fund senior financial analyst, whose work is not affected by religious views. He (and btw most of his colleagues) is firmly convinced that the US will face a far worse crisis than 2008 in the near term. He recently told me we will have a couple more "jitters in the markets" like we did last month and then things will collapse.

He cited a number of causes: Obama administration has done little for jobs, real jobs, and his policies have basically only helped the banks in the short term. The only bright spot in the economy was the energy sector. Then the Saudis began to dump oil on the market to maintain their own market share. Today these energy companies are all defaulting, and the media is ignoring the story.

Secondly, "high yield" investments are merely "junk bonds." The entire credit industry is reaching the "end of a credit super cycle." Credit fuels everything in the financial world, and the collapse of credit will end life as we know it.

No one in their right mind would say that "the nation may be off life-support now." This is only a falsehood because the Fed now has carte blanche "Quantitative Easing" to prop things up. It only pays the interest on the debt.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

My son is a hedge fund senior financial analyst, whose work is not affected by religious views. He (and btw most of his colleagues) is firmly convinced that the US will face a far worse crisis than 2008 in the near term. He recently told me we will have a couple more "jitters in the markets" like we did last month and then things will collapse.

He cited a number of causes: Obama administration has done little for jobs, real jobs, and his policies have basically only helped the banks in the short term. The only bright spot in the economy was the energy sector. Then the Saudis began to dump oil on the market to maintain their own market share. Today these energy companies are all defaulting, and the media is ignoring the story.

Secondly, "high yield" investments are merely "junk bonds." The entire credit industry is reaching the "end of a credit super cycle." Credit fuels everything in the financial world, and the collapse of credit will end life as we know it.

No one in their right mind would say that "the nation may be off life-support now." This is only a falsehood because the Fed now has carte blanche "Quantitative Easing" to prop things up. It only pays the interest on the debt.

And the greed factor is up there where it was just before the great depression. And pop goes that bubble.

"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And the greed factor is up there where it was just before the great depression. And pop goes that bubble.

"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils."

The private sector "greed factor" makes the world go round, and hence government supposedly "protects" us. Actually the two just work together, and then control the media to deceive us.

It is sheer lunacy to believe that Bill and Hillary "led the fight" to bring reform to Wall Street.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Here's some actual evidence about how professing Christians will vote for those who prefer empirical research over fantasy. http://www.christianitytoday.com/gle...r-tuesday.html

Quote:
“I would say that Ted Cruz is leading in the ‘Jerry Falwell’ wing, Marco Rubio is leading the ‘Billy Graham’ wing, and Trump is leading the ‘Jimmy Swaggart’ wing,” Moore recently told Roll Call."
End Quote

Jimmy Swaggart? LOL

[OBW]

I don't think Paul is the source. The source is God Himself who spoke in the Son.

That particular reference (In Hebrews, at least sort of) was not talking about the writings of various prophets or others in the OT, but where God was quoted . . . "Thus saith the Lord." The speaking in the Son is the speaking of the Son, not the speaking of Paul. Paul's speaking, though inspired, is not on par with the speaking of Christ.

And in any case, my point was not to be disparaging about any of the things that anyone wrote. Rather, it was to note how we tend to read some things in a vacuum, providing ample opportunity to misunderstand, then move out to other areas and use our "in a vacuum" understanding as the lens through which other things are read. And the propensity of much of Evangelicalism, including that wayward sect, the LRC/LCM, has been to start with Paul and then layer that over Jesus.

I am not suggesting that it is impossible to misread Jesus and then layer that over everything else. But if we start with Jesus, we are at least starting with the source and not the commentary. (What I mean by that is that in the OT times, even to this day, the Jews consider the OT in two primary parts. There is what God spoke or gave directly, such as the law. Everything else is commentary. It is examples. Applications. Metaphors. All of which must be read in the light of the source, not in the light of something else.)

And all of which is among the documents that we refer to as the Bible, or the word of God.

In the case of Nee's and Lee's teachings, they would often tell some story. it worked out a certain way and seemed to be a good way for things to work out. They then took that story and used it as a basis to declare that something in the scripture meant something that might not easily fit. The scripture didn't go there. Just the story. So now we have reinvented the meaning of scripture because of a nice-sounding story.

Paul makes reference to the law being abolished. But what is he talking about there? Righteousness, obedience, etc., or rituals. But in Matt 5, Jesus not only leaves the core of the law intact, he makes it clearly more demanding and declares that anyone teaching less than this was least in the kingdom. But Lee read Paul (incorrectly) as saying the law is now abolished, so that part in Matt 5 no longer applies in the way it would appear.

I have not disparaged Paul. Nor Jesus. Only Lee who disparaged them both.

The word of the Lord Jesus are the words of God, and so were those of the apostles.

This is a problematic statement to me. I would agree that the words of the apostles as recorded are part of the inspired revealing of God in the Bible. But God did not speak them. The disciples did. And they did not declare that it was God's words coming out.

I do not deny that those words are now part of the book that we refer to as the word of God. But the Word of God is not synonymous with the Bible. The Word of God is only defined in one place (that I can recall) and that was in John 1. The bible is a testimony of God as told by men (for the most part). They used their words. It is truly the story of God. It was inspired by God. But not dictated. Therefore it is their words.

I realize that there is a comment about jots and tittles. But I don't think that it was understood in those days as meaning that the punctuation, or even the specific words used, were necessarily ordained. Rather, it was still a world of narratives. The narrative that was given was correct. There was nothing to add to or take away from it that would make it better. Only worse. But if we think that it is about punctuation and words, then it is essentially impossible to understand God in anything but original languages. There is no obvious English equivalent to everything. That is the reason that we can read a King James, NIV, Living, Message, etc., and come to essentially the same conclusions as to what is being said. (Yeah, KJV is harder to read centuries later, but it can sill work.)

You mentioned the importance of doing. It is a very important issue, but before that we should know who we are. Are we Jews? Are we Gentiles? I am a Gentile, and for such as me God prepared and apostle (as He appointed the 12 to send them to the lost sheep of the house of Israel), Paul.

Huh? As Christians, there is no more Jew or Gentile. I do not mean that I have problems with those who retain many Jewish traditions after salvation. Nor do I fail to recognize that in those terms I too am a Gentile. But where is there a call to know who you are before you obey the one who you have chosen and committed to follow? I don't see it.

It might have a nice sound to it, but why is there any reason not to immediately obey to the extent that you see the command? I know Lee would say to wait for enough "dispensing." Why are you waiting?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

No one in their right mind would say that "the nation may be off life-support now." This is only a falsehood because the Fed now has carte blanche "Quantitative Easing" to prop things up. It only pays the interest on the debt.

"The United States' economy is in better shape than the presidential candidates make it seem, investor Warren Buffett said Saturday, even though businesses like his still face challenges." http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2...efuls-say.html
Excuse me if I give more credence to Buffett than you.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

"The United States' economy is in better shape than the presidential candidates make it seem, investor Warren Buffett said Saturday, even though businesses like his still face challenges." http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2...efuls-say.html
Excuse me if I give more credence to Buffett than you.

And ISIS is the JV team.

[zeek]

Cyborg-like, white-collar criminal, Florida Governor Rick Scott with his near total lack of human feeling would be a suitable vice-presidential running mate for the Donald. Or his lack of conscience would be a useful asset for overseeing whatever agency Trump selects to be his equivalent of the Nazi S.S. Look for him in Trump's administration somewhere if Trump gets elected.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Cyborg-like, white-collar criminal, Florida Governor Rick Scott with his near total lack of human feeling would be a suitable vice-presidential running mate for the Donald. Or his lack of conscience would be a useful asset for overseeing whatever agency Trump selects to be his equivalent of the Nazi S.S. Look for him in Trump's administration somewhere if Trump gets elected.

Doubtful Trump would select a governor for VP, else Christie would be first choice. Common wisdom seems to point to senators.

Personally I think senators make for lousy presidents. Is anybody left to vote for who is not a senator?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Doubtful Trump would select a governor for VP, else Christie would be first choice. Common wisdom seems to point to senators.

Personally I think senators make for lousy presidents. Is anybody left to vote for who is not a senator?

Is Kasich out now? My preference was from the governors (with Christie at the low end of that, although not by much).

I like Rubio, but he is just too young. Maybe not in years necessarily, but he comes across a little light on wisdom under fire.

Cruz is just the wrong kind of politics (IMO).

As much as I don't like Trump, at least he has moved (mostly) toward confronting the Dems rather than his own party.

My hope is that we go to the convention undecided and when they start haggling, someone unexpected but viable pops out.

What we need is someone right of center, but left of the far right. And we need someone who is not afraid to admit that it will take more than an un-budging president to get it done. Compromise is not a dirty word. It is lack of compromise that has gotten us where we are — in gridlock.

[Ohio]

I like Rubio, but he is just too young. Maybe not in years necessarily, but he comes across a little light on wisdom under fire.

Cruz is just the wrong kind of politics (IMO).

As much as I don't like Trump, at least he has moved (mostly) toward confronting the Dems rather than his own party.

I have felt all along that Trump will bolt the GOP and run independent, kind of like Perot did, guaranteeing another Clintonistas' victory. My wife is convinced that Trump is working for Hilary.

In the end, all the politicking will be a waste of time if the economy tanks again like it did in 2008. The democrats will be voted out, and any re-Publican can win.

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by OBW

That particular reference (In Hebrews, at least sort of) was not talking about the writings of various prophets or others in the OT, but where God was quoted . . . "Thus saith the Lord." The speaking in the Son is the speaking of the Son, not the speaking of Paul. Paul's speaking, though inspired, is not on par with the speaking of Christ.

And in any case, my point was not to be disparaging about any of the things that anyone wrote. Rather, it was to note how we tend to read some things in a vacuum, providing ample opportunity to misunderstand, then move out to other areas and use our "in a vacuum" understanding as the lens through which other things are read. And the propensity of much of Evangelicalism, including that wayward sect, the LRC/LCM, has been to start with Paul and then layer that over Jesus.

I am not suggesting that it is impossible to misread Jesus and then layer that over everything else. But if we start with Jesus, we are at least starting with the source and not the commentary. (What I mean by that is that in the OT times, even to this day, the Jews consider the OT in two primary parts. There is what God spoke or gave directly, such as the law. Everything else is commentary. It is examples. Applications. Metaphors. All of which must be read in the light of the source, not in the light of something else.)

And all of which is among the documents that we refer to as the Bible, or the word of God.

In the case of Nee's and Lee's teachings, they would often tell some story. it worked out a certain way and seemed to be a good way for things to work out. They then took that story and used it as a basis to declare that something in the scripture meant something that might not easily fit. The scripture didn't go there. Just the story. So now we have reinvented the meaning of scripture because of a nice-sounding story.

Paul makes reference to the law being abolished. But what is he talking about there? Righteousness, obedience, etc., or rituals. But in Matt 5, Jesus not only leaves the core of the law intact, he makes it clearly more demanding and declares that anyone teaching less than this was least in the kingdom. But Lee read Paul (incorrectly) as saying the law is now abolished, so that part in Matt 5 no longer applies in the way it would appear.

I have not disparaged Paul. Nor Jesus. Only Lee who disparaged them both.

This is a problematic statement to me. I would agree that the words of the apostles as recorded are part of the inspired revealing of God in the Bible. But God did not speak them. The disciples did. And they did not declare that it was God's words coming out.

I do not deny that those words are now part of the book that we refer to as the word of God. But the Word of God is not synonymous with the Bible. The Word of God is only defined in one place (that I can recall) and that was in John 1. The bible is a testimony of God as told by men (for the most part). They used their words. It is truly the story of God. It was inspired by God. But not dictated. Therefore it is their words.

I realize that there is a comment about jots and tittles. But I don't think that it was understood in those days as meaning that the punctuation, or even the specific words used, were necessarily ordained. Rather, it was still a world of narratives. The narrative that was given was correct. There was nothing to add to or take away from it that would make it better. Only worse. But if we think that it is about punctuation and words, then it is essentially impossible to understand God in anything but original languages. There is no obvious English equivalent to everything. That is the reason that we can read a King James, NIV, Living, Message, etc., and come to essentially the same conclusions as to what is being said. (Yeah, KJV is harder to read centuries later, but it can sill work.)

Huh? As Christians, there is no more Jew or Gentile. I do not mean that I have problems with those who retain many Jewish traditions after salvation. Nor do I fail to recognize that in those terms I too am a Gentile. But where is there a call to know who you are before you obey the one who you have chosen and committed to follow? I don't see it.

It might have a nice sound to it, but why is there any reason not to immediately obey to the extent that you see the command? I know Lee would say to wait for enough "dispensing." Why are you waiting?

I apologize to our excellent moderator, br. awareness, and ask him to forgive my last response (under this thread) to br. OBW (we need to find another place).

Almost 7 years ago on your blog (yes I am reading it and I find it interesting, and touching) commenting on Eph. 5:21-25, you still considered Paul's words as God's words. "But instead of relying on Paul’s words (acknowledging that they are also God’s words), let’s look at those of Jesus." If you have changed your view we could start a new thread under the title, THE BIBLE (what is it?), or something like that. This issue is more important to me than the difference about Jews and Gentiles.

In the Body there is no more Jew nor Gentile. And yet, I am still a Gentile. Again I will quote what you said on your blog (same one, n. 7),

"Scripture is correct when it says that we become “one flesh.” But that does not mean that we cease to be “two flesh.” It is not a contradiction, but is about different things. He is always who he is, and so is she. At the same time, there is a new entity that joins to be “married,” and do the things of marriage, including bearing and raising children."

This should not be an excuse for not doing. I agree with you 100%. Love your neighbor doesn't require any "illumination", it is something written in the Law, in the Gospel, in the Epistles. It is something we just have to do!

But let me ask you a question, which gospel do you preach today?
The gospel of the kingdom of God? Mar_1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel( A gospel that doesn't contemplate the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus)

The gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20:24).

Or the everlasting gospel? Rev. 14:7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters (A gospel that tells people to fear God and worship Him as the Creator).

These are your words to Dancing on ... What HE says! (post 51)
"Dancing,

The thing is that the verses that you have quoted were all things said to people at a particular time and place, not statements made in a manner that indicates permanence and ongoing fact. Said to Abraham. Said to the children of Israel as they were about to enter the good land."

These words come "close" (if they do not excuse me for posting them) to the belief in what is called different dispensations, do you agree that there are different ways of God dealing with different people, at different times, etc.?
I have to stop now.


“It shall greatly help ye to understand the Scriptures if thou mark not only what is spoken or written, but of whom and to whom, with what words, at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances, considering what goeth before and what followeth after. ”
Miles Coverdale (1488 – 20 January 1569). (from my thread
Putting To Test The Recovery Version, post 51, there is an example how to read James)

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Doubtful Trump would select a governor for VP, else Christie would be first choice. Common wisdom seems to point to senators.

Personally I think senators make for lousy presidents. Is anybody left to vote for who is not a senator?

Christie is already standing by his man.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich is still left to vote for, Ohio.

[zeek]

The popularity of Donald Trump among evangelical voters is causing some the movement's leaders to question the "evangelical" label. http://www.npr.org/2016/03/03/469005...supports-trump

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Christie is already standing by his man.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich is still left to vote for, Ohio.

The great governor from Ohio has little chance ...

[OBW]

TAT,

First, the Quote button was not working today, so bear with my makeshift attempt to comment.

Almost 7 years ago on your blog . . . commenting on Eph. 5:21-25, you still considered Paul's words as God's words.

You are inferring your understanding of what I am saying and not mine. Although I said exactly what you quoted, it is not so hard to understand it differently. When I say "acknowledging that they are also God's words" I was not intending to imply that in the sense of dictation, therefore the precise words, rather that they are, under inspiration, revealing more concerning God and our relationship with him.

And even in what I said, I clearly indicate a preference for the words of Jesus as the starting point of consideration rather than those of Paul. Not that I find anything deficient in what Paul said, but that since it is a revelation of God, but spoken in the words of a man (not God) there is a need to put those words into a framework and place within the large "story" of God. Where better to get the story of God more succinctly than in the words that he spoke in his Son, Jesus. Therefore, the meaning, even then, is that while it is all "God's word," if there is any question in understanding parts of it, what God said in his owns words rises above those spoken in the words of various men no matter how we think inspiration works.

If there is something that should be clear in the speaking of Jesus, then the words of Paul should not be understood as altering that. Rather the other way around. Paul was commenting, under inspiration, on the core that God has more directly provided — both in the OT and in Jesus. His intent was to take what was delivered to the apostles and find words to apply it to the needs of the current situation of the Ephesians, or the Philippians, etc. It was not to expound unique revelation of God that could be used to reinterpret otherwise clear speaking of Jesus.

And the quote that I provided should have indicated that even 7 years ago I thought generally as I am speaking now. I was clear that Paul was not the starting point. No. It was and still is Jesus.

And if you think that what I thought 7 years ago, even if different, is important to this discussion, then are you suggesting that what I thought in 1973, 1977, 1982 or even 1986 are important to know to question what I think today? If that were the criteria for reviewing the past, then no one could claim to leave the LCM and be in any way more than a wishy-washy person with no strength of conviction. Instead, I am fairly strong of conviction. But with a loose hold. Not a loose hold on Jesus, but a loose hold on doctrine. and that loose hold is not because of lack of conviction, but because I understand that we are easily lead astray, and more so when we are unwilling to challenge what we think we know about anything.

But let me ask you a question, which gospel do you preach today?

Are you suggesting that there is a hierarchy of gospels and that there is a "one" to preach today? Or is the gospel the good news. And everyone needs the good news. And the good news has many layers. At the lowest layer (not meaning low in a degrading way as some would, just primary, or starting point) is the need to be forgiven of sins. But it goes so much further. It is not just about a ticket to heaven (or however people want to describe the eternal part of our existence). Neither is it just about this life. But it is all aspects. Salvation as an initial thing is a matter of grace. And a matter of decision. But also a matter of confession of Christ as Lord, and a following, which means obedience. It should ultimately affect how we live today. This will work toward how we live in the time to come.

Why is the truth of God's revelation parceled into distinct "gospels" that one must chose or ignore — like having to pick one over another?

These words come "close" (if they do not excuse me for posting them) to the belief in what is called different dispensations, do you agree that there are different ways of God dealing with different people, at different times, etc.?

While I find my home for worship among those who are heavily under the dispensationalist belief, I do not particularly hold to it. On the other hand, there is some truth in their teaching.

But what I said, "The thing is that the verses that you have quoted were all things said to people at a particular time and place, not statements made in a manner that indicates permanence and ongoing fact," is that much of what is often taught as the only way to understand certain things, especially words, is not supportable. The so-called paradoxes that Lee so often pointed to were not paradoxes, they were different situations that were treated differently despite being able to find a common fact among them, like a particular word. For example, we are warned not to judge, yet admonished to judge. But the contexts in which the two are spoken are different. Therefore judging is not simply forbidden nor encouraged.

In an example with which we are all familiar, Lee made a lot of hay about speaking the same thing. And making it a rule among all of the leadership. But Paul did not simply say the same thing. He spoke differently to almost everyone. So despite one place making reference to speaking the same thing, it was clearly not of universal application because he was one of the more constant violators of any such absolute edict. So it must be that there is a truth in what has been spoken, and is being spoken, that is constant and unwavering. But the specific things that need to be expounded upon are different in all the cases. Otherwise, why would he suggest that eating meat offered to idols is unimportant, and yet also say that you shouldn't do it?

Context. There is a difference between context and dispensationalism. Context recognizes that there are reasons that what you think is the obvious, or "same," answer is not what is given. Leaven is not simply bad. The kingdom of heaven is like leaven placed into a lump of dough, clearly something positive. Yet the Pharisees are leaven to be avoided. So is the issue with some constant meaning of leaven, or the understanding of what it is being used in reference to?

You don't have to be a dispensationalist to consider the understanding of scripture in the manner that Miles Coverdale (whom you quoted) seems to.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The popularity of Donald Trump among evangelical voters is causing some the movement's leaders to question the "evangelical" label. http://www.npr.org/2016/03/03/469005...supports-trump

Trump exposed the ENIOs > Evangelical In Name Only. And there's lots of 'em.

Christians? Is there any hope for 'em?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Christians? Is there any hope for 'em?

Do you consider yourself one of these hopeless Christians?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Do you consider yourself one of these hopeless Christians?

Yes. And I'm in good company going back to the beginning of Christianity. But modernity, and science, is really giving Christianity a hard way to go theses days, like never before.

Plus, Christianity in is such a mess ... and comes nowhere close to Jesus' prayer in John 17. So bad indeed that Witness Lee could claim that Christianity is Christless ... and it had the ring of truth to it.

And now, evangelicals are voting for Trump ... and the wheels are coming off the evangelical wagon ... and making them look bad, and/or crazy.

So ... Isn't modernity and science winning? By observation and evidence, Christianity does indeed look hopeless ... sorry to say.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes. And I'm in good company going back to the beginning of Christianity. But modernity, and science, is really giving Christianity a hard way to go theses days, like never before.

Plus, Christianity in is such a mess ... and comes nowhere close to Jesus' prayer in John 17. So bad indeed that Witness Lee could claim that Christianity is Christless ... and it had the ring of truth to it.

And now, evangelicals are voting for Trump ... and the wheels are coming off the evangelical wagon ... and making them look bad, and/or crazy.

So ... Isn't modernity and science winning? By observation and evidence, Christianity does indeed look hopeless ... sorry to say.

It's your view that things are a mess. Like I always said, "it all depends on where you get your news." Are things today any worse than during the "dark ages?" Even God responded to Elijah's critique, "i have 7,000 who have not..."

You read some political article about Trump, and it shapes your whole view of the church?" Science winning what? Jesus said the kingdom of God does not come by observation. You are not going to find it on the news.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's your view that things are a mess.

No it's pretty much the view of all Christians ... who believe their group is right and everybody else's group (most of the Christians) is wrong. It's a very popular opinion, by supposed insiders, that Christianity is a mess.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Are things today any worse than during the "dark ages?"

It's not the dark ages because of the secular state. The secular state rose up and threw some fixes at Christianity ; stripped it of it's political power, but couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together. So Christianity stays a mess. It's a conviction. What do you expect? Thank God, or rather the secular state, for the fixes so far.

Originally Posted by Ohio

You read some political article about Trump, and it shapes your whole view of the church?"

Hard to tell where the crazy begins, and where it ends. I guess I wouldn't have that trouble if I just stuck to one news source.

[Ohio]

No it's pretty much the view of all Christians ... who believe their group is right and everybody else's group (most of the Christians) is wrong. It's a very popular opinion, by supposed insiders, that Christianity is a mess.
That's too funny. I'm not buying. How can you know everything God is doing by reading multiple news sources on the internet? Anyways, I no longer listen to the view of those "who believe their group is right and everybody else's group is wrong." I thought we left that nonsense years ago.

It's not the dark ages because of the secular state. The secular state rose up and threw some fixes at Christianity ; stripped it of it's political power, but couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together. So Christianity stays a mess. It's a conviction. What do you expect? Thank God, or rather the secular state, for the fixes so far.
I don't think some "secular state" has fixed anything in the church. If Christianity was always the "mess" you say it is, then it would have died off centuries ago. Who would pay attention to such a mess? You apparently spend too much attention examining the tares, and not the Lord Himself, who indwells the wheat.

Hard to tell where the crazy begins, and where it ends. I guess I wouldn't have that trouble if I just stuck to one news source.
God is doing an invisible work, like I said "not by observation," in His believers. This world is all chaotic, and it even affects the people of God, but if you think the children of God are too messed up to spend time with, what is the alternative? trusting the government? trusting your own resources? trusting mother earth?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

No it's pretty much the view of all Christians ... who believe their group is right and everybody else's group (most of the Christians) is wrong. It's a very popular opinion, by supposed insiders, that Christianity is a mess.
That's too funny. I'm not buying. How can you know everything God is doing by reading multiple news sources on the internet? Anyways, I no longer listen to the view of those "who believe their group is right and everybody else's group is wrong." I thought we left that nonsense years ago.

We did. But it didn't leave us. We now know how to see it that way. Once you see it you can't unsee it.

But really, we can't blame Christianity, for being such a mess. It's not Christianity's fault. The blame belongs to human nature.

That's why we see it everywhere ; that Christianity is a mess. We see it both in the masses, and up close and personal. I personally know crazy Christians. And I love 'em. They bring their crazy to Christianity.

That's why Christianity is such a mess. It's made up of humans. That Jesus commands us to love,

[zeek]

Hey folks! Get ready for Witness Lee's vision of world domination realized only worse if Ted Cruz gets into the White House!

"Anyone who has watched [Ted] Cruz on the stump knows that he often references the important role that his father, traveling evangelist Rafael Cruz, has played in his life. During a 2012 sermon at New Beginnings Church in Bedford, Texas, Rafael Cruz described his son’s political campaign as a direct fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

The elder Cruz told the congregation that God would anoint Christian “kings” to preside over an “end-time transfer of wealth” from the wicked to the righteous. After this sermon, Larry Huch, the pastor of New Beginnings, claimed Cruz’s recent election to the U.S. Senate was a sign that he was one of these kings.

According to his father and Huch, Ted Cruz is anointed by God to help Christians in their effort to “go to the marketplace and occupy the land … and take dominion” over it. This “end-time transfer of wealth” will relieve Christians of all financial woes, allowing true believers to ascend to a position of political and cultural power in which they can build a Christian civilization. When this Christian nation is in place (or back in place), Jesus will return.

Rafael Cruz and Larry Huch preach a brand of evangelical theology called Seven Mountains Dominionism. They believe Christians must take dominion over seven aspects of culture: family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business and government. The name of the movement comes from Isaiah 2:2: “Now it shall come to pass in the latter days that the Lord’s house shall be established on the top of the mountains.”http://www.religionnews.com/2016/02/...ca-commentary/

[OBW]

These people scare the ____ out of me. I think I'd rather have Bernie than that. I can at least be a Christian without the harm that kind of malarkey does to our reputation.

[OBW]

The following was posted by someone elsewhere (I am not identifying where or who because I would prefer to take on this without reference to persons):

Not to sound facetious, but I have far more trouble understanding how intelligent Christian people could espouse liberalism, than Lee and the LC's. I'm serious here. It just boggles my mind how people could become aware of the lies and corruption of the current administration, and still support it. Understanding the folks in the LC is far easier.

So the question of the day is:

Why is it that we presume that an intelligent Christian cannot espouse liberalism in general?

To answer this question we first need to separate liberalism from any particular administration and from the evil actions that individuals with positions make take.

There are many evil and/or stupid actions/positions that are take by people of both sides of the political spectrum:

• Abortions
• Killing abortion doctors
• Railing on women who have had abortions
• Homosexuality
• Physical, economic, sociological and psychological assaults on homosexuals
• Acting unrighteously toward any who are identified as homosexual
• Forcing people who disagree to act as if they agree (under threat of law or monetary penalty)

These are just a few examples of how some people act on both sides of a few of the hot debates of the day.

These are issues that various people think of as immoral. We are not talking about these things.

Let's stick to the general position of liberalism v conservatism.


And if you want to consider the LCM in terms of a liberal position, I know that there have been some illegal aliens that were regular attenders in Dallas. That may not be a liberal position, but it is pretty laid-back relative to standing for the conservative position.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

The following was posted by someone elsewhere (I am not identifying where or who because I would prefer to take on this without reference to persons):

So the question of the day is:

Why is it that we presume that an intelligent Christian cannot espouse liberalism in general?

To answer this question we first need to separate liberalism from any particular administration and from the evil actions that individuals with positions make take.

There are many evil and/or stupid actions/positions that are take by people of both sides of the political spectrum:

• Abortions
• Killing abortion doctors
• Railing on women who have had abortions
• Homosexuality
• Physical, economic, sociological and psychological assaults on homosexuals
• Acting unrighteously toward any who are identified as homosexual
• Forcing people who disagree to act as if they agree (under threat of law or monetary penalty)

These are just a few examples of how some people act on both sides of a few of the hot debates of the day.

These are issues that various people think of as immoral. We are not talking about these things.

Let's stick to the general position of liberalism v conservatism.


And if you want to consider the LCM in terms of a liberal position, I know that there have been some illegal aliens that were regular attenders in Dallas. That may not be a liberal position, but it is pretty laid-back relative to standing for the conservative position.

Don't understand your questions here, but I'm pretty sure the quote is mine.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Don't understand your questions here, but I'm pretty sure the quote is mine.

I didn't want personality in it.

But it almost makes your response an attack on your own position.

The one question is:

Why is it that we presume that an intelligent Christian cannot espouse liberalism in general?

Is there something difficult in that question?

The rest was not a question. It was a plea to separate poor behavior on the part of some from the ideals behind general political philosophies. To stick to the political ideals of both liberalism and conservatism.

If the liberal political positions are wrong because of the perceived evil of the present administration, then it is just as easy to argue that the conservative political positions are wrong because of abortion clinic bombers, gay bashers, and an array of very unloving actions and words toward your neighbor wrapped in the cloak of the Christian right.

If you want to talk about either of those, that is a different discussion and is full of problems on both sides.

If you want to discuss whether liberal v conservative politics in general are more or less Christian in the true sense (not just in terms of numbers taking the positions) then that is the discussion I want to have.

I will start by saying that I am politically conservative. But I do not presume that my positions are the God ordained way. Or that Jesus would necessarily vote my way. I think it is a better position for the good of the nation, But I know very good, intelligent Christians that take the opposite position. And for reasons that are not anti Christian.

Why must the intelligence or Christianity of a person be questioned because they do not agree with you on politics? We see how positions like that play out in these forums in terms of whether Lee was or was not a legitimate Christian minister. They do not win friends or influence people.

And it would seem that if there are differing positions among otherwise like-minded Christians, then influencing those who you think have the lesser position will only happen when you consider them as intelligent equals and present a rational reason for changing their minds.

And their failure to agree with you (or me) is not proof of their lack of intelligence or lack of Christian faith. In fact, I wonder if the determination to link Christianity with a political position is due to lack of Christian faith and an attempt to replace it with political faith. And we are just small potatoes in a sea of "Christian right" replacing faith in God with faith in government.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I didn't want personality in it.

But it almost makes your response an attack on your own position.

The one question is:

Why is it that we presume that an intelligent Christian cannot espouse liberalism in general?

Is there something difficult in that question?

You twisted my question around. I did not say "we" but I said the following, "I have far more trouble understanding how intelligent Christian people could espouse liberalism, than Lee and the LC's. I'm serious here. It just boggles my mind how people could become aware of the lies and corruption of the current administration, and still support it. Understanding the folks in the LC is far easier."

This is a public forum. Good place to express personal views. Sorry if you don't like mine. This is why I do.

I grew up in a blue collar working class Cleveland neighborhood called West Park, and all my friends were Kennedy democrats. My first chance to vote was in '72, when I voted for McGovern. Sure I was woefully naive, but his platform of decriminalization made sense to me. Why do we need g'ment controlling our lives?

Then Roe was passed down with the slaughter of the unborn. How could the platform of the Democratic Party promote the well-being of individuals and the downtrodden, and not the totally defenseless? Today, abortion is a pillar of liberalism. Before I was saved, I was active in the pro-life movement.

That caused me to distance myself from the party. Since then, they have continually moved further left. JFK could not recognize his party today. Today's centrist is tomorrow's conservative. Next step socialism. Then comes communism.

Intelligent Christians must consider how liberal policies affect not only the unborn, but all our youth. Liberalism devalues life itself, devalues morality, devalues the family, devalues God and the Bible. The list goes on. That's why I made my comment.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

These people scare the ____ out of me. I think I'd rather have Bernie than that. I can at least be a Christian without the harm that kind of malarkey does to our reputation.

It is Bernie's supporters, like those black lives matter hoods, that scare the @#$% out of me. I was not very sympathetic to The Donald's campaign until I watched those thugs shut down his campaign rally in Chicago.

In another well-publicized Trump rally, I actually agreed with that old guy punching that goon who flipped him off with both hands. Trump offered to pay his legal expenses. Good for him.

What some of Bernie's supporters have done is not freedom of speech, it's called starting trouble and provoking people. Bernie is using class warfare to promote his agenda. That's the standard M.O. for third world insurrections. Dictators around the world have done that for decades.

[OBW]

So liberalism is just about the slaughter of the unborn?

Are those inextricably intertwined? Is impossible for people who disagree with abortion to otherwise have a generally liberal viewpoint on so many other things? Is a thinking Christian in danger of losing his faith (or his brains) because he voted for Clinton, Kerry, Obama, Dukakis, Carter, etc., and maybe even supports Sanders at this point in the primaries?

Does one issue that is mostly a shouting match with little or no current action decimate all other positions that tend to go with the people who hold that way?

I think this is the reason that our political system is in such turmoil. The huge collection of points and positions that is either political party is being hijacked by one or two hot topics that a secular society does not entirely agree upon even within the parties that seem to mostly take one stance or the other. Just being less extremely conservative (or liberal) is viewed as complete capitulation to the other side.

And we cannot have a rational debate about healthcare (its either Obamacare or nothing), immigration (its either let them all in without restriction or round them all up an toss them back over the new 90-foot, nuclear-bunker strength fence), etc., because middle ground on anything is being a traitor to the polar positions.

And then, when we get into the church and the discussion is about how it will respond, they won't even be civil to the LGBT person. They should straighten themselves out before I even think about preaching a gospel of anything other than condemnation to them.

That may not be you. But I see it all the time and it sickens me.

How should the church deal with homosexual individuals? I started to say "confront" but that is too often all we do. Confront them. Scream at them about their sin. When you do that openly about every other sin, even still going on among the "faithful," then maybe, just maybe. Confront that guy openly in the hallway about his extramarital affair.

I hate distilling politics and culture down to homosexuality, abortions, and immigration, but that is what so many do these days. Put up with heinous rules and regulations that their chosen party does enact so that we are seen as standing with the side on things that they mostly will have nothing to actually do anything about.

Either sides is a huge collection of positions. Some of them are good on both sides. Sometimes both sides are dogmatically stupid. Sometimes both have something to offer to a discourse on that particular issue.

But now an entire side of the discussion is eliminated as unthinking and un-Christian because of one position that not everybody with that general bent agrees with. Can you have a discussion on a series of different issues, some of which are possibly best represented by a liberal viewpoint? Or is the whole bankrupt because of one issue?

It has been suggested that Evangelicalism as we know it is on the brink of shrinking (maybe to near extinction) because we are putting more trust in our positions in the culture wars than in Christ.

So far you have given me no reason to dismiss the left in general. Only railed on a couple of pet positions.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You twisted my question around.

I did no such thing. I quoted you verbatim. Then I asked my own question. It was based upon your statement. I was under no obligation to simply re-quote you. And I didn't. And I didn't say that you asked that question. I asked it.

And if you would rather rant about abortion, immigration, LGBT, and Obamacare, then I gave you the option of not joining this conversation. It was not intended to talk about those. It was an opportunity to discover whether there are reasons other than lack of brains or Christian faith to take liberal positions. Not every liberal position.

But it would seem that no liberal positions are acceptable because the only way to find them is to talk to someone who might think abortion is OK.

[OBW]

As for the rabble rousers supporting any particular candidate, what is it about them that makes their behavior a natural outgrowth of the positions they take. If that is the way to distinguish good positions, then fighting against abortion and gays must be the job of mean-spirited SOBs. They call themselves Christians, so I guess I can't be a Christian anymore.

That is where that logic seems to lead.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

And if you would rather rant ...

So ... I rant. But you do not.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So ... I rant. But you do not.

You rant. And I respond in kind. So yes, I rant.

But the rant (from my perspective) is about the immediate response to the question that takes the discussion where I didn't care for it to go. If you want that discussion, start your own.

But unless someone else comes along and starts to discuss, I guess it was just a waste of my digital breath.

Sorry I brought it up.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

You rant. And I respond in kind. So yes, I rant.

But the rant (from my perspective) is about the immediate response to the question that takes the discussion where I didn't care for it to go. If you want that discussion, start your own.

But unless someone else comes along and starts to discuss, I guess it was just a waste of my digital breath.

Sorry I brought it up.

Sounds to me like you only want discussions that match your views.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

... then fighting against abortion and gays must be the job of mean-spirited SOBs. They call themselves Christians, so I guess I can't be a Christian anymore. That is where that logic seems to lead.

What if some Christians feel they are accountable for doing nothing to defend the unborn and protect the sanctity of marriage? In your mind they are all "mean-spirited SOBs?" Really?

Then how do you define "Christian?" What if some other Christians spent the same amount of time speaking against abortion and the gay movement, as you have against Lee and the Recovery? What if some Christian got released from LGBT, and felt compelled to inform others? Are they then worse Christians than you? As someone once said, "That is where that logic seems to lead."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sounds to me like you only want discussions that match your views.

I would like to discuss what it is about liberal positions in general that cannot be held by an intelligent Christian. I have known some that did just that and I was not compelled to wonder as if there is some kind of cloud hanging over either their intelligence or their Christian faith.

And I have stated that my views are conservative. But it seems problematic to presume that views that disagree with me are the result of either poor to no Christian faith or a lack of intelligence (or both).

Without separately responding to the other post, I note that there are reasons to have conversation with all kinds of people from the standpoint of the gospel, among other reasons. I am not suggesting that we remove our positions. But rather that from a political standpoint, those positions should not drive all kinds of other positions simply because they are generally within a grouping of positions that we call liberal.

You seem OK with dismissing the worst of the conservative side as not speaking for you, or not representing your intentions. I similarly hold to many conservative positions. But those who are involved in various kinds of hate crimes from within the ranks of conservatives does not make all of the conservative positions invalid.

Neither does a position in favor of available abortion simply invalidate all other liberal positions.

The question is valid. Does taking liberal positions call into question the intelligence or Christian faith of the one with those positions?

You have been ducking that question. And maybe you can actually make specific arguments that would cause particular liberal positions (and let's keep the hot topics off the table) to be of questionable validity. But so far you haven't even tried. You have pointed to all kinds of things that do not address the question or the issue.

Do you think that only supporters of abortion hold to other liberal positions? Such as more generous welfare? An immigration amnesty program? And so on?

And even if a lot who hold those other positions also do support abortion, does that automatically taint the other positions?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What if some Christians feel they are accountable for doing nothing to defend the unborn and protect the sanctity of marriage? In your mind they are all "mean-spirited SOBs?" Really?

Then how do you define "Christian?" What if some other Christians spent the same amount of time speaking against abortion and the gay movement, as you have against Lee and the Recovery? What if some Christian got released from LGBT, and felt compelled to inform others? Are they then worse Christians than you? As someone once said, "That is where that logic seems to lead."

The question is not that there is or is not speaking against those things. The issue is how. With nasty rhetoric and placards marching in the streets vilifying them as persons? Or in reasoned discussion concerning the claims of right, or the rational limitations of freedom of one person compared to the freedom of another?

The latter is how we hope that we deal with the errors of Nee, Lee, and the LCM. Not just with harsh rhetoric, but with evidence that they are wrong. With reasons to rethink.

When it comes to some of these political issues, we can say what we want about speaking for God's morality. We do live in a secular society, not a theocracy, so the rules that the majority decide on are what we get. That does not mean don't seek any kind of input. Or don't speak for the unborn.

But engagement in these areas is full of pitfalls for the Christian. It is not just about our sense of morality. It is also about our attitude toward those who do not even pretend to be Christian who disagree with us. If we are close enough to speak, they are our neighbor (even if electronically). How do we treat them? Like we want to be treated?

But those are not anything like even a major part of "liberalism" and you have distilled my question to those items. You can talk about those things until the cows come home. But don't pretend that you have addressed my question.

[zeek]

http://religionnews.com/2016/05/01/c...-donald-trump/

"The ascendancy of a demagogic candidate and his message, with the angry constituency he is fueling, is a threat to both the values of our faith and the health of our democracy. Donald Trump directly promotes racial and religious bigotry, disrespects the dignity of women, harms civil public discourse, offends moral decency, and seeks to manipulate religion."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

http://religionnews.com/2016/05/01/c...-donald-trump/

"The ascendancy of a demagogic candidate and his message, with the angry constituency he is fueling, is a threat to both the values of our faith and the health of our democracy. Donald Trump directly promotes racial and religious bigotry, disrespects the dignity of women, harms civil public discourse, offends moral decency, and seeks to manipulate religion."

Compared to what the Clintons and Yobamas have done, the Trumps are like a boy scout club.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Compared to what the Clintons and Yobamas have done, the Trumps are like a boy scout club.

Bigots prefer Trump. http://www.blueridgemuse.com/node/36587

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Bigots prefer Trump.

It's a smear campaign by the liberal left. I have watched them twist his words for months.

Hillary just railed on men "going off the reservation" and all native Americans, and she got a free pass. She and Yobama are the worst thing that ever happened to women and the African-Americans.

Try to see past the distorted political rhetoric and get to the facts. I know that's hard for you to do, but please try.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's a smear campaign by the liberal left. I have watched them twist his words for months.

Hillary just railed on men "going off the reservation" and all native Americans, and she got a free pass. She and Yobama are the worst thing that ever happened to women and the African-Americans.

Try to see past the distorted political rhetoric and get to the facts. I know that's hard for you to do, but please try.

The distorted political rhetoric is coming out of Trump. You're in good company with the KKK and the Neo-Nazi's who support Trump, bro .

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

The distorted political rhetoric is coming out of Trumps. You're in good company with the KKK and the Neo-Nazi's bro who support Trump.

That's baloney. Am I now guilty by association with every guy who votes for the same candidate I do. And, btw, I did NOT vote in my recent primary since only 25% of the delegates were decided by the primary, and 75% were decided by others.

And with the Clintons, you are in good company with murderers, thieves, liars, philanderers, and traitors. There's no guilt by association there.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's a smear campaign by the liberal left. I have watched them twist his words for months.

Maybe.

But I have also heard his words and been convinced that I cannot vote for him. This may truly be the demise of the Republican Party. While no less variety of thought than is within the Democratic Party, the third-party candidates generally do not appeal to them, so they always return to the fold. For the Republicans, there are too many who will simply strike out on their own (Libertarians, Tea-Party, Perot, Paul, and so on). And to vote for those is to ensure that the Democrats get it. And maybe they should. Trump doesn't just get maligned for things he doesn't say. He is attacked constantly with what he does say. If he really doesn't mean it, then I suggest a serious character flaw beyond his narcissism. He cannot be trusted to say what he means.

Maybe Hillary really is the better choice. (Did I really say that out loud?)

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's baloney. Am I now guilty by association with every guy who votes for the same candidate I do.

You are clearly correct on this. And you are not guilty because of the position of others.

Ted Bundy probably voted for someone. Is everyone who voted for the same candidate a serial killer?

But I can turn this question back on you. Is everyone who takes an overall liberal position a proponent of abortion and/or gay marriage? You seemed hell-bent on insisting that in the other thread.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's baloney. Am I now guilty by association with every guy who votes for the same candidate I do. And, btw, I did NOT vote in my recent primary since only 25% of the delegates were decided by the primary, and 75% were decided by others.

And with the Clintons, you are in good company with murderers, thieves, liars, philanderers, and traitors. There's no guilt by association there.

Your guilt isn't merely by association. It's in the fact that you share bigotry with Trump.

[Cal]

Whether Trump was a bigot or not they'd still call him one. They always do. It's like the boy that cried wolf. Tim Tebow could run for president and they'd call him a bigot. The hypocrisy of it is amusing, but I'm sure that's lost on the liberals. They are dead serious.

If you are any kind of normal person, as opposed to a politician, and just say what you think, you are going to get reemed by the press because they are going to play pattycake with what you said. We've been trained to expect these politicians to be so benign in their speech that they essentially say nothing. Trump doesn't want to be that kind of candidate, so he's blunt, which shocks people who expect politicians to be wind-up toys who mouth talking points. Anyone who doesn't is considered crazy and dangerous. And they are, to the status quo, that is.

In several cases I've seen, Trump was purposefully taken out of context. Once that starts, and people buy it, then it snowballs because most have jumped on the bandwagon and few check the facts, and it becomes a lynch mob. The fact that he's a Republican just makes it worse because liberals LOVE to accuse Republicans of being bigots.

I'm not saying he hasn't put his foot in his mouth some. I'm saying it's overblown.

[Cal]

Here's a bunch of things Trump said that scandalized everyone. It's obvious much of it is tongue-in-cheek.

Trust me, if this guy was a liberal and saying these kinds of things about Republicans, he'd be guesting on The Daily of Show and Saturday Night Live. He'd be the toast of the town.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...s-made-6975782

I remember the horrible things that were said about Linda Tripp. Please spare me the fastidiousness about Trump.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Here's a bunch of things Trump said that scandalized everyone. It's obvious much of it is tongue-in-cheek.

Trust me, if this guy was a liberal and saying these kinds of things about Republicans, he'd be guesting on The Daily of Show and Saturday Night Live. He'd be the toast of the town.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...s-made-6975782

I remember the horrible things that were said about Linda Tripp. Please spare me the fastidiousness about Trump.

Half the things Trump says are liberal then he says the opposite, sometimes in the same sentence.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Whether Trump was a bigot or not they'd still call him one. They always do. It's like the boy that cried wolf. Tim Tebow could run for president and they'd call him a bigot. The hypocrisy of it is amusing, but I'm sure that's lost on the liberals. They are dead serious.

Does the "they" figure largely in your world view?

If you are any kind of normal person, as opposed to a politician, and just say what you think, you are going to get reemed by the press because they are going to play pattycake with what you said. We've been trained to expect these politicians to be so benign in their speech that they essentially say nothing. Trump doesn't want to be that kind of candidate, so he's blunt, which shocks people who expect politicians to be wind-up toys who mouth talking points. Anyone who doesn't is considered crazy and dangerous. And they are, to the status quo, that is.

So, in your opinion, when people say what they really think, it turns out they're bigots? The rest are just pretending in order to be politically correct?

In several cases I've seen, Trump was purposefully taken out of context. Once that starts, and people buy it, then it snowballs because most have jumped on the bandwagon and few check the facts, and it becomes a lynch mob. The fact that he's a Republican just makes it worse because liberals LOVE to accuse Republicans of being bigots.

So Trump's remarks just appear bigoted because they taken out of context. How did they do that during the debate? Did they dub in different words then he was actually saying? I mean those weren't just sound bites. Was it some trick of the lizard people conspiracy or something?

Theses examples were trumped up I suppose: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b03260bf777e83

Trump has taken bigotry to a new low level as far as presidential aspirants in my life time except for maybe George Wallace. Or was the liberal media taking him out of context too?

I'm not saying he hasn't put his foot in his mouth some. I'm saying it's overblown.

Which simply means that other people react differently than you do to his bigotry. Maybe you're just desensitized to it because you've been around it a lot. Hell maybe you agree with it or some of it. Wouldn't surprise me a bit. Are you a Bobby Knight fan? He agrees with it, or says he does. Knight endorsed Trump cuz he thinks he would be willing to nuke people. If you are looking for a guy to precipitate an apocalypse, Trump could be your guy.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Does the "they" figure largely in your world view?

You should be happy you can characterize Trump as a bigot. Someone who you couldn't would wipe the floor with Hillary, and he might anyway.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Which simply means that other people react differently than you do to his bigotry. Maybe you're just desensitized to it because you've been around it a lot. Hell maybe you agree with it or some of it. Wouldn't surprise me a bit. Are you a Bobby Knight fan? He agrees with it, or says he does. Knight endorsed Trump cuz he thinks he would be willing to nuke people. If you are looking for a guy to precipitate an apocalypse, Trump could be your guy.

It's so relieving to see ole zeek's bigotry radar in operation.

Where's that post where he slams Hillary for her bigotry against men and native americans "going off the reservation?"

Yesterday I heard about Obama's chief negotiator Rhodes revealing how the American people were deceived during the Iranian nuclear treaty initiated by our good friend Hillary.

zeek: But wait! She may be a crook, a murderer, a traitor, and a liar, but she's not a bigot!

Hey zeek, your bigotry radar needs to be recalibrated.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hey zeek, your bigotry radar needs to be recalibrated.

Don't you know, Ohio? Only Republicans can be bigots. Democrats can display seeming manifestations of bigotry, but they can't be bigots, because they are Democrats.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Don't you know, Ohio? Only Republicans can be bigots. Democrats can display seeming manifestations of bigotry, but they can't be bigots, because they are Democrats.

It's not just traditional conservatives like us. We are also tagged "bigots" just because we believe in Jesus and believe the Bible is the word of God. According to liberals, our judgment is thus totally flawed by something called faith.

Think about it. Once a person shows the slightest concern for the slaughter of the unborn, immediately the person is branded as a mysogynist, who wants to rob all women of their "rights." Once a person shows the slightest concern for the decency and the rights of all women using public restrooms, the person is branded as an LGBT hater and bigot. Liberalism is a mental disorder. Now we need urinals in all the ladies' rest rooms.

These same liberals then condemn God for acting righteously, as the Bible has prophesied He would.

[awareness]

This thread is too ugly even for me.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

This thread is too ugly even for me.

I highly doubt that!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You should be happy you can characterize Trump as a bigot. Someone who you couldn't would wipe the floor with Hillary, and he might anyway.

Considering the history of the Clintonistas, bigotry is a noble virtue.

Remember all those Arkancides?

Arkancide is the unfortunate habit of potential witnesses to the Clintons’ dirty dealings in Arkansas suddenly deciding to shoot themselves twice in the back of the head. Police and Coroners in Arkansas, notably Fahmy Malak who answered to Governor Bill Clinton, automatically described these shootings as “suicides.” After Bill Clinton became President the phenomenon spilled over to Washington D.C. when Hillary Clinton’s ex-lover Vincent Foster was “Arkancided.”

[zeek]

I used to think of Bill Clinton as a shameless narcissist. But, Trump trumps him on the narcissism scale. How far Trump goes on the sociopathy scale I don't want to see him get elected to find out. Conservatives made an issue of the authenticity of Obama's Christianity, but Trump's attempt at presenting himself as a Christian was laughably inept and you guys cannot help but have seen that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I used to think of Bill Clinton as a shameless narcissist. But, Trump trumps him on the narcissism scale. How far Trump goes on the sociopathy scale I don't want to see him get elected to find out. Conservatives made an issue of the authenticity of Obama's Christianity, but Trump's attempt at presenting himself as a Christian was laughably inept and you guys cannot help but have seen that.

Comparing the two is like comparing a mafia godfather to a rich schoolyard bully, and then commenting that the bully is a egomaniac.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Considering the history of the Clintonistas, bigotry is a noble virtue.

Remember all those Arkancides?

Arkancide is the unfortunate habit of potential witnesses to the Clintons’ dirty dealings in Arkansas suddenly deciding to shoot themselves twice in the back of the head. Police and Coroners in Arkansas, notably Fahmy Malak who answered to Governor Bill Clinton, automatically described these shootings as “suicides.” After Bill Clinton became President the phenomenon spilled over to Washington D.C. when Hillary Clinton’s ex-lover Vincent Foster was “Arkancided.”

Push down on Hillary get Trump. Push down on Trump and get Hillary. Pick your evil.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Push down on Hillary get Trump. Push down on Trump and get Hillary. Pick your evil.

Why is a little nationalism such a bad thing?

We don't know what a Trump presidency will look like, but it seems it will be nasty talk and good decisions for the country. Unless we all have amnesia, we know what a Clinton presidency will look like. While she is promising us all the world, jobs are lost, illegal immigrants get a free lunch, 1st and 2nd amendment rights will vanish, scandals abound, political opponents die mysteriously, etc.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why is a little nationalism such a bad thing?

We don't know what a Trump presidency will look like, but it seems it will be nasty talk and good decisions for the country. Unless we all have amnesia, we know what a Clinton presidency will look like. While she is promising us all the world, jobs are lost, illegal immigrants get a free lunch, 1st and 2nd amendment rights will vanish, scandals abound, political opponents die mysteriously, etc.

Trump's appeals to ultra-nationalism, his scapegoating of ethnic groups, his fear mongering to angry working-class voters and his presentation of himself as the strong man who can fix every problem [the man card] through the force of his will all have echoes of fascist political leaders of the past like Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Trump's appeals to ultra-nationalism, his scapegoating of ethnic groups, his fear mongering to angry working-class voters and his presentation of himself as the strong man [the man card] who can fix every problem through the force of his will all have echoes of fascist political leaders of the past like Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco.

Hitler? But, of course, you are not fear-mongering here because you made the first accusation. Liberalism has blinded you friend.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Trump's appeals to ultra-nationalism, his scapegoating of ethnic groups, his fear mongering to angry working-class voters and his presentation of himself as the strong man who can fix every problem [the man card] through the force of his will all have echoes of fascist political leaders of the past like Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco.

What's so interesting here is you've described what he does with just enough negative spin to make it look horrible.

Is Trump scapegoating ethnic groups? Or is he simply pointing out that illegal aliens are a problem and that wholesale immigration of Muslims has caused problems in every non-Muslim nation it's occurred in? Why is that about "race" all of a sudden. Maybe it's just about having laws and controlling culture shock.

Is he fear-mongering to the working class? Gee, I thought that's what Democrats do every election when they complain about rich privilege. Wasn't complaining about "Wall Street" fear-mongering?--when the policies of the Congress and the Fed were as much if not more a cause of the financial crisis? "Blame Wall Street, and pay no attention to that man (Alan Greenspan/Ben Bernanke) behind the curtain."

Strong man? Would you rather have him act weak and timid? What's wrong with being strong? Now all of a sudden acting strong is evil? Hello!

Then the clincher--compare him to sociopathic despots. Every campaigner "echoes" fascist leaders in some way because they are all campaigning.

Really, zeek? You are smarter than that. As a thinker you should know you are employing selective reasoning here.

[zeek]

There's more support for Donald Trump among white supremacists than among leaders of the Republican Party.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

There's more support for Donald Trump among white supremacists than among leaders of the Republican Party.

There's more support for Hillary Clinton among felons on death row than among leaders of the Democratic Party.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There's more support for Hillary Clinton among felons on death row than among leaders of the Democratic Party.

Pretty sure the NAMBLA crowd is foursquare behind Hillary.

We could do this all day, zeek. What does it prove?


Don't forget them "tabacca lawyers," zeek. James Carville used to get a lot of distance yelling about them.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There's more support for Hillary Clinton among felons on death row than among leaders of the Democratic Party.

This is a typical superficial tit-for-tat response such as I have come to expect from you. There is no parallel. Clinton is the preferred candidate of the Democratic Party leaders whereas most Republican leaders are having major reservations about endorsing Trump.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

This is a typical superficial tit-for-tat response such as I have come to expect from you. There is no parallel. Clinton is the preferred candidate of the Democratic Party leaders whereas most Republican leaders are having major reservations about endorsing Trump.

The Communist Party has elected every single one of their leaders with unanimous overwhelming support. So what's the point? Real democratic process has conflicts. Get over it. And besides, take away those corrupt "super" delegates paid off by the Clintons, and Bernie would probably win.

You know zeek, some of your responses should be moderated, if we had one, that is. You are not addressing the points, instead it's hit-and-run attacks. Instead of meaningful responses, you just love to criticize and patronize me.

I still have a bunch of PM's from you where you berated me endlessly for quoting you scriptures from Timothy. That's when this all started. It seems to me like you come home drunk every night, hit the keyboard, and vent your day away.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Communist Party has elected every single one of their leaders with unanimous overwhelming support. So what's the point? Real democratic process has conflicts. Get over it. And besides, take away those corrupt "super" delegates paid off by the Clintons, and Bernie would probably win.

You know zeek, some of your responses should be moderated, if we had one, that is. You are not addressing the points, instead it's hit-and-run attacks. Instead of meaningful responses, you just love to criticize and patronize me.

I still have a bunch of PM's from you where you berated me endlessly for quoting you scriptures from Timothy. That's when this all started. It seems to me like you come home drunk every night, hit the keyboard, and vent your day away.

The moderator is recovering from surgery so little Ohio will have to fend for himself for now. You should have no problem with my remark as it was used by your guy Trump against Rubio in the Presidential debates. A very presidential remark it is too.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

This is a typical superficial tit-for-tat response such as I have come to expect from you. There is no parallel. Clinton is the preferred candidate of the Democratic Party leaders whereas most Republican leaders are having major reservations about endorsing Trump.

Your comment about "white supremacists" was baiting, zeek, and you know it. You got back what you deserved. If you want to make an intelligent comment about party support, leave out the irrelevant comparisons, and you won't beg them from others.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

The moderator is recovering from surgery so little Ohio will have to fend for himself for now. You should have no problem with my remark as it was used by your guy Trump against Rubio in the Presidential debates. A very presidential remark it is too.

There you go again.

Trump ain't "my guy." I never voted for him.

Since when is "presidential" a qualifier? Who gets to define that?

And, btw, you have never addressed any of the egregious concerns about Clinton. So typical of liberals. You all deserve free meds.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Trump ain't "my guy." I never voted for him.

But, you will. My hands are 7.5 inches long. How big are yours? It must be an important measure. After all, Presidential candidates Rubio and Trump discussed it in the Republican Presidential Debates.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

But, you will. My hands are 7.5 inches long. How big are yours? It must be an important measure. After all, Presidential candidates Rubio and Trump discussed it in the Republican Presidential Debates.

I think Rubio, Cruz, and Trump, should have just whipped it out ... and longest takes all.

Note they didn't bring it up until Carson dropped out.

And Hillary don't measure up at all ... but she's clearly got the biggest balls.

And zeek, stop picking on "little" Ohio.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think Rubio, Cruz, and Trump, should have just whipped it out ... and longest takes all.

Note they didn't bring it up until Carson dropped out.

And Hillary don't measure up at all ... but she's clearly got the biggest balls.

And zeek, stop picking on "little" Ohio.

Hey that Trump came up with some great lines that he used against the other Republican Candidates. Those kind of lines really helped unify the party. After all Trump's a true Christian, right? I mean he switched to pro-life didn't he? So I think we should use Trump's lines here to help unify the brothers. Hey wait, now he's saying the huge wall that he crowed that he would build was "just a suggestion?" What? He's not flip-flopping is he? How flagrantly old school political that would be. What a bull****ter. In the latest bit of political theater, Paul Ryan has been assigned the role of reigning in the Bad Boy.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Hey that Trump came up with some great lines that he used against the other Republican Candidates. Those kind of lines really helped unify the party. After all Trump's a true Christian, right? I mean he switched to pro-life didn't he? So I think we should use Trump's lines here to help unify the brothers. Hey wait, now he's saying the huge wall that he crowed that he would build was "just a suggestion?" What? He's not flip-flopping is he? How flagrantly old school political that would be. What a bull****ter. In the latest bit of political theater, Paul Ryan has been assigned the role of reigning in the Bad Boy.

Hey zeek, you seem to be victimized by selective history loss.

How can the schoolyard bully trouble you, but not the Clintonista mafiosa, who are not only above the law, but make the law, much like corrupt dictatorships. But why should you be bothered when they get away with theft, lies, murders, treason, etc. since they are your beloved progresso-liberals?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And zeek, stop picking on "little" Ohio.

Like Little Kevin Love "droppin' dimes."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hey zeek, you seem to be victimized by selective history loss.

How can the schoolyard bully trouble you, but not the Clintonista mafiosa, who are not only above the law, but make the law, much like corrupt dictatorships. But why should you be bothered when they get away with theft, lies, murders, treason, etc. since they are your beloved progresso-liberals?

It's all relative in the broken American presidential political system. I would have preferred any of the other Republican candidates to Trump even "Lying Ted."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

It's all relative in the broken American presidential political system. I would have preferred any of the other Republican candidates to Trump even "Lying Ted."

The political apparatus has decided that Hillary is next in line. Unless Comey is willing to risk suicide, that is what will happen.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The political apparatus has decided that Hillary is next in line. Unless Comey is willing to risk suicide, that is what will happen.

Then doom, doom, doom, is coming. Whichever way it goes. I feel like I'm being conned.

[awareness]

ELECTION 2016
Former Cult Member Explains How Donald Trump and His Followers Are Just Like a Cult
“The fear and the anger had been demagogued in such a way that their faces were set like flint and it’s like they have blinders on.”


"Kendal Unruh — a Republican delegate and high school teacher from Colorado — grew up in a religious cult, and that’s why she’s determined to stop Donald Trump from becoming president.

The 51-year-old Unruh, who was raised among members of The Move cult established by Sam Fife, said she knows what a cult leader looks like, and she said that perfectly describes the Republican presidential nominee."
http://www.alternet.org/election-201...oters-are-cult

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

ELECTION 2016
Former Cult Member Explains How Donald Trump and His Followers Are Just Like a Cult
“The fear and the anger had been demagogued in such a way that their faces were set like flint and it’s like they have blinders on.”


"Kendal Unruh — a Republican delegate and high school teacher from Colorado — grew up in a religious cult, and that’s why she’s determined to stop Donald Trump from becoming president.

The 51-year-old Unruh, who was raised among members of The Move cult established by Sam Fife, said she knows what a cult leader looks like, and she said that perfectly describes the Republican presidential nominee."
http://www.alternet.org/election-201...oters-are-cult

Time for me to pen an article, "Former Cult Member Explains How Hillary Clinton and Her Followers Are Just Like a Cult."

Let me start with all of the "Arkancides," (Google that one!) and then we will move on to other forms of "silencing" others' opinions. Just recently the lives of a few more of her outspoken critics have been abruptly ended.

I hope you don't get the impression that I'm a Trump supporter. I'm just an ordinary informed citizen who has lived with these Clintonistas for a quarter century.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Time for me to pen an article, "Former Cult Member Explains How Hillary Clinton and Her Followers Are Just Like a Cult." . . .

Ya got that right bro. So we've got a choice between one cult or the other. We ex-LCers should know better ... and should avoid them both.

Let's write in "Jesus."

H-A

[zeek]

How do professing Christians who support Trump answer these questions?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerl...-donald-trump/

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

How do professing Christians who support Trump answer these questions?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerl...-donald-trump/

How do so-called "professing" Christians support the Clinton and the Democratic Party after watching the documentary "Hillary's America: The Secret history of the Democratic Party"?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

How do so-called "professing" Christians support the Clinton and the Democratic Party after watching the documentary "Hillary's America: The Secret history of the Democratic Party"?

I admit to being surprised that Evangelicals are supporting Trump in droves. Bible belt Kentucky, as an example, supported Trump in the primaries.

It just doesn't add up. Hey, where's those "Family Values" the pubbies are so fond of harping about?. But some Christian Trump supporters bring up Cyrus the great ... a Zoroastrian (pagan) that allowed the Jews to go back and rebuild the temple. So to them, it might be the same for the non-Christian Trump ; Trump being like Cyrus. I agree that that is just crazy logic, but I've heard it bantered about in Christian interwebs. That's how I know about that preposterous proposition.

But to be fair. At a recent family gathering, of predominately Southern Baptists, most of them admitted that they were in a quandary over who to vote for. Some said they aren't going to vote for either one.

Sorry to say, but that sounds more Christian to me than voting for either Hillary or Trump.

Seems to me that Christians have lost track of : "My kingdom is not of this world."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Seems to me that Christians have lost track of : "My kingdom is not of this world."

How does picking a "sinner" for President conflict with the kingdom of God? Have you ever read history?

I have yet to see Trump accused of perjury, dozens of murders, slandering her husband's rape victims, theft, corruption, treason, etc. The numerous crimes of the Clintons' have filled the internet for decades, yet she will sweet talk her constituents day in and day out, and their Attorney General will always be there to protect them. She has never accomplished anything for the American people, yet she is the "experienced" candidate.

For me the contest is between the egotistical "schoolyard bully" and the "puppet candidate for a syndicated crime family." Sure Trump likes to intimidate and mock his detractors, but do you prefer to be "sweet-talked" as you are knifed in the back? The Clintons' make the Godfather look like a Catholic priest.

Just the other night I again heard how the church has been "sleeping" for 8 years, and needs to "wake up and support Trump." That kind of talk is just as pathetic to me. It's so easy for some Christians to criticize the church of God because they are not doing what we like! Both sides of the argument make me sick.

[OBW]

I generally begin my defense of voting for the "lesser of two evils" with the notion that the candidate of my party will at least adhere to the basic tenets of that party, therefore, while not 100% in sync, will tend to be what I expect them to be (especially since Congress will have a say in it anyway).

But this year I must stay that I am more impressed with a question I heard recently (paraphrased due to lack of direct link):

Since the lesser of two evils seems a rather inept position this year, the question is which pile you are willing to step into?

I have to assess the difference between dislike of political leanings and open disregard for humanity and decency. At this point in time, I fear where Trump can take us in the world arena more than I fear what some liberal agenda will do to the "fabric" of our country. I am convinced that as long as the issues are internal, the fact of 3 branches of government and the significance of Congress in it all will mitigate some of the potentials. But the ability of a president in this day and age to have our military deployed almost anywhere without a declaration of war makes a hothead like Trump unacceptable.

To be way over the top about it . . . . As ballistic as he goes when someone comments on his small hands, what happens when it is a foreign leader and he can send a battalion of Marines.

I'm sorry, but I think we can survive the liberal Democratic agenda more easily than the whims of an incoherent, hot-headed, immoral, egotistical madman with the military at his command.

This is where the multi-candidate primaries are coming up to bite us. Trump never took 50% of any of them. I suspect that if it had all been between Trump and a generally acceptable Republican candidate, Trump would be gone.

Of course, because he is so egotistical, he might have then simply set out as an independent and drawn enough voters away to scuttle the Republican hopes, giving us Hillary anyway.

Might as well get ready for it. Like it or not.

And it could surprise a lot of us. But I suspect not. Trump seems to be on the way to self-destruction.

[Ohio]

Because the Clintons' are the darlings of the media and the academia, they turn a blind eye to all of their criminal activity, and then exaggerate all of Trump's gaffes. Thus we are forever cursed with Manchurian-like, teleprompter-driven, spineless, politically-correct, establishment crooks and puppets.

But, hey, I can still pray.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I generally begin my defense of voting for the "lesser of two evils" with the notion that the candidate of my party will at least adhere to the basic tenets of that party, therefore, while not 100% in sync, will tend to be what I expect them to be (especially since Congress will have a say in it anyway).

But this year I must stay that I am more impressed with a question I heard recently (paraphrased due to lack of direct link):
I have to assess the difference between dislike of political leanings and open disregard for humanity and decency. At this point in time, I fear where Trump can take us in the world arena more than I fear what some liberal agenda will do to the "fabric" of our country. I am convinced that as long as the issues are internal, the fact of 3 branches of government and the significance of Congress in it all will mitigate some of the potentials. But the ability of a president in this day and age to have our military deployed almost anywhere without a declaration of war makes a hothead like Trump unacceptable.

To be way over the top about it . . . . As ballistic as he goes when someone comments on his small hands, what happens when it is a foreign leader and he can send a battalion of Marines.

I'm sorry, but I think we can survive the liberal Democratic agenda more easily than the whims of an incoherent, hot-headed, immoral, egotistical madman with the military at his command.

This is where the multi-candidate primaries are coming up to bite us. Trump never took 50% of any of them. I suspect that if it had all been between Trump and a generally acceptable Republican candidate, Trump would be gone.

Of course, because he is so egotistical, he might have then simply set out as an independent and drawn enough voters away to scuttle the Republican hopes, giving us Hillary anyway.

Might as well get ready for it. Like it or not.

And it could surprise a lot of us. But I suspect not. Trump seems to be on the way to self-destruction.

. . . . . . Like some establishment pubbies have stated recently : "Liberal courts won't be as bad as Trump" (paraphrased).

And OBW, I don't want to step in either pile of evil. Ohio is right about the Clinton's. After Dubya I declared that I no longer ever wanted another Bush in the highest office, or another Clinton. And then Trump came along ... and is making me eat those words, as bitter as they are.

Personally I think we have the garlic room effect here. This election cycle is insanity. But we've grown so use to it that, we no longer recognize it for what it is.

It's not only Christians that have lost their minds, it's all of America. Terrorism is winning. It's driven us to insanity, and self destruction.

[OBW]

I obviously do not think about everything the same way as everyone else. And that is OK (for Me and "you").

I think the truth is that we are facing piles that look like something from the third Jurassic Park movie. (Think 8-foot pile that starts ringing.) I respect that everyone doesn't see things my way.

And just like any risk assessment, everyone has a different hierarchy of preferences and fears that drives their conclusions.

The truth is that neither candidate is really talking about meaningful issues. They are both talking about each other. About the reasons to fear the other "guy." Not really anything meaningful about the present.

Don't even hear hollow promises of hope. Just the sounds of walls being built. We are approaching becoming the Divided States of America. It will look like one of those "in place" divorces where there is no actual divorce. Just sleep in different beds and ignore each other. Or maybe more like "War of the Roses."

[zeek]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae..._11290252.html

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae..._11290252.html

News Flash!

Huffington Post is not a valid site for Christians to get their news.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

News Flash!

Huffington Post is not a valid site for Christians to get their news.

News Flash! That's nothing more than your opinion.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

News Flash!

Huffington Post is not a valid site for Christians to get their news.

So what site is valid for Christians to get their news from?

[OBW]

Find fault in the article, not the writer or the publisher. Otherwise it is a classic misdirect. A true ad hominem.

From a truly Christian perspective, virtually every source of news is tainted in some way. Fox News, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, BBC, Huffington Post, the Drudge Report . . . .

Even Christianity Today. It has a slant that is opposed to whole segments of Christianity and is therefore carrying a bias that is not always favorable toward the truth, but toward the bias.

So what is a person to do?

Think. Hear the report. Observe. Think.

Don't just accept. And don't think the source that is biased in your direction is always right. I know mine isn't. I almost can't stomach them anymore.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Find fault in the article, not the writer or the publisher. Otherwise it is a classic misdirect. A true ad hominem.

From a truly Christian perspective, virtually every source of news is tainted in some way. Fox News, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, BBC, Huffington Post, the Drudge Report . . . .

Even Christianity Today. It has a slant that is opposed to whole segments of Christianity and is therefore carrying a bias that is not always favorable toward the truth, but toward the bias.

So what is a person to do?

Think. Hear the report. Observe. Think.

Don't just accept. And don't think the source that is biased in your direction is always right. I know mine isn't. I almost can't stomach them anymore.

Note the thumbs up top left corner.

But to humor bro Ohio, I'm supposing that he won't object to "NewsMax" being a Christian source for news ... where Wayne Grudem's article is posted. Newsmax is a noted conservative news source -- therefore I suppose more Christian (so commonly believed) :
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Tru.../30/id/741334/

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

So what is a person to do?

Think. Hear the report. Observe. Think. Don't just accept.

And don't think the source that is biased in your direction is always right. I know mine isn't. I almost can't stomach them anymore.

There you go man!

Keep as cool as you can!

Face piles and piles of trials with smiles.

It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave.

And keep on thinking free.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

So what site is valid for Christians to get their news from?

I've been studying the Clintons' for a quarter century. I've been reading about Trump for much less time.

But in my mind, there is no way we can compare the Clinton sleaze factor with Trump's abrasive tendencies. Trump is a product of the abrasive in-your-face business world, while the Clintons' are puppets of the political underworld.

Just this year we have another handful of "mysterious deaths" surrounding Hillary. Over the years, this number approaches a hundred. And that's on top of all the other scandals we have endured over the years.

Everyone has their own agenda folks. Too many young girls I know support Hillary for just one reason: She guarantees the continued right to abortions. What does that tell you?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There you go man!

Keep as cool as you can!

Face piles and piles of trials with smiles.

It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave.

And keep on thinking free.

At least we try.

And Harold . . . stop picking on Ohio. He's trying to figure out how to make do with the *stuff* on the market shelves. Just like I am. I read an article like the one zeek linked and I find fault in both the article and the position of the one he was griping about (Gruden or someone like that). We are all faced with pretty bad choices.

One writer I occasionally read suggested that Trump (although I suspect it was more like the combination of Trump/Clinton if the truth be told) could result in the destruction of both the Republican and Democratic parties. The internal strife over Trump v Cruz v Rubio v Kaisich (sp?) etc. and Hillary v Bernie created significant divides among those of allegedly similar goals. We might be able to imagine it results in a better system, but the truth is that it might result in a 4-party system in which there is never a winner via standard means. It would take a constitutional amendment to get a president. Of course the congress could simply declare a president because that is evidently the last option if the electoral college completely fails.

Let's see. A multi-party system. Missouri Synod Republicans, the Tea Party, the Hard-Shell Democrats, and the Southern Democrats (couldn't resist filtering in a few denominational puns).

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

At least we try.

And Harold . . . stop picking on Ohio. He's trying to figure out how to make do with the *stuff* on the market shelves. Just like I am. I read an article like the one zeek linked and I find fault in both the article and the position of the one he was griping about (Gruden or someone like that). We are all faced with pretty bad choices.

Me too. Needless to say, since I stated this whole election cycle is garlic room insanity.

And hey, bro Ohio quoted the Moodies. I can't fault that.

Note Thumbs up again.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Let's see. A multi-party system. Missouri Synod Republicans, the Tea Party, the Hard-Shell Democrats, and the Southern Democrats (couldn't resist filtering in a few denominational puns).

Hey Harold ... Tell him about the Yellow Dog and Blue Dog Democrats.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hey Harold ... Tell him about the Yellow Dog and Blue Dog Democrats.

You just did. My sis is a proud Yellow Dog. Presses the Demmie button every time. I give her such a hard time. I like to point out their flaws.

Reminds me of my buddy in Alaska. The only true conservative on the planet. All others are RINOs, to him. He says there are two Republican party's in Alaska.

But hey, we've got Gary Johnson of the Libertarian party, and Jill Stein of the Green Party. That's four to select from. And how about the Republican alternative to Trump : Evan McMullin recently announced he’s running for president, to offer voters a choice other than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

And we could always write in Willie Nelson, if he lives long enough. He can't be any worse than who we got so far.

[OBW]

Harold,

As long as the current two parties survive, the others will be gnats flying around the piles the two big ones are. It will only be with the effective destruction of the units that are the Republican and Democratic parties that there would be any meaningful movement away from them. If they collapse, there will be alternatives provided. And as long as there are at least two significantly different groups formed out of the one, then the crawl to the bottom will begin. We will look more like the British system, or maybe even the German system where there is always some kind of coalition between two of the parties before there is any real change. And sometimes the notion of "strange bedfellows" is very appropriate. It might not always be the most conservative and the second most conservative that gets together (or the other end) it might be the two in the middle, or one of the extremes and the one in the middle but toward the other end.

I kinda wish that were an option.

And 8 years ago I would have been very happy to vote for the McCain/Lieberman ticket. I know that neither was conservative enough for the right or liberal enough for the left. But it often turns out that it is in the broad no-man's land in the middle that real solutions are found.

Alas, it was not to be. And putting Palin on the ticket did nothing to bring the far right into the fold for McCain.

So now it seems they have what they want. And it isn't going to be much better. The GOP has been in the habit of shooting itself in the foot way too often.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

You just did. My sis is a proud Yellow Dog. Presses the Demmie button every time. I give her such a hard time. I like to point out their flaws.

Reminds me of my buddy in Alaska. The only true conservative on the planet. All others are RINOs, to him. He says there are two Republican party's in Alaska.

But hey, we've got Gary Johnson of the Libertarian party, and Jill Stein of the Green Party. That's four to select from. And how about the Republican alternative to Trump : Evan McMullin recently announced he’s running for president, to offer voters a choice other than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

And we could always write in Willie Nelson, if he lives long enough. He can't be any worse than who we got so far.

You think politics in America is crazy, try watching the Olympic news.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Harold,

As long as the current two parties survive, the others will be gnats flying around the piles the two big ones are. It will only be with the effective destruction of the units that are the Republican and Democratic parties that there would be any meaningful movement away from them. If they collapse, there will be alternatives provided. And as long as there are at least two significantly different groups formed out of the one, then the crawl to the bottom will begin. We will look more like the British system, or maybe even the German system where there is always some kind of coalition between two of the parties before there is any real change. And sometimes the notion of "strange bedfellows" is very appropriate. It might not always be the most conservative and the second most conservative that gets together (or the other end) it might be the two in the middle, or one of the extremes and the one in the middle but toward the other end.

I kinda wish that were an option.

And 8 years ago I would have been very happy to vote for the McCain/Lieberman ticket. I know that neither was conservative enough for the right or liberal enough for the left. But it often turns out that it is in the broad no-man's land in the middle that real solutions are found.

Alas, it was not to be. And putting Palin on the ticket did nothing to bring the far right into the fold for McCain.

So now it seems they have what they want. And it isn't going to be much better. The GOP has been in the habit of shooting itself in the foot way too often.

The speed at which our country is moving left is frightening. I doubt there will ever be another Republican president. What the Democrats got going for them is just overwhelming.

• The progressive liberals control most major universities
• The progressive liberals control the mainstream media
• The progressive liberals control the minority vote
• The progressive liberals control the immigrant vote with the borders wide open
• The progressive liberals control nearly every major city
• The progressive liberals control the unions
• The progressive liberals control all those on the government dole
• The progressive liberals control nearly all the sports and entertainment icons
• The progressive liberals control the voting process, successfully stopping all attempts at voter registration ID's

Those in the conservative movement just don't "fight" as well as the liberals do. It's harder to fight when things like morality and a conscience restrict you.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The speed at which our country is moving left is frightening.

I partly agree. It is heavily moving left.

Or at least the organized part of it is moving left.

And there is what I believe is the problem. There is plenty of "right" but not organized. Mostly in disarray.

Now before I move on, let me say that while there are some litmus test issues that we like to rant about relative to the left, the left is not uniformly for any particular thing. And just because it is liberal does not make it evil or bad. Just not what we on the right think is the better way to go.

But they do one thing that the right just can't get through their thick skulls. They tend to be more supportive of whoever is chosen as their presidential candidate. I understand that the final outcome is heavily about how many independents vote one way or the other.

But with some regularity, the Republicans refuse to get along with each other and a reasonably significant portion of them end out with a splinter group running for office as an independent who gains enough support to siphon more than enough support away that they become irrelevant. Even a lot of support from independents doesn't help. And the internal squabbles are often reasons to reject helping the "mainstream" Republican out.

We think of the Democrats as being these hopelessly ideological people determined to bring socialism to America. True for a few, but not the majority. They are all over the spectrum, with a large number just a little left of center.

But they tend to stick together unless something is seriously wrong. (And my idea of seriously wrong is not necessarily theirs.)

But on the conservative side of the spectrum are a bunch of silos. McCain was too "liberal" for the far right. (Of course "liberal" is relative here. McCain is just on the left side of the right, not the left side of the whole.) So a lot of "why vote?" or voting for independents. Palin didn't help. Someone less extreme was probably the better choice.

But if the Republicans can't decide that the overall stance of the Party is more important than which person is the presidential candidate then we are a lost cause. It won't matter how corrupt we think Hillary, Obama, or anyone else is.

And to top it off, this year we have our own version of corrupt. A different kind of corrupt. And (in my opinion) unfit to lead. So maybe fit to lead, saddled with a Republican Congress and Senate (hopefully) outweighs questioned (but never proved) allegations of corrupt actions over the years of clawing to the top. I know there were some things about Bill that are true and bring up the "unfit" issue. But still not the same as some of what I see in Trump. There were too many good choices but instead we get the guy who pulls at the heart-strings of people who want there to be some kind of "never been a politician" in the White House.

As for "moving left," my question is "what is it about "left" that is so scary that we would rather put a guy like Trump in the White House? Do we think that God will bring in the Babylonians to carry us away? For what? taxing more and spreading it around (very inefficiently) to those who have less?

I agree that there is too much. And the notion of what requires help may be way to high. But there are real needs that still have not been addressed. And if we declare that the church should be doing it, then maybe the church should get busy and do it. Not just some of it. Not just what they are doing now and gloat about it. Do it all. Otherwise, having government do it is probably how it is going to happen.

And the local level won't work. At the local level the need is where the poor are and the money is generally where they are not. So something broader than local has to happen. Some kind of socialism is inevitable — unless we intend to be the "be fed and clothed" brand of people.

Why are we afraid? I'm not saying that nothing can go wrong. But what is it that makes Christians — the people who believe in eternal life — so afraid of this life that they need to amass arsenals of assault weapons. What makes the people who are first commanded to love God and then to love their neighbor as themselves them so mean that they carry hateful placards deriding people they think are immoral?

And the fear is being preached from the pulpits of too many churches.

Are we going to rise up, sing "Onward, Christian Soldiers" and take the country back at gun point?

There's the most loving representatives of God. Just like he made us to be. (NOT)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The speed at which our country is moving left is frightening. I doubt there will ever be another Republican president. What the Democrats got going for them is just overwhelming.

• The progressive liberals control most major universities
• The progressive liberals control the mainstream media
• The progressive liberals control the minority vote
• The progressive liberals control the immigrant vote with the borders wide open
• The progressive liberals control nearly every major city
• The progressive liberals control the unions
• The progressive liberals control all those on the government dole
• The progressive liberals control nearly all the sports and entertainment icons
• The progressive liberals control the voting process, successfully stopping all attempts at voter registration ID's

Those in the conservative movement just don't "fight" as well as the liberals do. It's harder to fight when things like morality and a conscience restrict you.

Please don't take insult if I roll on the floor laughing. How right can you go? Do all the shopping carts pull to the left too? Seems to me, by your assessment above, the liberals have taken completely over.

Of course we know that's not true. Kentucky just elected a pubbie gov. And lot's of states are republican. Of course, if you're far right, even most of the pubbies are liberals ; they're RINOs.

It reminds of growing up in the Baptist church. Every now and then we'd have a preacher come and speak on the evils of communism. I remember once, after the scary preaching, turning to my mother and saying, "Mommy the commies have taken over everywhere." Her response was, "Yes they have."

And what's this line mean : "It's harder to fight when things like morality and a conscience restrict you"???

Are you suggesting conservatives are the only ones with morals and a conscience?

[OBW]

The progressive liberals control most major universities If so, only relative to a small part of the liberal arts colleges, not the rest of the university

The progressive liberals control the mainstream media Except Fox News

The progressive liberals control the minority vote Or the minority vote instructs the liberals. Conservative don't even listen.

The progressive liberals control the immigrant vote with the borders wide open. Borders are not wide open I might agree that a wall could be useful. But it should be coupled with a very different system for letting our neighbors in. We really don't want most of those 12M (or however many illegal Hispanics are here now) to go back. The economy would be crippled.

The progressive liberals control nearly every major city Only if the people there vote them in.

The progressive liberals control the unions Sure it is not the other way around?

The progressive liberals control all those on the government dole Or do the liberals just get their vote because they don't deride them for not picking themselves up by the bootstraps? And because they responded rather than assaulted?

The progressive liberals control nearly all the sports and entertainment icons Only relevant for the ignorant. And to the extent that the conservatives have sports and entertainment icons, we abuse their irrelevant comments just as much.

The progressive liberals control the voting process, successfully stopping all attempts at voter registration ID's You might have something here. But this was a long list to get to something that is simply bad v simply not going your (our) way.


The question is why do the conservative refuse to respond to people in need? Why do they get behind people who insult the parents of war heroes just because of their ethnicity? Why do they fail to deal with immigration issues other than to call everyone not born here names and vow to simply shut the borders? (This from a nation of immigrants.)

The conservative position is becoming more and more isolationist. (Except that we are happy to send a few soldiers anywhere to blow the bejeebers out of anyone we consider an enemy. Even better if an 18-year-old kid with a joy stick can do it via drone from a facility in LA.) And each of our periods of isolation has ended poorly.

[awareness]

I read a few days ago that many of Trump's followers are into conspiracy theories. Hey, everything is a conspiracy. Shadow powers -- like the shadow government -- are the ones actually pulling the real strings, behind the scenes/seeings. So says one ubiquitous conspiracy.

Trump has claimed numerous times "It's rigged." There you have it, those invisible people again -- mystical people seems -- by virtue of their existence in the unseen.

But the unseen does exist. As was revealed when the DNC emails were hacked (by scary Russia, surely). And they did reveal a conspiracy ... against "feeling the Burn" ol' Bernie. I think secretly they disliked him because they don't trust those that are authentic. Authentic scares them.

And turns out it is so. On the flaky dubious right we have another one that's popular precisely for not being PC, and is also authentic. That indeed is scary. Why? Because Trump is unpredictable, to say the least. We never know when he's just being sarcastic. He can even shoot of a nuke and say it was sarcasm, he says. Recently he said "I will never lie to you," and he apologized (for what we don't know). Is that more sarcasm? Will he tomorrow say that he was only joking? We don't know do we?

So I don't know. Are Christian supporters of Trump made gullible to such highfalutin -- in his case empty -- promises because they're primed by their belief system, that's full of them? After all, Satan, the prince and god of this world is, the quintessential conspirator, pulling all the strings that matter, behind the scenes/seeings.

Or might it be just because he's hard on Mooozlims (they even get kicked out of his rallies)?

And where's that religious right ... that's captured the spotlight in elections passed? It's like they've gone underground -- resorting perchance to conspiratorial strategies -- against abortion and same sex marriage, and the gay conspiracy to take over the world?

Trump has knocked all that out of whack, and akilter. But not just that. Ohio thinks there won't be another pubbie president. After Trump there might not be a GOP at all. Trump is not a Republican. He's supported the Clintons in the past, and is actually a democrat. But because he's managed to become the republican nominee the GOP has to hold their nose, swallow that bitter pill, and still endorse him. No wonder they're worried he might be the cause of them losing majority in the Senate. But it's not him. It's them. The pubbles are looking like they need their heads examined. Rubio even said recently he stood by his claim in the primaries that, Trump is a con man. But he still endorses him. That's just plain, and obvious to all, crazy. And the same goes for majority leader Mitch McConnell. And to think, it could all turn out to be one big sarcasm. Haha pubbies. The joke's on you ... and your whole party ... which is falling, more than seems, into smithereens.

And then we have lying Hillary. The Hildabeast. Hilla the Hun, as Bill calls her.

Can a Christian in all good conscience vote for any of this? If so, maybe not just they, but all of America, needs to have it's head's examined.

Sorry for that rant. I'm just a little worked up and conflicted about all of this. And ha. It's all sarcasm. Like this election.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Please don't take insult if I roll on the floor laughing. How right can you go? Do all the shopping carts pull to the left too? Seems to me, by your assessment above, the liberals have taken completely over. Of course we know that's not true. Kentucky just elected a pubbie gov. And lot's of states are republican.

Did I say completely? Did I mention state or local elections?

I said that I can't see another Republican President for a number of reasons. So I listed them.

Are you saying that the country has NOT moved left?

Didn't Obama signed up for DOMA, that is, until he was against it. (Pay no attention to what politicians say, only watch what they do.) And Gay marriage has now became the law of the land. Lot's of "movement" in a very short time.

Talking about the laws of the land. Why is it that so many liberal established laws are now passed in the scotus rather than congress. What good is Capitol Hill anyway?

Does that make me a conspiracy theorist? I was one of those after JFK got killed.

Your shopping cart needs an alignment. Let me recommend a good mechanic.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Why do they get behind people who insult the parents of war heroes just because of their ethnicity?

This highlights and magnifies all the complaints against Trump.

He has thin skin, and he speaks impulsively. That may work in business, behind closed doors, but not in politics with cameras rolling.

He should have got on camera immediately to praise this young Muslim soldier who died for his country. Then today people would not even know that Khizr Khan attacked Trump at the DNC.

[awareness]

This can't possibly be true. It's coming from a liberal site.

But bro Ohio mentioned morals and conscience and :

New Book Reveals Trump Is Actually Sleazier and Slimier Than We Ever Thought
“There is no moral core inside Donald Trump."
http://www.alternet.org/election-201...e-ever-thought

[awareness]

But Falwell Jr. thinks Trump is our present day Churchill.

From a Christian (conservative) news site:
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Jerr.../20/id/744424/

[Intothewind]

Is the lcm going to unofficialy back someone this year?

Previously I feel folks voted repub irregardless...despite the lcm claim to be apolitical

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Is the lcm going to unofficialy back someone this year?

Previously I feel folks voted repub irregardless...despite the lcm claim to be apolitical

When I was in the lcm political position was subtly very pubbie oriented. For example. when brothers discovered I subscribed to Newsweek, Time, and U.S. News & World Report, I was advised to only read U.S. News & World Report (a conservative news mag). And then, my open minded reading was such a concern that news of it was spread around to other brothers, who also talked -- I mean 'fellowshipped' -- to, "with," me about my selection of reading of "worldly" material.

I admit that, if you are a Christian it can be confusing. Afterall, God is a conservative, and Jesus is a liberal. Shouldn't Christians of the New Covenant therefore be liberal?

That's why I'm confused by evangelicals going for Trump ... not to mention that his whole life has been devoted to mammon.

Mat_6:24 "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." - Jesus

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

This can't possibly be true. It's coming from a liberal site.

But bro Ohio mentioned morals and conscience and :

New Book Reveals Trump Is Actually Sleazier and Slimier Than We Ever Thought
“There is no moral core inside Donald Trump."
http://www.alternet.org/election-201...e-ever-thought

Now where are those news articles about the scores of Trump's former associates that have suddenly and mysteriously died?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I admit that, if you are a Christian it can be confusing. Afterall, God is a conservative, and Jesus is a liberal. Shouldn't Christians of the New Covenant therefore be liberal?

That's hysterical!

You are one funny guy!

Now is the Holy Spirit an Independent?

Perhaps the angels are libertarians?

And Lucifer is in the communist party?

[Intothewind]

Besides, y'all love a man too

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Besides, y'all love a man too

Don't know what you're driving at, but, I hope we all love our biological father ... and he's a man.

[Intothewind]

Awareness: indeed.

I don't see why the legalization of gay marriage is such a big deal to conservative Christians. You're not of this world, why should you care how the govt. Defines marriage? If God doesn't see it as marriage...it should matter not what man calls it.

And then a surprising lack of concern for issues that should matter to all...the loss of a healthy middle class, policy on climate change, environmental regulations, and humanitarian causes. Perhaps God will fix those.

[Intothewind]

Awareness: indeed.

I don't see why the legalization of gay marriage is such a big deal to conservative Christians. You're not of this world, why should you care how the govt. Defines marriage? If God doesn't see it as marriage...it should matter not what man calls it.

Trump seems to be supportive of the lgbtq community. I wonder if that angers fundamentalists.

And then a surprising lack of concern for issues that should matter to all...the loss of a healthy middle class, policy on climate change, environmental regulations, and humanitarian causes. Perhaps God will fix those.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Awareness: indeed.

I don't see why the legalization of gay marriage is such a big deal to conservative Christians. You're not of this world, why should you care how the govt. Defines marriage? If God doesn't see it as marriage...it should matter not what man calls it.

Trump seems to be supportive of the lgbtq community. I wonder if that angers fundamentalists.

And then a surprising lack of concern for issues that should matter to all...the loss of a healthy middle class, policy on climate change, environmental regulations, and humanitarian causes. Perhaps God will fix those.

Conservative God-fearing Christians are very interested in moral issues, economic issues, climate issues, and social issues, humanitarian issues, being very concerned for the country we leave our children. We are not of this world, but does that mean we don't care about jobs, education, crime, etc. Your logic is upside down in my opinion.

For the most part, there is no fixing the serious issues of our day. For example, when the federal deficit was half its size we spent more time discussing it. Have you not noticed that things are deteriorating rather than improving. Racial tensions are higher than ever, yet statistics say the AA communities are worse off than ever. There is much emphasis today on lgbt "rights," but their demographics and social status are among the highest economically.

Time will tell whether the Bible or the wishful utopians are correct.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Time will tell whether the Bible or the wishful utopians are correct.

Like Thomas Jefferson said of believing in fantastical supernatural things : "It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket."

That's how I feel about all this gay "problem." Of course if we believe the Bible is supernatural then we know how it feels about homosexuality ; starting in Leviticus, the 3rd book of the Bible.

But Leviticus has lots of laws and commandments from God in it. How come Christians aren't up in arms about processing and eating pork, or lobster, or shrimp ... just to list a few. Not even Westboro Baptists are picketing and protesting against those. Talk about cherry picking laws from the Bible.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Like Thomas Jefferson said of believing in fantastical supernatural things : "It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket."

That's how I feel about all this gay "problem." Of course if we believe the Bible is supernatural then we know how it feels about homosexuality ; starting in Leviticus, the 3rd book of the Bible.

But Leviticus has lots of laws and commandments from God in it. How come Christians aren't up in arms about processing and eating pork, or lobster, or shrimp ... just to list a few. Not even Westboro Baptists are picketing and protesting against those. Talk about cherry picking laws from the Bible.

Do you really want an answer for this?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Do you really want an answer for this?

Yeah ... how come?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's how I feel about all this gay "problem." Of course if we believe the Bible is supernatural then we know how it feels about homosexuality ; starting in Leviticus, the 3rd book of the Bible.

But Leviticus has lots of laws and commandments from God in it. How come Christians aren't up in arms about processing and eating pork, or lobster, or shrimp ... just to list a few. Not even Westboro Baptists are picketing and protesting against those. Talk about cherry picking laws from the Bible.

Leviticus was written to Israel under the Old Covenant.

Leviticus was not written to the church under the New Covenant.

As a general rule, unless the New Covenant specifically instructs us to receive something from the Old Covenant, I do not follow its laws or ordinances.

Concerning the eating of pork et.al. Firstly, it is an old covenant regulation. Secondly, there is no new covenant instruction to abstain from pork. Thirdly, Peter in his trance was specifically instructed to eat all manner of foods. (Acts 10.9-16)

Concerning homosexuality. Firstly, it was an old covenant regulation. (Leviticus 18.22, 20.13) Secondly, there is a strong warning about this from the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Genesis 19) Amos 4.11 and numerous other verses repeat this warning to Israel. Thirdly, the New Testament reiterates this injunction. (Romans 1.26-27, I Timothy 1.10, I Cor. 6.9) The tragedy of Sodom and Gomorrah is also remembered in Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2.6.

This is why Christians do not view the eating of pork and homosexuality the same.

[Intothewind]

Paul, instructs to abstain from blood and strangled animals as well. I know plenty of LC folks who eat cubed blood...certainly many who eat meat that is not kosher. I think homosexuality, like evolution, just really hits deep on fundamental belief

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Concerning homosexuality. Firstly, it was an old covenant regulation. . . . Thirdly, the New Testament reiterates this injunction. (Romans 1.26-27, I Timothy 1.10, I Cor. 6.9) The tragedy of Sodom and Gomorrah is also remembered in Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2.6.

This is why Christians do not view the eating of pork and homosexuality the same.

Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

I won't go on. All I see from these gay obsessed Christians, besides closet gay indicators, is : More Cherry pickin'.

Besides whoremongers and menstealers (was Paul jealous) those verses include others, like whisperers. If whisperers can't make The Kingdom we're all in trouble.

My point is : Christians are all up in arms about gays, but don't protest, or speak out loudly (to say the least) against gossipers. Why, cuz if they reject gossipers there won't be in money in their coffers any more, and they won't have enough money to even buy vBulletin. They'd have to use Facebook. But then the only reason anyone would 'Friend' them would be to talk behind their backs. haha.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Concerning the eating of pork et.al. Firstly, it is an old covenant regulation. Secondly, there is no new covenant instruction to abstain from pork. Thirdly, Peter in his trance was specifically instructed to eat all manner of foods. (Acts 10.9-16)

And that dream of Peter?!? Thanks for pointing it out. I've always loved that story. Why? Because God pulls a switcheroo on Peter, and reveals He has different judgments than Peter got from the OT (if Peter could even read).

The ultimate moral of the story, besides inclusiveness of forbidden food is : We can't use the Bible to determine what God does, or doesn't do, or will do, in the future, or at the judgment seat.

For all we know, for reasons beyond us, God could give some gays a pass ... like He will surely do for the whisperers (unless He wants heaven to be empty -- He could do that too, btw).

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Here is a sample of the LCM teaching on politics and the church:




According to Nee the Bible teaches that it is wrong for a Christian to hold political office. So, professing Christians should not run for or hold public office or work for the government. The business of government should be left to unbelievers.

I worked for the State of Florida for 37 years. It never occurred to me that I was acting unchristian. How about that?

I think you are asking the wrong question, no doubt due to Nee having the wrong perspective.

The question I would ask is "should a person holding a political office be a professing Christian?" The NT says clearly that God desires all men to be saved and come to the full knowledge of Jesus Christ.

There is no NT teaching that people in government should not be Christians, or that Christians should not work in the government.

Instead there is the observation that not many of these people are professing Christians.

[Evangelical]

I tend to agree with Nee that Christians should stay out of politics. Perhaps it is possible to have some influence in a minor role but to get to the top almost requires one to sell their soul to the devil. The devil tempted Christ with such a thing.

There are Christian politicians but dig a little deeper into their faith and few would be serious Christians as most born again believers understand it. Most are simply church-goers and profess a religion.

There are also Christians in the military but serious Christians do not join the military in a combat role because bloodshed is something God does not like. It is a fact that the early Christians were pacifist in every sense of the word. A serious Christian is taught to love their neighbor and simply couldn't pull the trigger when required of them. A serious Christian could not easily subject themselves to be molded into the sort of killing machine and mindset that job requires. God will always be tugging at their heart-strings and conscience. Like King David prayed in Psalm 51:14 to be delivered from the guilt of bloodshed.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

I won't go on. All I see from these gay obsessed Christians, besides closet gay indicators, is : More Cherry pickin'.

Besides whoremongers and menstealers (was Paul jealous) those verses include others, like whisperers. If whisperers can't make The Kingdom we're all in trouble.

My point is : Christians are all up in arms about gays, but don't protest, or speak out loudly (to say the least) against gossipers. Why, cuz if they reject gossipers there won't be in money in their coffers any more, and they won't have enough money to even buy vBulletin. They'd have to use Facebook. But then the only reason anyone would 'Friend' them would be to talk behind their backs. haha.


And that dream of Peter?!? Thanks for pointing it out. I've always loved that story. Why? Because God pulls a switcheroo on Peter, and reveals He has different judgments than Peter got from the OT (if Peter could even read).

The ultimate moral of the story, besides inclusiveness of forbidden food is : We can't use the Bible to determine what God does, or doesn't do, or will do, in the future, or at the judgment seat.

For all we know, for reasons beyond us, God could give some gays a pass ... like He will surely do for the whisperers (unless He wants heaven to be empty -- He could do that too, btw).

Awareness, firstly, good to participate in this side of the discussion, as one who holds alternative views myself, I think I fit right in.

Secondly, on topic - Christians focus on gay marriage because it was gay marriage which was accepted, not gossip-approving laws, or murder-approving laws (actually, abortion could fit in this category).
You should be thankful for all the Christians who are against gay marriage. Basically, a Christian at home standing against gay marriage is doing greater service for their country than a soldier in Afghanistan. You know why? Because God is a bigger threat to America than terrorists will ever be. Just ask Sodom and Gomorrah. Those that try to prevent God's judgement are doing a greater service to their country. If you disagree with me, what's your reason? Don't believe in God? Don't fear God? Don't believe in God's judgement? Believe terrorists are more powerful than God? Am open to hear the real reason you think the issue of gay marriage is not that important.

Perhaps it is the perceived hypocrisy of Christians to obsess about gay marriage over other issues. Unlike gossip, the matter is important from a societal, family and generational viewpoint. There are good reasons for Christians to focus on it over other issues.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Awareness, firstly, good to participate in this side of the discussion, as one who holds alternative views myself, I think I fit right in.

Welcome. It's becoming apparent that you hold alternative views.

But maybe not on Sodom and Gomorrha and homosexuality.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You should be thankful for all the Christians who are against gay marriage. Basically, a Christian at home standing against gay marriage is doing greater service for their country than a soldier in Afghanistan. You know why? Because God is a bigger threat to America than terrorists will ever be. Just ask Sodom and Gomorrah.

Well I don't know that God judged Sodom and Gomorrah for homesexuality. Not according to Ezekiel anyway :

Eze 16:49 Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.
Eze 16:50 They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.


I take you saying Christians against gay marriage are doing America a service by trying to hold back God's judgment, as He did to S & G. But Ezekiel explains the reason for His judgment was for : "pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty... "

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Eze 16:49 Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.
Eze 16:50 They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.


I take you saying Christians against gay marriage are doing America a service by trying to hold back God's judgment, as He did to S & G. But Ezekiel explains the reason for His judgment was for : "pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty... "

Ah yes, the curse of excess food. We know this well in the US.

Perhaps the obesity epidemic in this country is the strongest evidence that the US is Sodom? What say ye Evangelical?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Ah yes, the curse of excess food. We know this well in the US.

Perhaps the obesity epidemic in this country is the strongest evidence that the US is Sodom? What say ye Evangelical?

Sometimes you come up with the freshest ideas. I didn't connect those dots. So, if so, then America is not earning God's judgment for gay marriage, but for McDonald's, and the other fast food joints ; too much food ; and it's the sin of gluttony. Apparently then, God hates obesity more than homosexuality.

Just wondering, based upon Ezekiel.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Sometimes you come up with the freshest ideas. I didn't connect those dots. So, if so, then America is not earning God's judgment for gay marriage, but for McDonald's, and the other fast food joints ; too much food ; and it's the sin of gluttony. Apparently then, God hates obesity more than homosexuality.

Just wondering, based upon Ezekiel.

Hey, if I was God I would judge us for McDonald's and also for those huge drinks at 7/11.

I think the credit should be given to Evangelical on this one.

I think Abraham asked God to not destroy it "if you can find 10 people that aren't obese"

[zeek]

An obesist interpretation of Ezekiel.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Welcome. It's becoming apparent that you hold alternative views.

But maybe not on Sodom and Gomorrha and homosexuality.



Well I don't know that God judged Sodom and Gomorrah for homesexuality. Not according to Ezekiel anyway :

Eze 16:49 Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.
Eze 16:50 They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.


I take you saying Christians against gay marriage are doing America a service by trying to hold back God's judgment, as He did to S & G. But Ezekiel explains the reason for His judgment was for : "pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty... "

awareness,

we have to read Jude 1:7 which makes clear the connection with homosexuality.

The pride, excess of food (obesity), ease, and not aiding the poor and needy, is also an important issue. Christians have always tried to address these issues as well.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

awareness,

we have to read Jude 1:7 which makes clear the connection with homosexuality.

The pride, excess of food (obesity), ease, and not aiding the poor and needy, is also an important issue. Christians have always tried to address these issues as well.

But think of how practical this is. People can hide the fact that they are homosexuals, that would make it hard to persecute them. But you can't hide it if you are obese. Also obese people are slower and can't run away as fast. It is much easier to identify them and then persecute them once you have identified them.

Think of this as the hunger games interpretation of the Bible. Which of course is always best for those who live in the capital, the ones on the proper ground.

[Please do not quote out of context. This is the "twilight zone" of this forum, where calling down hellfire on 350 million people is described as "evangelical"]

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

awareness,

we have to read Jude 1:7 which makes clear the connection with homosexuality.

The pride, excess of food (obesity), ease, and not aiding the poor and needy, is also an important issue. Christians have always tried to address these issues as well.

Not surprisingly Ezekiel and Jude, different people who wrote at different times, interpret the story of Lot in different ways and arrive at different conclusions.

[zeek]

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...p.html?start=1

Here is an evangelical view that at least makes some moral sense as opposed to much of what I'm hearing from the Religious Right.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But think of how practical this is. People can hide the fact that they are homosexuals, that would make it hard to persecute them. But you can't hide it if you are obese. Also obese people are slower and can't run away as fast. It is much easier to identify them and then persecute them once you have identified them.

Think of this as the hunger games interpretation of the Bible. Which of course is always best for those who live in the capital, the ones on the proper ground.

[Please do not quote out of context. This is the "twilight zone" of this forum, where calling down hellfire on 350 million people is described as "evangelical"]

ZNPaaneah, the gospel is about preventing God's spiritual judgement. Christians standing up for marriage are about preventing God's temporal judgement as well.
Americans are perhaps worried about the nuclear weapons other countries might have pointed at them. They don't consider whether God has a "nuclear weapon" pointing at them as well (Psalm 64:7).
A thinking and rational person would consider God's judgement to be worse than a nuclear weapon.

So America has two plausible reasons for not addressing this matter, either:
1) God doesn't exist
2) God doesn't care and won't judge

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

Not surprisingly Ezekiel and Jude, different people who wrote at different times, interpret the story of Lot in different ways and arrive at different conclusions.

How about this. If you can tell, what is the least negative thing you can find about Sodom and Gomorrah. Let us assume that this least negative thing is the basis upon which God destroyed it. On that basis we can see how America compares. If it's obesity, well sorry, but God will judge America for obesity.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Hey, if I was God I would judge us for McDonald's and also for those huge drinks at 7/11.

I think the credit should be given to Evangelical on this one.

I think Abraham asked God to not destroy it "if you can find 10 people that aren't obese"

lol ... but as far as Evangelical getting this one : I'll decide that. I'm behind, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until I get caught up.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Hey, if I was God I would judge us for McDonald's and also for those huge drinks at 7/11.

I think the credit should be given to Evangelical on this one.

I think Abraham asked God to not destroy it "if you can find 10 people that aren't obese"

Americans should be fearful of all the healthy vegetables God might rain down in vengeance. Luckily for America, God is not vegan, you might get quails.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

awareness,

we have to read Jude 1:7 which makes clear the connection with homosexuality.

The pride, excess of food (obesity), ease, and not aiding the poor and needy, is also an important issue. Christians have always tried to address these issues as well.

Good point about Jude 1:7. But finished the context and there are many more "disposables." We don't see the Westboro Baptist types protesting them ; just the gays.

And what about that "eternal fire" that S & G were subject to? Is the eternal fire of hell the same eternal fire, which wasn't eternal for S & G, except for the ashes?

The eternal fire of hell, commonly taught, also doesn't bode well for a Good God. That's a really, really, big everlasting POE.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Good point about Jude 1:7. But finished the context and there are many more "disposables." We don't see the Westboro Baptist types protesting them ; just the gays.

And what about that "eternal fire" that S & G were subject to? Is the eternal fire of hell the same eternal fire, which wasn't eternal for S & G, except for the ashes?

The eternal fire of hell, commonly taught, also doesn't bode well for a Good God. That's a really, really, big everlasting POE.

Yes there are more, so makes homosexuality OK does it? It was also gang rape and other things.

Hell is not evil, it's where evil people end up. God is in hell, and not affected by it. If God were good or evil like us, he would be affected by it. But since he is God, he transcends hell.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Americans should be fearful of all the healthy vegetables God might rain down in vengeance. Luckily for America, God is not vegan, you might get quails.

"Luckily"? If I recall they complained about the vegan diet of manna, got quails and then died with the quail meat still stuck between their teeth.

I don't think you are taking this seriously. Gluttony is every bit as big a sin. It qualifies for God's wrathful judgement based on Ezekiel. The fact that these fat, obese people with excess food in Sodom were not taking care of the poor is evidence that they were not righteous (hence the whole reason for God's judgement, He couldn't find 10 righteous people).

We have plenty of vain religious fanatics out there screaming about homosexuals, nothing original here, you are just a poser. But, if you were to start a ministry against the obese, calling for hellfire on them, now that would be original.

Let's be fair, you think that the US is Sodom and deserves a fiery judgement from heaven to fall on it. What better proof than the well documented increase in obesity. You have your calling!

Not the same gospel that I preach, it is another gospel, and it will be difficult to find hellfire verses from Jesus to back you up, you may need another Jesus too, but you obviously are marching to a different drummer.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

"Luckily"? If I recall they complained about the vegan diet of manna, got quails and then died with the quail meat still stuck between their teeth.

I don't think you are taking this seriously. Gluttony is every bit as big a sin. It qualifies for God's wrathful judgement based on Ezekiel. The fact that these fat, obese people with excess food in Sodom were not taking care of the poor is evidence that they were not righteous (hence the whole reason for God's judgement, He couldn't find 10 righteous people).

We have plenty of vain religious fanatics out there screaming about homosexuals, nothing original here, you are just a poser. But, if you were to start a ministry against the obese, calling for hellfire on them, now that would be original.

Let's be fair, you think that the US is Sodom and deserves a fiery judgement from heaven to fall on it. What better proof than the well documented increase in obesity. You have your calling!

Not the same gospel that I preach, it is another gospel, and it will be difficult to find hellfire verses from Jesus to back you up, you may need another Jesus too, but you obviously are marching to a different drummer.

Then you believe in option 2) God doesn't care and won't judge. Dangerous position to hold, considering what the book of Revelation reveals is coming next. Let me guess, your version of Jesus has long hair, blue eyes, rides a white unicorn and is surrounded by a rainbow.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Not surprisingly Ezekiel and Jude, different people who wrote at different times, interpret the story of Lot in different ways and arrive at different conclusions.

The Bible likes to keep us guessing. Question??? Does the Bible solve the POE?

One of the most beloved (to LCDers) leading critical Bible scholars tackled that question in his book "God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer," and came up with bupkis, as the title indicates. (a good book by the way).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

The Bible likes to keep us guessing. Question??? Does the Bible solve the POE?

One of the most beloved (to LCDers) leading critical Bible scholars tackled that question in his book "God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer," and came up with bupkis, as the title indicates. (a good book by the way).

Bupkis? Just yesterday I was out in the yard cleaning that all up.

Sounds just like Bart to write a book about that.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How about this. If you can tell, what is the least negative thing you can find about Sodom and Gomorrah. Let us assume that this least negative thing is the basis upon which God destroyed it. On that basis we can see how America compares. If it's obesity, well sorry, but God will judge America for obesity.

God doesn't seem to be in the same judging mood that He was in in the Bible. I think perchance God has evolved, or something. That seems true in the gospels, but not in the book of Revelation, where He goes back to the same old meany He was in the Old Testament ... producing more evil.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Bupkis? Just yesterday I was out in the yard cleaning that all up.

Sounds just like Bart to write a book about that.

lol ... I see you're in form this morning. Cute return. I know you just love Professor Bart Ehrman.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Then you believe in option 2) God doesn't care and won't judge. Dangerous position to hold, considering what the book of Revelation reveals is coming next. Let me guess, your version of Jesus has long hair, blue eyes, rides a white unicorn and is surrounded by a rainbow.

No, I believe in the option that the gospel preaches. You must have been absent that day so I'll summarize.

1. God, in His righteous judgement condemns all under sin and because they have come short of the glory of God.

2. However, to save us He sent His son who is the glory of the invisible God and was fully righteous.

3. Jesus, like the passover lamb, was thoroughly examined and then crucified for our sins.

4. We receive His redemptive work by faith. This doesn't mean we are righteous in ourselves, but in Jesus we are righteous and when God looks at us we are covered with the blood of Christ. This is what protects us from His judgement.

5. But, there is more. The Spirit is working in us, He is giving us a new heart, and taking away that stony heart. As a result, we are being transformed into the Image and likeness of God from glory to glory. This process could lead to us being fully matured.

6. But there is more, God will still judge unrighteousness and sin. He is not going to judge the world at the hands of the Christians, no we do not have to deal with that nasty business, instead He'll send his angels to gather those ones.

7. No, the Christians get a much nicer job, we get to preach this good news to the world. And there is a great reward for every sinner that you turn to God, you cover a multitude of sins and the angels rejoice. Whoopee!

8. And there is more. When you appear before the Lord's judgement seat, and you will appear, all those people you preached the gospel to and helped in one way or another, they can be witnesses. Think how happy you'll be then?!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

God doesn't seem to be in the same judging mood that He was in in the Bible. I think perchance God has evolved, or something. That seems true in the gospels, but not in the book of Revelation, where He goes back to the same old meany He was in the Old Testament ... producing more evil.

That's right, it's called the age of grace what we are in currently.

[zeek]

Your experience in Witness Lee's cult could be your key to understanding the attraction of Donald Trump. http://www.gq.com/story/the-cult-of-trump

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Your experience in Witness Lee's cult could be your key to understanding the attraction of Donald Trump. http://www.gq.com/story/the-cult-of-trump

It is my time spent seeking the kingdom of God and His righteousness, that gives me such an aversion to the Liberal Clinton Cult of Corrupt Criminals.

http://lidblog.com/the-cult-of-liber...sotu-is-proof/


http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/even...ton-foundation

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Your experience in Witness Lee's cult could be your key to understanding the attraction of Donald Trump. http://www.gq.com/story/the-cult-of-trump

If you vote for someone you know to be a crook you are no longer a dupe, you are an accomplice.

6 months ago you could claim ignorance about Clinton (Hillary) saying only it has the appearance of evil but without the proof in front of me I don't want to jump to conclusions.

There is no doubt anymore. She is a crook. That is clearly the main appeal of Donald Trump is that Clinton is a crook.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If you vote for someone you know to be a crook you are no longer a dupe, you are an accomplice.

6 months ago you could claim ignorance about Clinton (Hillary) saying only it has the appearance of evil but without the proof in front of me I don't want to jump to conclusions.

There is no doubt anymore. She is a crook. That is clearly the main appeal of Donald Trump is that Clinton is a crook.

So you are going to vote to put the female genital-grabbing con man in the White House? How do you reconcile that with your professed Christianity? If elected, he will have access to the nuclear codes? He obviously has poor impulse control. The man is a psychopath. How can you look at his business dealings and not conclude that he is a crook? The so-called "Trump University" was obviously a scam. In my judgment, Clinton is the lesser of two evils which is the political system has offered us.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

So you are going to vote to put the female genital-grabbing con man in the White House? How do you reconcile that with your professed Christianity? If elected, he will have access to the nuclear codes? He obviously has poor impulse control. The man is a psychopath. How can you look at his business dealings and not conclude that he is a crook? The so-called "Trump University" was obviously a scam. In my judgment, Clinton is the lesser of two evils which is the political system has offered us.

Why would you assume that?

There are 4 candidates. I ruled out Trump a long time ago.

When you vote you give credibility to the winner. I am not going to give credibility to either one of those candidates.

I haven't decided between the other two.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why would you assume that?
There are 4 candidates. I ruled out Trump a long time ago.
When you vote you give credibility to the winner. I am not going to give credibility to either one of those candidates.

I haven't decided between the other two.

I haven't decided on any of the four. They all look pretty bad to me. Is this the real world, or am I having a nightmare? America the greatest nation in the world? Don't make me laugh. We can't even find any good leaders.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

So you are going to vote to put the female genital-grabbing con man in the White House? How do you reconcile that with your professed Christianity? If elected, he will have access to the nuclear codes? He obviously has poor impulse control. The man is a psychopath. How can you look at his business dealings and not conclude that he is a crook? The so-called "Trump University" was obviously a scam. In my judgment, Clinton is the lesser of two evils which is the political system has offered us.

Hillary can't even get security clearance as an entry-level government clerk, and you want to give her nuclear codes.

Nobody has died a suspicious death at the hands of Trump, yet the body count of the Liberal Clinton Cult of Corrupt Criminals constantly grows.

I guess in your book gropers and thieves are worse than murderers and traitors.

Psychopathy: sometimes also known as sociopathy, is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, egotistical traits.

Sounds like Bill Clinton.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why would you assume that?

There are 4 candidates. I ruled out Trump a long time ago.

When you vote you give credibility to the winner. I am not going to give credibility to either one of those candidates.

I haven't decided between the other two.

OK. Sorry I jumped to that conclusion. Only Trump or Clinton have a realistic chance of winning. There are a bunch of other candidates to choose from besides the four. You might want to look into that. I am primarily motivated to stop Trump who I consider the worst presidential candidate of a major party I have seen in my life time.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I haven't decided on any of the four. They all look pretty bad to me. Is this the real world, or am I having a nightmare? America the greatest nation in the world? Don't make me laugh. We can't even find any good leaders.

We can find lots of good leaders, but the people chose these two. Not actually though, because the DNC is so corrupt, Bernie never had a chance. Then Frizilla Debbie W-S already got a cushy job with the Clintonistas. Total corruption.

That loud-mouthed, egotistical, businessman looks like the least of all evils.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Psychopathy: sometimes also known as sociopathy, is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, egotistical traits.

Sounds like Bill Clinton.

It's a matter of degrees. Trump far surpasses Bill Clinton on the psychopathology scale.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

It's a matter of degrees. Trump far surpasses Bill Clinton on the psychopathology scale.

Doubtful, but hey, ole Bill is a liberal, so you give him a free pass.

How many women have already come forth claiming Bill raped, molested, or seduced them.

Where was Hillary, the champion of women, when we needed her?

[Lisbon]

Originally Posted by Ohio

How does picking a "sinner" for President conflict with the kingdom of God? Have you ever read history?

I have yet to see Trump accused of perjury, dozens of murders, slandering her husband's rape victims, theft, corruption, treason, etc. The numerous crimes of the Clintons' have filled the internet for decades, yet she will sweet talk her constituents day in and day out, and their Attorney General will always be there to protect them. She has never accomplished anything for the American people, yet she is the "experienced" candidate.

For me the contest is between the egotistical "schoolyard bully" and the "puppet candidate for a syndicated crime family." Sure Trump likes to intimidate and mock his detractors, but do you prefer to be "sweet-talked" as you are knifed in the back? The Clintons' make the Godfather look like a Catholic priest.

Just the other night I again heard how the church has been "sleeping" for 8 years, and needs to "wake up and support Trump." That kind of talk is just as pathetic to me. It's so easy for some Christians to criticize the church of God because they are not doing what we like! Both sides of the argument make me sick.

The church has been asleep for fifty year and until there is wholesale repentance there is little hope. My minister has been hinting at this several times lately and for my part I heartedly agree. I'm not talking about you but talking about me.
Lisbon

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Just the other night I again heard how the church has been "sleeping" for 8 years, and needs to "wake up and support Trump." That kind of talk is just as pathetic to me. It's so easy for some Christians to criticize the church of God because they are not doing what we like! Both sides of the argument make me sick.

Originally Posted by Lisbon

The church has been asleep for fifty year and until there is wholesale repentance there is little hope. My minister has been hinting at this several times lately and for my part I heartedly agree. I'm not talking about you but talking about me.
Lisbon

Lisbon, I am not convinced that the condition of the church determines the quality of President.

This thought comes from the O.T. It only applied to Israel.

Look at the 1st century church, from the time of Jesus' ministry until the Apostles all died. Ruthless Caesars were in power. During the time of Paul's ministry to the Gentiles, from Asia to Greece to Rome, possibly the worst Caesar of all ruled, named Nero.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Doubtful, but hey, ole Bill is a liberal, so you give him a free pass.

How many women have already come forth claiming Bill raped, molested, or seduced them.

Where was Hillary, the champion of women, when we needed her?

Actually I voted for Ralph Nader in '96. But I haven't noticed that you're a guy who let's facts get in the way of your prejudices
Everyone has flaws including the candidates of the two major parties. In my judgement Trump's character flaws are worse than Hillary's. Evangelical Christians were so shocked at Bill Clinton's extramarital sexual activities but many seem to have no problem with Trump's nonconsensual pussy grabbing. What's up with that?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Actually I voted for Ralph Nader in '96. But I haven't noticed that you're a guy who let's facts get in the way of your prejudices
Everyone has flaws including the candidates of the two major parties. In my judgement Trump's character flaws are worse than Hillary's. Evangelical Christians were so shocked at Bill Clinton's extramarital sexual activities but many seem to have no problem with Trump's nonconsensual pussy grabbing. What's up with that?

I'm more offended by your language.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Doubtful, but hey, ole Bill is a liberal, so you give him a free pass.

Being buddies with Bill so is Trump a liberal ... in republican clothing.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm more offended by your language.

I was just quoting your guy Trump. Yet for some reason his sexual assaults don't offend you. Is it because he's a star and therefore he can do "anything" like he said?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Actually I voted for Ralph Nader in '96. But I haven't noticed that you're a guy who let's facts get in the way of your prejudices
Everyone has flaws including the candidates of the two major parties. In my judgement Trump's character flaws are worse than Hillary's. Evangelical Christians were so shocked at Bill Clinton's extramarital sexual activities but many seem to have no problem with Trump's nonconsensual pussy grabbing. What's up with that?

Originally Posted by zeek

I was just quoting your guy Trump. Yet for some reason his sexual assaults don't offend you. Is it because he's a star and therefore he can do "anything" like he said?

He's not my guy. He's not a star to me.

You know so little, yet are so judgmental, of any evangelical Christians.

You offend me at least as much as Trump does.

It continually amazes me how naive you are. Must be that diet of liberalism has made you a little sick. Careful with that pink Kool-aid Hillary serves you.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

OK. Sorry I jumped to that conclusion. Only Trump or Clinton have a realistic chance of winning. There are a bunch of other candidates to choose from besides the four. You might want to look into that. I am primarily motivated to stop Trump who I consider the worst presidential candidate of a major party I have seen in my life time.

Many considered Teddy Roosevelt to be the most dangerous, which is why they wanted him to be VP, seemingly a safe place to put him.

I am not going to give either one of them my vote. They may get elected, but not with my vote. If they are as bad as they appear then this is the beginning of the imperative to bring in significant reform to our political process.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

It's a matter of degrees. Trump far surpasses Bill Clinton on the psychopathology scale.

Is this seriously how we are going to choose a president, using a psychopathy scale?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Actually I voted for Ralph Nader in '96. But I haven't noticed that you're a guy who let's facts get in the way of your prejudices
Everyone has flaws including the candidates of the two major parties. In my judgement Trump's character flaws are worse than Hillary's. Evangelical Christians were so shocked at Bill Clinton's extramarital sexual activities but many seem to have no problem with Trump's nonconsensual pussy grabbing. What's up with that?

People have been told that they have to vote for one of these two and if they don't they are being irresponsible, etc.

If you subscribe to that then choosing to vote for one or the other may merely be that you have decided they are the "lesser of two evils".

I don't subscribe to that. I feel if you vote for someone then you are responsible for them.

If I don't vote for Trump or Clinton then I am not responsible for either one being elected. Instead the corporations that wheeled them out will be wholly responsible. The fewer that vote for either one the clearer this will be.

Catastrophes of administration lead to reform, revolt, or even revolution. These candidates were given to us by the corporations, they should be held accountable for the outcome.

[OBW]

My take is that one of the two majors will win (Hillary or Donald). But being from Texas where it is all but presumed that The Donald will win, to make a protest vote means voting for anyone else stands as a protest. I want the Republican Party to hear the displeasure that there is not more substantial oversight of who can run as president. I hope that Donald's margin is so slim that they take note. I am even willing to put up with whatever comes if too many protest. Even throwing the election to Congress.

And there are reasons that neither Hillary nor Donald are fit to be president. I hear of some small-time politician from either Utah or Nevada that could actually take Utah, and has been put on the ballot in many states plus is available as a pre-defined write-in in several more. I just might put my vote there. I have also heard that there were some open remarks by some to write-in Pence rather than vote for Donald.

We've had too many good reasons to disrespect our presidents for a significant part of the past 25 years. I can hope that the next 4 to 8 years will not be more of the same.

But as that great philosopher, Mick Jagger, once sang, "You can't always get what you want."

I just hope that we try hard enough that we actually get what we need.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

My take is that one of the two majors will win (Hillary or Donald). But being from Texas where it is all but presumed that The Donald will win, to make a protest vote means voting for anyone else stands as a protest. I want the Republican Party to hear the displeasure that there is not more substantial oversight of who can run as president. I hope that Donald's margin is so slim that they take note. I am even willing to put up with whatever comes if too many protest. Even throwing the election to Congress.

And there are reasons that neither Hillary nor Donald are fit to be president. I hear of some small-time politician from either Utah or Nevada that could actually take Utah, and has been put on the ballot in many states plus is available as a pre-defined write-in in several more. I just might put my vote there. I have also heard that there were some open remarks by some to write-in Pence rather than vote for Donald.

We've had too many good reasons to disrespect our presidents for a significant part of the past 25 years. I can hope that the next 4 to 8 years will not be more of the same.

But as that great philosopher, Mick Jagger, once sang, "You can't always get what you want."

I just hope that we try hard enough that we actually get what we need.

Sounds like the making of a political ad, or maybe even could be a great documentary.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It continually amazes me how naive you are.

I know. And you're so worldly wise. Tell me again, how many years did you spend in the Local Church?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Many considered Teddy Roosevelt to be the most dangerous, which is why they wanted him to be VP, seemingly a safe place to put him.

You're comparing TR to Trump? Sorry, I ain't buying that.

I am not going to give either one of them my vote. They may get elected, but not with my vote. If they are as bad as they appear then this is the beginning of the imperative to bring in significant reform to our political process.

I agree. Hopefully it's not too late. Regardless which of these candidates is elected the system is broken, the country is divided and we're in for some hard times.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Is this seriously how we are going to choose a president, using a psychopathy scale?

It's a factor in this election. Ignore it at your peril. If I had been thinking about the psychopathy back in 1973 I might have avoided Witness Lee's cult. Psychopathic narcissists like Trump are so fascinating and charismatic. They get away with stuff that other people can't. Like Trump said he could shoot somebody on 5th avenue and his followers wouldn't care. People feel empowered by following them. You've been there, you know what it's like.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

People have been told that they have to vote for one of these two and if they don't they are being irresponsible, etc.

If you subscribe to that then choosing to vote for one or the other may merely be that you have decided they are the "lesser of two evils".

I don't subscribe to that. I feel if you vote for someone then you are responsible for them.

If I don't vote for Trump or Clinton then I am not responsible for either one being elected. Instead the corporations that wheeled them out will be wholly responsible. The fewer that vote for either one the clearer this will be.

Catastrophes of administration lead to reform, revolt, or even revolution. These candidates were given to us by the corporations, they should be held accountable for the outcome.

I respect that. You'll be able to hold your head up high when the **** goes down. But, my passion is to stop Trump. I hate bullies.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

You're comparing TR to Trump? Sorry, I ain't buying that.

No, I'm not buying that either. A man of shining character vs a Cad.

No, I am comparing the people who were worried about TR with the people worried about Trump. My point is not that you shouldn't be worried about TR, my point is how difficult this is when you are in the midst of it. No doubt 5 years from now whatever the outcome everyone will have 20/20 vision.

Originally Posted by zeek

I agree. Hopefully it's not too late. Regardless which of these candidates is elected the system is broken, the country is divided and we're in for some hard times.

The system was breaking at the time of TR. We need to stand up. Something a la my dominionist doctrine.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

It's a factor in this election. Ignore it at your peril. If I had been thinking about the psychopathy back in 1973 I might have avoided Witness Lee's cult. Psychopathic narcissists like Trump are so fascinating and charismatic. They get away with stuff that other people can't. Like Trump said he could shoot somebody on 5th avenue and his followers wouldn't care. People feel empowered by following them. You've been there, you know what it's like.

Reminds me of the psychopathy checklist they gave to Corporations. When you are operating on a money first motivation that is the recipe for a psychopath.

The corporations have bought the political process. Not voting is one way to discredit this process.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

People have been told that they have to vote for one of these two and if they don't they are being irresponsible, etc.

If you subscribe to that then choosing to vote for one or the other may merely be that you have decided they are the "lesser of two evils".

I don't subscribe to that. I feel if you vote for someone then you are responsible for them.

If I don't vote for Trump or Clinton then I am not responsible for either one being elected. Instead the corporations that wheeled them out will be wholly responsible. The fewer that vote for either one the clearer this will be.

Catastrophes of administration lead to reform, revolt, or even revolution. These candidates were given to us by the corporations, they should be held accountable for the outcome.

If you could have prevented evil and didn't (by not voting) can you say you are not responsible? I think the system is designed so that if you don't vote for someone, then you are responsible for them. But that would only be true if the result depended entirely upon your one measly vote.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lisbon, I am not convinced that the condition of the church determines the quality of President.

This thought comes from the O.T. It only applied to Israel.

Look at the 1st century church, from the time of Jesus' ministry until the Apostles all died. Ruthless Caesars were in power. During the time of Paul's ministry to the Gentiles, from Asia to Greece to Rome, possibly the worst Caesar of all ruled, named Nero.

I think the condition of the church determines the quality of the country. Light on a hill, salt on the Earth etc etc. More so for the USA, because of the Puritan dream, the righteous cause of the land of the free, bringing just freedom and the gospel to all of the countries it invades, oops I mean helps.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I respect that. You'll be able to hold your head up high when the **** goes down. But, my passion is to stop Trump. I hate bullies.

Reminded of the contrast between TR and LBJ. TR talked about "walking softly but carrying a big stick". One beloved story was when he was in the Badlands. He went into a bar late one night, and was confronted with a bully, holding two pistols in his hands and threatening TR (who wore glasses), bullying him into paying for a round for the whole bar. TR said "if I must then I guess I must", stood up and knocked the bully out. As he hit the ground he fired off a couple of rounds. He then took the guns away from him.

Compare that with LBJ. Students at college knew him and said he would act very tough, threatening and bullying. But when confronted he literally jumped on his bed with his legs out kicking and screaming. He was an incredible coward.

My feeling is this: if Clinton is elected things will continue as they are. Taxes will not go up very much, National debt will not skyrocket, ISIS and the relations with Russia will get worse. Obamacare will also be a catastrophe. Behind the scenes corruption will go wild as the election will be seen as carte blanche.

If Trump is elected it will be an international humiliation with someone who is a jerk, insulting very many people, tweeting at 3 am, being played like a fiddle by the Russians and Chinese. A giant boondoggle will be started as he builds the wall he has promised. There will be new tax dodges created to help Trump get another 20 years of tax free living. He will renegotiate many treaties and I have no idea if that will be a total catastrophe or if he can actually get a better treaty, I would say it will be a crap shoot. This is a guy who focuses on golf courses, casinos and fancy resorts. Best case scenario the entire line that he doesn't have the temperament to be the one with the finger on the nuclear button will have merely been worrying in vain.

But either way I think the ultimate goal is to reform the political process. TR was one of the first to warn about the dangers of corporate trusts, collusion, and their involvement in the political process. At the time many felt that business interests naturally align with political interests so it was fine for the two to be closely allied. If Trump is elected I think the movement towards reform will be much greater. If Clinton is, it is more like termites eating out the foundation of the house. We might not really notice that much until our foot goes through the floorboards.

It was LBJ that completely and totally sold his soul. Today we associate LBJ with civil rights reform, but at the time of his being chosen to be VP you couldn't pin him down to any particular policies. He didn't stand for anything except winning elections.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If you could have prevented evil and didn't (by not voting) can you say you are not responsible? I think the system is designed so that if you don't vote for someone, then you are responsible for them. But that would only be true if the result depended entirely upon your one measly vote.

The corporations place two equally bad candidates in front of you and then tell you that you have to vote for one. Why do they care?

Because if you do not vote there will be no legitimacy. You give them legitimacy when you vote.

I feel I don't have to vote for this one or that one. If one is a crook I can decide that this is sufficient for me not to vote for them. If the other is unstable that is a valid reason to not want them to be President.

Any responsibility I bear is from not taking a more active role in the process prior to this point. I agree with the old saw that when you discover you have dug yourself into a pit the best thing to do is to stop digging.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

But, my passion is to stop Trump. I hate bullies.

You are an internet bully who is promoting Hillary.

I hate hypocrites.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think the condition of the church determines the quality of the country. Light on a hill, salt on the Earth etc etc. More so for the USA, because of the Puritan dream, the righteous cause of the land of the free, bringing just freedom and the gospel to all of the countries it invades, oops I mean helps.

Look at all those churches in the first century -- they supposedly all had the right name -- did they determine the quality of their country?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You are an internet bully who is promoting Hillary

That's funny.

I hate hypocrites.

That explains your self-loathing.

[TLFisher]

I have my own view on politics and the church. Liberals that defend and cover over Obama and Hillary are very much like the Blended brothers. "Cover the brothers" they say. Much more there is endless character traits that made me wonder, did Obama learn all this from the blendeds?
I do know among the localities there are opinions whether one supports the liberal views or the conservative views. However when it comes to having an opinion regarding criticism against WL and the Blendeds, they will say "I don't know. I wasn't involved in those conversations" or "I'll leave it to the judgment seat". In those context by itself, I say okay, but if in the next word there's a political opinion, you can't have it both ways.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

I have my own view on politics and the church. Liberals that defend and cover over Obama and Hillary are very much like the Blended brothers. "Cover the brothers" they say. Much more there is endless character traits that made me wonder, did Obama learn all this from the blendeds?
I do know among the localities there are opinions whether one supports the liberal views or the conservative views. However when it comes to having an opinion regarding criticism against WL and the Blendeds, they will say "I don't know. I wasn't involved in those conversations" or "I'll leave it to the judgment seat". In those context by itself, I say okay, but if in the next word there's a political opinion, you can't have it both ways.

Yes, I just listened to Clinton's latest attack. Her point is that Trump's attitude towards women in deplorable and should disqualify him. Which makes me wonder about her relationship with Bill and her closest aids relationship with Weiner. Obama claims that Trump is not qualified and that Clinton does have the credentials. Reminds me of LBJ, plenty of credentials without having accomplished anything of note.

It cuts both ways. I have no issue with those who disqualify Trump for his character, but then they should also disqualify Clinton.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, I just listened to Clinton's latest attack. Her point is that Trump's attitude towards women in deplorable and should disqualify him. Which makes me wonder about her relationship with Bill and her closest aids relationship with Weiner. Obama claims that Trump is not qualified and that Clinton does have the credentials. Reminds me of LBJ, plenty of credentials without having accomplished anything of note.

It cuts both ways. I have no issue with those who disqualify Trump for his character, but then they should also disqualify Clinton.

What will happen when Clinton gets elected, and now that Comey has reopened the FBI investigation, there is no way they can shovel all this evidence under the rug. Evidence demands a verdict, or at least a grand jury investigation, which most assuredly will recommend Hillary be indicted.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Look at all those churches in the first century -- they supposedly all had the right name -- did they determine the quality of their country?

Perhaps. I could reference Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible, and God considering the number of righteous people there. That's what i mean by salt and light. If a country has more salt and light, I cannot see how that cannot affect the country. And what about the large revivals of old which changed whole cities.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, I just listened to Clinton's latest attack. Her point is that Trump's attitude towards women in deplorable and should disqualify him. Which makes me wonder about her relationship with Bill and her closest aids relationship with Weiner. Obama claims that Trump is not qualified and that Clinton does have the credentials. Reminds me of LBJ, plenty of credentials without having accomplished anything of note.

It cuts both ways. I have no issue with those who disqualify Trump for his character, but then they should also disqualify Clinton.

Trump is running for one of the most important jobs in the world. The election process is a kind of "job interview". If any regular employee said what he said they would be fired from their job. That is the difference between Trump and Hillary, they both may have bad character, but Hillary knows how to keep it hidden and act like a President when she is going for the top job.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What will happen when Clinton gets elected, and now that Comey has reopened the FBI investigation, there is no way they can shovel all this evidence under the rug. Evidence demands a verdict, or at least a grand jury investigation, which most assuredly will recommend Hillary be indicted.

If she is convicted the VP takes over. I suppose if someone were voting for Hillary they should decide they like her VP choice to run the country while she serves out her sentence.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Perhaps. I could reference Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible, and God considering the number of righteous people there. That's what i mean by salt and light. If a country has more salt and light, I cannot see how that cannot affect the country. And what about the large revivals of old which changed whole cities.

Whoa! are you saying because of Trump's indiscretions, and Bill Clintons criminal behavior, and Weiner's perverted behavior, and the close connection to the Bush family in all of this mess that our government is similar to Sodom and Gomorrah?!!?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Trump is running for one of the most important jobs in the world. The election process is a kind of "job interview". If any regular employee said what he said they would be fired from their job. That is the difference between Trump and Hillary, they both may have bad character, but Hillary knows how to keep it hidden and act like a President when she is going for the top job.

I think Hillary has given me excellent reasons why I shouldn't vote for Trump. I think that Trump has given me excellent reasons why I shouldn't vote for Clinton.

I think that Clinton thought she could keep it hidden, keep the FBI silent, make sure the DNC rigged the whole thing and keep CNN in her corner. It is just those pesky emails, like a million little ants, and this horrible Russian controlled Wikileaks telling us the truth. How weird is this that the Russians are now the ones speaking the truth. And since when does the FBI ignore politics to run a criminal investigation, and what is the point of bribing the head of the Justice dept if she can't even keep the FBI on a leash?

Clinton has the resume, but she clearly can't do anything right.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Whoa! are you saying because of Trump's indiscretions, and Bill Clintons criminal behavior, and Weiner's perverted behavior, and the close connection to the Bush family in all of this mess that our government is similar to Sodom and Gomorrah?!!?

No, although I could have (and perhaps should have, dang, missed opportunity),I was giving an example of how God's view of a city is determined by the righteousness of its people within. So in this sense, the quality of the church can determine the quality of the country. This was in response to the idea that the quality of the church does not affect the country.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think Hillary has given me excellent reasons why I shouldn't vote for Trump. I think that Trump has given me excellent reasons why I shouldn't vote for Clinton.

I think that Clinton thought she could keep it hidden, keep the FBI silent, make sure the DNC rigged the whole thing and keep CNN in her corner. It is just those pesky emails, like a million little ants, and this horrible Russian controlled Wikileaks telling us the truth. How weird is this that the Russians are now the ones speaking the truth. And since when does the FBI ignore politics to run a criminal investigation, and what is the point of bribing the head of the Justice dept if she can't even keep the FBI on a leash?

Clinton has the resume, but she clearly can't do anything right.

Weird sums up the whole thing.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If she is convicted the VP takes over. I suppose if someone were voting for Hillary they should decide they like her VP choice to run the country while she serves out her sentence.

But what if Christians decide that they happen to like Mike Pence?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Clinton has the resume, but she clearly can't do anything right.

That's right!

She has about as much experience in the White House as the White House cleaning staff.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's right!

She has about as much experience in the White House as the White House cleaning staff.

Don't need experience to lead the worst regional power on Earth. I'm joking. Second best regional power on Earth (Russia number 1 eh Trump?)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Don't need experience to lead the worst regional power on Earth. I'm joking. Second best regional power on Earth (Russia number 1 eh Trump?)

After months of heart-wrenching deliberation concerning Presidential election, I decided to vote for the only professing Christian.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

After months of heart-wrenching deliberation concerning Presidential election, I decided to vote for the only professing Christian.

Which is a professing Christian?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Which is a professing Christian?

Mike Pence is a genuine Christian.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

After months of heart-wrenching deliberation concerning Presidential election, I decided to vote for the only professing Christian.

Good choice. Tough choice. Pence is a genuine professing Christian. Trump is a hypocritical professing Christian. Clinton she's the devil.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Good choice. Tough choice. Pence is a genuine professing Christian. Trump is a hypocritical professing Christian. Clinton she's the devil.

I voted early and had to wait an hour, which was crazy since in some past elections, i never waited more than a few minutes. I talked to quite an interesting and well-traveled guy behind me who talked the whole time, interrupted by probably two dozen calls and texts. He make a number of interesting observations. Three of them I'll repeat -- the whole election is about SCOTUS appointments, Trump would win, and that "they" would knock off Trump, leaving Pence Prez.

Sounded crazy yesterday, today I wonder.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I voted early and had to wait an hour, which was crazy since in some past elections, i never waited more than a few minutes. I talked to quite an interesting and well-traveled guy behind me who talked the whole time, interrupted by probably two dozen calls and texts. He make a number of interesting observations. Three of them I'll repeat -- the whole election is about SCOTUS appointments, Trump would win, and that "they" would knock off Trump, leaving Pence Prez.

Sounded crazy yesterday, today I wonder.

Wow, I didn't even think of that, but imagine being in the Secret Service and waking up today. How are you going to protect this guy for 4 years?

Also, for those who think things are bad today, imagine what they would be like the day after an attempt on our newly elected representative.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Wow, I didn't even think of that, but imagine being in the Secret Service and waking up today. How are you going to protect this guy for 4 years?

Also, for those who think things are bad today, imagine what they would be like the day after an attempt on our newly elected representative.

The million dollar question is this ... Why were all the pollsters wrong?

So very wrong.

I think the answer is simple ... Political correctness gone haywire.

People can no longer speak what they really believe, and only in secret ... The voting booth ... Do they express their true feelings.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The million dollar question is this ... Why were all the pollsters wrong?

So very wrong.

I think the answer is simple ... Political correctness gone haywire.

People can no longer speak what they really believe, and only in secret ... The voting booth ... Do they express their true feelings.

I agree with Trump on this one, the system is rigged.

I like to listen to the Jonathan Stewart show, he got replaced with Trevor Noah who is so blatantly biased it is pathetic. I feel the media was very dishonest in their coverage.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I agree with Trump on this one, the system is rigged.

I like to listen to the Jonathan Stewart show, he got replaced with Trevor Noah who is so blatantly biased it is pathetic. I feel the media was very dishonest in their coverage.

It took WikiLeaks to shout from rooftops how corrupt the system is. CNN and the DNC in cahoots for so-called fair and honest debates? Nonsense.

And what's up with all the "moral outrage" over Trump? Was it not these same media folks that hammered us with the drumbeat during the Bill Clinton era that it was "all about job performance," and that personal ethics in the oval office with interns was none of our business?

I thank the Lord that I never had an appetite for cheap humor. I think much of America's moral decline is due to it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The million dollar question is this ... Why were all the pollsters wrong?

So very wrong.

I think the answer is simple ... Political correctness gone haywire.

People can no longer speak what they really believe, and only in secret ... The voting booth ... Do they express their true feelings.

Another explanation was given.

Clinton was all but guaranteed the election victory, that many of her supporters stayed home.

[zeek]

If evangelical Christians voted for Trump as I read they did, they have lost any claim to moral authority or family values. Their Christianity is as genuine as Melania's boobs.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

If evangelical Christians voted for Trump as I read they did, they have lost any claim to moral authority or family values. Their Christianity is as genuine as Melania's boobs.

This is so extreme and judgmental.

Perhaps they voted for Pence.

Was a vote for Hillary more moral? Was she not the "First Lady Enabler" whose husband left a trail of molested women? What about that long trail of "suspicious and mysterious deaths" with numerous "Arkancides?" **

Can evangelical Christians who voted for the Clintons then claim any moral authority or family values?

Politics is filthy business.

** Note to the less informed: An Arkancide is the suspicious death of a person close to Clintons, who is shot at point blank range in the back of the head, and made to look like a suicide. A problem then developed when the authorities tried to explain how the dead body was magically moved to another location post mortem and no gun was found. That, by definition, is conspiratorial, and is murder by one's own government, an apparent specialty by Clinton associates.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

If evangelical Christians voted for Trump as I read they did, they have lost any claim to moral authority or family values. Their Christianity is as genuine as Melania's boobs.

That's like saying any Christian who has ever lied, any Christian who has ever stolen, any Christian who has ever swore, etc has "lost any claim to moral authority or family values."

By your false standards, all the Psalms of David and all the epistles of Paul, should be ripped out of scripture.

And we are now talking about actual failures committed by these writers.

You, however, would take this ten steps further, by imputing all Trump's sins on all those who voted for him.

Seriously?

By what judgment you judge, you also will be judged.

zeek, you may claim to be "balanced," but just about every post of yours displays serious negative bias towards God, His word, and His people.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is so extreme and judgmental.

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." Barry Goldwater. You calling me judgmental is funny. Thanks, I needed a laugh.

[UntoHim]

Sure Politics is a filthy business, but this doesn't mean that our language and communication with each other should be so on an open, public Forum where young people and women have to be subjected to filthy language.

Tone it down.

-

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

If evangelical Christians voted for Trump as I read they did, they have lost any claim to moral authority or family values. Their Christianity is as genuine as Melania's boobs.

So then we judge Christians based on whether they voted democrat or republican?

For the record I did more soul searching for this election than any previous one. I eliminated Donald Trump very early on, even before he was nominated. However, I continued to consider Clinton much, much longer than I ever would have otherwise.

But in the end I felt that I could not in good conscience vote for her. I felt the two other candidates were both a joke and not even worthy of a protest vote.

So, I stayed home. I live in NY, the state was not in play, my vote was irrelevant from day one. But, I felt the best thing for this election is the fewer people who vote the better.

Doing the math there were 12% of registered voters actually voted for Trump because they wanted him (the rest either were voting against Clinton or not voting). There was a similar number for Clinton. If 76% of Americans had not voted that would have been the best possible outcome. One of them would be elected with 12% of the vote but there would be no mandate.

That said I am hopeful that this will turn out for the best. I am reminded of the protests in the streets of NY when Ronald Reagan was president, everyone was concerned he was going to start a nuclear war. In the end it turned out for the best and I now like him as a president.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is so extreme and judgmental.

Perhaps they voted for Pence.

Was a vote for Hillary more moral? Was she not the "First Lady Enabler" whose husband left a trail of molested women? What about that long trail of "suspicious and mysterious deaths" with numerous "Arkancides?" **

Can evangelical Christians who voted for the Clintons then claim any moral authority or family values?

Politics is filthy business.

** Note to the less informed: An Arkancide is the suspicious death of a person close to Clintons, who is shot at point blank range in the back of the head, and made to look like a suicide. A problem then developed when the authorities tried to explain how the dead body was magically moved to another location post mortem and no gun was found. That, by definition, is conspiratorial, and is murder by one's own government, an apparent specialty by Clinton associates.

Let's look at that:

1. According to Obama Clinton was the "only qualified candidate". That is by definition arrogant and elitist.

2. Trump is accused of being abusive towards women, but certainly not more abusive than Bill Clinton or the pervert Weiner.

3. Clinton blames the wikileaks scandal on the Russians, but doesn't that just underscore how irresponsible she was?

4. Clinton tells us how scary it is for Trump to be President because of what might happen, better to have her where we know we will be robbed.

She lied to us and robbed us. I don't see how anyone voted for her.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." Barry Goldwater. You calling me judgmental is funny. Thanks, I needed a laugh.

Oh, so you have changed your opinion about Trump? He is now a defender of liberty?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Oh, so you have changed your opinion about Trump? He is now a defender of liberty?

The Crotch Grabber [I toned down my language in deference to UntoHim] is the Voice of White Backlash.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

For the record I did more soul searching for this election than any previous one. I eliminated Donald Trump very early on, even before he was nominated. However, I continued to consider Clinton much, much longer than I ever would have otherwise.

But in the end I felt that I could not in good conscience vote for her. I felt the two other candidates were both a joke and not even worthy of a protest vote.

So, I stayed home. I live in NY, the state was not in play, my vote was irrelevant from day one. But, I felt the best thing for this election is the fewer people who vote the better.

I stayed home during the primaries. It was all pretty disgusting. Even Rubio took things into the gutter.

I liked Huckabee, for one. One thing he said about politics was interesting -- "if you can't stand the sight of your own blood, you better get out!"

I have a long standing policy about politicians -- don't pay attention to what they say, but what they do, and who they surround themselves with.

Trump surrounded himself with some people I respected, like Pence, Giuliani, Carson, Gingrich, etc.

Huma Abedin Weiner was a definite deal breaker for me, irrespective of all the Clinton issues, now widely broadcasted on WikiLeaks for all to see. For me it reeks of a puppet presidency a la Manchurian.

The real question in the aftermath of this election result, is what will happen to the FBI investigation of Clinton, now that AG Lynch will be the first to lose her job.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Crotch Grabber [I toned down my language in deference to UntoHim] is the Voice of White Backlash.

Everything is racist to a true liberal. They can't see things any other way.

zeek, why do you buy into that liberal "theology" about the "evil white man." I thought you were smarter than that. You spend too much time listening to the mainstream media. Listen to their drumbeat: "All those evil white men who voted for Trump! They are all racists, haters, bigoted, xenophobes, misogynists, religious hypocrites, homophobic, backward, fundamentalist, etc. -- the voice of White Backlash."

Can't you see thru that nonsense? It comes thru your posts loud and clear! It comes out demeaning God, His word, and His people. Then it goes after all conservatives, white males, and anyone not super "progressive" like you.

Look at those liberals marching down the streets in every major city screaming hateful profanities at Trump and the rest of society because of all their "perceived prejudices." These are the blind liberal religious zealots on the loose, stirred up by their online religious "services."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Crotch Grabber [I toned down my language in deference to UntoHim] is the Voice of White Backlash.

I find it interesting that they have claimed the vote for Trump is white backlash. So let's explore that.

1. Trump received less votes than Romney, not much of a backlash.

2. The real reason that Clinton lost is that she received 8 million votes less than Obama.

I have heard that this vote was sexist as though she lost because men didn't want a woman. Trump received about 22% of registered votes, since women represent over 50% of registered voters It seems Clinton lost because women didn't vote for her.

I think what is really happening is that the people who dislike trump are so arrogant and absorbed in their own thoughts they are unable to think that anyone else (60 million Americans) actually have any issues of their own.

Imagine you lost your job because of NAFTA, who are you going to vote for?

Imagine you are relatively poor, don't have health care at work so you have to pay for Obamacare and the premiums just jumped 33%. You should be voting Democrat, but will you?

Suppose you are unemployed, who you going to blame, an immigrant? If so, who are you going to vote for?

Suppose you lost a father, son or brother fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. Who are you going to vote for?

I didn't see any marches or protests when Obama was elected, but now that Trump is elected we see all these "Black Lives Matter" protests. If you are as racist as that organization you don't have the ground to call others racist.

We also see Bernie supporters joining the march, they aren't protesting Trump they are protesting the DNC.

Suppose you are concerned about who is going to appoint the next Supreme court justice. If you feel that Washington has ignored you, and more than 50% of Americans do, and if you feel that the Supreme court has foisted laws onto the public that they don't want and don't agree with, then who are you going to vote for?

There are very real issues in this election and to dismiss the voice of 60 million people as being "racist backlash" is the willful ignorance. The fact that Van Jones is pushing that narrative is very disappointing to me (my students and I made a movie about him a couple of years ago).

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Perhaps they voted for Pence.

Curiouser and curiouser, cried Alice. Protestants voting for someone in the whore of Babylon ...

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Crotch Grabber [I toned down my language in deference to UntoHim] is the Voice of White Backlash.

Don't forget the white evangelicals :

Largest Evangelical Turnout in History Helps Donald Trump
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/11/09/l...llary-clinton/

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Don't forget the white evangelicals :

Largest Evangelical Turnout in History Helps Donald Trump
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/11/09/l...llary-clinton/

How can this be? That's heretical, sacrilegious, abominational, and even wrong.

Don't they know that Moses commanded us never to vote? And Jesus commanded us never to vote for Caesar? And the Apostles warned us about voting for rich people? And an angel from heaven forbade us from voting for men with foreign wives?

Now where are those verses at? Help me out folks.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I stayed home during the primaries. It was all pretty disgusting. Even Rubio took things into the gutter.

I liked Huckabee, for one. One thing he said about politics was interesting -- "if you can't stand the sight of your own blood, you better get out!"

I have a long standing policy about politicians -- don't pay attention to what they say, but what they do, and who they surround themselves with.

Trump surrounded himself with some people I respected, like Pence, Giuliani, Carson, Gingrich, etc.

Huma Abedin Weiner was a definite deal breaker for me, irrespective of all the Clinton issues, now widely broadcasted on WikiLeaks for all to see. For me it reeks of a puppet presidency a la Manchurian.

The real question in the aftermath of this election result, is what will happen to the FBI investigation of Clinton, now that AG Lynch will be the first to lose her job.

Studying a little history about Lyndon Johnson and Nixon gives me a lot of pause over making too much out of what they say. Just because the campaign was incredibly shocking this time, it was only because we actually got to peak behind the curtain. If we had done so with earlier presidents it would have been very shocking as well.

For all of Clinton's sins, I don't see them as all that different from LBJ's.

As for Trump people were equally worried, if not more so, over Ronald Reagan (everyone seems to forget that). Teddy Roosevelt was also one that scared the establishment.

I have also come to appreciate the collective wisdom more than I did when I was younger. I don't dismiss the choice of 60 million people (which of course means I don't dismiss the fact that a number that large voted for Clinton also).

Many years ago I used to think that the Electoral college was a poor way to elect a president, but now I think differently. My thought is that the concerns of people in major cities are quite similar, if you were to make it a straight one person one vote then all of the candidates would focus on the 20 largest cities and ignore 99% of the country. Because of the Electoral college geography becomes more important. It is as though we are giving people and land an opportunity to be represented.

If our president only represented the 20 largest cities it would do the country a disservice.

As for Wikileaks I think they serve an important role in society. Prior to this whistleblowers suffered serious repercussions. No one would dare blow the whistle on the Clinton's. But we have entered a new era where truly, what is done in secret will be shouted from the rooftop. So although we saw horrible corruption I suspect this is similar to the corruption that existed in the police department a hundred years ago. The best cure is to shine a bright light. Going forward I expect that wikileaks can balance out the corrosive effect of corporations on our democratic process. "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free".

How ironic if this data dump is credited to the Russians. You can be sure that they too will reap what they sow.

How astounding is it that Clinton was crying for hours blaming Comey and Obama. It just amazes me how no one takes any responsibility for their actions. In her eyes her loss was not due to the things she did, but rather the things that Comey did and Obama didn't do. It makes you lose any remaining respect you might have still had for these people.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Studying a little history about Lyndon Johnson and Nixon gives me a lot of pause over making too much out of what they say. Just because the campaign was incredibly shocking this time, it was only because we actually got to peak behind the curtain. If we had done so with earlier presidents it would have been very shocking as well.

For all of Clinton's sins, I don't see them as all that different from LBJ's.

As for Trump people were equally worried, if not more so, over Ronald Reagan (everyone seems to forget that). Teddy Roosevelt was also one that scared the establishment.

I have also come to appreciate the collective wisdom more than I did when I was younger. I don't dismiss the choice of 60 million people (which of course means I don't dismiss the fact that a number that large voted for Clinton also).

Many years ago I used to think that the Electoral college was a poor way to elect a president, but now I think differently. My thought is that the concerns of people in major cities are quite similar, if you were to make it a straight one person one vote then all of the candidates would focus on the 20 largest cities and ignore 99% of the country. Because of the Electoral college geography becomes more important. It is as though we are giving people and land an opportunity to be represented.

If our president only represented the 20 largest cities it would do the country a disservice.

As for Wikileaks I think they serve an important role in society. Prior to this whistleblowers suffered serious repercussions. No one would dare blow the whistle on the Clinton's. But we have entered a new era where truly, what is done in secret will be shouted from the rooftop. So although we saw horrible corruption I suspect this is similar to the corruption that existed in the police department a hundred years ago. The best cure is to shine a bright light. Going forward I expect that wikileaks can balance out the corrosive effect of corporations on our democratic process. "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free".

How ironic if this data dump is credited to the Russians. You can be sure that they too will reap what they sow.

How astounding is it that Clinton was crying for hours blaming Comey and Obama. It just amazes me how no one takes any responsibility for their actions. In her eyes her loss was not due to the things she did, but rather the things that Comey did and Obama didn't do. It makes you lose any remaining respect you might have still had for these people.

Great points about LBJ, whom I never liked.

Electoral College is part of the Founders' wisdom, it is never going away. I do wish the teachers in America would inform their students that America is a republic, not a democracy. Please inform Van Jones also.

How ironic is it on the LCD forum, we are discussing politicians who act the same as Christian leaders. They both have monster egos, fight nasty battles, deceive the public, play the blame game, and never take ownership.

What do you think Trump will do about the Clinton Foundation and other criminal activities?

[zeek]

Trump meets with the "founder of ISIS" and says he's a "good man"!?!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ince-election/

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

Trump meets with the "founder of ISIS" and says he's a "good man"!?!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ince-election/

He said a very good man. Now that he knows he will be President he has dropped the acting he needed to get the votes and has become nice and friendly all of a sudden, almost like a normal person. I'll be surprised if he does even one of the things he said he would do. The establishment has won again, by fooling the people into thinking they had elected someone who was anti-establishment.

This is because Trump was and has always been part of the "establishment". He's not some guy off the street working his way up to the top, he's always been one of the "elites". Trump just pulled off one of the biggest scams of all. Pretending to be anti-establishment to ride his way to the top. Now he no longer has to act, he will become his regular old self.

See here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nomi-p..._10927244.html


OR, Trump never wanted to be president. It was all an act:
http://michaelmoore.com/TrumpSabotage/

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What do you think Trump will do about the Clinton Foundation and other criminal activities?

I think Giuliani will be appointed to head the justice department and he will have to follow up. If they don't follow up now then 3 years from now Clinton starts another campaign you couldn't begin the investigation then.

Also, Trump's whole raison de existence is that he is the bull in the china shop who is going to smash these corrupt politicians to pieces (the proverbial jawbone of an ass). Clinton has been given to him on a silver platter. If he doesn't follow up there will be huge protests in the street and not from "Black Lives Matter".

What do you think about the Obama's choosing not to have the ceremonial photograph of outgoing and incoming presidents taken?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Trump meets with the "founder of ISIS" and says he's a "good man"!?!

Death of a dynasty that was rotten to its core:
After 40 years of sex, lies and scandals,
The Clintons are to leave public life beset by a crushing humiliation

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz4PhkwKJB2

TravelGate
WhiteWater "Investments"
Assaults on women
Monica in the Oval Office
Clinton Foundation
Benghazi deaths
Emails Revelations in WikiLeaks

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think Giuliani will be appointed to head the justice department and he will have to follow up. If they don't follow up now then 3 years from now Clinton starts another campaign you couldn't begin the investigation then.

Also, Trump's whole raison de existence is that he is the bull in the china shop who is going to smash these corrupt politicians to pieces (the proverbial jawbone of an ass). Clinton has been given to him on a silver platter. If he doesn't follow up there will be huge protests in the street and not from "Black Lives Matter".

What do you think about the Obama's choosing not to have the ceremonial photograph of outgoing and incoming presidents taken?

Can Obama pardon Clinton from office before she is even indicted?

Didn't hear about the ceremonial pic. Perhaps their new found "love" had reached its limit.

I was very impressed with Obama's comments about the professionalism displayed by the Bush Administration 8 years ago. I have lots of respect for Bush 43. He was a man of conviction and personal integrity in contrast to his predecessor. Hopefully Obama will return the professionalism to Trump.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Death of a dynasty that was rotten to its core:
After 40 years of sex, lies and scandals,
The Clintons are to leave public life beset by a crushing humiliation

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz4PhkwKJB2

TravelGate
WhiteWater "Investments"
Assaults on women
Monica in the Oval Office
Clinton Foundation
Benghazi deaths
Emails Revelations in WikiLeaks

And yet more Americans voted for her than they did for Trump. Trump was right the system is rigged. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/op...smtyp=cur&_r=0

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

And yet more Americans voted for her than they did for Trump. Trump was right the system is rigged. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/op...smtyp=cur&_r=0

The Founding Fathers rigged it for Trump.

How prophetic!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think Giuliani will be appointed to head the justice department and he will have to follow up. If they don't follow up now then 3 years from now Clinton starts another campaign you couldn't begin the investigation then.

Also, Trump's whole raison de existence is that he is the bull in the china shop who is going to smash these corrupt politicians to pieces (the proverbial jawbone of an ass). Clinton has been given to him on a silver platter. If he doesn't follow up there will be huge protests in the street and not from "Black Lives Matter".

What do you think about the Obama's choosing not to have the ceremonial photograph of outgoing and incoming presidents taken?

I would like to see a felony conviction, and then let her off with a huge fine and probation. That's how it always seems to go with the rich and powerful.

I think that might appease both sides.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

And yet more Americans voted for her than they did for Trump. Trump was right the system is rigged. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/op...smtyp=cur&_r=0

It is the best possible outcome.

Trump has nothing to boast in, he got fewer votes than Romney who he mocked. He got fewer votes than Clinton who was an extremely damaged candidate.

No, this was an election won by wikileaks. It is the beginning of a new age of accountability.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It is the best possible outcome.

Trump has nothing to boast in, he got fewer votes than Romney who he mocked. He got fewer votes than Clinton who was an extremely damaged candidate.

No, this was an election won by wikileaks. It is the beginning of a new age of accountability.

I wish you were right. However, you're overlooking the Old School October surprise of FBI Director James Comey delivering his Oct. 28 letter to Congress announcing that he was reopening his investigation into Clinton’s e-mails. That did timely damage to Clinton among swing voters. When do suppose Comey will become accountable? He's got another seven years as Director.

Republicans have been talking about accountability forever. Great rhetoric. It appeals to the conscience. But, in practice, it almost always applied to the other. I mean, accountability was a big plank in George W. Bush's first campaign for present. But, he was never held accountable for not protecting the country on 9/11/2001 or lying to get us to invade Iraq.

Wikileaks and other hacking sources have become a players. So now a glut of data is flying. What to make of it all is the near problem. The amount of relevant data is more than any individual can assimilate. Will it be a force for good or evil? Like any weapon, probably both. Look how Russia manipulated the last election. Your optimism is unfounded.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I wish you were right. However, you're overlooking the Old School October surprise of FBI Director James Comey delivering his Oct. 28 letter to Congress announcing that he was reopening his investigation into Clinton’s e-mails. That did timely damage to Clinton among swing voters. When do suppose Comey will become accountable? He's got another seven years as Director.

Republicans have been talking about accountability forever. Great rhetoric. It appeals to the conscience. But, in practice, it almost always applied to the other. I mean, accountability was a big plank in George W. Bush's first campaign for present. But, he was never held accountable for not protecting the country on 9/11/2001 or lying to get us to invade Iraq.

Wikileaks and other hacking sources have become a players. So now a glut of data is flying. What to make of it all is the near problem. The amount of relevant data is more than any individual can assimilate. Will it be a force for good or evil? Like any weapon, probably both. Look how Russia manipulated the last election. Your optimism is unfounded.

I did not forget Comey but doubt he had much of an influence other than to remind voters of the close connection between Clinton and sexual perverts and deviants.

Any criminal would prefer the information is not flying about. Once it is they then move to obfuscation and other techniques like misinformation. This is a decidedly less successful strategy than to keep people in the dark.

However this is what the profession of Journalism is supposed to do, cut through the glut of information to get to the heart of the matter. Wikileaks will help them do their job. It will not eliminate shoddy journalism or misinformation.

[Ohio]

Talk about a bunch of whiners.

When Obama won two elections, we never had thousands of unruly protesters outside his home cussing him out. Democrats love to talk about democracy, until the democratic process doesn't go their way, and then they shout, "someone needs to die" for there to be "true" democratic change.

I retired early Tuesday, not wanting to watch what I thought was "inevitable." Others who stayed up later told me about how liberal so-called "journalists" on MSNBC, Fox, and CNN had responded on TV when things didn't go as planned. How pathetic. Their bias right there on national TV. I heard some were crying. When Obama won twice, I never saw that in the conservatives.

Perhaps my biggest complaint about the Democrat Party is their widespread lawlessness. The Clintons were real "pioneers" in this regard. Liberals love to point out cases of Republican corruption, as if they are "surely not angels," and I agree that very few politicians are really clean. But there is no comparison to the Democrats, and their utter disdain for the rule of law. It all goes back to their rejection of God, and their disregard for the unborn. Without a governing conscience within, and the respect for the life of others, this is what we get, and all we can do is read about it when the latest edition of WikiLeaks comes out.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

However this is what the profession of Journalism is supposed to do, cut through the glut of information to get to the heart of the matter. Wikileaks will help them do their job. It will not eliminate shoddy journalism or misinformation.

Professional journalism is dying. The Internet is killing it.

People tend to pick whatever source tells them what they want to hear. They evaluate sources accordingly. Mainstream media is rejected because it is elitist or liberal.

Confirmation bias will go to great lengths to find the allies it needs. I stay in touch with people of varying political philosophies including people here to combat this tendency.

There are even people on the Internet who lie just to catch people in it so they can say "Gotcha." Success is when they catch a high profile celebrity, politician or pundit.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Talk about a bunch of whiners.

When Obama won two elections, we never had thousands of unruly protesters outside his home cussing him out.

Sure ya did. They called themselves the "Tea Party." Such a bunch of whiners they were. Then they got their obstructionist reps into Congress to block everything Obama tried to do. They were the model for what the present batch of "whiners" needs to do: organize, take over congress and block everything Trump tries to do. It won't be easy though. Corrupt Republicans have gerrymandered the congressional districts to make it impossible for anyone but them to win. But, we're working on it. So, we'll see.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Professional journalism is dying. The Internet is killing it.

Nah, it is changing it.

Originally Posted by zeek

People tend to pick whatever source tells them what they want to hear. They evaluate sources accordingly. Mainstream media is rejected because it is elitist or liberal.

The story of CBS news is the story of how professional journalists were eventually compromised and taken over by a corporate mindset. This has killed their journalism. But it opened the door for NPR (Frontline) and Internet bloggers. The job is integral to democracy and hence it will continue. The most professional people doing it will still come out of excellent universities and will do this out of love and not for money. As long as you have corruption you will have those who battle corruption.

Originally Posted by zeek

Confirmation bias will go to great lengths to find the allies it needs. I stay in touch with people of varying political philosophies including people here to combat this tendency.

Well a great example of confirmation bias is this last election. Problem with that is that reality will rear its ugly head every so often just as it did in this election. But even in the midst of the worst example of confirmation bias I saw several (2) pundits who do poll analysis who predicted a Trump victory based on their algorithms. Not to mention Bill Clinton who also saw this coming behind the scenes.

Originally Posted by zeek

There are even people on the Internet who lie just to catch people in it so they can say "Gotcha." Success is when they catch a high profile celebrity, politician or pundit.

It is a jungle, just like the Wild West. But it will eventually be civilized. We need a John Wayne for the internet. A Billy the Snowden Kid, or maybe a new sheriff in Tombstone, perhaps Julian Asange.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Sure ya did. They called themselves the "Tea Party." Such a bunch of whiners they were.

They sure were! Obama racked up more debt than all the 43 presidents before him. And he did this, not during wartime, but while gutting the military. Just incredible! How dare those Tea Party folks speak up about it!!!

Originally Posted by zeek

Then they got their obstructionist reps into Congress to block everything Obama tried to do. They were the model for what the present batch of "whiners" needs to do: organize, take over congress and block everything Trump tries to do.

That's not at all what they are doing. Read the news. They want people to pay with their lives. They want riots in the street. They want anarchy. Yes, they want to organize, but not legally like the Tea Party. Only a blind man could not distinguish the two.

I hate to break the news to you, but Gridlock in Congress is a good thing!!!

That's how government is supposed to work. It was designed that way!!!

Take a course in Political Science, will you.

Obama refused to compromise. He refused to work with Congress. He has zero negotiating skills. He behaved like a spoiled brat. He promised transparency, but did exactly the opposite. He decided to rule by executive order and judicial activism. Both contrary to the Constitution, yet he supposedly was a Constitutional Professor.

Liberals will never get it.

Originally Posted by zeek

Corrupt Republicans have gerrymandered the congressional districts to make it impossible for anyone but them to win. But, we're working on it. So, we'll see.

Both parties gerrymander. It is legal, but you call it "corrupt" when Republicans do it. Whoever controls the State Legislature, by law, gets to redraw the districts after every 10 year census. Read the rules mate!

Why don't you stop complaining about Republicans who act legally and start complaining about Democrats who act corruptly and illegally. That's why your party is now in meltdown. I hope they get indigestion reading thru all those WikiLeaks from Clintons and the DNC. There is a reason why the Republicans control the White House, the Senate, the House, Governorships, State Legislatures, and hopefully the Court.

Must be those awful Christians, eh?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It is a jungle, just like the Wild West. But it will eventually be civilized. We need a John Wayne for the internet. A Billy the Snowden Kid, or maybe a new sheriff in Tombstone, perhaps Julian Asange.

How about a new Attorney General to prosecute these crooks and liars?

How about an independent Prosecutor to look at the IRS and Benghazi.

[zeek]

Not- my- president" Democrat Whiner says :"I don't want to see trickle-down racism...
I don't want to see a president of the United States saying things which change the character of the generations of Americans that are following.
Presidents have an impact on the nature of our nation, and

• trickle-down racism,
• trickle-down bigotry,
• trickle-down misogyny,

all these things are extraordinarily dangerous to the heart and character of America."
I think he makes a good point. What do you say?

[zeek]

Ohio, I read that your true Christian role model, Mike cough cough Pence, received more than $100,000 in donations from the tobacco industry over the years and in return, disseminated the false claim that cigarette smoke poses little danger. Is that true?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

"Not my president" Democrat whiner says,"I don't want to see trickle-down racism...I don't want to see a president of the United States saying things which change the character of the generations of Americans that are following. Presidents have an impact on the nature of our nation, and trickle-down racism, trickle-down bigotry, trickle-down misogyny, all these things are extraordinarily dangerous to the heart and character of America." I think he makes a good point. What do you say?

Sounds like he/she was talking about Bill and Hillary Clinton.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sounds like he/she was talking about Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Bahahahaha! It's ole tit-for-tat Fourdead N. Ohio!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Ohio, I read that your true Christian role model, Mike cough cough Pence, received more than $100,000 in donations from the tobacco industry over the years and in return, disseminated the false claim that cigarette smoke poses little danger. Is that true?

He is not running for church pastor zeek. Anybody can donate money.

"Let him who is without sin be the first to give $5 to a political campaign."

At least the donor was American, that's way more than we can say about the Clinton's.

Is that the only "splinter" you can find on Pence?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

He is not running for church pastor zeek. Anybody can donate money.

"Let him who is without sin be the first to give $5 to a political campaign."

At least the donor was American, that's way more than we can say about the Clinton's.

Is that the only "splinter" you can find on Pence?

Know any smokers who have died from cancer, 4Dead?

[zeek]

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016...etail=facebook

Don't be surprised if Judge Curiel dies mysteriously in the near future.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Know any smokers who have died from cancer, 4Dead?

Sorry to hear that you still smoke.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sorry to hear that you still smoke.

You'd like to believe that wouldn't you, Fourdead?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

You'd like to believe that wouldn't you, Fourdead?

So ... You think Pence is to blame for your cancer?

How about taking a little responsibility for your life?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So ... You think Pence is to blame for your cancer?

How about taking a little responsibility for your life?

I don't have cancer, Fourdead. You're funny.

I read that your role model said "Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn't kill."

Is that right?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Crotch Grabber [I toned down my language in deference to UntoHim] is the Voice of White Backlash.

Not everyone who voted for Trump was white, see this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ted-for-trump/

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Not everyone who voted for Trump was white, see this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ted-for-trump/

A few outliers on the extremes of the bell-shaped curve don't constitute a significant statistical trend.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Ohio, I read that your true Christian role model, Mike cough cough Pence, received more than $100,000 in donations from the tobacco industry over the years and in return, disseminated the false claim that cigarette smoke poses little danger. Is that true?

Cigarette smoke does pose danger.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Not- my- president" Democrat Whiner says :"I don't want to see trickle-down racism...
I don't want to see a president of the United States saying things which change the character of the generations of Americans that are following.
Presidents have an impact on the nature of our nation, and

• trickle-down racism,
• trickle-down bigotry,
• trickle-down misogyny,

all these things are extraordinarily dangerous to the heart and character of America."
I think he makes a good point. What do you say?

I agree that a President may have more influence than many other people, perhaps not as much as a rap star, or hollywood star, or basketball star, but still they do have some influence.

What I don't get is this whole portrayal that saying you will shut off immigration from countries we are at war with (and if you determine that this is a religious war then it stands to reason that comes into play) is racist and bigoted.

What I don't get is saying that you are going to round up people who are here illegally, focusing on those who are not only here illegally but also committing crimes, and send them back to their country of origin is racist and bigoted. What is the point of having laws if you don't enforce them? When Teddy Roosevelt was police commissioner of NYC he enforced laws against drinking on Sunday. This was very unpopular. But his point was that the way to deal with an unpopular law is to change it. By keeping the law and not enforcing it you were promoting corruption.

As for the misogyny Trump is guilty.

But then JZ and Beyonce are on the stage with Clinton and you realize how can that be a reason to pick her? She surrounds herself with rapists (Bill), perverts (Weiner) and rap stars.

People confuse the issue, there was no backlash or whitelash for Trump, he received fewer votes than Romney. Half the people who voted for Trump said that it was primarily a vote against Clinton rather than for Trump. The reason Clinton lost the Electoral College vote was due to 500,000 people. she received 8 million votes less than Obama and think of the advantages she had. She should have motivated women to come out and vote, a much bigger group than blacks. She was backed by Obama, Beyonce and Lebron James, you would think that would also help pick up the black vote. She spent twice as much as Trump on her campaign and by all accounts had a very well run organization, and yet couldn't get people to come out and vote for her.

The reason you have a primary is so that you get the candidate that the party supports, they short circuited that process and paid for it.

Also, this whole fear mongering about Trump's temperament. The unspoken he is like Hitler. If we had had wikileaks at the time of Hitler he never would have become the maniacal killer. There were numerous people in very high places who tried to put a stop to him, with Wikileaks the whole world would have known about many of his issues years earlier. That would have derailed him.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But even in the midst of the worst example of confirmation bias I saw several (2) pundits who do poll analysis who predicted a Trump victory based on their algorithms. Not to mention Bill Clinton who also saw this coming behind the scenes.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/2b1c053...ssor’-who.html

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't have cancer, Fourdead. You're funny.

I read that your role model said "Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn't kill."

Is that right?

Just because you are bitter and vindictive over the election, and happen to hate all Christians including Pence, remember this is still a free country.

Have you seen the rioting in all the major cities?

How about that white guy in Chicago gang beaten for supposedly voting Trump?

Guys like you fuel hatred, racism, bigotry, violence.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Just because you are bitter and vindictive over the election, and happen to hate all Christians including Pence, remember this is still a free country.

Have you seen the rioting in all the major cities?

How about that white guy in Chicago gang beaten for supposedly voting Trump?

Guys like you fuel hatred, racism, bigotry, violence.

I definitely feel an anti democracy vibe when I see people beaten for wearing a T-shirt that says Trump. Not that I would ever do that (wear a T-shirt with Trump on it).

I get it that people are stunned that in a country of 350 million this is the person we selected to be president. But remember, that guy who voted did not have 350 million choices, he had 2 legitimate choices and 2 lame choices.

What I don't get is when someone looks at those 4 choices how they could be shocked, surprised, or offended that this person made the choice they did.

Sometimes we assume we understand our country, but if you were shocked by this outcome it just goes to show you really don't know your fellow Americans as much as you think. Maybe you learned more about the two political parties, maybe you learned more about the media's "unbiased" presentation of the facts, or maybe you learned about the struggles that 60 million of your countrymen are going through and how those are quite different from the 60 million who were shocked. Personally I am disgusted that after this incredibly long process which completely dominated the airwaves we still have 60 million people who are so clueless about how the other 60 million feel.

Once again I am impressed by the collective wisdom of 60 million. What did they say?

1. You reap what you sow and you will be held accountable for your actions.

2. The winner of this election gets so few votes it is clear they don't have a mandate. (60 million represents 1 out of 6 Americans.)

3. The winner of this election does not win the popular vote, once again reenforcing that they don't have a mandate.

4. The winner of this election has just been warned, if we will do this to someone who has 25 years of experience and lots of political influence and friends, then you can bet we'll lock up your rear end as well.

5. If you thought that you could buy an election, guess again.

6. The republicans now have absolutely no excuse, so they will be held fully accountable in 2 years.

7. "You break it, you pay for it" applies to Trump.

Besides, since we are supposed to pray for those taking the lead that we would lead a peaceable life, then you can't beat this election for motivating the Christians to pray.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Not everyone who voted for Trump was white, see this

And not everyone that voted were counted in the win. Hillary won the popular vote.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

And not everyone that voted were counted in the win. Hillary won the popular vote.

Hence the problem with a democracy. If we did this by popular vote the politicians would focus exclusively on cities where 2/3 of the US population lives. The top 10 cities in population would probably get 80% of their attention. New Hampshire and Iowa would become irrelevant and forgotten. It would be akin to the Hunger Games. Besides fiction is so bogus, instead of some girl winning because everyone else killed themselves leaving her relatively guilt free, the reality is she gets killed for her sins and the big contemptible bully wins which is much more realistic.

On the other hand if we did a parliamentary system we would always get a political insider as Prime Minister.

I think that now that we have the internet it is possible and practical to use referendums more and I think we should.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And not everyone that voted were counted in the win. Hillary won the popular vote.

Obviously the Founding Fathers foresaw that big city power brokers needed to be balanced by the electoral system.

That's like complaining why should Wyoming get two Senate seats, the same number as California?

I'm amazed at how little liberals know about our "republic." Democratic leaders constantly tell their people we are a "democracy," but we are not. I do wish folks would study a little political science and get educated properly.

If Democrats have any complaints about the election, it should be at their own corrupt leaders. TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY!

Bernie Sanders needs his day in court! But wait ... he already got paid off for taking the fall in round one.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Besides, since we are supposed to pray for those taking the lead that we would lead a peaceable life, then you can't beat this election for motivating the Christians to pray.

The last three Presidents began their terms in the aftermath of a recession.

Many considered that another one was on the horizon, regardless which party won the election.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Just because you are bitter and vindictive over the election, and happen to hate all Christians including Pence, remember this is still a free country.

That's what I like about you Fourdead, your vivid imagination.

Have you seen the rioting in all the major cities?

I read that the demonstrations on college campuses and along downtown streets were mostly peaceful following previous outbreaks of window-smashing and fire-setting. What are you reading?

How about that white guy in Chicago gang beaten for supposedly voting Trump?

Yeah and I have read that there have been over 200 anti-Black, anti-woman, anti-LGBT and anti-Muslim incidents since election day. https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/...n-election-day

Guys like you fuel hatred, racism, bigotry, violence.

Yeah it's the non-violent, gun-free people like me who are provoking the violent gun-packing Neo-Nazi Trump people to violence. So, I'm to blame because you're a racist, bigoted, hater? I didn't realize I had that kind of power.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yeah it's the non-violent, gun-free people like me who are provoking the violent gun-packing Neo-Nazi Trump people to violence. So, I'm to blame because you're a racist, bigoted, hater? I didn't realize I had that kind of power.

It is estimated that one in three Americans own a gun. So unless you are going to label 120 million Americans in the "basket of deplorables" you can understand why a great many Americans would find linking "gun packing" to "bigoted, hater".

Now by "Neo-Nazi" I assume you mean fascist. Fascism, like communism, socialism, and capitalism is one of many valid isms. Just as the fire department is a socialist institution, the police department is a fascist institution. I am pretty sure that we all are pro fire department and pro police department. So again, using a label like that to evoke "Hitler and gas chambers" when in reality you are referring to "law and order" republicans is another example of provoking a divisive response.

Finally, are you calling everyone who voted for Trump a "trump person"? That seems awfully unfair. You yourself basically counseled me that you need to pick between one of the two candidates with a chance to win. We know for a fact that many of those who voted for Trump, perhaps even a solid majority of those who voted for Trump would not characterize themselves as "Trump people".

So those three terms come across as willfully provocative and designed to insult. Of course your claim "violent" gun packing neo nazi Trump people either greatly limits your discourse to the very, very few vocal Trump supporters convicted of aggravated assault during the campaign, or else is slanderous.

[ZNPaaneah]

I for one find the protests outside of Trump Tower fascinating and exciting. As long as this stays non violent I will enjoy watching to see what this is all about.

Surely we all can agree, regardless of political affiliation, that both news and politics have become a lot more entertaining.

I do have 2 questions for those who have expressed so much disapproval over the result of this election.

1. Do you think that you would do a better job as President than Donald Trump?

If you answer no, then my second question is

2. Why are you making such a big fuss?

If on the other hand you answer yes, then my second question is

2. Then why don't you get involved in politics?

"The world is not dangerous because of those who do harm, but because of those who look at it without doing anything." Albert Einstein.

21 Wherefore putting away all filthiness and overflowing of wickedness, receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. 22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deluding your own selves. 23 For if any one is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror: 24 for he beholdeth himself, and goeth away, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. 25 But he that looketh into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and so continueth, being not a hearer that forgetteth but a doer that worketh, this man shall be blessed in his doing.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

As for the misogyny -- Trump is guilty.

People confuse the issue.

Also, this whole fear mongering about.

This is how the liberals and the liberal media distort perceptions.

Trump touches a woman inappropriately, which no one condones, and he gets branded a misongynist by the media.

Bill Clinton rapes and molests numerous women, while Hillary maligns all these victims' reputations, YET noone in the media brands them as misogynists.

This is what liberals just can't seem to understand.

Some, however, see through it. See through the endless bias.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is how the liberals and the liberal media distort perceptions.

Trump touches a woman inappropriately, which no one condones, and he gets branded a misongynist by the media.

Bill Clinton rapes and molests numerous women, while Hillary maligns all these victims' reputations, YET noone in the media brands them as misogynists.

This is what liberals just can't seem to understand.

Some, however, see through it. See through the endless bias.

I think 8 million fewer votes shows that many came to that conclusion.

However, I think this is just the first act. It is very clear that there are quite a few who are sharpening their knives for Trump. It is doubtful that a serious attempt to find something would yield nothing so I expect that this soap opera will continue. Whether it is Trump U, allegations of rape, ties to Russia, IRS foibles, ethics violations, whatever. We are in for a bumpy ride, especially with the tool like Wikileaks.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think 8 million fewer votes shows that many came to that conclusion.

Apparently that basket of deplorables showed up to vote. I saw a few at my precinct.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is how the liberals and the liberal media distort perceptions.

Trump touches a woman inappropriately, which no one condones, and he gets branded a misongynist by the media.

Bill Clinton rapes and molests numerous women, while Hillary maligns all these victims' reputations, YET noone in the media brands them as misogynists.

This is what liberals just can't seem to understand.

Some, however, see through it. See through the endless bias.

So let's deport or jail all those nasty liberals.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

So let's deport or jail all those nasty liberals.

Start with those who promised to leave if Trump was elected.

[UntoHim]

Lots of "Politics" and no "the Church".

Two bookends as far as Jesus Christ is concerned - During his ministry: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. - - At the end of his ministry: "My kingdom is not of this world".

Occasionally I hear something like "God is not a Republican or a Democrat". This would be akin to saying "God prefers electric cars over conventional piston engine cars." None of the aforementioned things existed during the life and times of Jesus Christ, or the scripture writing apostles. In fact, nothing like them existed. (The Greeks and Romans introduced Western Civilization to pseudo republics and pseudo democracies, but really and truly they were much less than what we would consider a republic, democracy or a republic democracy.)

[ZNPaaneah]

Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me. And since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.

I think we can all agree that our status in the NT is that of a royal priesthood. You may or may not want to get involved in Politics as a career, that is your choice based on your own skill set.

But you have been made a priest.

I think we can also agree that the NT did not somehow destroy the importance of knowledge. This verse can apply to Christians and Jews.

1Pet 2:13-17 Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

The Lord's word that "His kingdom is not of this world" does not give us license to pretend we are not subject to every human institution. If you get involved in the political process you become subject to it. I think many Christians don't want to be subject to it so use certain NT verses as an excuse to justify their fear.

Pr 29:2 When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.

Jesus Christ has been made righteousness to us. We can see that not only US citizens are groaning but the whole world is groaning when they see the wicked rule in the US. Whether we are talking about assassinations, covert operations, wars for profit, wars to develop our military industrial complex, "pay to play" with Clinton's foundation and who knows who else.

So then, this is not a job for the church, they are not a democracy, they are not an organization for political advantage, Jesus is Lord in the church, it is not a democracy. That said, any Christian that feels led by the Lord certainly could get involved in the process. It can glorify Jesus, it can benefit God's people, it can cause the people to rejoice. It could be a ministry of praise and worship.

Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower are all positive examples.

There are quite a few others who would still be considered men of character.

On the other hand we have begun to see the wicked rule and the people groan. I would say this became most pronounced with the Box 13 scandal and LBJ's ascension to power.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Lots of "Politics" and no "the Church".

Methinks bro zeek jumped the shark with the title of this thread. He thru church in to make it sound relevant, methinks.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Two bookends as far as Jesus Christ is concerned - During his ministry: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. - - At the end of his ministry: "My kingdom is not of this world".

And there's the church part. Now the rest of the thread will be about politics. That's okay. If it fires passion enough to keep the convo going, great.

But from time to time, for balance perhaps, Someone should drop in the churches position. Which is what Untohim cutely calls "bookends."

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Occasionally I hear something like "God is not a Republican or a Democrat". This would be akin to saying "God prefers electric cars over conventional piston engine cars." None of the aforementioned things existed during the life and times of Jesus Christ, or the scripture writing apostles.

Methinks -- there I go thinking again -- the Bible differs with you on this, tho maybe stretching parallels ... but maybe not too much -- you decide :

Jdg_1:19 And the LORD was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain because they had chariots of iron.

Methinks, not again, the piston drive cars parallel chariots of iron.

Let's bring church into this, What should be the church's position on nuclear weapons? If God couldn't whip chariots of iron, He doesn't stand a chance against nukes. Should the church be for weapons the Lord of Hosts can't defeat?

Originally Posted by UntoHIM

In fact, nothing like them existed. (The Greeks and Romans introduced Western Civilization to pseudo republics and pseudo democracies, but really and truly they were much less than what we would consider a republic, democracy or a republic democracy.)

I fancy this idea that we can't relate life 2 and 3 thousands yrs ago with today. Some of our brethren are so obsessed with relating the Bible to everything that they are claiming the president elect Donald Trump is Cyrus the great. Haha ... he could just as easily be Nebuchadnezzar, putting us to the sword and leading us into slavery. Hey, it's important that everything be Biblical ... else God ain't doing it. And God forbid that.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Occasionally I hear something like "God is not a Republican or a Democrat". This would be akin to saying "God prefers electric cars over conventional piston engine cars." None of the aforementioned things existed during the life and times of Jesus Christ, or the scripture writing apostles. In fact, nothing like them existed. (The Greeks and Romans introduced Western Civilization to pseudo republics and pseudo democracies, but really and truly they were much less than what we would consider a republic, democracy or a republic democracy.)

Yup, like denominations, Christmas, Easter, and Christian tithing.

But truly, God cares about American politics. After Trump's election win, many Christian prophets and prophetesses have spoken messages from God about how Trump will be President. Trump is God's chosen one.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yup, like denominations, Christmas, Easter, and Christian tithing.

But truly, God cares about American politics. After Trump's election win, many Christian prophets and prophetesses have spoken messages from God about how Trump will be President. Trump is God's chosen one.

Yes, but is he Cyrus the great or Nebuchadnezzar? Nabu, son of the god Marduk, was the Babylonian deity of wisdom. He sacked the temple in Jerusalem, and was considered God's servant while doing it, apparently for God :

Jer 27:6 And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant; and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him.

Get that. God destroyed His own temple, and put the Jews to the sword and led off to captivity.

In Jeremiah He even says :

Jer 19:3 And say, Hear ye the word of the LORD, O kings of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem; Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, the which whosoever heareth, his ears shall tingle.

Maybe that verse belongs on the POE thread, because it's evidence that God brings evil.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Mike Pence is a genuine Christian.

That's how I voted. But I voted for him for President. Write-in.

I know. Wasted a vote. But I couldn't face the top of the ticket and needed to vote for someone I could support as I voted on down the ballot.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yup, like denominations, Christmas, Easter, and Christian tithing.

And publishing houses, FTTAs, 501c.4, LaPalma campus, skyscrapers, motor home businesses, using God's people for free labor, DCP legal services to sue other publishers, noncompliany LCs, etc.

The list goes on and on and on and on.

After examining LSM and the LC's, them old denoms are starting to look pretty good!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

That's how I voted. But I voted for him for President. Write-in.

I know. Wasted a vote. But I couldn't face the top of the ticket and needed to vote for someone I could support as I voted on down the ballot.

A good Christian friend of mine wrote in Kasich.

Long ago I decided not to vote with my heart or conscience, but with my mind, after gathering the facts.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

A good Christian friend of mine wrote in Kasich.

Long ago I decided not to vote with my heart or conscience, but with my mind, after gathering the facts.

I used to wonder about that. I think Kasich would have easily won this election without any of the subsequent protests. So why couldn't he win the nomination and why do we have this process?

I finally concluded that an election is a very important process for a politician because the skills they exhibit here are the ones they will need to govern effectively in a democracy.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

A good Christian friend of mine wrote in Kasich.
Long ago I decided not to vote with my heart or conscience, but with my mind, after gathering the facts.

If you can even get at the facts? If even available they're buried under tons of BS. Good luck with that method. A christian would have to be out of their mind to support either one of them.

And this Pence guy? Mr. "I'm a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order" ; Mr. Cheney is my role model. That's Mr. Scary to me. He reminds me of the Christian Dominionists, of the Rushdoony minded ilk, tho prolly a soft dominionist.

But put a devote Christian together with a Cheney like mind and influence, and I'm pretty sure that's a scary creature.

Kaine's Christianity is less extreme than Pence's. But they're both from what I grew up calling the whore of Babylon, the RCC.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

A good Christian friend of mine wrote in Kasich.

A good choice.

It would have been good if there had been some more concerted effort to focus the disaffected conservative vote on one person. I could go with either Pence or Kasich. Or one or two others. Might have looked better for the disaffected to be seen more clearly through a single write-in.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

If you can even get at the facts? If even available they're buried under tons of BS. Good luck with that method. A christian would have to be out of their mind to support either one of them.

And this Pence guy? Mr. "I'm a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order" ; Mr. Cheney is my role model. That's Mr. Scary to me. He reminds me of the Christian Dominionists, of the Rushdoony minded ilk, tho prolly a soft dominionist.

But put a devote Christian together with a Cheney like mind and influence, and I'm pretty sure that's a scary creature.

Kaine's Christianity is less extreme than Pence's. But they're both from what I grew up calling the whore of Babylon, the RCC.

Not a big fan of Dick Cheney, but brother awareness, no leader can pass muster with you, not even Jesus.

With your "standards," how can you claim "all Christians must be out of their minds." I honestly have never heard you say anything nice about any Christian. Except me, of course.

No telling what you say to zeek about me though.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not a big fan of Dick Cheney, but brother awareness, no leader can pass muster with you, not even Jesus.

The loving Jesus in the gospels passes muster with me, but not the one pouring out the bowls of God's wrath in Revelation.

Originally Posted by Ohio

With your "standards," how can you claim "all Christians must be out of their minds."

Did I say that? I must be losing it. I don't remember saying "all Christians." My bad.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I honestly have never heard you say anything nice about any Christian.

Well I've tried over and over again, but have always been disappointed ... like toward Lee and all the local churchers ... I thought they loved me. They didn't. Well some of them did, and still do. But they no longer identify as Christians. Is there nice things about Christians? Well yes, about the same as nonChristians. Humans can be real good and real bad ... and religion doesn't seem to make much difference ... but maybe.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Except me, of course.

Everybody is beautiful, when you love them.

Originally Posted by Ohio

No telling what you say to zeek about me though.

You and zeek? What can I say? I love you both, but you are like oil and water, or cats and dogs, Mars and Venus ; two different galaxies. Maybe the only thing you have in common is that you both are exLCers.

[zeek]

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...rump?CMP=fb_us

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...rump?CMP=fb_us

The title is deceitful. "Four in Five white evangelicals: your votes for Trump"

Reading that title you would assume that 4 in 5 white evangelicals voted for Trump, but later in the article they admit that they are only referring to those who voted. It could be that 2 out of 5 white evangelicals voted for trump 1 in five voted for Clinton, and 2 out of 5 didn't vote for either.

That is hugely different. He makes it sound like he is speaking to 80% of white envagelicals when in reality it is less than 40%.

Also, when you consider that White Evangelicals probably more than 50% Republican, in fact it would be difficult to imagine more than 20-30% of them being for Clinton based on some of the policies, this is even more disingenuous. What the election really showed is that many Evangelicals didn't vote for either one, which is an exercise of the conscience.

It also doesn't make sense, you want to claim the high moral ground as a reason to not vote for Trump, but why would that be a reason to vote for Clinton?

Just another idiot trying to be deceitful.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The title is deceitful. "Four in Five white evangelicals: your votes for Trump"

Just another idiot trying to be deceitful.

I read and listen to liberal news all the time.

One defining characteristic of liberal news is deceit.

Consequently, it is very difficult to engage in meaningful discussion with many liberal leaning friends and family. Their so-called facts are all distorted.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I read and listen to liberal news all the time.

One defining characteristic of liberal news is deceit.

Consequently, it is very difficult to engage in meaningful discussion with many liberal leaning friends and family. Their so-called facts are all distorted.

Unfortunately the liberals do not have a monopoly on deceit.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Unfortunately the liberals do not have a monopoly on deceit.

Though they do have some competition, they definitely have cornered the market.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Though they do have some competition, they definitely have cornered the market.

Jonathan Stewart and Stephen Colbert were when they had "cornered the market". Those two shows are both gone and there hasn't been anything of value to replace them.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Though they do have some competition, they definitely have cornered the market.

They're both in on it equally.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Jonathan Stewart and Stephen Colbert were when they had "cornered the market". Those two shows are both gone and there hasn't been anything of value to replace them.

How about Samantha Bee and John Oliver?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

How about Samantha Bee and John Oliver?

I like John Oliver, but I don't get the channel he is on, so I see his clips on Youtube, but now they want you to subscribe with a fee, doubt I will.

As for Samantha Bee, didn't care for her when she was with Jonathan Stewart, I have only see a couple of her clips and didn't care for them.

[zeek]

All Putin wants is a happy space in your head. Is that too much to ask?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

All Putin wants is a happy space in your head. Is that too much to ask?

I think it is outrageous, worse than that lunatic in N Korea who kidnaps movie stars. We used to see this stuff on soap operas and Schwarznegger movies, now he is muscling in on Hollywood. He is stealing their plot lines. It was bad enough when our election was a reality TV show, now the presidency is going to be a soap opera! I suppose you could claim this is derivative, but it looks like copyright infringement to me.

[TLFisher]

In general about politics and the church, in the church we are told there are no opinions in the church. However when I go on facebook many ones I knew currently and formerly from the local churches have no problem expressing opinions. especially political opinions.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I read and listen to liberal news all the time.

One defining characteristic of liberal news is deceit.

Consequently, it is very difficult to engage in meaningful discussion with many liberal leaning friends and family. Their so-called facts are all distorted.

I'm always seeing similarities between liberals and LSM. Sure there is deceit. There's also tossing out facts and relying extensively on feelings. Just as the Berkeley riot demonstrated, they want contrary views to be silenced.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Terry

I'm always seeing similarities between liberals and LSM. Sure there is deceit. There's also tossing out facts and relying extensively on feelings. Just as the Berkeley riot demonstrated, they want contrary views to be silenced.

Can you give some specific examples of what you mean similarities and relying on feelings over facts and deceit?

And who were those masked rioters that wanted to silence contrary views in Berkeley? They seemed pretty well organized.

Do you suppose they were Berkeley students? They put that guy Yiannopoulos on the map.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Can you give some specific examples of what you mean similarities and relying on feelings over facts and deceit?

And who were those masked rioters that wanted to silence contrary views in Berkeley? They seemed pretty well organized.

Do you suppose they were Berkeley students? They put that guy Yiannopoulos on the map.

Good questions. Arrest those rioters, and find out who is fronting them.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Good questions. Arrest those rioters, and find out who is fronting them.

I agree. In the videos they are breaking shop windows and setting off explosives and reports said that they assaulted the police. Yet I did not hear that any were arrested. What's up with that?

A rumor on the Left is that Breitbart sent them to get attention for Yiannopoulos, and to give Trump an excuse to deny funds to UC, Berkeley. A rumor on the Right is that George Soros sent them.

UC Berkeley allowed the guy to speak, so sanctioning the university is wrong. There were peaceful protesters there. No problem. So, the question remains, who were the thugs? We'll probably never know.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

In general about politics and the church, in the church we are told there are no opinions in the church. However when I go on facebook many ones I knew currently and formerly from the local churches have no problem expressing opinions. especially political opinions.

There are "no opinions in the church" because the law in the US would cause a church to lose tax exempt status.

This is a question that we have not considered deeply enough. Suppose there was such a law during the Roman Empire? Would the book of Revelation violate that law?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

No problem. So, the question remains, who were the thugs? We'll probably never know.

Are you serious? The only way we will never know is if they were very well supported and trained.

The police department can now gather the smart phone data (what phone you have and all the information on that phone) from a crowd. They use a device that mimics a cell phone tower.

We also have CTV that blankets virtually the entire city. Regardless how these rioters got to the riot we can view the video and see them prior to them putting on masks. If they come by Public transport we have them. If they walked we have them. If they drove we have them. Once we have a license plate to a car we can immediately find that car, there are license plate readers strategically located all over the cities and highways. These will immediately alert police when a license plate passes a location.

That is enough information to get subpoenas, which will get into email accounts, texts, phone calls, and snail mail. How was it organized? We will be able to get that as well.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Are you serious? The only way we will never know is if they were very well supported and trained.

The police department can now gather the smart phone data (what phone you have and all the information on that phone) from a crowd. They use a device that mimics a cell phone tower.

We also have CTV that blankets virtually the entire city. Regardless how these rioters got to the riot we can view the video and see them prior to them putting on masks. If they come by Public transport we have them. If they walked we have them. If they drove we have them. Once we have a license plate to a car we can immediately find that car, there are license plate readers strategically located all over the cities and highways. These will immediately alert police when a license plate passes a location.

That is enough information to get subpoenas, which will get into email accounts, texts, phone calls, and snail mail. How was it organized? We will be able to get that as well.

Aren't violent protesters immune from prosecution in sanctuary cities?

Sounds crazy, buts that's where we're headed.

Anybody else think CalExit is possible?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Aren't violent protesters immune from prosecution in sanctuary cities?

Sounds crazy, buts that's where we're headed.

Anybody else think CalExit is possible?

No, if you commit a crime in a city you are not immune from prosecution, unless of course you have diplomatic immunity. That is a different story. The country would pay the price one way or another for the damage done, the diplomat would be sent home, and presumably once home would be disciplined.

As for CalExit, we have a serious problem with energy. There is an established economy that is based on fossil fuel. Any of a number of reasonable remedies to encourage renewable energy like solar and wind, while at the same time addressing the pollution of carbon emitters will hurt the bottom line of those currently in power. We are in the midst of an energy revolution and like all revolutions it means those at the top are now headed to the bottom. They resist that move. It is much easier for those without an investment in the current economy to see the clear and logical solution.

The fossil fuel industry was under the assumption that they had until 2050, even quite recently they thought they had until 2030, but the Titanic is already starting to list in the water and it is only 2017.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Are you serious? The only way we will never know is if they were very well supported and trained.

The police department can now gather the smart phone data (what phone you have and all the information on that phone) from a crowd. They use a device that mimics a cell phone tower.

We also have CTV that blankets virtually the entire city. Regardless how these rioters got to the riot we can view the video and see them prior to them putting on masks. If they come by Public transport we have them. If they walked we have them. If they drove we have them. Once we have a license plate to a car we can immediately find that car, there are license plate readers strategically located all over the cities and highways. These will immediately alert police when a license plate passes a location.

That is enough information to get subpoenas, which will get into email accounts, texts, phone calls, and snail mail. How was it organized? We will be able to get that as well.

Maybe Soros is paying the police to look the other way. And they're not using Stingray, or checking CTV. Or maybe the police are Breitfart supporters.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Maybe Soros is paying the police to look the other way. And they're not using Stingray, or checking CTV. Or maybe the police are Breitfart supporters.

My point is that if these "ninja protesters" are not found it is proof that they are not your typical college protester, but mercenaries with specific training on forensic countermeasures. In other words paid protesters with para military background.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No, if you commit a crime in a city you are not immune from prosecution, unless of course you have diplomatic immunity. That is a different story.

That's basically what a sanctuary city is -- diplomatic immunity for alien criminals.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My point is that if these "ninja protesters" are not found it is proof that they are not your typical college protester, but mercenaries with specific training on forensic countermeasures. In other words paid protesters with para military background.

Yes but who was backing them?

I find it interesting that the FBI is investigating the UC Berkeley "riot" but haven't found any fingerprints.

Common sense would figure that it was extreme leftists protesting Milo's speaking.

But we don't live in a common sense world.

It's also interesting that Milo is on Breitbart speaking against the " hysterical conspiracy theory in which Breitbart and I hired domestic terrorists to beat up my own fans and the residents of Berkeley and smash up Bank of America ATMs, Starbucks and trashcans." And is saying the protesters are proof that Trump should pull federal funding from UC Berkeley.
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/0...m-uc-berkeley/

And Breitbart is all stirred up about it and are resentful that : "UC Berkeley’s Professor of Public Policy and former Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, questioning whether the anti-MILO rioters at Berkeley last week were paid by Breitbart News."

Now we've got to find out who the military type thugs were. But look for crazies to come forward and claim credit.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's basically what a sanctuary city is -- diplomatic immunity for alien criminals.

I think Teddy Roosevelt is a very good example concerning this. When he became a Police commissioner in NYC he enforced the law about no alcohol on Sunday. This was a law that no one enforced, instead bars would pay cops to look the other way. It was very unpopular enforcing this law, but his point was if you don't enforce unpopular laws it promotes corruption. The way to deal with a bad law is to change it. They changed the law and he cleaned up corruption.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes but who was backing them?

I find it interesting that the FBI is investigating the UC Berkeley "riot" but haven't found any fingerprints.

Common sense would figure that it was extreme leftists protesting Milo's speaking.

But we don't live in a common sense world.

It's also interesting that Milo is on Breitbart speaking against the " hysterical conspiracy theory in which Breitbart and I hired domestic terrorists to beat up my own fans and the residents of Berkeley and smash up Bank of America ATMs, Starbucks and trashcans." And is saying the protesters are proof that Trump should pull federal funding from UC Berkeley.
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/0...m-uc-berkeley/

And Breitbart is all stirred up about it and are resentful that : "UC Berkeley’s Professor of Public Policy and former Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, questioning whether the anti-MILO rioters at Berkeley last week were paid by Breitbart News."

Now we've got to find out who the military type thugs were. But look for crazies to come forward and claim credit.

And that is the weakness of mercenaries. They could be very well trained (i.e. US military, Israeli military, Russian military) but money leaves a trail that is very hard to hide. Once again, the only way the FBI doesn't find out is if they don't want to find out.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Once again, the only way the FBI doesn't find out is if they don't want to find out.

But the FBI killed Hillary's chance, so they aren't liberals. If they don't find out who those thugs were it's likely because the thugs were Breitbart types.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

But the FBI killed Hillary's chance, so they aren't liberals. If they don't find out who those thugs were it's likely because the thugs were Breitbart types.

The FBI director's behavior was reprehensible, but I am not aware of anything the FBI did.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The FBI director's behavior was reprehensible, but I am not aware of anything the FBI did.

The leadership at the FBI has competing political factions, proven by decisions made concerning Clinton.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The leadership at the FBI has competing political factions, proven by decisions made concerning Clinton.

My point is I work for the department of Education but certainly would not want to have everything our new Secretary of Education does ascribed to me.

[awareness]

OMG!!! I just saw and heard from Milo Yiannopoulos for the first time. Milo is the senior editor at Breitbart. And for the life of me I don't know why the UC Berkeley protesters had a problem with him.

Milo is a 32 year old flaming gay, with all the body language that goes with it, including being covered in women's jewelry. He's a Jew and a Catholic and his male partner is a black Muslim.

So I don't know why the UC Berkeley protesters had a problem with him.

He was very witty and funny. And he values laughter. So I like him.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

OMG!!! I just saw and heard from Milo Yiannopoulos for the first time. Milo is the senior editor at Breitbart. And for the life of me I don't know why the UC Berkeley protesters had a problem with him.

Milo is a 32 year old flaming gay, with all the body language that goes with it, including being covered in women's jewelry. He's a Jew and a Catholic and his male partner is a black Muslim.

So I don't know why the UC Berkeley protesters had a problem with him.

He was very witty and funny. And he values laughter. So I like him.

His partner is not a muslim, that was his former or ex partner. Also, he is British. Yes, I find it very difficult to believe that college students at UC Berkeley would have made such a fuss over him.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

His partner is not a muslim, that was his former or ex partner. Also, he is British. Yes, I find it very difficult to believe that college students at UC Berkeley would have made such a fuss over him.

Thanks for the correction. He is a character. I've had gay friends like him. And once I got around what they do in a room where you don't confess, and them ogling my behind, they're great people to hang out with. There are no such problems with the girls.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by zeek

Can you give some specific examples of what you mean similarities and relying on feelings over facts and deceit?

Where shall I start?

• speaking positively publicly
• shadow government
• transparency or a lack of
• immigration
• healthcare reform

A general similarity I've seen since 2012 is if someone holds a conservative view, a liberal will consider them to be an "opposer", "negative", "divisive" etc. Labels I have heard commonly used by LSM promoters against brothers/sisters who don't share the same views/agenda.
Shadow government- true or conspiracy paranoia to undermine the current US administration we've seen similar tactics orchestrated by LSM/DCP against GLA localities that didn't go along with LSM edicts. Setting up special meetings, offering "fellowship" to those brothers pro-LSM as a means to undermine the local administration.
Immigration-facts are tossed out in favor of feelings. It was not a "muslim ban", but a ban on seven countries. Reaction is as if Trump was the first president to have a ban. Fact is every president since 1979 has had some sort of a ban on a nation. Those being detained by Immigration and Customs are not legal immigrants, but illegal immigrants. Key words such as "temporary" and "illegal" are ignored by those protesting immigration decisions. Those on agreement with left come across as if there shouldn't be any immigration or Customs laws. No borders with people to freely enter and leave the United States as they please.
In the local churches it is very similar in regard quarantines/disfellowship of brothers. I asked for proof why Titus Chu was to be quarantined, nothing. It's based on feeling and not on fact. The only thing of fact LSM may not admit to is it's based purely on revenue.
I've been observing for years regarding Steve Isitt and the churches of Bellevue and Seattle. Leading brothers from those localities don't respond to requests of fellowship. I asked one brother from the Church in Renton, why can't the brothers come to fellowship with Steve. His response, "we feel Steve can't be trusted". A brother being kept from fellowship based on feeling and not fact. Quarantines of the late 1980's. Based on feeling and not fact.
Healthcare Reform (ACA/Obamacare)- When PPCA began in 2007 I was onboard. Gave the Obama Administration benefit of the doubt with healthcare reform. The message delivered was deceitful. "Affordable Healthcare". Hardly the case. Experience for many individuals and businesses is unaffordable healthcare due to the regulations and taxes tied to it. Yet the liberals view this as the best vehicle for healthcare reform. Undoubtedly whatever suggestion Trump's administration may have in adjusting healthcare reform will be met with steadfast opposition from the liberals.
Much is the same in the LSM local churches. They are deceitful when they say local churches aren't ministry churches. They are deceitful when they say each local church is locally administered. How local churches proceed with LSM publications as the way to go is no different than obamacare. It just isn't working. Look at the numbers in the localities. When I last visited San Bernardino in 2014, I saw many of the brothers and sisters I knew from years earlier. "The Ministry" has produced little fruit other than churchkids now adults with children of their own. Just like obamacare, the system LSM churches is an inefficient system in dire need of reform. Just like obamacare, those tied to LSM are passionately prideful in believing their system is the best way in spite of what facts may show.
During Obama's administration, he touted transparency, but was anything but. He like the blended brothers proved to be more deceptive than transparent.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Terry

Where shall I start?

• speaking positively publicly
• shadow government
• transparency or a lack of
• immigration
• healthcare reform

A general similarity I've seen since 2012 is if someone holds a conservative view, a liberal will consider them to be an "opposer", "negative", "divisive" etc. Labels I have heard commonly used by LSM promoters against brothers/sisters who don't share the same views/agenda.
Shadow government- true or conspiracy paranoia to undermine the current US administration we've seen similar tactics orchestrated by LSM/DCP against GLA localities that didn't go along with LSM edicts. Setting up special meetings, offering "fellowship" to those brothers pro-LSM as a means to undermine the local administration.
Immigration-facts are tossed out in favor of feelings. It was not a "muslim ban", but a ban on seven countries. Reaction is as if Trump was the first president to have a ban. Fact is every president since 1979 has had some sort of a ban on a nation. Those being detained by Immigration and Customs are not legal immigrants, but illegal immigrants. Key words such as "temporary" and "illegal" are ignored by those protesting immigration decisions. Those on agreement with left come across as if there shouldn't be any immigration or Customs laws. No borders with people to freely enter and leave the United States as they please.
In the local churches it is very similar in regard quarantines/disfellowship of brothers. I asked for proof why Titus Chu was to be quarantined, nothing. It's based on feeling and not on fact. The only thing of fact LSM may not admit to is it's based purely on revenue.
I've been observing for years regarding Steve Isitt and the churches of Bellevue and Seattle. Leading brothers from those localities don't respond to requests of fellowship. I asked one brother from the Church in Renton, why can't the brothers come to fellowship with Steve. His response, "we feel Steve can't be trusted". A brother being kept from fellowship based on feeling and not fact. Quarantines of the late 1980's. Based on feeling and not fact.
Healthcare Reform (ACA/Obamacare)- When PPCA began in 2007 I was onboard. Gave the Obama Administration benefit of the doubt with healthcare reform. The message delivered was deceitful. "Affordable Healthcare". Hardly the case. Experience for many individuals and businesses is unaffordable healthcare due to the regulations and taxes tied to it. Yet the liberals view this as the best vehicle for healthcare reform. Undoubtedly whatever suggestion Trump's administration may have in adjusting healthcare reform will be met with steadfast opposition from the liberals.
Much is the same in the LSM local churches. They are deceitful when they say local churches aren't ministry churches. They are deceitful when they say each local church is locally administered. How local churches proceed with LSM publications as the way to go is no different than obamacare. It just isn't working. Look at the numbers in the localities. When I last visited San Bernardino in 2014, I saw many of the brothers and sisters I knew from years earlier. "The Ministry" has produced little fruit other than churchkids now adults with children of their own. Just like obamacare, the system LSM churches is an inefficient system in dire need of reform. Just like obamacare, those tied to LSM are passionately prideful in believing their system is the best way in spite of what facts may show.
During Obama's administration, he touted transparency, but was anything but. He like the blended brothers proved to be more deceptive than transparent.

Thanks for responding. I left the LCM in 1986 so things might have changed there. But, when I was part of it, the LCM was a authoritarian cult. No president liberal or conservative has been able to function the way the LCM did because of the way the US is structured and functions based on the system of laws beginning with the constitution. So, I don't buy your thesis.

Your "shadow government" is an unproven theory. The LCM had no immigration and health care systems. What one brother said to you can't simply be generalized to the group without evidence. You are making sweeping generalizations based on stereotypes. Are you sure that your own opinions aren't driven more by feelings than facts?

For me the problem with Trump isn't a matter of liberal vs. conservative. It's the problem of having a president who is a pathological liar with delusions of grandeur that impairs his contact with reality. For example, in his last press conference he claimed that he has the highest number of electoral votes since Reagan which is factually way off. Then he claimed there was a terrorist attack in Sweden. But, those are just the latest examples of lies and prevarication that are daily occurrences.

Trump's grandiose view of himself makes him susceptible to manipulation. He's already in violation of the emoluments clause of the US Constitution because of his refusal to put his businesses in a blind trust. He's the first to refuse to release his tax returns since the Nixon debacle. And the list goes on.

There are plenty of conservatives that see that Trump is unfit to be president. Hopefully, the Republican majority in Congress will have the balls to impeach him before he causes a disaster.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My point is I work for the department of Education but certainly would not want to have everything our new Secretary of Education does ascribed to me.

Neither the old one.

Liberals love to proclaim "choice" when it comes to the slaughter of the unborn, but not when it comes to schools.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

OMG!!! I just saw and heard from Milo Yiannopoulos for the first time. Milo is the senior editor at Breitbart. And for the life of me I don't know why the UC Berkeley protesters had a problem with him.

Milo is a 32 year old flaming gay, with all the body language that goes with it, including being covered in women's jewelry. He's a Jew and a Catholic and his male partner is a black Muslim.

So I don't know why the UC Berkeley protesters had a problem with him.

He was very witty and funny. And he values laughter. So I like him.

Oh the hypocrisy of the progressive liberals!!!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

For me the problem with Trump isn't a matter of liberal vs. conservative. It's the problem of having a president who is a pathological liar with delusions of grandeur that impairs his contact with reality. For example, in his last press conference he claimed that he has the highest number of electoral votes since Reagan which is factually way off. Then he claimed there was a terrorist attack in Sweden. But, those are just the latest examples of lies and prevarication that are daily occurrences.

Zeek, now ... finally ... you can understand how I and others feel about Hillary and Bill.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Neither the old one.

Liberals love to proclaim "choice" when it comes to the slaughter of the unborn, but not when it comes to schools.

I am a firm believer in "choice" in schools. I feel it was written into our constitution and that George Bush claim to be the "education president" was unconstitutional. 4 of the framers of the constitution were very intimately involved in education and different views on what is an effective method. As a result I feel the point that since they did not ascribe or enumerate the supervision of education to the federal government that therefore it is given to the states. Just because a state has "choice" does not preclude a small state like Rhode Island working together with Mass. in order to get an economy of scale. At the same time Texas can take a different path from California from NY. But as a result of the "No child left behind" which should be understood as "no child will get ahead" the federal government took State money and decided who to reward and who to penalize based on a very simple formula based on a few exams.

Since I lived in Asia for years and saw the influence of national exams there I was one of the first to realize which way the US was headed. Like it or not we are part of world economy in which every school is compared on one or two test scores. I have no issue with this, I feel if you are not happy with measuring the students based on one or two test scores then fix the test or diversify your schools.

I home schooled my kids for years -- that is choice.

And one of my sons went to a charter school for five years. That is where I got the inside view of charter schools. My first impression was of how orderly and well regulated the school was, how hard the teachers worked, and how impressive the hallway displays of student work was. But then I was a little miffed that the PE department consisted of the kids walking around the block when it wasn't raining. There was no art or drama. The total focus was on the English test and Math test. Everything else was secondary. I became alarmed when I saw them fire about one third of the teachers one summer because they had tried to unionize. During the five years my son was there we went through a principal every year and the last two years they didn't have a principal, they had a business manager (a woman without any education background).

After the Second grade exam scores came back showing that my son was reading below grade level and likewise with his math I decided to take over. They sent him home with lots and lots of worksheets. We ignored those, I had him read a book every week. By the end of 5th grade he was reading a grade above his grade. None of that should be credited to the school. My son is Special Ed and every single year they tried to get him out of the school because on a per student basis he is much less profitable to the profit oriented business running the charter. One summer they actually transferred him out saying that we must not have gotten the invitation to the meeting.

At my son's 5th grade graduation ceremony they sang a song that my son could perform on the violin (he had played the song on national HS competition with my HS students). His teachers didn't even know this. Had they known this the performance would have been a lot better with him accompanying them. This was only one example of how stunning it was how little the teachers knew about the students. A few months earlier I had sat in a meeting with his teacher and realized she was really clueless that he was a level 4 reader, perhaps the only one in the school.

Also, when you look closer at the bulletin boards in the hallway, which you naturally do when you are waiting to talk to the teacher on Parent teacher night, you realize that the book reports are nothing but cut and paste operations from Wikipedia. As a teacher you become tuned to words that are "off key" for an elementary school kid.

In my opinion charter schools are not the results of educators trying to take radical approaches that public schools aren't ready for. Perhaps KIPP was, but the vast majority are simply accountants using tricks to turn the $10,000 per student into an income stream and make their owners a profit. They do that by paying teachers less, making them work longer, and making the discussion tightly focused on two test scores. Nothing else matters. They don't have new or more efficient techniques, rather the secret to their success is to deemphasize or even eliminate everything else you would expect to take place in a school, and then to eliminate any students who don't help their bottom line or test results. If you look at them as a whole they don't do better than Public schools as a whole. If you look at the top 10% of them (a very dangerous statistical approach) then yes, they do better than the average Public school, but they don't do better than the top 10% of public schools.

Yes, the question is "choice" but the choice isn't different educational theories like that of Benjamin Franklin vs. Thomas Jefferson, no the choice is between education for the sake of society, or education for the sake of making a profit.

Maybe I have become jaded but in my opinion the No Child Left Behind initiative was designed with several things in mind. First, let's emphasize and grade schools based on a couple of test scores (as I have said, unlike many educators I realize that we will be forced to take this road), Second highlight "failing schools" and put this on the front page. Third, create a "three legged" race for schools making it close to impossible for them to compete with charter schools who are not regulated by this (this point is much more complicated for someone to understand, if you are interested I'll explain it, but will spare you the details lest you aren't).

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Zeek, now ... finally ... you can understand how I and others feel about Hillary and Bill.

Touche? Coup de grace?!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Oh the hypocrisy of the progressive liberals!!!

And Milo is not a conservative, nor is Trump.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

For me the problem with Trump isn't a matter of liberal vs. conservative. It's the problem of having a president who is a pathological liar with delusions of grandeur that impairs his contact with reality. For example, in his last press conference he claimed that he has the highest number of electoral votes since Reagan which is factually way off. Then he claimed there was a terrorist attack in Sweden. But, those are just the latest examples of lies and prevarication that are daily occurrences.

Did you even see the news on what happened in Sweden? It was unbelievable, who could think, Sweden! There was a horse named Biscuit (true story) and he fell into a well! Who would do this? Maybe someone who doesn't know how to ride a horse! Hence we need extreme vetting to make sure we don't get immigrants who don't know how to ride horses in the US.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Hopefully, the Republican majority in Congress will have the balls to impeach him before he causes a disaster.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

But they might not just let him run roughshod over everything that gets in the way of his bulldozer. (One can hope.)

I have told die-hard conservatives that the union will survive 4 or 8 years of anyone. But when you are living through it, it is hard to see how sometimes.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Hopefully, the Republican majority in Congress will have the balls to impeach him before he causes a disaster.

Right. The pubbies are having a heyday. After Obama they have someone that will sign their bills. And while the clown Trump provides the distractions, they're after everything Obama, and are ending every regulation they can get their hands on ; like a sleight of hand trick. For this reason they'll put up with all of Trump's craziness, things they would never ever have put up with if Obama did it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And Milo is not a conservative, nor is Trump.

And your point is???

.................................................. ......

Radical liberal jihadists hate Milo because he supports Trump.

Can you not see the irony of this all?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am a firm believer in "choice" in schools. I feel it was written into our constitution and that George Bush claim to be the "education president" was unconstitutional. 4 of the framers of the constitution were very intimately involved in education and different views on what is an effective method. As a result I feel the point that since they did not ascribe or enumerate the supervision of education to the federal government that therefore it is given to the states. Just because a state has "choice" does not preclude a small state like Rhode Island working together with Mass. in order to get an economy of scale. At the same time Texas can take a different path from California from NY. But as a result of the "No child left behind" which should be understood as "no child will get ahead" the federal government took State money and decided who to reward and who to penalize based on a very simple formula based on a few exams.

Since I lived in Asia for years and saw the influence of national exams there I was one of the first to realize which way the US was headed. Like it or not we are part of world economy in which every school is compared on one or two test scores. I have no issue with this, I feel if you are not happy with measuring the students based on one or two test scores then fix the test or diversify your schools.

I home schooled my kids for years -- that is choice.

And one of my sons went to a charter school for five years. That is where I got the inside view of charter schools. My first impression was of how orderly and well regulated the school was, how hard the teachers worked, and how impressive the hallway displays of student work was. But then I was a little miffed that the PE department consisted of the kids walking around the block when it wasn't raining. There was no art or drama. The total focus was on the English test and Math test. Everything else was secondary. I became alarmed when I saw them fire about one third of the teachers one summer because they had tried to unionize. During the five years my son was there we went through a principal every year and the last two years they didn't have a principal, they had a business manager (a woman without any education background).

After the Second grade exam scores came back showing that my son was reading below grade level and likewise with his math I decided to take over. They sent him home with lots and lots of worksheets. We ignored those, I had him read a book every week. By the end of 5th grade he was reading a grade above his grade. None of that should be credited to the school. My son is Special Ed and every single year they tried to get him out of the school because on a per student basis he is much less profitable to the profit oriented business running the charter. One summer they actually transferred him out saying that we must not have gotten the invitation to the meeting.

At my son's 5th grade graduation ceremony they sang a song that my son could perform on the violin (he had played the song on national HS competition with my HS students). His teachers didn't even know this. Had they known this the performance would have been a lot better with him accompanying them. This was only one example of how stunning it was how little the teachers knew about the students. A few months earlier I had sat in a meeting with his teacher and realized she was really clueless that he was a level 4 reader, perhaps the only one in the school.

Also, when you look closer at the bulletin boards in the hallway, which you naturally do when you are waiting to talk to the teacher on Parent teacher night, you realize that the book reports are nothing but cut and paste operations from Wikipedia. As a teacher you become tuned to words that are "off key" for an elementary school kid.

In my opinion charter schools are not the results of educators trying to take radical approaches that public schools aren't ready for. Perhaps KIPP was, but the vast majority are simply accountants using tricks to turn the $10,000 per student into an income stream and make their owners a profit. They do that by paying teachers less, making them work longer, and making the discussion tightly focused on two test scores. Nothing else matters. They don't have new or more efficient techniques, rather the secret to their success is to deemphasize or even eliminate everything else you would expect to take place in a school, and then to eliminate any students who don't help their bottom line or test results. If you look at them as a whole they don't do better than Public schools as a whole. If you look at the top 10% of them (a very dangerous statistical approach) then yes, they do better than the average Public school, but they don't do better than the top 10% of public schools.

Yes, the question is "choice" but the choice isn't different educational theories like that of Benjamin Franklin vs. Thomas Jefferson, no the choice is between education for the sake of society, or education for the sake of making a profit.

Maybe I have become jaded but in my opinion the No Child Left Behind initiative was designed with several things in mind. First, let's emphasize and grade schools based on a couple of test scores (as I have said, unlike many educators I realize that we will be forced to take this road), Second highlight "failing schools" and put this on the front page. Third, create a "three legged" race for schools making it close to impossible for them to compete with charter schools who are not regulated by this (this point is much more complicated for someone to understand, if you are interested I'll explain it, but will spare you the details lest you aren't).

Sounds like you and Betsy DeVos will get along just fine!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And your point is???

.................................................. ......

Radical liberal jihadists hate Milo because he supports Trump.

Can you not see the irony of this all?

I do, I do. I guess my point is that neither of them fit. Now Milo might get kicked off Breitbart (for making remarks supporting pedophila) and Trump? well he's not a real puppie, and the demmies don't want him. They're both misfits.

[Ohio]

I read an interesting letter from one of those liberal Hollywood elites ...

My Dear friends and colleagues,

I have recently been pondering President Trump’s executive action with regard to our nation having extreme vetting and our immigration policy finally being enforced. It has pained me deeply to see such a violent reaction to something that, to my mind, makes absolute common sense.

Let me begin by saying that I am from a family of immigrants that came to this country for a better life. They came to the US “legally,” assimilated, integrated, and learned English to the best of their ability, and demanded we speak it. As we all know, we live in a time in which there are forces who wish to destroy our way of life.

There are thousands of illegal immigrant criminals in the United States whose country of origin will not take them back. These criminals are free on the streets of America.

We have recently heard from a plethora of Hollywood stars on this issue — Meryl Streep, Robert DeNiro, Ashley Judd, Madonna, major agencies, musicians, singers and even the indomitable Shia LaBeouf. After much prayer on this issue, I must now stand in solidarity with all of my Hollywood elite brethren. They are right! The rest of you are wrong!

It is now in this spirit that I make an appeal to all in Hollywood and the media for us to use the Oscars to take a stand for the entire world to see and hear. It is time for Hollywood to lead the way.

I propose that Meryl Steep, Chelsea Handler, Richard Gere, Robert DeNiro, Christoph Waltz and others lead an Oscar first: let’s do away with the rules, barriers, and tickets to the Oscars and after-parties, such as the swanky Vanity Fair party or the Weinsteins’ star-studded affair. I ask all migrants, all illegal immigrant criminals and all un-vetted refugees to converge on Hollywood to come to the Oscars and all the after-parties, even those held at the mansions or the Chateau Marmont or anywhere else. After all, we in the Hollywood community want to show all Islamic extremists that we have love in our hearts — and what better way to do that than by inviting them along on our most important night?

It’s time the walls and electronic security gates come down. There are roughly 3,600 seats to the Oscars; we should have at least 2,500 seats reserved for illegal aliens, refugees and migrants, or maybe even more. For those celebrities skipping the ceremony, each should invite at least 100 illegal aliens, refugees or migrants to come to their home to watch the Oscars with them. The Academy and the Vanity Fair people should also get the 150 criminals who have recently been deported from Los Angeles and bring them to the show as honored guests.

I find it curious that when President Obama did the same exact thing — and more — in terms of enforcing the law on illegal immigration, the Hollywood elite were silent. Why were they silent then, but are so vocal now when President Trump is doing basically the same thing? Is Hollywood racist? Why — when Christians are being slaughtered in Syria, Iraq, and other places in the Middle East — is Hollywood silent?

Of course, the people that wish death upon Christians, Jews, gay people and the West are greeted with open arms by the elite in Hollywood — so why can’t they come to our Oscar parties?

Additionally, I am now pleased to announce that Hollywood and the recording industry no longer require the protection of the Men in Blue at any of their events! We do not need a country of laws; only a country of illegal immigrants, refugees and migrants. How dare we ignore the words inscribed on the Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor,
your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…”

So now, we ask you all: please come to the Oscars on February 26th at the Dolby Theater on Hollywood Boulevard. We welcome you to our homes with open arms and love in our hearts. Together, let us celebrate the Progressive left and its policies, which have helped make blue collar America Tired, Hungry, and Poor.

And the Oscar goes to…

With love in my heart, Robert Davi

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I read an interesting letter from one of those liberal Hollywood elites ...

It's satire, written by a conservative Trump supporter. Did you realize this?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's satire, written by a conservative Trump supporter. Did you realize this?

Of course. It exposes all the hypocrisy of the hollywood elites.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I read an interesting letter from one of those liberal Hollywood elites ...

Bahahahahaha ... prolly Milo helped him write that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bahahahahaha ... prolly Milo helped him write that.

Why the tears and why the obsession with Milo?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Zeek, now ... finally ... you can understand how I and others feel about Hillary and Bill.

Perhaps I do understand. It's not easy when the highest office holder in the land doesn't represent your core values.

Of course, you have no idea how I feel about Hillary and Bill, because you prejudged my position when you classified me as a liberal. In your mind, as you have expressed it here for years, being a liberal entailed a bunch of stereotypical opinions that I must have.

Rigid prejudices preclude the free exchange of ideas and the understanding that follows from that. And, I'm not claiming that I am free from prejudices when I make that observation. We all have them, IMO.

That's why I thought and continue to think that Alt Views is valuable. Here, if we continue communicating, we may be able to enlarge our understanding. The trick is to "listen" and not to get stuck in our prejudices. That's why I continue to participate here. I hope that more people from the Local Churches join us in this process.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Of course, you have no idea how I feel about Hillary and Bill, because you prejudged my position when you classified me as a liberal. In your mind, as you have expressed it here for years, being a liberal entailed a bunch of stereotypical opinions that I must have.

Rigid prejudices preclude the free exchange of ideas and the understanding that follows from that. And, I'm not claiming that I am free from prejudices when I make that observation. We all have them, IMO.

That's why I thought and continue to think that Alt Views is valuable. Here, if we continue communicating, we may be able to enlarge our understanding. The trick is to "listen" and not to get stuck in our prejudices. That's why I continue to participate here. I hope that more people from the Local Churches join us in this process.

Wait a minute. Have you forgotten all your LC prejudices which you regularly fling my way? I get the double whammy, while you only hear about liberalism. Are you willing to reconsidering your liberal stances?

I was a Kennedy/McGovern democrat/liberal back in my Cleveland days. Then the party left me. They kept moving left, never stopping, and I decided to stay still, considering the childhood values my parents put in me were not so bad after all. Nearly half a century later, my former party is totally unrecognizable. JFK, besides wanting to know who shot him, would be shocked with how the country has gone to, "ask not what I can do for my country, but what will that effin country do for me?"

Perhaps you might reconsider your own positions in light of where you once were.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Perhaps I do understand. It's not easy when the highest office holder in the land doesn't represent your core values.

Of course, you have no idea how I feel about Hillary and Bill, because you prejudged my position when you classified me as a liberal. In your mind, as you have expressed it here for years, being a liberal entailed a bunch of stereotypical opinions that I must have.

Rigid prejudices preclude the free exchange of ideas and the understanding that follows from that. And, I'm not claiming that I am free from prejudices when I make that observation. We all have them, IMO.

That's why I thought and continue to think that Alt Views is valuable. Here, if we continue communicating, we may be able to enlarge our understanding. The trick is to "listen" and not to get stuck in our prejudices. That's why I continue to participate here. I hope that more people from the Local Churches join us in this process.

And now you know how I must feel when you judged I had a bunch of stereotypical opinions when I said i was a fundamentalist!

Empathy, right here on the internet! Who would have thought it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Wait a minute. Have you forgotten all your LC prejudices which you regularly fling my way? I get the double whammy, while you only hear about liberalism. Are you willing to reconsidering your liberal stances?

I was a Kennedy/McGovern democrat/liberal back in my Cleveland days. Then the party left me. They kept moving left, never stopping, and I decided to stay still, considering the childhood values my parents put in me were not so bad after all. Nearly half a century later, my former party is totally unrecognizable. JFK, besides wanting to know who shot him, would be shocked with how the country has gone to, "ask not what I can do for my country, but what will that effin country do for me?"

Perhaps you might reconsider your own positions in light of where you once were.

It recently hit me that we give LBJ credit for passing the civil rights bill and the voters rights bill, but both of those were written and submitted by JFK. He was the political mind that got them passed, but it was JFK's policy.

That was a master stroke of political genius to maneuver that. It was the democrats that were in Power during WWII, Democrat who dropped the bomb. Yet now that party seems totally incapable of pushing any meaningful legislation through.

I lived in England and used their health care when I broke my leg. I can appreciate that for the bottom 75% of society the UK brand of healthcare is by far the best, the middle 15% it is a tie, and the top 10% probably prefer the system we currently have. But Obamacare is not an improvement for more than 20%, and for the rest it is worse.

How has the party of LBJ, JFK, and FDR become so incompetent?

Think about FDR's ambitious manufacturing goals for WWII, they seemed total fantasy when he proclaimed them and yet we surpassed them.

It was Eisenhower, a Republican, who championed the interstate road system, the biggest government funded public works project in the last 60 years.

How have these parties changed?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It recently hit me that we give LBJ credit for passing the civil rights bill and the voters rights bill, but both of those were written and submitted by JFK. He was the political mind that got them passed, but it was JFK's policy.

LBJ gave us Viet Nam.

God used it for the Spirit's move among the "Jesus People."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How has the party of LBJ, JFK, and FDR become so incompetent?

Study the Clinton presidency.

He came on board and let Hillary push her socialist programs, which caused tremendous backlash.

Then Bill moved to the center, enacted welfare reform, left the country alone while he played with the interns, and somehow the country prospered, and even balanced the budget. By his 2nd term, Clinton had become a good negotiator.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

LBJ gave us Viet Nam.

God used it for the Spirit's move among the "Jesus People."

He is an interesting character that demonstrates how complex people can be. His entire political career he stood for absolutely nothing, and then as President he should be credited for navigating the Civil rights legislation and voting rights legislation through very treacherous waters, causing the Democratic party to lose the South going forward. This was more than political acumen, it was actually something he felt deeply about in his heart.

However, his Vietnam policy was a catastrophe and was almost certainly a policy pushed by his close association with Brown and Root and other large government contractors.

There is a lot to despise about LBJ, but the civil rights legislation and the voting rights bill is not on that list.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Study the Clinton presidency.

He came on board and let Hillary push her socialist programs, which caused tremendous backlash.

Then Bill moved to the center, enacted welfare reform, left the country alone while he played with the interns, and somehow the country prospered, and even balanced the budget. By his 2nd term, Clinton had become a good negotiator.

Yes, Bill Clinton and the balanced budget was the momentary bright spot before we began our trillion dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we had spent a trillion dollars on solar power instead we would be far less dependent on foreign oil, there would be far less terrorism directed our way, and we would be leading the world in this new technology, not the Chinese.

(Just to put that into perspective we get less than 1% of our energy from solar and the total installed based of solar would cost us about $10 billion today. $1 trillion would increase this to 100%. However, it would not be practical to get 100% of our power from solar, so you might want to mix that with wind, but the cost is comparable. However, we have existing hydro and nuclear that you would not want to eliminate. So suffice it to say that $1 trillion spent on solar and wind could easily have turned us into the cleanest and most advanced nation with regards to energy generation. In addition, spending $10 billion on solar has caused a 10 fold drop in the price, which has now made it economic for many people. Spending another $10 billion will probably drop the cost another 25%, making it economic for virtually everyone. Instead of $1 trillion they only needed to spend $10 billion followed by tax incentives for individuals to buy and install it. Priming the well has cost 1% of what they spent on this latest war.)

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Wait a minute. Have you forgotten all your LC prejudices which you regularly fling my way?

From my POV, when I see a comment that is consonant with LC thinking, I call it as such. If you think I'm wrong, just say so.

I get the double whammy, while you only hear about liberalism. Are you willing to reconsidering your liberal stances?

As I see it,a belief or practice is not wrong simply because such is held or practiced by the LC. I can explain why I disagree with the LC. If you hold to LC teaching, that's your choice. There's no whammy.

I don't hold any stances because you consider them liberal. I won't reconsider a stance because you label it "liberal." Now if you give me a sound argument why I should reconsider a stance I'm taking, I'll consider it.

I was a Kennedy/McGovern democrat/liberal back in my Cleveland days. Then the party left me. They kept moving left, never stopping, and I decided to stay still, considering the childhood values my parents put in me were not so bad after all. Nearly half a century later, my former party is totally unrecognizable. JFK, besides wanting to know who shot him, would be shocked with how the country has gone to, "[I]ask not what I can do for my country, but what will that effin country do for me?

Now that is surprising. On March 6, 1961 President John F. Kennedy issued an executive order, which included a provision that government contractors "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." I was under the impression that you thought that people should be discriminated against if they were "Mooslim" [sic]. Shows how wrong I can be.

Perhaps you might reconsider your own positions in light of where you once were.

I'm not sure how that would work. My positions have changed based on my experience and knowledge. I now see where I once was in a larger context. I think it makes more sense to go forward. You should try it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

And now you know how I must feel when you judged I had a bunch of stereotypical opinions when I said i was a fundamentalist!

Empathy, right here on the internet! Who would have thought it.

You volunteered that you were a fundamentalist. I took that to mean you hold to the five fundamentals.

Perhaps you do. But, I have observed that, while you maintain that the Bible is inerrant, you often interpret it in terms of quasi-scientific speculation or metaphoric interpretation. So, maybe you consider Biblical literalism to be a stereotype of fundamentalism, whereas, I think of it as a defining characteristic.

Strictly speaking then , you don't meet my definition of fundamentalist. Witness Lee departed from strict fundamentalism with his metaphorical interpretations. You have added scientific speculation to the mix.

I don't know why you consider yourself a fundamentalist. Personally I don't like labels, and I'm not going to adopt or maintain a position just to be included under one.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

From my POV, when I see a comment that is consonant with LC thinking, I call it as such. If you think I'm wrong, just say so.

As I see it,a belief or practice is not wrong simply because such is held or practiced by the LC. I can explain why I disagree with the LC. If you hold to LC teaching, that's your choice. There's no whammy.

If my views are conservative or Biblical, they may seem LCish to you because that was your (only?) Christian context. Also, your leadership in S. Florida under Mel Porter took every LC problem to great extremes, almost unrecognizable to me personally. Regarding these extremes, my only point of reference is what I have read from others' similar to yours.

I don't hold any stances because you consider them liberal. I won't reconsider a stance because you label it "liberal." Now if you give me a sound argument why I should reconsider a stance I'm taking, I'll consider it.

OK. I consider the wholesale slaughter of the unborn as a liberal-defining position identified as "women's rights." I left the Democratic party over abortion back in 1973, when we organized peaceful protests and parades in Cleveland bringing abortion clinics under public scrutiny. Would you reconsider your stance on abortion?

Now that is surprising. On March 6, 1961 President John F. Kennedy issued an executive order, which included a provision that government contractors "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." I was under the impression that you thought that people should be discriminated against if they were "Mooslim" [sic]. Shows how wrong I can be.

That's right. Big difference between employers wrongfully treating Mooslims, and citizens like me being alarmed by their hateful rhetoric, demands for sheria law, mistreatment of women, etc. Since "peaceful" Mooslims are constantly silent about radical islamic terror, they tacitly approve of it. No other creed has these issues.

I'm not sure how that would work. My positions have changed based on my experience and knowledge. I now see where I once was in a larger context. I think it makes more sense to go forward. You should try it.

If going forward means turning hard left, then I'll pass. I've seen the damage it causes.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

LBJ gave us Viet Nam.

God used it for the Spirit's move among the "Jesus People."

Maybe Trump can get us in a similar war, so God can use it for the Spirit's move, and another Witness Lee will rise up.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If my views are conservative or Biblical, they may seem LCish to you because that was your (only?) Christian context. Also, your leadership in S. Florida under Mel Porter took every LC problem to great extremes, almost unrecognizable to me personally. Regarding these extremes, my only point of reference is what I have read from others' similar to yours.

The salient characteristics of the LC are not conservative. If the LC is simply practicing conservative Christianity, then why aren't you still part of it?

OK. I consider the wholesale slaughter of the unborn as a liberal-defining position identified as "women's rights." I left the Democratic party over abortion back in 1973, when we organized peaceful protests and parades in Cleveland bringing abortion clinics under public scrutiny. Would you reconsider your stance on abortion?

I don't recall ever saying a thing about abortion on this website; so, why you think you know how I feel about it is puzzling to me.

That's right. Big difference between employers wrongfully treating Mooslims, and citizens like me being alarmed by their hateful rhetoric, demands for sheria law, mistreatment of women, etc. Since "peaceful" Mooslims are constantly silent about radical islamic terror, they tacitly approve of it. No other creed has these issues.

What about the Muslims who don't express hateful rhetoric, demand sharia law, or mistreat women and do condemn terrorism? http://www.usnews.com/news/the-repor...dia-ignores-it

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's right. Big difference between employers wrongfully treating Mooslims, and citizens like me being alarmed by their hateful rhetoric, demands for sheria law, mistreatment of women, etc. Since "peaceful" Mooslims are constantly silent about radical islamic terror, they tacitly approve of it. No other creed has these issues.

Sometimes when we dislike or fear others it's because we don't know them.

If space aliens were studying us, and all they had to go on was our news outlets they'd concluded the human race is very violent. But because the news doesn't speak of all the non-violent members of the human race they would really know us.

After 9/11 I visited a mosque a couple of times (is that liberal?). I sat at a picnic table with about 20 or so of them. They shared milk and cookies with me. They did not agree with the perpetrators of 9/11. In fact, they didn't think they were real Muslims. Still, they were being persecuted as if they did it. Their mosque was being vandalised, they were being discriminated against in the marketplace, and they couldn't let their children go outside and play. My heart went out to them.

Maybe instead of just going by all the bad news about Muslims, you should make an effort to get to know some Muslims that aren't in the news (the lying media).

Originally Posted by Ohio

If going forward means turning hard left, then I'll pass.

Are your choices only hard left or hard right? The world isn't just black and white. It's filled with all kinds of colors, including gray.

I know it's likely too liberal for you, but I became a Mugwump so that I wouldn't have to hate either one. Or actually, maybe, so that I could hate both equally, when I feel like hating, which is rare.

The human race is worthy of hate. But not all of them. Most, in fact, aren't. Same with Muslims.

But you won't convince Steve Bannon of that. He's not only hard right, but is Alt-right. Is it a conservative thing to hate all but white Christians? I don't think it's a Christian thing (unless it's a Catholic thing during the Crusades).

Here's something that's touching :

Keep the faith: Muslim activists raise $55,000 in just HOURS to rebuild Jewish cemetery where vandals destroyed 154 gravestones
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-cemetery.html

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Sometimes when we dislike or fear others it's because we don't know them.

Or we fear others because of what we do know.

Maybe instead of just going by all the bad news about Muslims, you should make an effort to get to know some Muslims that aren't in the news (the lying media).

Coming from you, I found this interesting.

Reading all your posts, I can't ever remember a time where you portrayed Christians in a good light. We have corresponded for years about your disparaging attitude towards God, towards the Bible, towards Israel, and towards Christians. You never seem to have a good thing to say about any of them, instead you can drag up the most outlandish things, often from millennia ago, to paint them derogatorily. Am I not right?

Yet here you are lecturing me about finding some good mooslims, ready to tell me wonderful stories of their love. You never have a bad thing to say. Why did you not challenge them about their teachings and history, like you do with every other Christian you run in to? Why not incite them on the sunni/shiite conflicts, or anything else close to their heart, like you do with every Christian you know? Why do you treat mooslims so much better than Christians?

Are your choices only hard left or hard right? The world isn't just black and white. It's filled with all kinds of colors, including gray.

Also funny. You have never said anything good about Bush or Trump, yet say nearly nothing about Clintons or Obama. That doesn't sound very colorful to me. Sounds to me pretty monochromatic -- true blue. Or maybe "yellow dog" democrat.

But you won't convince Steve Bannon of that. He's not only hard right, but is Alt-right. Is it a conservative thing to hate all but white Christians?

Little disingenuous for you to criticize Bannon for his views supporting Trump, yet never condemn the Obama girls like Valerie Jarrett, Susan Rice, and Loretta Lynch. They really pushed the limits of Alt-left. Wasn't there a whole lot to hate there? How about the total lack of honesty and transparency?

But wait folks! We ain't allowed to critique their job performance! Heck no! Because they are women. And they are minority women. They get a free pass. How dare us white folks demand accountability from these "public" servants? Don't you know that all of us white folks got "white privilege?" We must forever bear the daily shame of our "white guilt."

News Flash!!

It was not white people who broke all their treaties and killed the yellow man, it was the Democrats.

It was not white people who kept the black man enslaved and oppressed, it was the Democrats, southern AND northern.

[ZNPaaneah]

I think it is fair to this discussion on treatment of muslims to realize that the Koran does not see the distinction between human government and God's government. In the NT Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world" hence Christians can see a distinction without conflict. However, the recent political push to move countries to adopt Sharia law funded by the OPEC countries like Saudi Arabia, a push that has resulted in horrible war atrocities like Sudan and Nigeria should alarm everyone. Under Sharia law non muslims are second class citizens. The only reason a muslim would claim that they are not interested in converting the US to Sharia law is because they aren't even close to 50% of the population. But in countries that are close to 50% it is very clear how they behave towards non Muslims to change the equation. We are not talking about "extremists" we are talking about the major Muslim nations in the UN (OPEC, Indonesia, etc) and about 20 developing nations that recently converted to Sharia law to get financial incentives and give the Muslim nations a much more powerful voice in the UN.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't know why you consider yourself a fundamentalist. Personally I don't like labels, and I'm not going to adopt or maintain a position just to be included under one.

Fundamentalism means a literal interpretation of scripture. I don't see an issue with understanding typology as typology as violating this.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Fundamentalism means a literal interpretation of scripture. I don't see an issue with understanding typology as typology as violating this.

Among the GLA leadership, the worst label of all was being called "pastor." Every other sin was forgivable, but not this one. Murderers, adulterers, thieves, and liars all have a better chance than does a "pastor."

Likewise this Alt-Left SubForum. The worst label of all is to be a "fundamentalist." Everything else is acceptable and forgivable, but not that.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Or we fear others because of what we do know.

Coming from you, I found this interesting.

Reading all your posts, I can't ever remember a time where you portrayed Christians in a good light. We have corresponded for years about your disparaging attitude towards God, towards the Bible, towards Israel, and towards Christians. You never seem to have a good thing to say about any of them, instead you can drag up the most outlandish things, often from millennia ago, to paint them derogatorily. Am I not right?

Yet here you are lecturing me about finding some good mooslims, ready to tell me wonderful stories of their love. You never have a bad thing to say. Why did you not challenge them about their teachings and history, like you do with every other Christian you run in to? Why not incite them on the sunni/shiite conflicts, or anything else close to their heart, like you do with every Christian you know? Why do you treat mooslims so much better than Christians?


Also funny. You have never said anything good about Bush or Trump, yet say nearly nothing about Clintons or Obama. That doesn't sound very colorful to me. Sounds to me pretty monochromatic -- true blue. Or maybe "yellow dog" democrat.


Little disingenuous for you to criticize Bannon for his views supporting Trump, yet never condemn the Obama girls like Valerie Jarrett, Susan Rice, and Loretta Lynch. They really pushed the limits of Alt-left. Wasn't there a whole lot to hate there? How about the total lack of honesty and transparency?

But wait folks! We ain't allowed to critique their job performance! Heck no! Because they are women. And they are minority women. They get a free pass. How dare us white folks demand accountability from these "public" servants? Don't you know that all of us white folks got "white privilege?" We must forever bear the daily shame of our "white guilt."

News Flash!!

It was not white people who broke all their treaties and killed the yellow man, it was the Democrats.

It was not white people who kept the black man enslaved and oppressed, it was the Democrats, southern AND northern.

Goodness bro Ohio, come out for hate why don't you. Seems to me what you are saying is that, I hate Christians, and Jews, and I'm messing up by not hate Muslims, and, by the way, liberals. Hey, I may as well throw the conservatives in there too. Cuz I've got my hands full with just the Christians. Something is wrong with me. I'm not able to hate enough, nor to keep up with all the hate required in the world.

Should we really be hating labels? Should we actually be putting people in categories, and then hating all in that category, without realizing that we might be putting people in the category that don't fit there ; when there are actually good and bad people in each an every category???

I don't get it. Why must we hate? What is it about humans that makes them have to have someone(s) to hate?

[Evangelical]

Most Muslims are non-violent, peace loving people, even the ones that believe in Sharia. Islam is about a personal relationship with God, through Sharia Law. This is similar to a Jew's personal relationship with God through the Torah. In fact the Torah and Sharia Law are very similar to each other.
I can imagine God perhaps preferring a Sharia Law country to a law-less country like America. The Sharia Law country would be more or less similar to ancient Israel.
Contrary to popular opinion, muslims have no interest in converting a country like America to Sharia law, because it is against the Koran to mix church and state. Sharia law obliges muslims to defend other faiths from attack. Fundamentalists, or extremists, on the other hand, want to use Islam to overthrow democracy - there are many muslims who disagree with this, which is why muslim democratic countries still exist.

This parodox between "peace loving" and violence is not only found in Islam, it is also in Christianity. For example, Christianity is a peace loving religion, or so it claims. If that is true, then why do Christians ever go to war given the command to "love thy neighbor"? These sorts of "if Islam is so peaceful why do they....." arguments can also apply to Christianity.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Goodness bro Ohio, come out for hate why don't you. Seems to me what you are saying is that, I hate Christians, and Jews, and I'm messing up by not hate Muslims, and, by the way, liberals. Hey, I may as well throw the conservatives in there too. Cuz I've got my hands full with just the Christians. Something is wrong with me. I'm not able to hate enough, nor to keep up with all the hate required in the world.

Should we really be hating labels? Should we actually be putting people in categories, and then hating all in that category, without realizing that we might be putting people in the category that don't fit there ; when there are actually good and bad people in each an every category???

I don't get it. Why must we hate? What is it about humans that makes them have to have someone(s) to hate?

When did I say to hate anyone? Did you even read what I wrote?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Contrary to popular opinion, muslims have no interest in converting a country like America to Sharia law, because it is against the Koran to mix church and state.

Thank you for teaching us! Can you quote the portion of the Koran that is against mixing church and state? Thanks.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When did I say to hate anyone? Did you even read what I wrote?

I think you critiqued Obama's administration. That usually results in a knee jerk reaction of "hate" and "racist".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Contrary to popular opinion, muslims have no interest in converting a country like America to Sharia law, because it is against the Koran to mix church and state. Sharia law obliges muslims to defend other faiths from attack.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Thank you for teaching us! Can you quote the portion of the Koran that is against mixing church and state? Thanks.

Evangelical, perhaps you need to study more.

It is absolutely islamic culture that the same person is both their secular and religious leader. Their religion and culture also mandates that religion and state by the same. Their are only a few exceptions to this in the world today.

Have you ever read what "peaceful" muslims do to non-muslims? Have you ever read what "peaceful" muslims do to family members who are non-observant, or even convert to another religion?

One of the hallmarks of 21st century progressivism is the promotion and acceptance of muslims. Prior to this no society has ever welcomed them. History tells us that their "gospel" always came with the edge of a sword, and people resisted with their lives.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When did I say to hate anyone? Did you even read what I wrote?

No I didn't. It exuded too much hate. Was it lying to me? I hope so. I really hate hate.

But really. Okay I'm hard on Christianity, the Jews and the Bible. But I wouldn't ban any of them. And of course if I got on Islam's case I would likely be as bad, and am, at times with Muslim "friends" on Facebook. I am weak on the point. I've read the Quran, but don't know it like the Bible (it reminds me of the Old Testament). And I realize there are violent Muslims. They're human. But I wouldn't ban them either ; not as a classified group. Most Muslim's aren't violent, thank God, or Allah ... what/whoever.

For a while I was helping a young student here at Murray State University. He was a Muslim from India. He was Sunni. He spewed disdain for Shiite (not Muslim he said) and Hindus. He talked up India like it's the greatest country in the world. But I loved the kid. Even tho he was a Muslim, he was basically a good person, in the struggle of life, like the rest of us.

I asked why we hate. It's obviously a cultural thing. Our culture is good. Their's is not. My tribe good. Yours not. My tribe is real people. Yours is not.

But as Christians we're supposed to be a "new man." I'll leave all the characteristics of the new man to bro ZNP, but I doubt it includes stereotypically hating groups of people ; whether liberals, Muslims, blacks, gays, or otherwise. That to me should be both liberal and conservative values.

Besides, do we really want to advertise to the world that Jesus failed us?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think you critiqued Obama's administration. That usually results in a knee jerk reaction of "hate" and "racist".

I understand, after Hillary's epic loss, many young liberals are now suffering from PTSD, not unlike our soldiers returning from battle.

[zeek]

"America rejects bigotry. We reject every act of hatred against people of Arab background or Muslim faith. America values and welcomes peaceful people of all faiths -- Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and many others. Every faith is practiced and protected here, because we are one country. Every immigrant can be fully and equally American because we're one country. Race and color should not divide us, because America is one country."

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archi...dan/islam.html

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

No I didn't. It exuded too much hate. Was it lying to me? I hope so. I really hate hate.

But really. Okay I'm hard on Christianity, the Jews and the Bible. But I wouldn't ban any of them. And of course if I got on Islam's case I would likely be as bad, and am, at times with Muslim "friends" on Facebook. I am weak on the point. I've read the Quran, but don't know it like the Bible (it reminds me of the Old Testament). And I realize there are violent Muslims. They're human. But I wouldn't ban them either ; not as a classified group. Most Muslim's aren't violent, thank God, or Allah ... what/whoever.

For a while I was helping a young student here at Murray State University. He was a Muslim from India. He was Sunni. He spewed disdain for Shiite (not Muslim he said) and Hindus. He talked up India like it's the greatest country in the world. But I loved the kid. Even tho he was a Muslim, he was basically a good person, in the struggle of life, like the rest of us.

I asked why we hate. It's obviously a cultural thing. Our culture is good. Their's is not. My tribe good. Yours not. My tribe is real people. Yours is not.

But as Christians we're supposed to be a "new man." I'll leave all the characteristics of the new man to bro ZNP, but I doubt it includes stereotypically hating groups of people ; whether liberals, Muslims, blacks, gays, or otherwise. That to me should be both liberal and conservative values.

Besides, do we really want to advertise to the world that Jesus failed us?

Of course Jesus failed.

We need to tell every one!

He died on the cross, didn't He?

And that's the good news of the gospel!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

"America rejects bigotry. We reject every act of hatred against people of Arab background or Muslim faith. America values and welcomes peaceful people of all faiths -- Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and many others. Every faith is practiced and protected here, because we are one country. Every immigrant can be fully and equally American because we're one country. Race and color should not divide us, because America is one country."

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archi...dan/islam.html

Great quote!

Those were the good ole days.

Then Obama screwed it all up.

[Evangelical]

Separation of church and state in Islam is a yes and no answer.
Firstly, there is no concept of "church" in Islam, so in that sense there is no separation of religion from the state. Ideologically there is not, but in practice there often is. This is evident by 50% of nations with majority Islamic population being democracies (or close enough to it). Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation, is evident of that - a secular democratic government with a large muslim population. Actually it is incorrect to say Indonesia is a Muslim nation. It is a secular multi-faith nation with a large number of Muslims.

Karen Armstrong, Instructor at Leo Baeck College for the Study of Judaism, in a Oct. 22, 2001 Salon.com interview titled "Fundamental Problems," stated the following:
"Even though ideologically [in Islam] there can be no separation between church and state, both Sunnis and Shiites developed a separation very early on. In the Sunni world, the separation was de facto; Islamic law developed as kind of a counterculture to the aristocratic courts. In the Shiite world, there was a separation of church and state on principle. It was held that since every state was corrupt, clerics should take no part in them, that the religious should withdraw until the messiah came and established a proper Muslim state."


Can read the 'yes' and 'no' side here:
http://israelipalestinian.procon.org...stionID=000603


The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The Quran also teaches freedom of religion:

“There is no compulsion in religion — the right way is indeed clearly distinct from error.”— 2:256

Many Muslim clerics believe like Witness Lee did - they should stay out of government so they don't "defile" themselves.

Most Muslims have no interest in seeing Sharia Law replace the existing Constitution. They live their lives in peace according to their beliefs and believe that one day the secular governments will be overthrown when the Messiah comes. This is not unlike most Christians who also have no interest in seeing "Christian law" (e.g. the 10 commandments) replace existing laws of government, but believe that things will change when the Messiah comes.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Evangelical, perhaps you need to study more.

It is absolutely islamic culture that the same person is both their secular and religious leader. Their religion and culture also mandates that religion and state by the same. Their are only a few exceptions to this in the world today.

Have you ever read what "peaceful" muslims do to non-muslims? Have you ever read what "peaceful" muslims do to family members who are non-observant, or even convert to another religion?

One of the hallmarks of 21st century progressivism is the promotion and acceptance of muslims. Prior to this no society has ever welcomed them. History tells us that their "gospel" always came with the edge of a sword, and people resisted with their lives.

Hindus also do things to their family members who convert to another religion. Hindus have killed their own for converting to Islam or Christianity.

We only need to look into Christian history to see that "History tells us that their "gospel" always came with the edge of a sword, and people resisted with their lives" is just as true of Christianity as it is of Islam. A good place to start is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Great quote!

Those were the good ole days.

Then Obama screwed it all up.

"The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war."

George W. Bush
Remarks by the President at Islamic Center of Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C.
September 17, 2001

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Separation of church and state in Islam is a yes and no answer.
Firstly, there is no concept of "church" in Islam, so in that sense there is no separation of religion from the state. Ideologically there is not, but in practice there often is. This is evident by 50% of nations with majority Islamic population being democracies (or close enough to it). Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation, is evident of that - a secular democratic government with a large muslim population. Actually it is incorrect to say Indonesia is a Muslim nation. It is a secular multi-faith nation with a large number of Muslims.

Karen Armstrong, Instructor at Leo Baeck College for the Study of Judaism, in a Oct. 22, 2001 Salon.com interview titled "Fundamental Problems," stated the following:
"Even though ideologically [in Islam] there can be no separation between church and state, both Sunnis and Shiites developed a separation very early on. In the Sunni world, the separation was de facto; Islamic law developed as kind of a counterculture to the aristocratic courts. In the Shiite world, there was a separation of church and state on principle. It was held that since every state was corrupt, clerics should take no part in them, that the religious should withdraw until the messiah came and established a proper Muslim state."


Can read the 'yes' and 'no' side here:
http://israelipalestinian.procon.org...stionID=000603


The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The Quran also teaches freedom of religion:

“There is no compulsion in religion — the right way is indeed clearly distinct from error.”— 2:256

Many Muslim clerics believe like Witness Lee did - they should stay out of government so they don't "defile" themselves.

Most Muslims have no interest in seeing Sharia Law replace the existing Constitution. They live their lives in peace according to their beliefs and believe that one day the secular governments will be overthrown when the Messiah comes. This is not unlike most Christians who also have no interest in seeing "Christian law" (e.g. the 10 commandments) replace existing laws of government, but believe that things will change when the Messiah comes.

You said it was "against the Koran to mix church and state". The verse that you provide from the Koran to support that is 2:256 "There is no compulsion in religion -- the right way is indeed clearly distinct from error".

I'm sorry, I don't see how this supports the claim that it is "against the Koran to mix church and state". Even if some Muslims have practiced their faith with this as a practice there are just as many who justify their actions of "Mixing church and state" generally referred to as "Sharia Law" with the Koran.

Sharia, Sharia law, or Islamic law (Arabic: شريعة‎‎ (IPA: [ʃaˈriːʕa])) is the religious law forming part of the Islamic tradition. It is derived from the religious precepts of Islam, particularly the Quran and the Hadith.

Also what a shining example of separation of church and state is Indonesia. This is a report from Amnesty International a few months ago:

The Indonesian police should immediately drop the criminal investigation into Jakarta’s governor for alleged blasphemy, Amnesty International said today.

The organization’s call came as the Indonesian police named Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, the Governor of Jakarta better known as ‘Ahok’, as a suspect in a blasphemy complaint filed by some religious groups. Ahok, a Christian, is the first member of Indonesia’s ethnic Chinese community to be elected Governor of Jakarta.

“By carrying out a criminal investigation and naming Ahok as a suspect, the authorities have shown they are more worried about hard-line religious groups than respecting and protecting human rights for all,” said Rafendi Djamin, Amnesty International’s Director for Southeast Asia and the Pacific.

“Among the police, opinion is divided on whether the case should proceed, showing that the decision to open an investigation against Ahok is a controversial step.”

At a press conference on Wednesday, the Head of the Criminal Investigation Department of the National Police Headquarters, Comr. General Ari Dono said, “Although there are different opinions among police investigators most agreed that the case should be settled in an open trial.”

Yes, a Christian is elected governor of a province in Indonesia and so is accused of blasphemy by "religious groups" and then arrested by the Indonesian police and investigated for criminal prosecution. If this is how a governor is treated, one can only wonder how the average Christian is treated. Are there any religious groups other than Muslims that accuse others of blasphemy as a criminal offense? Don't know, but feel it is a very safe bet that there aren't any others in Indonesia.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

"The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war."
Remarks by the President at Islamic Center of Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C.
September 17, 2001

Ever hear of al-Taqiyya: "deception; the islamic word for concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies."

And read this:
Muslims lie not because they are liars by nature but by choice. Systematic lying as a religious policy is deadly, and if our politicians do not understand this, thousands could die.

It is simply impossible to believe anything a mooslim tells us, because he/she can obey sharia law by lying to us.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Ever hear of al-Taqiyya: "deception; the islamic word for concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies."

And read this:
Muslims lie not because they are liars by nature but by choice. Systematic lying as a religious policy is deadly, and if our politicians do not understand this, thousands could die.

It is simply impossible to believe anything a mooslim tells us, because he/she can obey sharia law by lying to us.

What frightens me the most about this debate is that those who debate on behalf of Muslims are very often clueless. They assure us of things that are just not true. Have they read the Koran? Have they followed the history of the last 50 years and the organized campaign to gain allies to Saudi Arabia by any means necessary including genocide? They seem to assume that all religions are the same and a "devout Muslim" is equivalent in faith to a "devout Christian".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What frightens me the most about this debate is that those who debate on behalf of Muslims are very often clueless. They assure us of things that are just not true. Have they read the Koran? Have they followed the history of the last 50 years and the organized campaign to gain allies to Saudi Arabia by any means necessary including genocide? They seem to assume that all religions are the same and a "devout Muslim" is equivalent in faith to a "devout Christian".

What's worse to me are these same muslim apologists have armed themselves with every bad thing done in the name of Christ, and are totally clueless as to muslim atrocities around the glove since the 7th century.

One of my brothers (who btw supports Obama and the Clintons, and hates Bush) said it best, "why is it we never hear about muslim doctors, scientists, inventors, and engineers, and we only hear about how clever they are to blow things up."

He said this while his only son was serving in the Marines in Iraq.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What's worse to me are these same muslim apologists have armed themselves with every bad thing done in the name of Christ, and are totally clueless as to muslim atrocities around the glove since the 7th century.

One of my brothers (who btw supports Obama and the Clintons, and hates Bush) said it best, "why is it we never hear about muslim doctors, scientists, inventors, and engineers, and we only hear about how clever they are to blow things up."

He said this while his only son was serving in the Marines in Iraq.

That's the media that focusses on the bad and ignores the good

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You said it was "against the Koran to mix church and state". The verse that you provide from the Koran to support that is 2:256 "There is no compulsion in religion -- the right way is indeed clearly distinct from error".

I'm sorry, I don't see how this supports the claim that it is "against the Koran to mix church and state". Even if some Muslims have practiced their faith with this as a practice there are just as many who justify their actions of "Mixing church and state" generally referred to as "Sharia Law" with the Koran.

Sharia, Sharia law, or Islamic law (Arabic: شريعة‎‎ (IPA: [ʃaˈriːʕa])) is the religious law forming part of the Islamic tradition. It is derived from the religious precepts of Islam, particularly the Quran and the Hadith.

Also what a shining example of separation of church and state is Indonesia. This is a report from Amnesty International a few months ago:

The Indonesian police should immediately drop the criminal investigation into Jakarta’s governor for alleged blasphemy, Amnesty International said today.

The organization’s call came as the Indonesian police named Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, the Governor of Jakarta better known as ‘Ahok’, as a suspect in a blasphemy complaint filed by some religious groups. Ahok, a Christian, is the first member of Indonesia’s ethnic Chinese community to be elected Governor of Jakarta.

“By carrying out a criminal investigation and naming Ahok as a suspect, the authorities have shown they are more worried about hard-line religious groups than respecting and protecting human rights for all,” said Rafendi Djamin, Amnesty International’s Director for Southeast Asia and the Pacific.

“Among the police, opinion is divided on whether the case should proceed, showing that the decision to open an investigation against Ahok is a controversial step.”

At a press conference on Wednesday, the Head of the Criminal Investigation Department of the National Police Headquarters, Comr. General Ari Dono said, “Although there are different opinions among police investigators most agreed that the case should be settled in an open trial.”

Yes, a Christian is elected governor of a province in Indonesia and so is accused of blasphemy by "religious groups" and then arrested by the Indonesian police and investigated for criminal prosecution. If this is how a governor is treated, one can only wonder how the average Christian is treated. Are there any religious groups other than Muslims that accuse others of blasphemy as a criminal offense? Don't know, but feel it is a very safe bet that there aren't any others in Indonesia.

Many countries have blasphemy laws:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Ever hear of al-Taqiyya: "deception; the islamic word for concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies."

And read this:
Muslims lie not because they are liars by nature but by choice. Systematic lying as a religious policy is deadly, and if our politicians do not understand this, thousands could die.

It is simply impossible to believe anything a mooslim tells us, because he/she can obey sharia law by lying to us.

Rahab in the bible lied for a righteous cause.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Ever hear of al-Taqiyya: "deception; the islamic word for concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies."

And read this:
Muslims lie not because they are liars by nature but by choice. Systematic lying as a religious policy is deadly, and if our politicians do not understand this, thousands could die.

It is simply impossible to believe anything a mooslim tells us, because he/she can obey sharia law by lying to us.

"America treasures the relationship we have with our many Muslim friends, and we respect the vibrant faith of Islam which inspires countless individuals to lead lives of honesty, integrity, and morality."

George W. Bush
Presidential Message Eid al-Fitr
December 5, 2002

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

"America treasures the relationship we have with our many Muslim friends, and we respect the vibrant faith of Islam which inspires countless individuals to lead lives of honesty, integrity, and morality."

George W. Bush
Presidential Message Eid al-Fitr
December 5, 2002

Bush presented wishful thinking about muslims in his message, and you are completely on board, but after all these years of islamic jihadi terrorism in western countries, a new reality has set in.

The other day Trump commented on Sweden's battle with terrorism, grossly undercovered by their press. The usual blowback followed. The very next day Swedish police are attacked, and now we hear that anti-immigrant politicians are favored in upcoming elections.

Sweden, Germany, and France may also follow Brexit over this issue of national security, with political challengers all saying "Trump is right." So much for progressive social engineering.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What's worse to me are these same muslim apologists have armed themselves with every bad thing done in the name of Christ, and are totally clueless as to muslim atrocities around the glove since the 7th century.

One of my brothers (who btw supports Obama and the Clintons, and hates Bush) said it best, "why is it we never hear about muslim doctors, scientists, inventors, and engineers, and we only hear about how clever they are to blow things up."

He said this while his only son was serving in the Marines in Iraq.

I also am clueless about Muslim atrocities around the glove. If I remember correctly Michael Jackson was not a Muslim, he was a JW.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Many countries have blasphemy laws:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law

A blasphemy law is very clearly a mixture of church and state.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

"America treasures the relationship we have with our many Muslim friends, and we respect the vibrant faith of Islam which inspires countless individuals to lead lives of honesty, integrity, and morality."

George W. Bush
Presidential Message Eid al-Fitr
December 5, 2002

You don't do it justice. The following is a full transcript of Bush speaking Sept. 17, 2001:


The White House, President George W. Bush Click to print this document
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 17, 2001

"Islam is Peace" Says President
Remarks by the President at Islamic Center of Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C.


View the President's Remarks
Listen to the President's Remarks

3:12 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much for your hospitality. We've just had a -- wide-ranging discussions on the matter at hand. Like the good folks standing with me, the American people were appalled and outraged at last Tuesday's attacks. And so were Muslims all across the world. Both Americans and Muslim friends and citizens, tax-paying citizens, and Muslims in nations were just appalled and could not believe what we saw on our TV screens.

These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it's important for my fellow Americans to understand that.

The English translation is not as eloquent as the original Arabic, but let me quote from the Koran, itself: In the long run, evil in the extreme will be the end of those who do evil. For that they rejected the signs of Allah and held them up to ridicule.

The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war.

When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that's made brothers and sisters out of every race -- out of every race.

America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect.

Women who cover their heads in this country must feel comfortable going outside their homes. Moms who wear cover must be not intimidated in America. That's not the America I know. That's not the America I value.

I've been told that some fear to leave; some don't want to go shopping for their families; some don't want to go about their ordinary daily routines because, by wearing cover, they're afraid they'll be intimidated. That should not and that will not stand in America.

Those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don't represent the best of America, they represent the worst of humankind, and they should be ashamed of that kind of behavior.

This is a great country. It's a great country because we share the same values of respect and dignity and human worth. And it is my honor to be meeting with leaders who feel just the same way I do. They're outraged, they're sad. They love America just as much as I do.

I want to thank you all for giving me a chance to come by. And may God bless us all.

END 3:19 P.M. EDT

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

but after all these years of islamic jihadi terrorism in western countries, a new reality has set in.

Hogwash. Bush was speaking right after 9/11. It can't get any worse than an out right attack on our soil.

[Ohio]

Ohio: But after all these years of islamic jihadi terrorism in western countries, a new reality has set in.

Originally Posted by awareness

Hogwash. Bush was speaking right after 9/11. It can't get any worse than an out right attack on our soil.

Sure it can.

Bush portrayed 9/11 as an isolated event, though horrific, and it was a problem America was going to solve once and for all. Here we 15 years later. Islamic terror seems to strike on a monthly basis. Not just in the US, but Europe, and all over the world. Now we got sunni ISIS recruits on the internet from every nation on earth. We have serious mooslim threats never envisioned by Bush.

Back in those days Osama Been Hiding (Al Quada) and Saddam (maddas) Hussein were the perceived threats. Now they are gone, and new threats emerge every day. Iran has stepped up to become the chief state sponsor of terror, and with the arrival of their nuke program, courtesy of Hussein Obama, we now must fear that some dirty bomb might come floating up the Potomac. Or the Hudson.

Even if Trump took out ISIS completely today, the pending threats are growing on a daily basis. Muslims are a violent bunch. We have to face the facts.

Many sunni muslems are Arabs, descendants of Ishmael. Listen to the prophecy about Ishmael:

“he shall be a wild ass among men; his hand shall be against every man, and every man’s hand against him. And he shall dwell over against all his brethren” (Genesis 16:12).

Just amazing how the Bible prophecies get fulfilled!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sure it can.

Bush portrayed 9/11 as an isolated event, though horrific, and it was a problem America was going to solve once and for all. Here we 15 years later. Islamic terror seems to strike on a monthly basis. Not just in the US, but Europe, and all over the world. Now we got sunni ISIS recruits on the internet from every nation on earth. We have serious mooslim threats never envisioned by Bush.

Back in those days Osama Been Hiding (Al Quada) and Saddam (maddas) Hussein were the perceived threats. Now they are gone, and new threats emerge every day. Iran has stepped up to become the chief state sponsor of terror, and with the arrival of their nuke program, courtesy of Hussein Obama, we now must fear that some dirty bomb might come floating up the Potomac. Or the Hudson.

Even if Trump took out ISIS completely today, the pending threats are growing on a daily basis. Muslims are a violent bunch. We have to face the facts.

Many sunni muslems are Arabs, descendants of Ishmael. Listen to the prophecy about Ishmael:

Just amazing how the Bible prophecies get fulfilled!

A racist reads a racist interpretation into a Bible verse. It's called "confirmation bias". Your blindness to the fact that you are doing that is kind of amazing. The verse literally makes a statement about Ismael, nothing more. You read the rest in. But then, you're just parroting what Witness Lee taught, so, it's not like there's any independent thought involved.

[ZNPaaneah]

Can we put these comments into the context of the day. After 9/11 Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq (I see this as an oil grab, but whatever his reason, WMD, whatever). In order to do that he needed Saudi Arabia to allow the heathen armies of the West to step foot on their soil and set up base. (Please note I am not trying to hint at any disingenuousness on Bush's part due to his investments, close family ties, or close links to big oil). To make things worse our armies include women, who are allowed to drive, etc. There was a lot of political backlash to the Saudi's for allowing us to desecrate the holy land of Islam. So at this very same time Bush was talking up this "Islam means Peace" angle.

Yes it took place right after this major attack (which the official story completely violates the laws of physics) which is alleged to have been perpetrated by a bunch of guys with box cutters who usually live in caves. But it was also immediately before the US needed Saudi approval to set up military bases to fight Iraq on the false claim that they were behind the attack.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

A racist reads a racist interpretation into a Bible verse. It's called "confirmation bias". Your blindness to the fact that you are doing that is kind of amazing. The verse literally makes a statement about Ismael, nothing more. You read the rest in. But then, you're just parroting what Witness Lee taught, so, it's not like there's any independent thought involved.

Not at all. I don't "read the rest in," rather I just read the Bible.

Have you not read that the prophecy was to Ishmael's seed? Genesis 16.10: "I will greatly multiply your seed, so that it can't even be numbered in multitude." (see Genesis 21.18) History and the Bible (Genesis 25.13) tell us Ishmael had 12 sons, who became the heads of 12 tribes. How interesting!

You give too much credit to Lee, and I think you are still too obsessed with him. Why not try reading the Bible for yourself?

Typical liberal -- can't respond with intelligence, so just screams "racist."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes it took place right after this major attack (which the official story completely violates the laws of physics) which is alleged to have been perpetrated by a bunch of guys with box cutters who usually live in caves. But it was also immediately before the US needed Saudi approval to set up military bases to fight Iraq on the false claim that they were behind the attack.

Can you explain the laws of physics violations?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not at all. I don't "read the rest in," rather I just read the Bible.

Have you not read that the prophecy was to Ishmael's seed? Genesis 16.10: "I will greatly multiply your seed, so that it can't even be numbered in multitude." (see Genesis 21.18) History and the Bible (Genesis 25.13) tell us Ishmael had 12 sons, who became the heads of 12 tribes. How interesting!

You give too much credit to Lee, and I think you are still too obsessed with him. Why not try reading the Bible for yourself?

Typical liberal -- can't respond with intelligence, so just screams "racist."

O no you dit-ten !!!

You didn't drag out that old shop worn Ishmael story. You're pulling our legs, surely, I hope.

But it don't surprise me in the least. I've heard that one going way back. My cradle religion, Southern Baptist, was born using the Bible against a group of people ; the blacks should be slaves, they claimed the Bible (God) said, and proved it.

And not long ago I got into it with a cousin, at a family get together, who claimed that the problem with America is that it's not following God's laws and commandments, because ... the blacks were/are under the curse of Ham, and we are ordered by God to keep them as slaves.

So I guess, I'm learning, another reason America is in trouble, for not practicing God's laws, is concerning the Ishmael "prophecy" ... delivered by God Himself.

I'm pressed to ask. Does the Bible support group-hate? Many have, and apparently still do, think so.

Not me. As far as I'm concerned, if the Bible supports group-hate, it's time to throw it into the trash bin.

So I'm not taking you serious bro Ohio. You're just pulling our legs. Thanks for the belly laugh.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

O no you dit-ten !!!

You didn't drag out that old shop worn Ishmael story. You're pulling our legs, surely, I hope.

But it don't surprise me in the least. I've heard that one going way back. My cradle religion, Southern Baptist, was born using the Bible against a group of people ; the blacks should be slaves, they claimed the Bible (God) said, and proved it.

And not long ago I got into it with a cousin, at a family get together, who claimed that the problem with America is that it's not following God's laws and commandments, because ... the blacks were/are under the curse of Ham, and we are ordered by God to keep them as slaves.

So I guess, I'm learning, another reason America is in trouble, for not practicing God's laws, is concerning the Ishmael "prophecy" ... delivered by God Himself.

I'm pressed to ask. Does the Bible support group-hate? Many have, and apparently still do, think so.

Not me. As far as I'm concerned, if the Bible supports group-hate, it's time to throw it into the trash bin.

So I'm not taking you serious bro Ohio. You're just pulling our legs. Thanks for the belly laugh.

Huh? Muslims are the descendants of Ham?

Have you read any posts, or just jump to your childhood conclusions?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not at all. I don't "read the rest in," rather I just read the Bible.

Have you not read that the prophecy was to Ishmael's seed? Genesis 16.10: "I will greatly multiply your seed, so that it can't even be numbered in multitude." (see Genesis 21.18) History and the Bible (Genesis 25.13) tell us Ishmael had 12 sons, who became the heads of 12 tribes. How interesting!

You give too much credit to Lee, and I think you are still too obsessed with him. Why not try reading the Bible for yourself?

Typical liberal -- can't respond with intelligence, so just screams "racist."

I am reading it. Genesis 16:12 is about Ishmael. It doesn't say anything about his children or his seed. Quote:

“he shall be a wild ass among men; his hand shall be against every man, and every man’s hand against him. And he shall dwell over against all his brethren” (Genesis 16:12).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I am reading it. Genesis 16:12 is about Ishmael. It doesn't say anything about his children or his seed. Quote:

“he shall be a wild ass among men; his hand shall be against every man, and every man’s hand against him. And he shall dwell over against all his brethren” (Genesis 16:12).

I don't think it's too hard for you to read the other verses I posted. And the context too.

Even if you burned your Bible, it's still available on line.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Huh? Muslims are the descendants of Ham?

Have you read any posts, or just jump to your childhood conclusions?

So quibble but avoid the real subject, which was the Bible supporting group-hate.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

So quibble but avoid the real subject, which was the Bible supporting group-hate.

Not at all. No group-hate, that is your imagination or misinterpretation, perhaps mis-reading things from your Southern Baptist roots. The Bible only warns us of what is a danger. The Bible instructs us to love God and our neighbor, even our enemy, yet we are still warned about all types of dangers.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Can you explain the laws of physics violations?

You have a force that is directional -- an airplane traveling at 200-300 mph. You have a fire and explosion that could not have taken place in a uniform controlled environment.

With those two factors the odds of the building imploding upon itself without tipping in any direction is a million to one. The odds of two buildings doing it is 1,000,000,000,000 to 1. But what about 3 buildings, where the third building isn't even hit by anything more than debris?

In the entire human history there have only been 3 steel frame high rise buildings that completely imploded upon themselves due to fire. There have been many horrific fires in high rise, steel framed buildings, but only 3 imploded. All three collapsed on 9/11 at the World Trade Center. We have had fires that raged for 24 hours without them collapsing, yet the two towers both collapse after little more than an hour, and building 7 collapses about 8 hours after the attack.

Any forensic investigation of this fire would look at the steel. However, in this case the forensic investigators were not given access to the steel, it was guarded by the US military and shipped to China to be recycled.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sure it can.

Bush portrayed 9/11 as an isolated event, though horrific, and it was a problem America was going to solve once and for all. Here we 15 years later. Islamic terror seems to strike on a monthly basis. Not just in the US, but Europe, and all over the world. Now we got sunni ISIS recruits on the internet from every nation on earth. We have serious mooslim threats never envisioned by Bush.

Back in those days Osama Been Hiding (Al Quada) and Saddam (maddas) Hussein were the perceived threats. Now they are gone, and new threats emerge every day. Iran has stepped up to become the chief state sponsor of terror, and with the arrival of their nuke program, courtesy of Hussein Obama, we now must fear that some dirty bomb might come floating up the Potomac. Or the Hudson.

Even if Trump took out ISIS completely today, the pending threats are growing on a daily basis. Muslims are a violent bunch. We have to face the facts.

Many sunni muslems are Arabs, descendants of Ishmael. Listen to the prophecy about Ishmael:

Just amazing how the Bible prophecies get fulfilled!

Islams claim to Israel rests upon these two beliefs:

1.All Arabs are the descendants of Ishmael;
2. Muhammad went to Jerusalem.

Both of these statements are historical nonsense (some arabs may have been descendants of Ishmael, but not all), and Muhammad never went to Jerusalem.

The Arabs/Muslims claimed they are related to Ishmael so they can gain some sort of respect or legitimacy with the God of the bible. Arabs came from various pagan desert dwelling tribes, with little or no special connection to Abraham.

It was posted before that under Sharia law, lying is sanctioned to overcome enemies. Well, those two beliefs stated above are the two main lies every Muslim believes, and most Christians hear and believe these same myths.

Let's call it what it is - Islam is ancient tribal paganism, dressed up to look and sound like a genuine Abrahamic religion like Judaism or Christianity. They don't worship the "one true God", they actually worship a rock from space, a meteorite. The direction in which they pray to is in the direction of where the meteorite resides. Here you can see where they worship and kiss the black stone:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Stone

They claim this black stone fell to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and was rediscovered by Abraham. This is all myths and nonsense.

According to the Bible the only "black" thing that fell from heaven to the Garden of Eden was Satan. Black stones have special relevance in some of the ancient pagan religions - this is where the idea comes from. So do Muslims worship Satan? Yes.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You have a force that is directional -- an airplane traveling at 200-300 mph. You have a fire and explosion that could not have taken place in a uniform controlled environment.

With those two factors the odds of the building imploding upon itself without tipping in any direction is a million to one. The odds of two buildings doing it is 1,000,000,000,000 to 1. But what about 3 buildings, where the third building isn't even hit by anything more than debris?

In the entire human history there have only been 3 steel frame high rise buildings that completely imploded upon themselves due to fire. There have been many horrific fires in high rise, steel framed buildings, but only 3 imploded. All three collapsed on 9/11 at the World Trade Center. We have had fires that raged for 24 hours without them collapsing, yet the two towers both collapse after little more than an hour, and building 7 collapses about 8 hours after the attack.

Any forensic investigation of this fire would look at the steel. However, in this case the forensic investigators were not given access to the steel, it was guarded by the US military and shipped to China to be recycled.

I've heard conspiracists question about the third building, and I'm not sure about that, and for that matter whether a plane actually hit the pentagon or not.

The other two building were more simple to explain. The explosion damages the fire retardant that covers the steel, which heats up and buckles under the weight. Fire protection systems were all destroyed. I'd like to study it more, because structural steel should not be bearing the compressive loads, concrete should be.

I watched both buildings go down. The collapse of each building was shocking, though predictable to me, and did not seem out of the ordinary. We would have to compare the momentum of the airplane (mass times velocity) to the building mass to determine its expected lateral movement. The explosion is a different phenomena, as was the heat produced by burning fuel. So each of the three events should be examined individually (crash, explosion, fire.)

The rising temperature within the structural posts determined the diminishing yield strength of the steel (concrete would not be so vulnerable to heat) to uphold the weight above the damaged area. The 2nd tower was hit on a lower floor, hence more weight to uphold, and that building failed in a shorter time.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Islams claim to Israel rests upon these two beliefs:

1.All Arabs are the descendants of Ishmael;
2. Muhammad went to Jerusalem.

Both of these statements are historical nonsense (some arabs may have been descendants of Ishmael, but not all), and Muhammad never went to Jerusalem.

The Arabs/Muslims claimed they are related to Ishmael so they can gain some sort of respect or legitimacy with the God of the bible. Arabs came from various pagan desert dwelling tribes, with little or no special connection to Abraham.

It's a mixture of fact and myth, just like their Koran is a mixture of scripture and myth. No, Mohammed never ascended from Jerusalem, but many desert arabs have descended from Ishmael. According to prophecy, God greatly multiplied the seed of Abraham and Hagar, Ishmael and his descendants, which cannot even be numbered. They are described as a wild as of a man with his hand against all others. Ishmael had 12 sons, who became 12 tribes, and God promised to make him a great nation, which today stretches from Egypt to Iraq.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I've heard conspiracists question about the third building, and I'm not sure about that, and for that matter whether a plane actually hit the pentagon or not.

The other two building were more simple to explain. The explosion damages the fire retardant that covers the steel, which heats up and buckles under the weight. Fire protection systems were all destroyed. I'd like to study it more, because structural steel should not be bearing the compressive loads, concrete should be.

I watched both buildings go down. The collapse of each building was shocking, though predictable to me, and did not seem out of the ordinary. We would have to compare the momentum of the airplane (mass times velocity) to the building mass to determine its expected lateral movement. The explosion is a different phenomena, as was the heat produced by burning fuel. So each of the three events should be examined individually (crash, explosion, fire.)

The rising temperature within the structural posts determined the diminishing yield strength of the steel (concrete would not be so vulnerable to heat) to uphold the weight above the damaged area. The 2nd tower was hit on a lower floor, hence more weight to uphold, and that building failed in a shorter time.

And it could have been studied at the FBI's lab which has a structure designed to recreate a 3 floor building fire. They could have reconstructed the floors hit by the plane and determined if the jet fuel fire got hot enough to melt steel. Generally this could only take place in a very well controlled fire (blue flame) with little or no smoke. But the video of the fire shows it was billowing black smoke which means it was oxygen starved and therefore not hot enough to melt steel. But for some reason the US government decided it was not a priority to them to study this fire. One wonders why we built the lab if we weren't going to use it for 9/11.

Also, if you think the jet fuel is the reason the steel collapsed, then how do you explain the fire burning at 2,000 degrees F for over a month? Do you really think jet fuel would take that long to burn?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I've heard conspiracists question about the third building, and I'm not sure about that, and for that matter whether a plane actually hit the pentagon or not.

The other two building were more simple to explain. The explosion damages the fire retardant that covers the steel, which heats up and buckles under the weight. Fire protection systems were all destroyed. I'd like to study it more, because structural steel should not be bearing the compressive loads, concrete should be.

I watched both buildings go down. The collapse of each building was shocking, though predictable to me, and did not seem out of the ordinary. We would have to compare the momentum of the airplane (mass times velocity) to the building mass to determine its expected lateral movement. The explosion is a different phenomena, as was the heat produced by burning fuel. So each of the three events should be examined individually (crash, explosion, fire.)

The rising temperature within the structural posts determined the diminishing yield strength of the steel (concrete would not be so vulnerable to heat) to uphold the weight above the damaged area. The 2nd tower was hit on a lower floor, hence more weight to uphold, and that building failed in a shorter time.

Genetically only a small proportion would be related to Ishmael. They have taken Ishmael as their "spiritual" Father. It is the same with Jews today, they may consider Isaac to be their "spiritual" Father but many have blonde hair and blue eyes. Genetically speaking some of the closest descendants of Isaac would be in the Taliban now in Afghanistan.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I don't think it's too hard for you to read the other verses I posted. And the context too.

Even if you burned your Bible, it's still available on line.

Apparently it's impossible for you to read what the verse literally says without injecting the racist interpretation you were taught. Sad.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

And it could have been studied at the FBI's lab which has a structure designed to recreate a 3 floor building fire. They could have reconstructed the floors hit by the plane and determined if the jet fuel fire got hot enough to melt steel. Generally this could only take place in a very well controlled fire (blue flame) with little or no smoke. But the video of the fire shows it was billowing black smoke which means it was oxygen starved and therefore not hot enough to melt steel. But for some reason the US government decided it was not a priority to them to study this fire. One wonders why we built the lab if we weren't going to use it for 9/11.

Also, if you think the jet fuel is the reason the steel collapsed, then how do you explain the fire burning at 2,000 degrees F for over a month? Do you really think jet fuel would take that long to burn?

Black smoke is not just indicative of oxygen starvation, but also the combustion of plastics and numerous petrochemicals.

Recently I read about a bridge failure in Pittsburgh. Some PVC pipes caught on fire on the lower deck. The heat was sufficient to soften structural steel and cause serious damage. It shutdown the city.

The jet fuel provided a tremendous ignition source. The fuel tanks were filled for cross country flights, yet had traveled only a short distance. The fuel is liquid, and as soon as it is vaporized, with sufficient oxygen, it will vaporize and burn hot. The confined space within the tower probably kept much of the fuel liquid for a considerable time, constantly feeding the fire. But, of course, there were other sources of ignition within the building. Once the building collapsed, who knows how much unburnt fuel within drenched ignition sources remained. Apparently, even after collapse, there was sufficient oxygen to maintain the fire, which was not extinguished, and sufficient insulation to keep the fire extremely hot for weeks. At 2,000 degrees, aluminum also burns, which is quite nasty.

I watched a video about the engineer who designed the towers. They never imagined that failure scenario; never crossed anyone's minds. Had the sprinkler system survived, had the fuel tanks been relatively empty, or had the steel insulation remained intact, the building still had a chance to survive. Unfortunately for both buildings, once the planes crashed, the building itself became a ticking time bomb. That became a double tragedy especially for all the first responders, since none could know the buildings would soon collapse.

As the buildings collapsed, each successive floor beneath the fire damaged floors was forced to withstand the impact of dynamic loads, something never designed for. As I watched them fall, I could almost see each floor buckle in succession, like dominoes striking one another. The floors above the fire zone, especially the top floor, had the best chance of survival since those floors remained relatively intact throughout the fall, until probably the end.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Genetically only a small proportion would be related to Ishmael. They have taken Ishmael as their "spiritual" Father. It is the same with Jews today, they may consider Isaac to be their "spiritual" Father but many have blonde hair and blue eyes. Genetically speaking some of the closest descendants of Isaac would be in the Taliban now in Afghanistan.

The arab population has never experienced diaspora like the Jews endured.

Their bloodlines were much more preserved over the centuries. Your analogy to the Jews in flawed.

I am surprised you so easily dismiss Biblical prophecy.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Black smoke is not just indicative of oxygen starvation, but also the combustion of plastics and numerous petrochemicals.

Recently I read about a bridge failure in Pittsburgh. Some PVC pipes caught on fire on the lower deck. The heat was sufficient to soften structural steel and cause serious damage. It shutdown the city.

The jet fuel provided a tremendous ignition source. The fuel tanks were filled for cross country flights, yet had traveled only a short distance. The fuel is liquid, and as soon as it is vaporized, with sufficient oxygen, it will vaporize and burn hot. The confined space within the tower probably kept much of the fuel liquid for a considerable time, constantly feeding the fire. But, of course, there were other sources of ignition within the building. Once the building collapsed, who knows how much unburnt fuel within drenched ignition sources remained. Apparently, even after collapse, there was sufficient oxygen to maintain the fire, which was not extinguished, and sufficient insulation to keep the fire extremely hot for weeks. At 2,000 degrees, aluminum also burns, which is quite nasty.

I watched a video about the engineer who designed the towers. They never imagined that failure scenario; never crossed anyone's minds. Had the sprinkler system survived, had the fuel tanks been relatively empty, or had the steel insulation remained intact, the building still had a chance to survive. Unfortunately for both buildings, once the planes crashed, the building itself became a ticking time bomb. That became a double tragedy especially for all the first responders, since none could know the buildings would soon collapse.

As the buildings collapsed, each successive floor beneath the fire damaged floors was forced to withstand the impact of dynamic loads, something never designed for. As I watched them fall, I could almost see each floor buckle in succession, like dominoes striking one another. The floors above the fire zone, especially the top floor, had the best chance of survival since those floors remained relatively intact throughout the fall, until probably the end.

I don't know what video you watched. The twin towers were designed to withstand an airplane crash from the commercial airline of the day which was heavier and hence had greater kinetic energy than either of the two planes that hit the towers.

I am very aware of the "official line" and don't buy it for a hundred different reasons.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The arab population has never experienced diaspora like the Jews endured.

Their bloodlines were much more preserved over the centuries. Your analogy to the Jews in flawed.

I am surprised you so easily dismiss Biblical prophecy.

Toxic racism. It's a meme you were indoctrinated into that determines your perception of Arabs. You think you know this; but DNA and social science evidence don't support it. You reject evidence that doesn't confirm your belief because of fear. Thus, racism born of ignorance reinforces itself.

We need to abandon the racist Bible interpretations that we were taught. Otherwise, we and those we discriminate against on the basis of these toxic teaching will suffer unnecessarily.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You have a force that is directional -- an airplane traveling at 200-300 mph. You have a fire and explosion that could not have taken place in a uniform controlled environment.

With those two factors the odds of the building imploding upon itself without tipping in any direction is a million to one. The odds of two buildings doing it is 1,000,000,000,000 to 1. But what about 3 buildings, where the third building isn't even hit by anything more than debris?

In the entire human history there have only been 3 steel frame high rise buildings that completely imploded upon themselves due to fire. There have been many horrific fires in high rise, steel framed buildings, but only 3 imploded. All three collapsed on 9/11 at the World Trade Center. We have had fires that raged for 24 hours without them collapsing, yet the two towers both collapse after little more than an hour, and building 7 collapses about 8 hours after the attack.

Any forensic investigation of this fire would look at the steel. However, in this case the forensic investigators were not given access to the steel, it was guarded by the US military and shipped to China to be recycled.

Neither the directional force, nor the immediate explosions brought down either building. But they did start a process whereby the infrastructure was progressively weakened by the file, eventually leading to the collapse of the affected floors. And with the weight of the floors above now dropping downward, the lower floors began to collapse in sequence all the way to the bottom.

If there had only been the physical damage on the side of entry and no explosion to spread the destruction across the affected floors, or if the impact had immediately caused the building to collapse, then your presumption about the odds it would fall straight down might be correct.

But the infrastructure held. There was serious damage, but it could have continued to stand. Possibly.

Except for the extreme fire that then began to work on the integrity of the steel structure. No more lateral motion. An explosion that would have taken in roughly the entire floor(s) affected, not just a corner of the building.

Now it might not be controlled like an intentional demolition. But the factors are beginning to become more equal across the floors. Two planes, fully fueled, early in their flights striking into buildings. The explosions and fires would have been sufficient to spread the destruction thoroughly across the affected floors, therefore be somewhat uniform.

So are you suggesting that the U.S. govt either was in on the attacks, or knew enough to have charges set at the right places to help the buildings come down neatly when the attack finally happened?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Neither the directional force, nor the immediate explosions brought down either building. But they did start a process whereby the infrastructure was progressively weakened by the file, eventually leading to the collapse of the affected floors. And with the weight of the floors above now dropping downward, the lower floors began to collapse in sequence all the way to the bottom.

If there had only been the physical damage on the side of entry and no explosion to spread the destruction across the affected floors, or if the impact had immediately caused the building to collapse, then your presumption about the odds it would fall straight down might be correct.

But the infrastructure held. There was serious damage, but it could have continued to stand. Possibly.

Except for the extreme fire that then began to work on the integrity of the steel structure. No more lateral motion. An explosion that would have taken in roughly the entire floor(s) affected, not just a corner of the building.

Now it might not be controlled like an intentional demolition. But the factors are beginning to become more equal across the floors. Two planes, fully fueled, early in their flights striking into buildings. The explosions and fires would have been sufficient to spread the destruction thoroughly across the affected floors, therefore be somewhat uniform.

So are you suggesting that the U.S. govt either was in on the attacks, or knew enough to have charges set at the right places to help the buildings come down neatly when the attack finally happened?

Yes, there is no way to know for sure and why is that? Why was the steel whisked away under the guard of the US military without allowing forensic analysis? Why was no study done at the FBI burn facility specifically designed to handle fires of this size and analyze them?

You have given me a hypothetical possibility in which 59 different structural columns all failed and collapsed equally at precisely the same time so that the force on the next floor also collapsed at precisely the same time, etc., etc, etc.

One thing I don't understand is that we have a video of the collapse. It feel at a free fall rate. Now I might be able to understand that this is the first time in history that a steel frame structure collapsed due to fire, odds are it will probably happen eventually.

But, why is it that the 58 floors below the fire offered absolutely no resistance to the fall? Why didn't it slow it down a little?

I taught forensics, I chose the World Trade Center to study when we came to fire and engineering forensics. I figured it would be an excellent example of the very best forensic analysis of the day. Instead I learned it was the worst forensic investigation I had ever seen, not even allowing investigators to do the most basic tests, not giving them access to the most fundamental evidence, and these investigators were the first to sound the alarm that they had not been allowed to do their job. The only thing I can compare the 9/11 investigation to is the JFK investigation. Both were horrible examples of critical evidence being damaged, destroyed or disappeared.

I have several friends who are very highly placed in the federal government. I asked one about this, he referred me to the MIT explanation. This report begins with an introduction saying that the first step is to evaluate the fire at the FBI's lab, a facility that has capabilities far beyond MIT's ability, especially since they have not had access to any physical evidence. That said, they were asked to give the physics that would explain what happened. They then said that although this is highly implausible, the physics that would explain what happened if the official explanation to be believed is...." That is the "independent report" that supposedly supports the official one. They simply trust that the math will scare off most inquiries.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't know what video you watched. The twin towers were designed to withstand an airplane crash from the commercial airline of the day which was heavier and hence had greater kinetic energy than either of the two planes that hit the towers.

I am very aware of the "official line" and don't buy it for a hundred different reasons.

What do you mean official line? And what don't you buy?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Toxic racism. It's a meme you were indoctrinated into that determines your perception of Arabs. You think you know this; but DNA and social science evidence don't support it. You reject evidence that doesn't confirm your belief because of fear. Thus, racism born of ignorance reinforces itself.

We need to abandon the racist Bible interpretations that we were taught. Otherwise, we and those we discriminate against on the basis of these toxic teaching will suffer unnecessarily.

The only one suffering here is me, having to endure your scathing personal attacks -- ad hominems, had we a moderator -- being called regularly an ignorant racist fundamentalist hater, etc.

In any normal forum, you would have been banned long ago for flaming. But since you are friends with the MOTA, you are allowed to stay.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But, why is it that the 58 floors below the fire offered absolutely no resistance to the fall? Why didn't it slow it down a little?

Let me try to address this. The supporting pillars on each floor are designed to withstand all live (people, furniture) and dead (structure) loads on all the floors above it. Hence, going from top to bottom, the supporting structure grows in size as the loads increase. Practically, these incremental increases in load bearing capacity, may change 5 or 10 floors at a time, depending on the structural engineers.

These loads are basically static in nature, discounting a couple tons of weight from occupants coming and going. The only dynamic loads designed for would be movement from the earth and weather. Probably the worst of these in NYC would be hurricane force wind gusts, which would load one side of the base of the building and unload the other. Hence all skyscrapers must accommodate worst case wind gusts, and they can be significant on such a huge structure.

The tragedy of 9/11 presented entirely new dynamic loading. Once the structures at the crash site (perhaps a half dozen floors) buckled due to the intense heat, effectively dropping the available yield strength of the steel, dynamic loads due to gravity were introduced onto otherwise undamaged pillars beneath them.

The simple rule in dynamic loading says that the added forces of a moving load, at minimum, doubles the load. Thus a load which falls from only 1 mm, and never has opportunity to accelerate, STILL doubles the load. On top of this doubling, we must add the dynamic component of the weight falling roughly 10 feet at a time.

Think about hammering a nail into a 2 by 4. Lay a 20 oz framing hammer on a nail and nothing happens. Up it to a 16 lb sledge, and still we see only an indent in the wood fibers. Now swing away, and you get a feel for how much multiplication of load forces which existed as each successive level in the Trade Towers gave way.

Did they slow things down a little? Yes, a little, almost imperceptively.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The only one suffering here is me, having to endure your scathing personal attacks -- ad hominems, had we a moderator -- called regularly an ignorant racist fundamentalist hater, etc.

Welcome to Alternative Views. It's a free for all here. I don't know for sure, but I think that's why UntoHim MADE me the moderator of AltVs. He somehow knew I'd be very liberal toward AltVs.

And yes it's getting pretty headed out here. It's a politic thread so what can we expect?

My problem is not that zeek is a friend (going way back to local church days - decades), but that I love both of you. And you know that's true bro Ohio, cuz we're friends too.

But the truth is, zeek's Toxic Racism post was not a ad hominem. It was a debunking, with scientific evidence, that Ishmael doesn't represent all the Arabs. And taking the post personal is not the way to take it.

Originally Posted by Ohio

In any normal forum, you would have been banned long ago for flaming.

I remember bro ZNP getting banned from the normal forum LCD. That's not going to happen here on Altvs. I'm against banning.

And for similar reasons I'd like to continue discussing group-hate. It's a very critical and important matter, that I think Jesus and Christianity has great potential and hope to address. Let's talk about "The New Man" and how it can free us from group-hate.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Let me try to address this. The supporting pillars on each floor are designed to withstand all live (people, furniture) and dead (structure) loads on all the floors above it. Hence, going from top to bottom, the supporting structure grows in size as the loads increase. Practically, these incremental increases in load bearing capacity, may change 5 or 10 floors at a time, depending on the structural engineers.

These loads are basically static in nature, discounting a couple tons of weight from occupants coming and going. The only dynamic loads designed for would be movement from the earth and weather. Probably the worst of these in NYC would be hurricane force wind gusts, which would load one side of the base of the building and unload the other. Hence all skyscrapers must accommodate worst case wind gusts, and they can be significant on such a huge structure.

The tragedy of 9/11 presented entirely new dynamic loading. Once the structures at the crash site (perhaps a half dozen floors) buckled due to the intense heat, effectively dropping the available yield strength of the steel, dynamic loads due to gravity were introduced onto otherwise undamaged pillars beneath them.

The simple rule in dynamic loading says that the added forces of a moving load, at minimum, doubles the load. Thus a load which falls from only 1 mm, and never has opportunity to accelerate, STILL doubles the load. On top of this doubling, we must add the dynamic component of the weight falling roughly 10 feet at a time.

Think about hammering a nail into a 2 by 4. Lay a 20 oz framing hammer on a nail and nothing happens. Up it to a 16 lb sledge, and still we see only an indent in the wood fibers. Now swing away, and you get a feel for how much multiplication of load forces which existed as each successive level in the Trade Towers gave way.

Did they slow things down a little? Yes, a little, almost imperceptively.

Wow. And all 58 columns were driven in identically! Even a slight perturbance would get amplified with each floor causing it to tilt and collapse.

Is there some reason why you, and others are so willing to completely dismiss any credible investigation? Not a rhetorical question, why are people so willing to just completely ignore the fact that a reasonable investigation was never done?

1. We all know now, with 20/20 hindsight, that Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attack yet the very day of the attack Cheney tells his top advisors he wants this to be blamed on Iraq. (Perhaps raising the odds of this being an inside job from 1 in a million to 1 in 210).

2. We all know that Cheney had a classified, top secret meeting with all the Oil executives about 8-9 months prior to the attack. A meeting that was not ever scrutinized because unlike the President of the US, the vice president is not subject to the oversight of the Senate because he is not part of the executive branch of government?! However, Cheney and others do have a report in a high level think tank in which they say that they need to transform the military to a high tech armaments but without a Pearl Harbor like event as a catalyst this transformation will take several decades. (Perhaps raising the odds of this being an inside job from 1 in 210 to 1 in 21).

3. Regardless of how you try to explain what happened it is completely totally hypothetical and that is because the President of the US ordered the military to come in and seize and destroy all evidence. (Perhaps raising the odds of this being an inside job from 1 in 21 to 50/50).

4. Regardless of how reasonable you might think the collapse from an airplane fire is, the fact is there have been 100 major fires in steel high rise buildings that didn't result in a collapse. Many of these fires were far more horrific and burned for many more hours without collapse. (Perhaps raising the odds of an inside job to 20:1)

5. I always thought it took a very sophisticated demolition team to bring a building like the World Trade towers to collapse in on itself. So the odds of this happening by chance, that the fire knocked off the fire retardant on all 58 columns equally, and at the same time, and that an oxygen starved fire was able to burn hot enough to cause all 58 to fail at precisely the same instant, that is truly amazing coincidence. (Perhaps raising the odds of an inside job to 2,000:1).

6. But it gets better because it happened a second time on the same day. Wow! (Oops, make that 2,000,000:1)

7. But it gets better because it happened a third time on the same day, and this time without even an airplane crashing into the building. Triple wow. (Oops, make that 2,000,000,000:1).

8. We also know that the alarm was first blown by those brought in to investigate the collapse. They have claimed that key tests were not done, nor did they have access to the physical evidence. (Maybe 10 billion to 1).

9. So concerned were they that they did their own private investigation. In the dust they discovered evidence of thermite which would explain a fire hot enough to burn steel, it would explain a fire burning for a month, it would explain a fire that is 2,000 degrees, and it would not be explained by airplanes. (Perhaps 1 trillion to 1).

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

But the truth is, zeek's Toxic Racism post was not a ad hominem. It was a debunking, with scientific evidence, that Ishmael doesn't represent all the Arabs. And taking the post personal is not the way to take it.

Perhaps that is the truth. But the truth also is that there are 58 countries that use Sharia law in some form or another. Now that represents far too great a population to claim that Sharia law is not part of the mainstream understanding of the Koran and Muslim religion.

Therefore it is not unreasonable to wonder how this understanding of Islam would work in for people in the US with a constitution that claims separation of church and state.

What I find unreasonable is to assume that asking this question indicates hate or racism, or doctrinal blindness.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And for similar reasons I'd like to continue discussing group-hate. It's a very critical and important matter, that I think Jesus and Christianity has great potential and hope to address. Let's talk about "The New Man" and how it can free us from group-hate.

I appreciate your post.

And if we are going to discuss "group-hate," then it goes both ways.

It has become extremely common for today's progressive liberals in the media to sling categorical epithets at those who disagree with their thinking. That by definition is group hate. We used to be innocent until proven guilty, by the liberal press and beltway elites have tried, convicted, and sentenced any and all who supported Trump as misogynists, xenophobes, racists, islamophobes, etc. etc. Their goal (literally, as proven repeatedly) is to shut down free discussion and 1st amendment rights.

How many times have you categorized Christian "fundamentalists" pejoratively, along with all the baggage associated with it?

Like I said, goes both ways. Are we going to discuss ideas or sling mudballs?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Wow. And all 58 columns were driven in identically! Even a slight perturbance would get amplified with each floor causing it to tilt and collapse.

I viewed this as a well-balanced design structure falling straight down.

Is there some reason why you, and others are so willing to completely dismiss any credible investigation? Not a rhetorical question, why are people so willing to just completely ignore the fact that a reasonable investigation was never done?

I don't understand this. I'm not sure what kind of investigation you felt was needed. I watched the airplane fly into building #2, so I knew why it fell and how.

1. We all know now, with 20/20 hindsight, that Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attack yet the very day of the attack Cheney tells his top advisors he wants this to be blamed on Iraq. (Perhaps raising the odds of this being an inside job from 1 in a million to 1 in 210).

What do you mean "inside job?"

2. We all know that Cheney had a classified, top secret meeting with all the Oil executives about 8-9 months prior to the attack. A meeting that was not ever scrutinized because unlike the President of the US, the vice president is not subject to the oversight of the Senate because he is not part of the executive branch of government?! However, Cheney and others do have a report in a high level think tank in which they say that they need to transform the military to a high tech armaments but without a Pearl Harbor like event as a catalyst this transformation will take several decades. (Perhaps raising the odds of this being an inside job from 1 in 210 to 1 in 21).

Most folks don't know about these top secret meetings.

3. Regardless of how you try to explain what happened it is completely totally hypothetical and that is because the President of the US ordered the military to come in and seize and destroy all evidence. (Perhaps raising the odds of this being an inside job from 1 in 21 to 50/50).

What evidence was destroyed? I thought it was hauled off to a land fill, after carefully checking for DNA.

4. Regardless of how reasonable you might think the collapse from an airplane fire is, the fact is there have been 100 major fires in steel high rise buildings that didn't result in a collapse. Many of these fires were far more horrific and burned for many more hours without collapse. (Perhaps raising the odds of an inside job to 20:1)

I know of two bridges that melted due to relatively small fires. I would think each case needs to be examined. Modern airliners with a full tank of gas landing inside of a tower is pretty rare event.

5. I always thought it took a very sophisticated demolition team to bring a building like the World Trade towers to collapse in on itself. So the odds of this happening by chance, that the fire knocked off the fire retardant on all 58 columns equally, and at the same time, and that an oxygen starved fire was able to burn hot enough to cause all 58 to fail at precisely the same instant, that is truly amazing coincidence. (Perhaps raising the odds of an inside job to 2,000:1).

With the entire weight of that tower in motion, those 58 posts all crumbled together like toothpicks.

6. But it gets better because it happened a second time on the same day. Wow! (Oops, make that 2,000,000:1)

7. But it gets better because it happened a third time on the same day, and this time without even an airplane crashing into the building. Triple wow. (Oops, make that 2,000,000,000:1).

I've heard this a couple times before, and not sure what to make of it, not knowing all the facts.

8. We also know that the alarm was first blown by those brought in to investigate the collapse. They have claimed that key tests were not done, nor did they have access to the physical evidence. (Maybe 10 billion to 1).

What alarm are you referring to? What key tests should have been done?

9. So concerned were they that they did their own private investigation. In the dust they discovered evidence of thermite which would explain a fire hot enough to burn steel, it would explain a fire burning for a month, it would explain a fire that is 2,000 degrees, and it would not be explained by airplanes. (Perhaps 1 trillion to 1).

Not aware that thermite was discovered in significant quantities.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, there is no way to know for sure and why is that? Why was the steel whisked away under the guard of the US military without allowing forensic analysis? Why was no study done at the FBI burn facility specifically designed to handle fires of this size and analyze them?

You have repeated the factoids spread by those who want to insist on a conspiracy. Was the area maintained securely? I would hope so. Despite the relative compactness of the rubble, it was not a safe place.

And they hauled it all away.

And it went to a recycler in China.

Those points demand a conspiracy.

You cry about lack of testing of the metal. What for? the presence of iron and other elements in the steel? Residues of the fuel and other flammables that ultimately weakened the steel? For the purpose of proving that there were not explosives on every floor to just bring the whole thing down?

Do you think they didn't know what happened? Unlike an airplane that comes apart in mid-air and they don't know why so they study the debris and black box, etc., this was less subject to question.

And it would have been difficult to isolate the material from particular floors for the purpose of establishing information that was probably not expected to tell them anything they didn't know anyway.

It is the world of conspiracy theorists to presume that something not done they way they would do it to mean that there is a conspiracy to cover something up. And the presumed conspiracies are always the worst they can come up with.

It is the loony fringe. I didn't expect you to be among them.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I viewed this as a well-balanced design structure falling straight down.

I don't understand this. I'm not sure what kind of investigation you felt was needed. I watched the airplane fly into building #2, so I knew why it fell and how.

What do you mean "inside job?"

Most folks don't know about these top secret meetings.

What evidence was destroyed? I thought it was hauled off to a land fill, after carefully checking for DNA.

I know of two bridges that melted due to relatively small fires. I would think each case needs to be examined. Modern airliners with a full tank of gas landing inside of a tower is pretty rare event.

With the entire weight of that tower in motion, those 58 posts all crumbled together like toothpicks.

I've heard this a couple times before, and not sure what to make of it, not knowing all the facts.

What alarm are you referring to? What key tests should have been done?

Not aware that thermite was discovered in significant quantities.

In the back of your average FBI fire investigators trunk they have a hand held device to measure for the presence of a variety of explosives. Common, simple test that was prohibited.

In a forensic examination of this sort you want to look at the steel, particularly that which failed. When you look at it you can determine how hot it got. For example, in the dust they found (not the official examination but one done outside of that) tiny spherical balls of steel that are a tell tale sign of thermite. When the steel becomes liquid it will fly off in drops which solidify as spheres. This indicated that the steel reached 2,000 degrees F, 500 degrees higher than jet fuel burns with a perfect air fuel mixture. Another very key piece of physical evidence that wasn't even permitted to be examined. The steel from the floors that were hit would have been very important to look at to confirm the hypothesis that the fire from the jet fuel caused the failure. That steel was not looked at, instead it was locked up, investigators were not allowed to inspect it, and then it was shipped to China to be recycled (destroying the evidence). Also, I would like them to have reconstructed the three floors hit by the plane in their burn lab and then recreate the fire to see how hot they could get it and what kind of symmetry you would get. These are the standard tests everyone would expect would be done on any major fire of significance.

Yes, inside job -- are you aware that on exactly the same day and time as 9/11 there was a "drill" being run in which an airplane was hijacked from Boston and flown into the Twin Towers? What are the odds? Yes they run drills all the time, but this was the first drill where they ever ran this scenario. What are the odds it would take place the same day, the same hour?

Why is this a sinister coincidence? Because it caused confusion and hindered a rapid response to the attack.

Are you aware that the supposed flight path that the commercial airliner flown by hijackers who didn't know how to land an airplane was so complex and extreme that most professional commercial airline pilots don't think it would be possible to pull off? Why the incredible gymnastics instead of just flying directly into the Pentagon? Well they hit the one part of the pentagon that was empty due to renovations. Hard to believe that was a priority for terrorists. Again, what are the odds?

Are you aware that the the hole left in the side of the Pentagon was did not have any holes for the wings and there were no wings left on the lawn? When was the last time wings and engines vaporized in an airplane crash?

Do you realize that the four airplanes that were hijacked had approximately 30% occupancy?! Investigators wanted to compare this list to the previous tuesday, same flights, same time, but haven't. Why not? Because the FBI prohibits the release of that information?!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I viewed this as a well-balanced design structure falling straight down.

I don't understand this. I'm not sure what kind of investigation you felt was needed. I watched the airplane fly into building #2, so I knew why it fell and how.

What do you mean "inside job?"

Most folks don't know about these top secret meetings.

What evidence was destroyed? I thought it was hauled off to a land fill, after carefully checking for DNA.

I know of two bridges that melted due to relatively small fires. I would think each case needs to be examined. Modern airliners with a full tank of gas landing inside of a tower is pretty rare event.

With the entire weight of that tower in motion, those 58 posts all crumbled together like toothpicks.

I've heard this a couple times before, and not sure what to make of it, not knowing all the facts.

What alarm are you referring to? What key tests should have been done?

Not aware that thermite was discovered in significant quantities.

Thermite was discovered in the dust by professionals that were stymied by the roadblocks in the regular investigation. What was especially interesting is that the signature of this thermite indicated that it was a weaponized form that could not be manufactured by your run of the mill terrorists. They were able to find research papers out of our military labs that describe these kind of improvements to thermite (micro nodules or some other technology). Allows for the reaction to take place quicker and more explosively.

The Thermite was a red color, like that primer paint they paint on steel. Which is interesting because work was being done on the steel for a few weeks prior to 9/11.

By 2014 2,300 architects and engineers signed a petition demanding an independent investigation with subpoena power.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

How many times have you categorized Christian "fundamentalists" pejoratively, along with all the baggage associated with it?

I have had a lot of fun with fundamentalism. I grew up with it. They shouldn't be allowed to have 'fun' associated with it. But I don't group-hate them. Much of my family here are fundamentalist types. And I truly love them. I've noticed that they aren't all the same. And that their fundamentalism is shaped by prejudices they grew up with. Thus my cousin and the Ham/slavery/God's Laws story. And by the way, I jumped all over him when he said that, right in front of all present. Pretty much the same way I jumped you for the Ishmael claim. I said, "You've got to be kidding." He wasn't. But he knows better than to debate Bible with me.

Just a personal confession, to maybe clear up misperceptions I may have generated out here so far. I grew up with a staunch Southern Baptist mother. She took me to church every time the doors were opened. My father was a rough Kentucky boy, that grew up in these necks of the woods,, in what was known as The Land Betwixt the Rivers (moonshiners) now Land Between the Lakes (LBL). He was rough and tough and mean, and was an outspoken unapologetic racist. He once kicked my sister and I out of his house, cuz we tried to explain that we had to work with, and get along with, blacks. He said, "I never raised you to be nigger lovers. Get out of my house." Yet he's my dad. I have to love him.

Maybe that's why I actually get along with people on both or all extremes of the spectrum. To me no matter how we group people it ends up that there are both good and bad in all groups.

That's why I can't buy into the Ham curse thing, or the Ishmael/Arab thing. To think that something said or written 3000 years ago applies today, is like saying the city of Damascus 11,000 years ago, or more recently 2500 years ago, was the same as it is today. It's unrealistic to absurdity.

But back to the New Man. When we become a New Man, do we look down on or despise those that aren't? Is that how it works? The New Man has a group to hate? Does that match the sermon on the mount? Or was Jesus just speaking platitudes? When did Christianity become about group-hate?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I have had a lot of fun with fundamentalism. I grew up with it. They shouldn't be allowed to have 'fun' associated with it. But I don't group-hate them. Much of my family here are fundamentalist types. And I truly love them. I've noticed that they aren't all the same. And that their fundamentalism is shaped by prejudices they grew up with. Thus my cousin and the Ham/slavery/God's Laws story. And by the way, I jumped all over him when he said that, right in front of all present. Pretty much the same way I jumped you for the Ishmael claim. I said, "You've got to be kidding." He wasn't. But he knows better than to debate Bible with me.

Just a personal confession, to maybe clear up misperceptions I may have generated out here so far. I grew up with a staunch Southern Baptist mother. She took me to church every time the doors were opened. My father was a rough Kentucky boy, that grew up in these necks of the woods,, in what was known as The Land Betwixt the Rivers (moonshiners) now Land Between the Lakes (LBL). He was rough and tough and mean, and was an outspoken unapologetic racist. He once kicked my sister and I out of his house, cuz we tried to explain that we had to work with, and get along with, blacks. He said, "I never raised you to be nigger lovers. Get out of my house." Yet he's my dad. I have to love him.

Maybe that's why I actually get along with people on both or all extremes of the spectrum. To me no matter how we group people it ends up that there are both good and bad in all groups.

That's why I can't buy into the Ham curse thing, or the Ishmael/Arab thing. To think that something said or written 3000 years ago applies today, is like saying the city of Damascus 11,000 years ago, or more recently 2500 years ago, was the same as it is today. It's unrealistic to absurdity.

But back to the New Man. When we become a New Man, do we look down on or despise those that aren't? Is that how it works? The New Man has a group to hate? Does that match the sermon on the mount? Or was Jesus just speaking platitudes? When did Christianity become about group-hate?

Sounds like you are projecting your own group-hate on Christians.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I have had a lot of fun with fundamentalism. I grew up with it. They shouldn't be allowed to have 'fun' associated with it. But I don't group-hate them. Much of my family here are fundamentalist types. And I truly love them. I've noticed that they aren't all the same. And that their fundamentalism is shaped by prejudices they grew up with. Thus my cousin and the Ham/slavery/God's Laws story. And by the way, I jumped all over him when he said that, right in front of all present. Pretty much the same way I jumped you for the Ishmael claim. I said, "You've got to be kidding." He wasn't. But he knows better than to debate Bible with me.

Just a personal confession, to maybe clear up misperceptions I may have generated out here so far. I grew up with a staunch Southern Baptist mother. She took me to church every time the doors were opened. My father was a rough Kentucky boy, that grew up in these necks of the woods,, in what was known as The Land Betwixt the Rivers (moonshiners) now Land Between the Lakes (LBL). He was rough and tough and mean, and was an outspoken unapologetic racist. He once kicked my sister and I out of his house, cuz we tried to explain that we had to work with, and get along with, blacks. He said, "I never raised you to be nigger lovers. Get out of my house." Yet he's my dad. I have to love him.

Maybe that's why I actually get along with people on both or all extremes of the spectrum. To me no matter how we group people it ends up that there are both good and bad in all groups.

That's why I can't buy into the Ham curse thing, or the Ishmael/Arab thing. To think that something said or written 3000 years ago applies today, is like saying the city of Damascus 11,000 years ago, or more recently 2500 years ago, was the same as it is today. It's unrealistic to absurdity.

But back to the New Man. When we become a New Man, do we look down on or despise those that aren't? Is that how it works? The New Man has a group to hate? Does that match the sermon on the mount? Or was Jesus just speaking platitudes? When did Christianity become about group-hate?

You have grown up around people who are unrealistic and absurd and use the Bible to justify their prejudices. As a result you have equated their prejudices with the Bible. That is truly absurd and unrealistic. Just because some Kentucky moonshiner bigot uses the Bible to justify his beliefs doesn't mean it does.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sounds like you are projecting your own group-hate on Christians.

Why would you describe his dad as a "Christian". His dad's attitude is a good example of group hate but not of Christians.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sounds like you are projecting your own group-hate on Christians.

So asking when Christianity became about group-hate is group-hating them? And being against group-hate is group-hate? Sounds like you support group-hate. If so, why?

Mat 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
Mat 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You have grown up around people who are unrealistic and absurd and use the Bible to justify their prejudices. As a result you have equated their prejudices with the Bible. That is truly absurd and unrealistic. Just because some Kentucky moonshiner bigot uses the Bible to justify his beliefs doesn't mean it does.

Oh but it does. Here's just a little sample :

Slaveholders justified the practice by citing the Bible ...

They asked who could question the Word of God when it said, "slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling" (Ephesians 6:5), or "tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect" (Titus 2:9).

If you want more check out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why would you describe his dad as a "Christian". His dad's attitude is a good example of group hate but not of Christians.

Good point. But my dad considered himself a Southern Baptist Christian. Hating blacks wasn't against Southern Baptist Christianity. The Southern Baptist church was started in support of holding blacks as slaves.

Are Southern Baptists not Christians?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why would you describe his dad as a "Christian". His dad's attitude is a good example of group hate but not of Christians.

Did I do that? Never met his dad.

Perhaps the vestiges of group hate came from Mel Porter.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You have grown up around people who are unrealistic and absurd and use the Bible to justify their prejudices. As a result you have equated their prejudices with the Bible. That is truly absurd and unrealistic. Just because some Kentucky moonshiner bigot uses the Bible to justify his beliefs doesn't mean it does.

Did they use the bible to justify their prejudices?

My Dad was Prussian / German, and I heard lots of derogatory jokes about Pollocks and Jews, but I never equated them to God, the Bible, or him being a Catholic / christian.