blungld said:

---

bearister said:

---

Evangelical mantra: "Everything happens for a reason."

---

So why do they even care about things Liberals do? Is it their opinion that everything a Republican does is part of God's plan, both good or bad. But somehow God can't control those Liberals and so everything THEY do is not God's plan and is up to them to stop.

What a convenient world view.

---

They are not content to let God sort it all out at Armageddon

one day special twofer [but who IS the masked deity? ]

smh said:

---

bearister said:

---

German virologist Hendrik Streeck advocates "herd immunity" - World Socialist Web Site
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/06/11/herd-j11.html

---

but the article is hostile to Streeck's approach..

Quote:

---

This strategy of "herd immunity" has had devastating consequences in every country where it has been tried out. Behind the United States, Britain and Brazil have the second- and third-highest number of deaths in the world. Swedish epidemiologist Anders Tegnell, who is responsible for the coronavirus response in his country, was forced recently to admit that the refusal to implement lockdown measures led to a catastrophic number of deaths. As the WSWS has explained, the policy of "herd immunity" is a "murderous pseudo-science."

---

# filed under "be careful what you wish for"

---

More like a death cult than a public health approach.

okaydo said:

---

---

Abbott has already made it clear that his orders are unenforceable so why bother at this point. Texas has to let Jesus take the wheel at this point.

blungld said:

---

bearister said:

---

Evangelical mantra: "Everything happens for a reason."

---

So why do they even care about things Liberals do? Is it their opinion that everything a Republican does is part of God's plan, both good or bad. But somehow God can't control those Liberals and so everything THEY do is not God's plan and is up to them to stop.

What a convenient world view.

---

I'm pretty sure they don't like being subject to cross examination with regard to their beliefs.

Interesting thing about war in America. All the big ones except for one started with a President in office from the political party backed by the South.

dajo9 said:

---

Interesting thing about war in America. All the big ones except for one started with a President in office from the political party backed by the South.

---

I think it's hard to define who started the Civil War. CSA fired the first shot, but Lincoln said they had no right to secede, so there would have been some military action by the North.

Regarding World War I, Woodrow Wilson was from New Jersey. Wilson won 30 states, including most of the west except for Oregon, Hughes won Oregon, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, his home state of New York, and all of New England except for New Hampshire.

Not a Southern president by any reasonable measure.

Hoover won only 6 states including none from the South in 1932. Candidates were from California and New York.

Not a Southern president by any reasonable measure.

Korean War - South voted for Strom Thurmond mostly.

Vietnam War - South voted for Goldwater.

So your point? Not really one.

In broad terms the South supported the Democratic Party up through the late part of the 20th century and then the Republican Party since. Those have also been the party of all our Presidents for all the starts of our big wars except one (I give the South credit for the Civil War for pretty obvious reasons, but my technicality is secession started under Buchanan).

But if you want to talk specifics with real facts instead of whatever it is you posted.

James Madison, Democrat, won all Southern states.

James Polk, Democrat, won 7 of 9 Southern states.

Woodrow Wilson, Democrat, won all Southern states.

Hoover, Republican, won. . . wait, why in the hell are we talking about Herbert Hoover?

FDR, Democrat, in 4 elections never lost a Southern state.

Truman, Democrat, won 7 of 11 states of the Confederacy.

LBJ, Democrat, won 6 of 11 states of the Confederacy. Goldwater was even more hawkish on Vietnam, anyway.

Bush Sr, Republican, won all Southern states

Bush Jr, Republican won all Southern states

Coronavirus update: Trump ambassadors sold stocks as president downplayed pandemic


https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/02/coronavirus-update-trump-ambassadors-sold-stocks-as-president-downplayed-pandemic.html


Markets swell as the economy shrinks - Axios


https://www.axios.com/market-economy-disconnect-coronavirus-f18854e3-71d4-4705-b5b2-84159bf2f045.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top

...and just in from the Rich Get Richer Department :

" The S&P 500 and other big indices comprise the world's biggest companies with massive balance sheets and easy access to all the liquidity they need. The virus has effectively wiped out their small-business competition, so the giants now have the field to themselves and get to carve it up among them."

I hope that this guy is overstating it, but the next couple of months could be brutal on the COVID-19 front:

chazzed said:

---

I hope that this guy is overstating it, but the next couple of months could be brutal on the COVID-19 front:

---

This is dangerously stupid analysis.

offshorebear said:

---

chazzed said:

---

I hope that this guy is overstating it, but the next couple of months could be brutal on the COVID-19 front:

---

This is dangerously stupid analysis.

---

I always look to Twitter threads for my hard hitting analysis.

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Blu - I will assume you wrote this post in sincerity since you do come across as very sincere, if sometimes overly passionate. And I respect you enough to try to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Quote:

---

I have never responded within a post before so I hope I've done it right. My post was rather glib and satirical in nature. Yes it is sincere, but not exactly a doctoral thesis.

---

With that, I want to better understand why you believe the things above are only what Republicans want

Quote:

---

I don't think it is only what Republicans want, but Republicans most leverage obedience and orthodoxy and tenets like "we are a Christian nation" and" less government in a way that leads them to the most hypocritical positions when the rubber hits the road on issues like freedom, liberty, and less government.

---

or why you think they are about lack of freedom (unless you mean freedom to be the ability to do whatever the hell you want to do whenever you want to do it no matter who it hurts, which I assume you don't).

• "Sending to war." By now, I hope we understand that many (not all) of the wars were started or escalated by Democrats, whether escalation in Afghanistan (started by Bush, supported by both parties, and escalated by Obama), Vietnam war (started by Kennedy and escalated by Johnson as well as Nixon), Korean War (Truman), WWII (FDR), etc. Yes, Iraq was all Bush. Furthermore, we have a volunteer army. And finally, I would assume you don't believe we will have freedom if we do not have a military and sometimes go to war (e.g., Civil War, WWII, Afghanistan when Taliban was sheltering the terrorist who caused 9/11) to protect our freedom. I assume when you say your nice things about our military and say that they protect our freedom, it is not some virtue signalling and that you actually believe that. What do you think the military does to protect the freedom? Just play soldier and dress up? Sometimes you have to go to war to protect the exact freedom you love. How is that a reflection of lack of freedom or a big government? Are you suggesting that we have no military? If we do have a military, what would be the point if they could never go to war? We can debate whether any specific war is the right one, but I would hope you don't believe we can have freedom without sometimes going to war against those who would take those away.

Quote:

---

Obviously war is a complicated national story and human condition. I do not believe Christians who believe in the sanctity of human life do nearly enough to protect life when it comes to war and are happy to violate "thou shall not kill" when told the right story of otherness, heresy, and/or patriotism. I think the narrative of war is often propaganda and not really a battle for protection of freedom or enduring human value. It is rare that war serves a moral purpose. Most Christians I know (who are also Republicans) are vocally in support of military and often chicken hawks. They celebrate and embrace war, they should be the most reticent about war and the ones who support every other effort until war is necessary. This is not the case. They are Old Testament vengeful souls, not turn the other cheek New Testament followers of Jesus. I have a problem with religion and patriotism used as a tool for slaughter or imperialism I believe American Christians should be playing the role of putting Christ's actual teachings into action, not the role of the most lizard brained blind followers of authority and control. They should be more offended by the flyover and the use of the flag as symbol at football games, than those who do not stand during the anthem. They want others to participate in the exploitation of symbols in a way that strips those symbols of any sincere meaning and move them into the realm of propaganda: "kneel to the mindless display of bogus patriotism that brainwashes young men to associate athletics with war so that they see killing as a heroic act in the same way scoring touchdowns is." There is intentional subtext and conditioning at play in the way our military appropriates sport and church and THAT is what the good GOPers should be protesting not those who see the hypocrisy or try to draw attention to actual values like justice. Sincere patriotism is the town parade that applauds for its veterans and tells stories that celebrates their sacrifice AND the message that war is horrifying and should be avoided at all costs. And not, shiny jets and tanks making war seem like a video game at a football game.

---

• "Or the state decides to execute you" - I am once again confused on why this is representative of big government or even a matter of freedom. Now, the proper discussion may be whether execution is a cruel and unusual punishment. We can also argue whether we should permit the sanctioned killing of our own people, even if they were found to have committed horrible and unimaginable crimes. We can also argue how death punishment is permanent that cannot be reversed once executed. But dropping that in the context of "freedom" seems odd unless you think no one should even go to jail (which also is a restriction on freedom). I assume you are not suggesting that someone who is rightfully found guilty and was rightfully or wrongfully sentenced to death should be let loose back into society. If you think even someone who raped and murdered children should not be killed, I would agree with you but not because i think it represents big government or infringes on the freedom of the criminal. I would want the person to spend of rest of his life in jail and be deprived of his "Freedom" and spend more government time and money to keep him in jail even if it would be smaller government to kill him and be done with it. That is not based on my belief in smaller or bigger government. That is based on my belief on the fallibility of our justice system and the sanctity of life.

Quote:

---

I do not believe the power to kill should sit with the state. But my point is that Christians should believe this more than I do if they are going to argue for their pro-life positions and if they see wearing a mask as an infringement on personal liberty. To see mask wearing as governmental over reach, but execution totally justifiable is appalling logic and morally bankrupt...and certainly anti-Christ. Throughout I am conflating the GOP Trumpism with the evangelical because they have come to represent the distilled core values of this president and the contemporary positions of the base that keeps him in power.

---

• "Woman is pregnant." I assume you don't think a free nation can be free of all laws intended to protect others. For example, unless you are for complete anarchy, I would assume you would not view a law that prohibits a woman from slaughtering her born child as infringement on her right of privacy no matter how much of a burden the child is to the woman and how much she would love to be free from the child. Yes, she can give it up for adoption, but until she does, she must not abandon it or kill it. A woman who is pregnant can give it up for adoption once it is born. A Siamese twin who want to be free of her sibling is not free to kill her sister. So, it isn't a matter of freedom for the woman. It is a matter of whether the fetus is alive, is it not? Because if you believe that the fetus is alive and a person, then I would assume you would not side in favor of incremental convenience for the woman over the protection of a child's life. We can debate that, but when people just talk about a woman's right on abortion without any debate on whether the fetus is alive, I am as persuaded as when someone refers to woman's right about a mother who killed her kids. And a law that prevents a mother from killing her kids is not something I hope you or anyone thinks is big government or representative of the conservative hypocrisy.

Quote:

---

We are not going to reach agreement here, because we have different beliefs on what the criminal action is here and who should be protected. We could debate this for the next year and never agree. I believe in the rights and protections for the pregnant mother and believe that she knows better than anyone what is best for her family and the potential unborn child. This is one of the most serious decisions she will make and I defer to her not anyone else's religious belief or the government. Is there a place where it becomes murder? Of course. But I do not believe that the collection of cells is a human, and I choose the living human first. I believe that the medical community who are not monsters but people who care about life more than any poster toting evangelical or point-scoring politician to come to consensus on a workable definition of viability outside the womb (which is where I believe the protections of civil rights kick in for the fetus unless the life of mother is at risk).

---

• "Don't want to be around people who pose a threat carrying weapons of menace openly." Let me get this straight. Are you against gun ownership or someone menacing others openly with a gun, because I would think the latter is illegal. Now, if you want to make guns illegal because you feel like it could be used against you, I think there are a lot ways for people to kill others. For many like me who have been training in martial arts and mixed martial arts for decades, we know that it is fairly easy to kill people without guns. Will I ever do it unless absolutely necessary? Of course not. Although I don't own guns, I would assume, even if I had one, I would no more menace people with it than I would about snapping someone's neck. We also know that you can kill people with knives. Now, the question should be what level of gun control is appropriate and what allows mass murder. That should be the focus of the discussion, but lazy discussion on gun control takes it completely off track. Obviously, carrying a bazooka is not OK. Maybe a small gun that you keep locked up in your house in case there is a burglary? I don't but I assume most would be OK with that. Now, there is a lot in between, and that is what we should discuss. I am not in favor of no gun control. I am leaning more towards stricter gun control (mainly because I have never owned a gun and will never own a gun). But I am not trying to make clones of myself or force others to adopt what I believe as one and only. I am respectful of the second amendment (which is a greater protection than the right of privacy used to ban all restriction on abortion). But, again, not sure how freedom to bear arms is big government or restriction on freedom. You seem to want to restrict freedom provided by the second amendment so that you can be free of feeling afraid of guns (which some may argue is irrational - as Boston marathon terrorist act showed, evil, insane people can cause mass murder with or without guns).

Quote:

---

Here we get into possibly different beliefs. I think the 2nd Amendment has been entirely *******ized on both it's strict language and intent. I think the American love of guns and the paranoia that surrounds it is social sickness not a wonderful enduring attribute that should be enshrined. Honestly, I am disgusted by the political priority a great number of Americans put on the ability to kill (oh yeah protection I forgot). I see it as a moral failing, and again the high number of Christians who love weapons is more than rank hypocrisy its disturbing absurdism. We do not have a crisis of self-protection. We have a crisis of fear and escalation of violence. At a legal level I believe that the case can be made that trained citizens who serve to protect the country on call could responsibly use guns in that capacity. I would be willing to concede limited round rifles for hunting, and a single pistol for highly trained citizens with license that needs to be renewed each year and is rescinded for any number of reasons (mental decline, anger issues, depression, violence, etc). It should be a highly selective right. On the personal level, the need to carry military grade weapons in public has NOTHING to do with exercising liberty or rights or protection, it is a cultural statement. It's a middle finger to the rest of society. It itself is an act of aggression. It infringes on my right to happiness. It scares the hell out of me and that person is 100% indistinguishable from a lunatic, terrorist, etc. It increases social stress, and proclaims that violence is a social value and the primary resource for settling conflict. A utopian healthy American society is not a painting of civilians hugging and smiling at one another with their AK-47s strapped over their shoulders. That is dystopia.

---

• "Kneel during national anthem" - why isn't someone free to kneel? Is there a law prohibiting this? Has Kap gone to jail? I don't think so. Or are you suggesting that people should not be FREE to criticize that action. I personally think he should do what he believes and I support him, but I also support the right of business owners to dictate code of conduct for their employees and for people to have healthy debate on whether that is the appropriate behavior. What part of that is restriction on freedom or big government? If you think those you agree with should be "FREE" from criticism, that seems to be a big government and lack of freedom to me.

Quote:

---

Our president and most of the people crying about masks got their panties in a bunch over kneeling for the anthem. Hypocrisy again. Freedom to do what they want with their body (not wear mask) and no freedom for the bodies of those who kneel (wish we could arrest those sons of *****es).

---

• OK one more - "don't dress in one of their prescribed ways of gender presentation and then try and use a toilet" - Again, let me ask you a question. If I were to go into a bathroom that you wife was using, would that be OK with you? How about if some purely innocent 30 year old man uses the same bathroom that a 5 year girl is using? What if the 30 year old man was gay and not transgender but wanted to use the bathroom the same time as your 5 year old daughter. OK, with that? If not, why not? And how does that change depending on whether the "man" identifies as a woman and dresses a certain way? I get that we should have empathy that the transgender person would want to use the restroom corresponding to the gender she associates with. But what about how she feels changes the main basis for why a straight man would not be allowed to use a woman's bathroom while a 5 year old girl was in there? Was that restriction to protect the man or the little girl? I really do want to understand and have my ears wide open because I do trust you are genuine. I want to understand how you would address the other side of the coin.

Quote:

---

Slippery slope arguments dodge the issue. If you do not have a non binary or trans person in your life, you can not understand the hell they go through and the way in which the examples you used and the terms of this "debate" try and paint them as deviants and freaks and create ridiculous worst case scenarios to manage their bodies out of fear of the unknown. A trans person trying to use a bathroom in peace should not in any way provoke an argument about rape and molestation. These are the same types of scare tactics used against every minority group looking for access from the status quo. Same crap said about women, blacks, gays, etc. Rape is a crime. Prosecute when it happens. And let trans people take a piss for God's sake. They are not rapists in any greater number than the Christians (actually molestation rate amongst priests might be higher--maybe we should ban people going to church?).

---

Having said all that, I am fully in support of requiring people to wear a mask. If not wearing a mask when social distancing is not practical only hurts those not wearing a mask, I could not care less. But if it impacts those who are trying to do the right thing, screw the selfish *****s. We need to get this pandemic under control, and mask wearing seems like a low hanging fruit.

Quote:

---

Those were hasty answers but get to my basic feelings on the questions you raised. Take what you will from it. I am glad you agree on mask wearing.

---

---

---

I had a hard time going through your post. Out of respect, I will try not to be too overly insulting.

You really do not understand even the basics of Christianity or the Bible but you keep writing about it as if you have anything beyond a 5 year old understanding of it.

You tend to comment quite a bit on what you think the Bible in its entirety (including the New Testament) says or what Christians believe or should believe. You act as if you know anything about the religion. You really don't. It is quite a bit insulting and ridiculous to an entire religious group for you to claim or allege something so wrong and then act as an expert enough to criticize. That takes a quite a bit of arrogance, self-righteousness and lack of self-awareness. Please get yourself a bit more knowledgeable before you criticize. I assume you don't pretend to be an expert in the Quran or the Islam faith but you do sprout quite a bit of nonsense on the Christian faith. Please look up the Roman letter from Paul or look up faith based salvation versus works based salvations. The type of stereotype you would object to for any other group, race or religion you freely do so for whites or Christians, and you act surprised that I would be insulted. Imagine writing to a black person a complete misrepresentation of the black history or culture to insult them and consider how that would be received. I am trying really hard not to put you on the ignorant, bigoted list that I had you on before. If you are not familiar with a gender, race, or religion, just don't act like such an expert that you can insult the entire group. Targeted bigotry is still bigotry. If you want respect, show it. I won't bother responding to the rest when you start off with such an insulting take.

calbear93 said:

---

You really do not understand even the basics of Christianity or the Bible but you keep writing about it as if you have anything beyond a 5 year old understanding of it.

---

Couldn't help yourself? Had a few back and forths and then went in for the personal attack. I am taken aback and disappointed.That was a really condescending and insulting thing to say. And for no reason. You think that makes your position more credible?

You have no idea what my understanding is. I was raised Catholic. Went to Catholic High School. Have read the Bible. Have studied Christian theology. I've engaged in religious discussion and debate my whole life. I would score higher on a Biblical literacy or history of the church test than 90+% of practicing Christians. But I don't need a masters degree to know what the average Christian actually says, does, or believes...or what they support or how they vote.

And if I did need an advanced degree to achieve your opaque higher understanding, then it is a crappy inaccessible ideology that somehow justifies you to feel morally superior and ready to insult those who you feel do not meet your divine measure.

I forget, did Christ say turn the other cheek or if first you do not succeed, post an ad hominem? I don't think they teach that until your 6 so I wouldn't know.

All this vitriol, after you asked me what I think. You said in all sincerity that you just wanted to hear what my thoughts were. I didn't attack or insult you, I said what I think and answered your questions. What a horrible tactic of bait and switch you played: please, tell me what you think...how dare you! That my friend is a 5 year old maneuver.

calbear93 said:

---

I had a hard time going through your post. Out of respect, I will try not to be too overly insulting.

You really do not understand even the basics of Christianity or the Bible but you keep writing about it as if you have anything beyond a 5 year old understanding of it.

You tend to comment quite a bit on what you think the Bible in its entirety (including the New Testament) says or what Christians believe or should believe. You act as if you know anything about the religion. You really don't. It is quite a bit insulting and ridiculous to an entire religious group for you to claim or allege something so wrong and then act as an expert enough to criticize. That takes a quite a bit of arrogance, self-righteousness and lack of self-awareness. Please get yourself a bit more knowledgeable before you criticize. I assume you don't pretend to be an expert in the Quran or the Islam faith but you do sprout quite a bit of nonsense on the Christian faith. Please look up the Roman letter from Paul or look up faith based salvation versus works based salvations. The type of stereotype you would object to for any other group, race or religion you freely do so for whites or Christians, and you act surprised that I would be insulted. Imagine writing to a black person a complete misrepresentation of the black history or culture to insult them and consider how that would be received. I am trying really hard not to put you on the ignorant, bigoted list that I had you on before. If you are not familiar with a gender, race, or religion, just don't act like such an expert that you can insult the entire group. Targeted bigotry is still bigotry. If you want respect, show it. I won't bother responding to the rest when you start off with such an insulting take.

---

Thank goodness you held back.

This thread went off the rails.

In any event: more on what we don't know about the vaccines:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/07/operation-warp-speed-s-opaque-choices-covid-19-vaccines-draw-senate-scrutiny

Matthew Patel said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

I had a hard time going through your post. Out of respect, I will try not to be too overly insulting.

You really do not understand even the basics of Christianity or the Bible but you keep writing about it as if you have anything beyond a 5 year old understanding of it.

You tend to comment quite a bit on what you think the Bible in its entirety (including the New Testament) says or what Christians believe or should believe. You act as if you know anything about the religion. You really don't. It is quite a bit insulting and ridiculous to an entire religious group for you to claim or allege something so wrong and then act as an expert enough to criticize. That takes a quite a bit of arrogance, self-righteousness and lack of self-awareness. Please get yourself a bit more knowledgeable before you criticize. I assume you don't pretend to be an expert in the Quran or the Islam faith but you do sprout quite a bit of nonsense on the Christian faith. Please look up the Roman letter from Paul or look up faith based salvation versus works based salvations. The type of stereotype you would object to for any other group, race or religion you freely do so for whites or Christians, and you act surprised that I would be insulted. Imagine writing to a black person a complete misrepresentation of the black history or culture to insult them and consider how that would be received. I am trying really hard not to put you on the ignorant, bigoted list that I had you on before. If you are not familiar with a gender, race, or religion, just don't act like such an expert that you can insult the entire group. Targeted bigotry is still bigotry. If you want respect, show it. I won't bother responding to the rest when you start off with such an insulting take.

---

Thank goodness you held back.

---

That was my version of holding back.

calbear93 said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

I had a hard time going through your post. Out of respect, I will try not to be too overly insulting.

You really do not understand even the basics of Christianity or the Bible but you keep writing about it as if you have anything beyond a 5 year old understanding of it.

You tend to comment quite a bit on what you think the Bible in its entirety (including the New Testament) says or what Christians believe or should believe. You act as if you know anything about the religion. You really don't. It is quite a bit insulting and ridiculous to an entire religious group for you to claim or allege something so wrong and then act as an expert enough to criticize. That takes a quite a bit of arrogance, self-righteousness and lack of self-awareness. Please get yourself a bit more knowledgeable before you criticize. I assume you don't pretend to be an expert in the Quran or the Islam faith but you do sprout quite a bit of nonsense on the Christian faith. Please look up the Roman letter from Paul or look up faith based salvation versus works based salvations. The type of stereotype you would object to for any other group, race or religion you freely do so for whites or Christians, and you act surprised that I would be insulted. Imagine writing to a black person a complete misrepresentation of the black history or culture to insult them and consider how that would be received. I am trying really hard not to put you on the ignorant, bigoted list that I had you on before. If you are not familiar with a gender, race, or religion, just don't act like such an expert that you can insult the entire group. Targeted bigotry is still bigotry. If you want respect, show it. I won't bother responding to the rest when you start off with such an insulting take.

---

Thank goodness you held back.

---

That was my version of holding back.

---

If do right, no can defense

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

You really do not understand even the basics of Christianity or the Bible but you keep writing about it as if you have anything beyond a 5 year old understanding of it.

---

Couldn't help yourself? Had a few back and forths and then went in for the personal attack. I am taken aback and disappointed.That was a really condescending and insulting thing to say. And for no reason. You think that makes your position more credible?

You have no idea what my understanding is. I was raised Catholic. Went to Catholic High School. Have read the Bible. Have studied Christian theology. I've engaged in religious discussion and debate my whole life. I would score higher on a Biblical literacy or history of the church test than 90+% of practicing Christians. But I don't need a masters degree to know what the average Christian actually says, does, or believes...or what they support or how they vote.

And if I did need an advanced degree to achieve your opaque higher understanding, then it is a crappy inaccessible ideology that somehow justifies you to feel morally superior and ready to insult those who you feel do not meet your divine measure.

I forget, did Christ say turn the other cheek or if first you do not succeed, post an ad hominem? I don't think they teach that until your 6 so I wouldn't know.

All this vitriol, after you asked me what I think. You said in all sincerity that you just wanted to hear what my thoughts were. I didn't attack or insult you, I said what I think and answered your questions. What a horrible tactic of bait and switch you played: please, tell me what you think...how dare you! That my friend is a 5 year old maneuver.

---

You really do lack self-awareness. You think you can insult my religion and that is OK but I say you lack knowledge on what you insult, and you whine?

What do you think the sermon on the mount was about? Did John and Andrew who were Thunder and Lightning turn the other cheek? Did Jesus turn the other cheek when money traders were at the temple? Did Jesus turn the other cheek when the Pharisees tried to trap him with words? Did Peter turn the other cheek?

In what context did Jesus say turn the other cheek? When He was referring to the principe of eye for an eye. And why did Moses even say eye for an eye? Because that was intended to moderate the vengeful nature of the people at the time. And what Jesus was saying was that not even eye for an eye is sufficient. You see, Pharisee at the time thought that they did not need salvation because they followed in a legalistic manner all of the laws handed down by Moses. But that was not enough. Instead any retribution is sinful. But so is lusting. And in what context did He talk about lusting? When He was saying that even not committing adultery is not enough. What was the point? The whole point was that there is no way for any of us to save ourselves through our own actions because we can never live up to the standard. But you don't even know Christianity 101 concepts like faith based salvation and you argue on legalistic behavior as if you think it is works based salvation. You keep saying, well Christians should behave a certain way to save themselves from hell. If you don't even understand the most basics of Christianity and don't even understand that nothing we do on our own will save us, please forgive me for not trusting your self assessment that you are some expert.

And don't insult me and my religion and then think you are being respectful and worthy of respect. You previously told me to be mindful of being respectful. I would suggest that you take your own advice. Or are your just good at handing out constructive criticism but unable to take them yourself. You are demonstrating quite a bit of lack of self-awareness.

I will advice you that if you want to maintain a modicum of respect between us, stop with your bigotry against my religion. Strange that you only rail against Christians but not Jewish or Muslim community. Bias much?

calbear93 said:

---

I will advice you that if you want to maintain a modicum of respect between us, stop with bigotry against my religion. Strange that you only rail against Christians but not Jewish or Muslim community. Bias much?

---

We don't get a lot of Jewish or Muslim Republicans on this forum

Matthew Patel said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

I will advice you that if you want to maintain a modicum of respect between us, stop with bigotry against my religion. Strange that you only rail against Christians but not Jewish or Muslim community. Bias much?

---

We don't get a lot of Jewish or Muslim Republicans on this forum

---

Then leave it at politics and don't show bigotry against an entire religion because of your own political leanings. Hope you realize that majority of the black Democrats are Christians. So if there were a lot of black Republicans, it would be OK to racist against blacks? That's silly and a quick way to devolve into disrespectful and unproductive rants. If you are going to promote listening to other side instead of just vilifying, do the same.

calbear93 said:

---

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

You really do not understand even the basics of Christianity or the Bible but you keep writing about it as if you have anything beyond a 5 year old understanding of it.

---

Couldn't help yourself? Had a few back and forths and then went in for the personal attack. I am taken aback and disappointed.That was a really condescending and insulting thing to say. And for no reason. You think that makes your position more credible?

You have no idea what my understanding is. I was raised Catholic. Went to Catholic High School. Have read the Bible. Have studied Christian theology. I've engaged in religious discussion and debate my whole life. I would score higher on a Biblical literacy or history of the church test than 90+% of practicing Christians. But I don't need a masters degree to know what the average Christian actually says, does, or believes...or what they support or how they vote.

And if I did need an advanced degree to achieve your opaque higher understanding, then it is a crappy inaccessible ideology that somehow justifies you to feel morally superior and ready to insult those who you feel do not meet your divine measure.

I forget, did Christ say turn the other cheek or if first you do not succeed, post an ad hominem? I don't think they teach that until your 6 so I wouldn't know.

All this vitriol, after you asked me what I think. You said in all sincerity that you just wanted to hear what my thoughts were. I didn't attack or insult you, I said what I think and answered your questions. What a horrible tactic of bait and switch you played: please, tell me what you think...how dare you! That my friend is a 5 year old maneuver.

---

You really do lack self-awareness. You think you can insult my religion and that is OK but I say you lack knowledge on what you insult, and you whine?

What do you think the sermon on the mount was about? Did John and Andrew who were Thunder and Lightning turn the other cheek? Did Jesus turn the other cheek when money traders were at the temple? Did Jesus turn the other cheek when the Pharisees tried to trap him with words? Did Peter turn the other cheek?

In what context did Jesus say turn the other cheek? When He was referring to the principe of eye for an eye. And why did Moses even say eye for an eye? Because that was intended to moderate the vengeful nature of the people at the time. And what Jesus was saying was that not even eye for an eye is sufficient. You see, Pharisee at the time thought that they did not need salvation because they followed in a legalistic manner all of the laws handed down by Moses. But that was not enough. Instead any retribution is sinful. But so is lusting. And in what context did He talk about lusting? When He was saying that even not committing adultery is not enough. What was the point? The whole point was that there is no way for any of us to save ourselves through our own actions because we can never live up to the standard. But you don't even know Christianity 101 concepts like faith based salvation and you argue on legalistic behavior as if you think it is works based salvation. You keep saying, well Christians should behave a certain way to save themselves from hell. If you don't even understand the most basics of Christianity and don't even understand that nothing we do on our own will save us, please forgive me for not trusting your self assessment that you are some expert.

And don't insult me and my religion and then think you are being respectful and worthy of respect. You previously told me to be mindful of being respectful. I would suggest that you take your own advice. Or are your just good at handing out constructive criticism but unable to take them yourself. You are demonstrating quite a bit of lack of self-awareness.

I will advice you that if you want to maintain a modicum of respect between us, stop with your bigotry against my religion. Strange that you only rail against Christians but not Jewish or Muslim community. Bias much?

---

You are dodging that you insulted me vs you FELT insulted by my opinion that you ASKED FOR.

I thought that when I pointed this out you would take a step back, but you are going to seriously accuse me of religious prosecution and prejudice? I am critical of what I know and what is essentially myself as a born and raised Christian and because that demographic supports this president, keeps him in power, has been the primary core of destructive voting block of the GOP for decades, and because I AM NOT posting on religious theology or religion writ large. Why would i be critical of Muslims in a thread on Trump? Because you want some equal opportunity criticism when it is entirely unrelated? I would be just as critical of Muslims if they were ruining our country and voting for morally abject anti-Christian actions. But they are not. It's the Christians who have forcefully advanced unChristian policy.

And for all your outrage and alleged Christian sophistication, what you wrote not only misrepresented my words (like when did I say anything about Hell for example) but was itself a pretty unsophisticated bit of preaching.

Deal with it. Take some responsibility. Don't insult when you feel insulted. And don't play the Christian martyr BS.

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

You really do not understand even the basics of Christianity or the Bible but you keep writing about it as if you have anything beyond a 5 year old understanding of it.

---

Couldn't help yourself? Had a few back and forths and then went in for the personal attack. I am taken aback and disappointed.That was a really condescending and insulting thing to say. And for no reason. You think that makes your position more credible?

You have no idea what my understanding is. I was raised Catholic. Went to Catholic High School. Have read the Bible. Have studied Christian theology. I've engaged in religious discussion and debate my whole life. I would score higher on a Biblical literacy or history of the church test than 90+% of practicing Christians. But I don't need a masters degree to know what the average Christian actually says, does, or believes...or what they support or how they vote.

And if I did need an advanced degree to achieve your opaque higher understanding, then it is a crappy inaccessible ideology that somehow justifies you to feel morally superior and ready to insult those who you feel do not meet your divine measure.

I forget, did Christ say turn the other cheek or if first you do not succeed, post an ad hominem? I don't think they teach that until your 6 so I wouldn't know.

All this vitriol, after you asked me what I think. You said in all sincerity that you just wanted to hear what my thoughts were. I didn't attack or insult you, I said what I think and answered your questions. What a horrible tactic of bait and switch you played: please, tell me what you think...how dare you! That my friend is a 5 year old maneuver.

---

You really do lack self-awareness. You think you can insult my religion and that is OK but I say you lack knowledge on what you insult, and you whine?

What do you think the sermon on the mount was about? Did John and Andrew who were Thunder and Lightning turn the other cheek? Did Jesus turn the other cheek when money traders were at the temple? Did Jesus turn the other cheek when the Pharisees tried to trap him with words? Did Peter turn the other cheek?

In what context did Jesus say turn the other cheek? When He was referring to the principe of eye for an eye. And why did Moses even say eye for an eye? Because that was intended to moderate the vengeful nature of the people at the time. And what Jesus was saying was that not even eye for an eye is sufficient. You see, Pharisee at the time thought that they did not need salvation because they followed in a legalistic manner all of the laws handed down by Moses. But that was not enough. Instead any retribution is sinful. But so is lusting. And in what context did He talk about lusting? When He was saying that even not committing adultery is not enough. What was the point? The whole point was that there is no way for any of us to save ourselves through our own actions because we can never live up to the standard. But you don't even know Christianity 101 concepts like faith based salvation and you argue on legalistic behavior as if you think it is works based salvation. You keep saying, well Christians should behave a certain way to save themselves from hell. If you don't even understand the most basics of Christianity and don't even understand that nothing we do on our own will save us, please forgive me for not trusting your self assessment that you are some expert.

And don't insult me and my religion and then think you are being respectful and worthy of respect. You previously told me to be mindful of being respectful. I would suggest that you take your own advice. Or are your just good at handing out constructive criticism but unable to take them yourself. You are demonstrating quite a bit of lack of self-awareness.

I will advice you that if you want to maintain a modicum of respect between us, stop with your bigotry against my religion. Strange that you only rail against Christians but not Jewish or Muslim community. Bias much?

---

You are dodging that you insulted me vs you FELT insulted by my opinion that you ASKED FOR.

I thought that when I pointed this out you would take a step back, but you are going to seriously accuse me of religious prosecution and prejudice? I am critical of what I know and what is essentially myself as a born and raised Christian and because that demographic supports this president, keeps him in power, has been the primary core of destructive voting block of the GOP for decades, and because I AM NOT posting on religious theology or religion writ large. Why would i be critical of Muslims in a thread on Trump? Because you want some equal opportunity criticism when it is entirely unrelated? I would be just as critical of Muslims if they were ruining our country and voting for morally abject anti-Christian actions. But they are not. It's the Christians who have forcefully advanced unChristian policy.

And for all your outrage and alleged Christian sophistication, what you wrote not only misrepresented my words (like when did I say anything about Hell for example) but was itself a pretty unsophisticated bit of preaching.

Deal with it. Take some responsibility. Don't insult when you feel insulted. And don't play the Christian martyr BS.

---

This is why I have no respect for "progressive" bigots like you. So delusional about your own bigotry and racism while so eager to point out others.

And that was quite a bit of rewriting history by you.

When did I write anything about religion on the original post? It was a purely political post.

And then you go on a rant on Christianity because I am a Christian and then say I was preaching and you were not insulting?

And to say you are insulting Christianity because Christians voted for Trump is beyond idiotic.

This is why you are not a deep thinker.

Let's apply that with other religions. Let's assume that you were instead an anti-Semite, and not the current type of religious bigot that you are. Would you be justified in mocking Jewish people if majority of them voted for a politician you didn't like? How about if most of the Muslims had voted for Trump? That would be cause for mocking them? What kind of argument are you making?

And do you not realize that a significant majority of black population are Christians?

And I tried not to get into theology and tried to spare you and instead just wrote that you have no idea what you are writing about. You kept on posting that gibberish on "turn the other cheek" as a military argument.

Let's be finished with this. You are not a deep thinker but tend to simplify and resort to conspiracy theories.

Just recognize that if I had replaced your references to Christian in your original post (responding to something in which I had made no reference to religion) with Muslim, Jewish or black, you would clearly see that you are a bigot. And you don't stand for principle against bigotry but instead have your favorite groups and disfavored groups.

And you initiating insults against Christianity and Christians in a political post knowing that I am a Christian and wondering why I feel insulted is silly. If I insulted the black community to a black persons or insulted the Jewish faith to a Jewish person, they shouldn't feel insulted? Is that what you would think? Instead, you feel justified in losing your temper and in getting your feelings hurt because I said you have no understanding of what you profess to be an expert in?

You want me to deal with it? You are a hypocritical bigot. You deal with that.

We need an off off topic board for religious disputes. COVID doesn't care what religion you are.

Happy 4th everyone! I hope you all can enjoy the day with your families and forget about petty squabbles.

calbear93 said:

---

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

You really do not understand even the basics of Christianity or the Bible but you keep writing about it as if you have anything beyond a 5 year old understanding of it.

---

Couldn't help yourself? Had a few back and forths and then went in for the personal attack. I am taken aback and disappointed.That was a really condescending and insulting thing to say. And for no reason. You think that makes your position more credible?

You have no idea what my understanding is. I was raised Catholic. Went to Catholic High School. Have read the Bible. Have studied Christian theology. I've engaged in religious discussion and debate my whole life. I would score higher on a Biblical literacy or history of the church test than 90+% of practicing Christians. But I don't need a masters degree to know what the average Christian actually says, does, or believes...or what they support or how they vote.

And if I did need an advanced degree to achieve your opaque higher understanding, then it is a crappy inaccessible ideology that somehow justifies you to feel morally superior and ready to insult those who you feel do not meet your divine measure.

I forget, did Christ say turn the other cheek or if first you do not succeed, post an ad hominem? I don't think they teach that until your 6 so I wouldn't know.

All this vitriol, after you asked me what I think. You said in all sincerity that you just wanted to hear what my thoughts were. I didn't attack or insult you, I said what I think and answered your questions. What a horrible tactic of bait and switch you played: please, tell me what you think...how dare you! That my friend is a 5 year old maneuver.

---

You really do lack self-awareness. You think you can insult my religion and that is OK but I say you lack knowledge on what you insult, and you whine?

What do you think the sermon on the mount was about? Did John and Andrew who were Thunder and Lightning turn the other cheek? Did Jesus turn the other cheek when money traders were at the temple? Did Jesus turn the other cheek when the Pharisees tried to trap him with words? Did Peter turn the other cheek?

In what context did Jesus say turn the other cheek? When He was referring to the principe of eye for an eye. And why did Moses even say eye for an eye? Because that was intended to moderate the vengeful nature of the people at the time. And what Jesus was saying was that not even eye for an eye is sufficient. You see, Pharisee at the time thought that they did not need salvation because they followed in a legalistic manner all of the laws handed down by Moses. But that was not enough. Instead any retribution is sinful. But so is lusting. And in what context did He talk about lusting? When He was saying that even not committing adultery is not enough. What was the point? The whole point was that there is no way for any of us to save ourselves through our own actions because we can never live up to the standard. But you don't even know Christianity 101 concepts like faith based salvation and you argue on legalistic behavior as if you think it is works based salvation. You keep saying, well Christians should behave a certain way to save themselves from hell. If you don't even understand the most basics of Christianity and don't even understand that nothing we do on our own will save us, please forgive me for not trusting your self assessment that you are some expert.

And don't insult me and my religion and then think you are being respectful and worthy of respect. You previously told me to be mindful of being respectful. I would suggest that you take your own advice. Or are your just good at handing out constructive criticism but unable to take them yourself. You are demonstrating quite a bit of lack of self-awareness.

I will advice you that if you want to maintain a modicum of respect between us, stop with your bigotry against my religion. Strange that you only rail against Christians but not Jewish or Muslim community. Bias much?

---

You are dodging that you insulted me vs you FELT insulted by my opinion that you ASKED FOR.

I thought that when I pointed this out you would take a step back, but you are going to seriously accuse me of religious prosecution and prejudice? I am critical of what I know and what is essentially myself as a born and raised Christian and because that demographic supports this president, keeps him in power, has been the primary core of destructive voting block of the GOP for decades, and because I AM NOT posting on religious theology or religion writ large. Why would i be critical of Muslims in a thread on Trump? Because you want some equal opportunity criticism when it is entirely unrelated? I would be just as critical of Muslims if they were ruining our country and voting for morally abject anti-Christian actions. But they are not. It's the Christians who have forcefully advanced unChristian policy.

And for all your outrage and alleged Christian sophistication, what you wrote not only misrepresented my words (like when did I say anything about Hell for example) but was itself a pretty unsophisticated bit of preaching.

Deal with it. Take some responsibility. Don't insult when you feel insulted. And don't play the Christian martyr BS.

---

This is why I have no respect for "progressive" bigots like you. So delusional about your own bigotry and racism while so eager to point out others.

And that was quite a bit of rewriting history by you.

When did I write anything about religion on the original post? It was a purely political post.

And then you go on a rant on Christianity because I am a Christian and then say I was preaching and you were not insulting?

And to say you are insulting Christianity because Christians voted for Trump is beyond idiotic.

This is why you are not a deep thinker.

Let's apply that on there other side. Let's assume that you were instead an anti-Semite, and not the current type of religious bigot that you are. Would you be justified in mocking Jewish people if majority of them voted for a politician you didn't like? How about if most of the Muslims had voted for Trump? That would be cause for mocking them? What kind of argument are you making?

And do you not realize that a significant majority of black population are Christians?

And I tried not to get into theology and tried to spare you and instead just wrote that you have no idea what you are writing about. You kept on posting that gibberish on "turn the other cheek" as a military argument.

Let's be finished with this. You are not a deep thinker but tend to simplify and resort to conspiracy theories.

Just recognize that if I had replaced your references to Christian in your original post (In which I had made no reference to religion) with Muslim, Jewish or black, you would clearly see that you are a bigot. And you don't stand for principle against bigotry but instead have your favorite groups and disfavored groups.

And to say that you were entitled to mock Christians because I asked for your opinion on a political post is ridiculous. If a black persons respond to your post on charter school and the you went on a rant on the black community, that would be justified you were asked for your opinion? And so you initiating insults against Christianity and Christians in a political post knowing that I am a Christian and wondering why I feel insulted is silly. If I insulted the black community to a black persons or insulted the Jewish faith to a Jewish person, they shouldn't feel insulted? Is that what you would think? Instead, you feel justified in losing your temper and in getting your feelings hurt because I said you have no understanding of what you profess to be an expert in?

You want me to deal with it? You are a hypocritical bigot. You deal with that.

---

Meant to respond to U2.

Yes, let's just keep religion and insults against religious groups out of political discussion altogether. Bigotry has no place on these boards.

" Bigotry has no place on these boards."

If only that were true... Then you and all your whiny MAGAt
and GOP buddies would be gone and we could have rational discussions about important matters that don't devolve into name calling and arguments about imaginary invisible being in the sky controlling everything.

AunBear89 said:

---

" Bigotry has no place on these boards."

If only that were true... Then you and all your whiny MAGAt
and GOP buddies would be gone and we could have rational discussions about important matters that don't devolve into name calling and arguments about imaginary invisible being in the sky controlling everything.

---

Oh, you are promoting cessation of name calling? Wow, troll on.

And you and rational discussion don't even share the same planet. I honestly do not recall during these many years a single substantive post from you, little vapid boy.

And by mocking faith in a God, you are mocking not only Christianity but Judaism and Islam. Nice that you are expanding your bigotry. Have a feeling that if there were a typo in a Democrat platform promoting instead of fighting racism, you would be out there burning a cross to show how liberal you are. You are an empty person with an equally empty brain.

Ok, MAGAt. Keep on projecting.

AunBear89 said:

---

Ok, MAGAt. Keep on projecting.

---

OK, racist. Keep projecting.

calbear93 said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

I will advice you that if you want to maintain a modicum of respect between us, stop with bigotry against my religion. Strange that you only rail against Christians but not Jewish or Muslim community. Bias much?

---

We don't get a lot of Jewish or Muslim Republicans on this forum

---

Then leave it at politics and don't show bigotry against an entire religion because of your own political leanings. Hope you realize that majority of the black Democrats are Christians. So if there were a lot of black Republicans, it would be OK to racist against blacks? That's silly and a quick way to devolve into disrespectful and unproductive rants. If you are going to promote listening to other side instead of just vilifying, do the same.

---

On what basis do you make the claim that the majority of black Democrats are Christians. How do you know they aren't athiests?

As for black Republicans, I'm not anti-Candace Owens because she's black. I'm anti-Candace Owens because she is intellectually dishonest. I'm pro-Justin Amash not because he's a white Christian, but because he's anti-Trump, anti-big government, anti-presidential overreach.

See the difference?

Todd Ingram said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

I will advice you that if you want to maintain a modicum of respect between us, stop with bigotry against my religion. Strange that you only rail against Christians but not Jewish or Muslim community. Bias much?

---

We don't get a lot of Jewish or Muslim Republicans on this forum

---

Then leave it at politics and don't show bigotry against an entire religion because of your own political leanings. Hope you realize that majority of the black Democrats are Christians. So if there were a lot of black Republicans, it would be OK to racist against blacks? That's silly and a quick way to devolve into disrespectful and unproductive rants. If you are going to promote listening to other side instead of just vilifying, do the same.

---

On what basis do you make the claim that the majority of black Democrats are Christians. How do you know they aren't athiests?

As for black Republicans, I'm not anti-Candace Owens because she's black. I'm anti-Candace Owens because she is intellectually dishonest. I'm pro-Justin Amash not because he's a white Christian, but because he's anti-Trump, anti-big government, anti-presidential overreach.

See the difference?

---

That's fine. Keep it at policy level and not use insults against a whole race or religion to bolster a policy argument. Not saying that you do. That was my main objection to Blu's post. There was no need to insult an entire religion.

As far as the black community, I think it is fairly common knowledge the prevalence of Christianity in the community.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/23/black-americans-are-more-likely-than-overall-public-to-be-christian-protestant/%3famp=1

calbear93 said:

---

Todd Ingram said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

I will advice you that if you want to maintain a modicum of respect between us, stop with bigotry against my religion. Strange that you only rail against Christians but not Jewish or Muslim community. Bias much?

---

We don't get a lot of Jewish or Muslim Republicans on this forum

---

Then leave it at politics and don't show bigotry against an entire religion because of your own political leanings. Hope you realize that majority of the black Democrats are Christians. So if there were a lot of black Republicans, it would be OK to racist against blacks? That's silly and a quick way to devolve into disrespectful and unproductive rants. If you are going to promote listening to other side instead of just vilifying, do the same.

---

On what basis do you make the claim that the majority of black Democrats are Christians. How do you know they aren't athiests?

As for black Republicans, I'm not anti-Candace Owens because she's black. I'm anti-Candace Owens because she is intellectually dishonest. I'm pro-Justin Amash not because he's a white Christian, but because he's anti-Trump, anti-big government, anti-presidential overreach.

See the difference?

---

That's fine. Keep it at policy level and not use insults against a whole race or religion to bolster a policy argument. Not saying that you do. That was my main objection to Blu's post. There was no need to insult an entire religion.

As far as the black community, I think it is fairly common knowledge the prevalence of Christianity in the community.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/23/black-americans-are-more-likely-than-overall-public-to-be-christian-protestant/%3famp=1

---

Thanks for the link!