I'm proud to endorse and
encourage you to get this Bible
we must make America Pray Again pray get
educated get motivated and stand with me
and the legions of Americans asking God
to bless our great nation to bring our
great nation back 

Yeah, he wants people to pray...pray to him so he can prey on them

Where is that divine bolt of lightning ! 

It's like a cop..never around when ya need one

According to his wife, the book of Hitler is his favorite book.

But that can't be true since Trump doesn't read.

Can you believe some folks on NT actually believe (or say they do) that this amoral turd actually has ever read one single verse from the bible?

Can you believe some folks on NT actually believe (or say they do) that this amoral turd actually has ever read one single verse from the bible?

Indeed!

instagram

(Turn sound on-- speaker icon is to the right, far down at the bottom)

The video above is "vomit-y" just vomit-y. And he is reading from a script and yet can't help himself to ad-lib in spaces. 

When we add up Trump's GREATEST comments, it is astounding.

1. NUKE HURRICANES!

2. During the American Revolution ramparts took over the airport.

3. To improve our atmosphere, we need to wash the coal.
4. Our stealth fighter cannot be seen, even if one walks by it.

5. Puerto Rico is surrounded by water. Water is Wet, and their is the ocean, too.

6. Windmills cause houses to lose 75% of their value, and the whirling sound causes CANCER.

7. Why not inject a disinfectant, like BLEACH into the body to "knock out disease in minutes?

8. Sweeping the floors of forest protects against FOREST FIRES.

8. People are flushing their toilets 10 times a day.

9. Colorado is building a wall.

10. Mexico will build a border Wall.

And, this is who REPUBLICANS want to send back to the White House? Trump is worse than Marjorie Taylor Green!

Trump is worse than Marjorie Taylor Green!

And quantifiably more dangerous to this Union we exist in too. It is shameful that one has to say this about a former president. (They used to 'age' gracefully, but not this sour-puss!)

10. Mexico will build a border Wall.

#11: and and pay for it too!

I wonder what made me think of this when I saw your article...

You saw what he was selling, of course.  After shoes and bibles, this could be next.

Trump bible costs 60 dollars .  Trump promises not to spend the proceeds on his campaign.  He does NOT promise not to spend them on his legal bills though. 

He could donate that money to a worthy cause

What greater cause than the "Free Trump Fund"? /s

Trump's worthy cause will always be himself.

Trump is grifting again and again and yet. . .again. And these 'poor' fools are ready and willing to re-install him in a four year term to recreate his past piss-poor actions and activities; and, to CREATE MORE PISS-POOR ACTIONS AND ACTIVITIES during a 2024-2028 session as an executive and 'jacking up' the legal system once more when he EXITS in 2028.

Keeping it real:  Some or most of us will be really old and probably gagging on 'Trump-world' by then!

SOLUTION: Let the justice system properly get at this low-life human being by not electing him to high office again. Let Donald get on with his life apart from holding any public office!

Pretty sure that the bible of Trump would make me puke.

A Bible that combines Satan's Magic, God's praise of Donald J. Trump, and can easily read by Trump is worth more than $60.

For Christ Sakes, it is autographed by Donald J. Trump, and has an orange cover. 
Who wouldn't want that?

Maybe it would sell even better if he made it edible (I thought you of all people would appreciate that).

Do I believe he reads the Bible all the time?  Doubtful

Do I believe the country was better off when it was more religious?  Absolutely.

Do I believe the country was better off when it was more religious?

When was it more religious in your opinion?  What years?

IMO?

I'd say from the founding to the late 60s.

I'd say from the founding to the late 60s.

Ahh, pre-civil rights?

And what religious parts do you feel the country should embrace that they currently aren't?

Yeah...when the little woman stayed at home, cooking, cleaning, taking of children, then dressing up with full make-up and high heels when her big man walks thru the door at the end of the day

None of that feminist clap trap ya know

Some 'men' live in a time and pine for a time that never was.

Oh...it existed! But the only happy people were the rich, white, men. My parents grew up in the 50's but were rural laborers and farmers. And poor. Both of my grandmothers had jobs. My aunts took care of the house and did the cooking. My mom always had a summer job and helped around the house and did a lot of the cooking.

So while it might have been rosy days for the white suburbanite it wasn't like that for most of the country

None of that feminist clap trap ya know

Yeah, I don't think Vic thought through his answer and I don't think he is willing to answer my 2nd question.

When were you hatched, '70 ? Religion has nutted-up this country since Christopher Columbus and the Pilgrims . 

Wow. This is just too much. Back to the 50's and "Leave It To Beaver" MAGAs go!  What an admission.

And life was never like it was portrayed in "Leave it to Beaver".   It is just that television standards were extremely conservative.

People, as a whole, simply are not "golly ... gee whiz" inclined.   We cluster into groups and engage in us vs. them.   A never-ending challenge of 'them'.   And this happens at many levels.   The immediate, local level between siblings, between family groups, between friend groups,  ... to the community level ... and beyond.   

It is particularly observable with surrogates (e.g. professional sports teams) and of course in politics.

People have not changed much in hundreds of years.   We are the same basic animals, just in a different environment with different pressures, challenges, and weapons.

Yes. That was a direct slight against the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act of the 60's! No additional clarification needed. That commenter is clear on his sentiment. And it can't be walked back either!

When Could Women Open a Bank Account?

It wasn’t until 1974, when the  Equal Credit Opportunity Act  passed, that women in the U.S. were granted the right to open a bank account on their own.

Technically, women won the right to open a bank account in the 1960s , but many banks still refused to let women do so without a signature from their husbands. This meant men still held control over women’s access to banking services, and unmarried women were often refused service by financial institutions.

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibited financial institutions from discriminating against applicants based on their sex, age, marital status, religion, race or national origin. Because of the act’s passage, women could finally open bank accounts independently.

forbes

"Suzy Homemaker." That kitchen and the rest of the house were her duties and responsibilities and boy is it spotless ! Uh-oh! There appears to be a smudge on the floor just below "Suzy's" left knee! Best not let "Mister" get a peek at it or else: Whamo Slamo! Or, at least, a stern talking!  - CB.

since Christopher Columbus and the Pilgrims . 

There was about 130 years and 500 miles difference.

I understand the era. . . television considered itself putting forth its best idyllic look all-around of a country prospering and making great choices for all the world to see. Although, cigarette smoking was in nearly every show and heavy into it at that.

Cigarette smoking was "cool".

Yes, I admit it. I smoked. And I smoked: Kool Filter King cigarettes for many, many years.

Yeah, then them women and negroes started getting all uppity and expecting equal rights and all that bullshit, eh?

The nation is clearly NOT better off when tens of millions believe and follow a demagogue like Trump.   

It is never good for people to simply accept as truth what another person (or book) merely claims.    And that, Vic, is the core of religious belief.

Is it good for people to believe that the 2020 election was a fraud and that Trump was legitimately reelected?

The GOP would not be stuck with Trump as its presumptive nominee if the electorate had engaged more in critical thinking vs. emotional acceptance of Trump bullshit.

Do you know why we have camera's everywhere, TiG?

Hint:  the loss of religious beliefs.

Do you know why we have camera's everywhere, TiG?

We have cameras everywhere because technology has made them inexpensive, small, highly functional (streaming to massive stores), interconnected, and extremely convenient.

I smell another conspiracy theory ...

We have cameras everywhere because

We have cameras everywhere because the moral restraints of religious teaching no longer exist. Fear of being caught has replaced stealing is wrong as the prime deterrent.


I smell another conspiracy theory ...

Maybe I can recommend a nasal decongestant.

His argument seems to be that crime is so rampant now they need cameras to keep track of it all.

The unfortunate truth for his position is that crime rates were higher (compared to now) in previous decades such as the 70s and 80s and even the 90s when there were no cameras. 

I would think that the presence of cameras everywhere has deterred some crime.

We have cameras everywhere because the moral restraints of religious teaching no longer exist. Fear of being caught has replaced stealing is wrong as the prime deterrent.

Ah ... so morality comes only from religion in your mind.   Without being subservient to a religion, one lacks morality?    

If modern cameras were available in the 1960s, you can bet they would be all over the place.

Widespread use of cameras is a function of technological advancement.   

whose religion do you want us all to follow?

I don't care which one you name because I ain;t following it

Without being subservient to a religion, one lacks morality?    

Good to know. How moral is it to hate someone because of what they believe or how they look?

It is never good for people to simply accept as truth what another person (or book) merely claims.

Agreed.

And that, Vic, is the core of religious belief.

Do you have empirical evidence that this is the case or do I misunderstand and this simply represents your opinion? 

Do you have empirical evidence that this is the case or do I misunderstand and this simply represents your opinion? 

It is my opinion that the core of religious belief is accepting as truth that which another person (or book) merely claims.

In contrast, the core of scientific belief is accepting as a good approximation of truth that which is well substantiated with empirical evidence.

I think my opinion matches well with what we observe in religious and scientific belief.

Okay. Thanks for the clarification. 

Some folks believe in and/or have faith while others do not. Plain and simple.

I think that is true of most people.

For example, I have yet to meet a Christian who believes in Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva.   You can say, accurately, that they lack faith in those Hindu gods.   Similarly, one would be hard pressed to find a Muslim who believes in a divine Jesus.   This is a lack of faith.

Atheists by definition lack faith in any sentient god.   We simply are not convinced that human beings have any sound evidence that a  sentient creator exists and, crucially, have knowledge of this creator (attributes such as gender, temperament, intentions, omniscience, etc.).

In this regard, a key difference between an atheist and a theist is that the latter has faith in a particular god.

The commonality of an atheist and a theist is lack of faith in all the other gods.  You and I equally have no faith in almost every god (thousands † of them) dreamed up by human beings over time.

In a sense, theists are ~99% ' atheist ' regarding the gods of human history and ~1% ' theist ' regarding their god of choice.   Thus theists should find it easy to understand the mindset of atheists (short for agnostic atheist).

† Anthropologists estimate that at least 18,000 different gods, goddesses, and various animals or objects have been worshipped by humans since our species first appeared. Today, it is estimated that more than 80 percent of the global population considers themselves religious or spiritual in some form.

Lotsa gods

For example, I have yet to meet a Christian who believes in Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva.   You can say, accurately, that they lack faith in those Hindu gods.   Similarly, one would be hard pressed to find a Muslim who believes in a divine Jesus.   This is a lack of faith.

This, in my opinion, is a true statement. However, it is incomplete. It also raises the question of why they lack faith in those things. The answer is not universal. 

In general, both Christians and Muslims are taught to dismiss all other gods.   So that is a key part of it.

For agnostics, the answer is that there is insufficient evidence to persuade one to believe that a particular god exists.

And I think we can say that most people think like the agnostics when it comes to most gods.   Why, for example, do you not believe in the existence of the ancient Greek and Roman gods?   

Why, for example, do you not believe in the existence of the ancient Greek and Roman gods?

There are other reasons but, primarily because they don't fulfill what I think the position logically requires of a supreme being. 

Would it be fair, then, to say that you are not persuaded (by logic, by evidence, etc.) that they exist?

Yes. 

The commonality of an atheist and a theist is lack of faith in all the other gods.  You and I equally have no faith in almost every god (thousands † of them) dreamed up by human beings over time. In a sense, theists are ~99% ' atheist ' regarding the gods of human history and ~1% ' theist ' regarding their god of choice.   Thus theists should find it easy to understand the mindset of atheists (short for agnostic atheist).

I understand what point you are trying to make here but you are not using the word "faith" the way we Christians do. 

When we say we have faith in Him, we aren't saying the same thing as believing He exists, which is already taken for granted. Rather, it is: complete trust or confidence in someone or something. The practical application of that is that we trust or have confidence that God is trustworthy and will do what He promises to do, rather than saying anything about whether He exists or not. 

We do not have faith in other gods because we don't believe they exist. You cannot trust or have confidence in something you don't believe exists. We have faith in the One God because we believe He exists. These are two separate, but related things. 

So, from our point of view, we are 100% theists and 0% atheist when it comes to faith. Switch belief for faith in your argument and you'd likely get more agreement from Christians. 

As we have discussed, people wrap nuanced meaning around words like faith.   You have defined your meaning and I understand.

I do not, however, accept your claim that all or even most Christians hold that meaning.   I have far too many empirical counterexamples in real life (a life lived surrounded by Christian family and friends).   I am confident most of them would say they believe based on faith … not that faith is strictly trust in a god and has no bearing on the prerequisite belief that the god exists.

[deleted][✘]

I do not, however, accept your claim that all or even most Christians hold that meaning.

That is your right, of course. I'm sure you come into contact with more Christians than I do, so probably have more experience. 

Such sarcasm is not helpful.   I have been surrounded by Christians my entire life.   You being a Christian does not override my observations or nullify my opinion.

Who is stopping anyone from believing whatever nonsense they want to believe?

We have cameras everywhere because the moral restraints of religious teaching no longer exist.

Well, I just have to write. . .and it's relevant; "moral restraints" are not working the evangelical churches that chooses as its so-called, "spiritual leader" (who has 'founded' a bible of all things) to the ruin of moderate conservatives who are literally forced out of the party. . .with acceptance by the 'morality police' or lack thereof.

Also, "moral restraints of religious teaching" are not working and have never fully take hold in the so-called, "Holy Land" which has been prone to violence since way back! 

Go on, wipe the lipstick off that propaganda 'pig' and set it free once and for all!

A great many people confuse faith and spirituality with religion when they are in fact not always mutually exclusive. Buddhism and Yoga are two examples as both are philosophies rather than religions and promote faith and sprirituality.

Buddhism and Yoga are two examples as both are philosophies rather than religions.

Certainly true of Buddhism.   

[deleted][✘]

Do you believe he reads the bible EVER?

So you're a fan of mythology and superstition?

Religion means blind belief in mythology and superstition. Once one believes in the original lie, one's brain is lost.

As long as one does not preach or prosteletyze forcing their beliefs or lack of them on others who cares?

Unfortunately, that's part of the conservative's Project 2025 .

Do I believe the country was better off when it was more religious? 

Whose religion? Is there one that's better than the others?

So you believe Trump is lying about reading the Bible daily (but you won't say so). And, by the way, this grifter said it. It's the King James Version with SURPLUSES of The Declaration of Independence and Constitution ATTACHED. That is, there is nothing of him, Trump, in this version. It's appears to be just a grift!

When was that, Vic?

When Oral Roberts from Oklahoma was preaching?

Jimmy Swaggart, the guy banging hookers?

Jim Bakker, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinns, or Jim Jones?

Joel Ostein, Joseph Smith, Pat Roberson, Murdoch, or me, Reverend Oral Fleece! Pasteur of the Church of the: 
"How Big Is Your Wallet-How Small is your BRAIN?"
Now that Trump has converted from stealing to preaching, he has moved up to Number One!

When I first heard the name Oral Roberts back in the early 70's, I thought it was a disease of the mouth.

Do I believe the country was better off when it was more religious?  Absolutely.

Was that when America was truly great?

Gee, typical white 'male' view of the best of times.  Like one of our prolific authors here and his many, many readers.

LOL

I will never understand the thought that Christians are under any kind of attack.  They are allowed to worship openly, wear jewelry that shows their faith.  Just because they are not allowed to force others to follow their beliefs and worship as they do does not form an attack.  Sigh - so sick of it.

I will never understand the thought that Christians are under any kind of attack.

I find this hard to believe, considering one can't swing a cat without hitting a dozen articles trying to demonize "white evangelical Christians" in the media. That group appears to include anyone who is Christian and hold views right of center. Same goes for Christian Dominionism. They are trying to stuff as many Christians who don't hold Leftist views into that characterization as they can, as well.

They do so in order to make the wrong kind of Christian easy to hate for the simple minded, which is politically useful, since admitting that it's way more complicated than how they portray it won't achieve what they desire. 

(Disclaimer: No cats were harmed in the writing of that statement) 

So no examples of Christians being denied the right to worship, gather or practice their faith.  Display their faith by wearing crosses???  Funny how it is ok for Christians to call me a Satan worshiper because I am Wiccan, you don't seem to have a problem with that - but that's ok cuz unlike you weak Christians I don't give a fuck what you think of my beliefs and that YOU ALL DEMONIZE Me. AND unlike You ALL I cannot wear my faith's jewelry to work, but it is ok for you all to wear torture devices around your necks on display.

As I told you before - LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE - don't respond to me - don't look in my direction - your type disgusts me.

I'm sorry my participation in this place causes such a reaction for you but there's nothing I can reasonably do about it, as I am not going to not participate because you don't like me. 

And if any part of your post gets deleted it won't be because I flagged it or complained about it. I never flag anyone's posts. 

While I may not agree with what you believe, I would never show you disrespect for believing it. I never have. However, if you say something I do not believe is true, I will respond to it whether it upsets you or not. That is what this place is for. 

for the simple minded,

Anybody who believes in god is simple minded.

Anybody who believes in god is simple minded.

Some here would agree with you WRT Biden.

dy who believes in god is simple minded.

As an atheist, I can say your posts are the best possible rebuttal a believer could point to.  

They do so in order to make the wrong kind of Christian easy to hate for the simple minded, which is politically useful, since admitting that it's way more complicated than how they portray it won't achieve what they desire. 

The reality is that there are many good Christians just like there are many good Muslims and good Hindus and Jews and those of just about any faith you can think of, even Satanists. And on the flip side there are many corrupt evil Christians, corrupt evil Muslims and corrupt evil persons of any and every faith. Why? Because they're all just humans and no specific faith exclusively change's a human's fallible nature, one that can fall into greed, avarice, jealousy and hate. Sadly, religion has been used as a shield by its members to hide the worst of humanity for centuries. Many have used their faith as a vehicle to act upon their worst impulses all while convincing themselves they'll either be forgiven or that some invisible deity actually approves of their vile acts.

Many white evangelical Christians are no different than their violent jihadist Muslim counterparts which is why many others have tried to expose them for being both a cancer in society as well as massive hypocrites. It's not that there aren't good white evangelical Christians, there are for certain, just like there are millions of good peace-loving Muslims. But both sides need to do more to root out their violent hate-filled members who believe themselves righteous soldiers in some holy war who see anyone who is not "one of them" as enemies and less than humans that don't deserve simple human kindness and respect. Sadly, both their religious texts are filled with messages that can be interpreted as a call from some higher power to fill the ranks of their perspective divine armies and they see enemies of their chosen deity everywhere.

But back to the main point, it wouldn't be fair to say that no Christians are under attack. Some are in some countries on the planet, they're just not really under attack here in the US or most other European conquered nations and states. They have free reign in most of those places which does bring about some resistance and resentment which I'm sure is what Drak here is referring to as most Christians see any resistance to their total and complete domination of the world as an "attack" on their beloved white evangelical Christian worldview. I'm sure he'll even see what I think is a beyond obvious comparison between white evangelical Christians and Muslim Jihadists as an attack on white evangelical Christians even though I would argue that is a completely objective assessment.

If you think about it, from a King or Emperors standpoint, who has total and absolute authority over the populace and a country or nation, anyone attempting to diminish that power in the slightest, no matter how mad the ruler had become, no matter if they are Caligula or Ivan the Terrible, will feel and proclaim they are being "attacked!" by those around them who are simply trying to be reasonable and make a country, nation or world more inclusive to others needs instead of just the tyrant's desires.

In our case here in America we've all grown up with white evangelical Christianity at the helm of power, we've known virtually nothing else. And now, as some attempt to be more aware of injustice in our society and more are recognizing the plight of those who have been trampled on for centuries which has led to an erosion of that white evangelical control power structure, some white evangelicals feel they are being attacked. And sadly, many of them see this is the sign they've been waiting for from their God to take up arms and battle their perceived enemies which are pretty much anyone who doesn't look like them and pray like them. Now they use the war on "woke" as their new witch hunt, the new way to label and identify their enemies as they make the same old tired accusations against those who refuse to accept their God as their own Lord and Savior giving them the supposed right to punch back, to fire teachers for daring to treat lgtbq children with love and respect, for daring to support women's making their own reproductive rights, for daring to allow Muslims and Jews and people of all faiths become legislators, judges and decision makers in what they see as "their" society.

They cannot and will not accept it, they simply refuse to see others gaining rights as anything but an attack on their own perceived right to dominate the societies they exist in.

Welcome back, DP!

And sadly, many of them see this is the sign they've been waiting for from their God to take up arms and battle their perceived enemies which are pretty much anyone who doesn't look like them and pray like them. Now they use the war on "woke" as their new witch hunt, the new way to label and identify their enemies as they make the same old tired accusations against those who refuse to accept their God as their own Lord and Savior giving them the supposed right to punch back, to fire teachers for daring to treat lgtbq children with love and respect, for daring to support women's making their own reproductive rights, for daring to allow Muslims and Jews and people of all faiths become legislators, judges and decision makers in what they see as "their" society. They cannot and will not accept it, they simply refuse to see others gaining rights as anything but an attack on their own perceived right to dominate the societies they exist in.

Bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Perfect....  your whole comment is brilliantly written.  The part I have quoted speaks to me on a very personal level for personal reasons.

Thank you. I think there are many who share your feelings but aren't willing to risk sharing them as this society is still largely controlled by that faction as is made apparent by the upcoming election and the vile bottom dweller aka the Mango Mussolini Messiah that the right have chosen as their candidate even having a chance in hell of winning which is a direct result of his massive support from white evangelical Christians who for some bizarre reason think him the second coming of Christ. Having read the bible multiple times myself I can only say the Christ described in the bible would have had nothing to do with the despicable piece of shit these right wing "Christians" are supporting today. He would no doubt have been appalled and ashamed that anyone claiming to be his followers were also claiming allegiance to such an obvious charlatan.

I was raised for several decades among them and was at the hub of many church discussions of their supposed "fight" against Satan and his demons who, according to them, are pretty much anyone they disagree with, and I hate to say it, but it's not going to get any better. Sadly, I predict it's only going to get worse until something breaks. Either they will miraculously see reason and rationality and start accepting reality as truth, or they will push their fellows into a corner of their own making and decide they have to "fight back" even though they aren't and haven't ever been truly oppressed the way they have oppressed others for centuries. But I think the fear they cling to, much like the fear the slave owners had of retaliation after emancipation, will motivate them to lash out at anyone who threatens their perceived right to dominate society and force their will on everyone around them. And when that happens, they may just get their self-fulfilling prophecy of rivers of blood. I truly wish it weren't so, but I fear some of them won't accept anything less, so either a large group of them, from within, see reason and practice rational thinking, or we're all in for a dangerous and violent future no matter where you live on this planet. I think this upcoming election may prove to be a bellwether of what our futures hold.

But both sides need to do more to root out their violent hate-filled members

Set the example by rooting out the members on this site who insult any believers as simple minded or lacking brains and call Christians disgusting.

Tolerance  is a two way street. 

It's good to have you back.  You raise the quality of discussion on the site.

Compare and contrast the sentence you quoted to posts 4.1.6 and 4.1.9. The irony is off the charts.

Good to see ya! 

I think this upcoming election may prove to be a bellwether of what our futures hold.

I also believe this to be true.  And I am extremely worried about our future.  

Pay attention to that "road sign", cowboy !

The problem is what is classified as a good Christian and a bad Christian.

The nature of true Christianity is offensive to anyone who doesn't believe in it. That nature is that it proclaims there is only one God and only one way to Him; through His Son, Jesus Christ and anyone who doesn't come to the Son will be separated from God by God for eternity. Hell, in other words. 

That makes anyone who believes that a Bad Christian. It doesn't matter that these Bad Christians do not see themselves as any different in terms of personal righteousness compared to those who reject God. That is, they see themselves as sinners, too. It doesn't matter that they don't actually hate anyone but in fact, see the unsaved made in the same image of God, just as they were. It doesn't matter that these Bad Christians wouldn't force anyone to do anything they don't want to do, with the possible exception of the abortion issue since, in their view, the issue isn't about forcing people to do something according to Christian values but, rather, simply about saving a human being. Bad Christians, for the most part, live quiet lives, preferring to do most of their witnessing though how they live their lives, which speak louder than anything they might say, hoping that someone will be attracted by it, and their faith, to learn more about what Christianity actually is. 

Compare that to Good Christians, who view Christianity as more of a philosophy. A guiding principle for being a good person. The Good Christian's god would never condemn someone to Hell because that god is all about love and good intentions. They would never claim their god insists on obedience to him unless it was about being really nice to people (whatever being nice means to you) or not doing obviously bad things like murdering people. Good Christians will tell you that theirs isn't the only way to god because as long as you mean well, god's got you. Good Christians will tell you that god wants you to realize your dreams and heart's desires, whatever they may be as long as you try to be really nice to others. In other words, Good Christians and their god support Humanism and other progressive points of view. 

It is the Bad Christians who are being attacked. Even though many of them are not white, they are labeled as White evangelical Christians not because of what they are doing but because what they believe and it's being done so that anyone who does believe those things can be labeled as the enemy regardless of anything they are doing. Those who are behind the attacks care less about what Bad Christians are doing, especially since most of them aren't doing much of anything. They care about what Bad Christians believe, which stands in direct opposition to what they want.

And what Bad Christians believe that makes us enemy number one is that we all are accountable to God.

That is the main thing that we are attacked for. That is the reality they can't allow to take root in too many people. That is why they are trying so hard to destroy the idea that there is objective truth. Objective reality and, most especially, morality. If people can be divorced from those concepts then you can get people to do anything. Follow anything. Convince people they are actually gods and can create any reality for themselves that they wish. 

Because we stand against that, we are the enemy, not you ours. We are more like the people in the burning house trying to convince others that it's actually burning and trying to show you the way to safety. 

Christians (as with other religious categories) are 'attacked' based on what they do far more than what they believe.

Those Christians who believe that one must believe in Jesus as they do are damned would see far less rebuke if they kept those thoughts to themselves.

But they do not.   They preach publicly and they act (e.g. translate their beliefs into votes, protests, etc.) to impose their beliefs on others.   And that in itself is fair game.   They have every right to impose legislation that forces women to carry unwanted pregnancies, to teach religious 'science', to chastise and discriminate against homosexuals, etc.

But it is the right of others who disagree with the manifestation of those beliefs in the public arena to oppose them.

Remember that a near super majority (64%) of US citizens are Christian.   Christianity remains the dominant religion in the USA and thus it imposes on everyone more than any other category of religion.   Naturally one will see more push-back on Christianity in the USA than others (e.g. Judaism, Hinduism, Islam).

My late father-in-law was one of the most honorable men I have known in my life.   He was a devout Christian (Catholic).   Was extremely active in his church and did all the things that a good Catholic is supposed to do.   He never said a bad word about anyone.   It would be a shock if he expressed a negative remark about homosexuals or would act to deny women the ability to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, etc.   He was very much a quiet man who operated on a live and left live and we are here to help each other philosophy.   Think anyone chastised this man about his beliefs?

In contrast (the extreme other end) we have people like this driving a very bad (and skewed) stereotype of Christians:

To me, the fact that the GOP has Trump as its presumptive nominee after all he has done and the abysmal character / demeanor / integrity he has demonstrated already illustrates that we are seriously messed up right now and are taking no measures to correct it (quite the opposite).

The fact that the GOP is accepting as their nominee the antithetical of Christianity is astounding to me when they call themselves the party of Christian values.  And you are right is is one fucked up mess we are facing.

I am not religious, but this picture of Trump holding the Bible is cringeworthy.   How any religious person can buy that this dolt holding the Bible as if to say " Look at me ... I am such a good Christian ... there has never been such a good Christian " is actually a devout Christian is just incredible.

And then we have insulting (as in insulting one's intelligence) bullshit like this from Trump:

And then of course ...

What does it take for functioning adults to see through this low-grade sophistry?

How can they not be insulted by this clown?

"Are you an Old Testament or a New Testament guy?"   

"Ummmmh, errr ... probably equal"

What does it take for functioning adults to see through this low-grade sophistry? How can they not be insulted by this clown?

 they think the devil made him do it 

What does it take for functioning adults to see through this low-grade sophistry? How can they not be insulted by this clown?

I often wonder if they would be so supportive if he still had a "D" next to his name, or would they call out his hypocrisy?

I suspect you do not wonder about that at all.  

Then they should run far away from him if he's possessed by the devil

I often wonder if they would be so supportive if he still had a "D" next to his name, or would they call out his hypocrisy?

Repub leaders would no doubt suddenly Suzane See right through the transparent 'man', and the gullible minion would no longer be his biggest fan, fore they wood play with that witch they were dealt, a Trumped up joker, an Ace whole, and a Suicide Queen, if you know what i mean, please fill me inn, like a ditch, cause the pseudo rich son of a bitch that makes scratches out of which a sand witch does itch like a scratched cauldron to see if Ron was busy...and of course he was fine teaching that coarse cause he had true grit, unlike that POS, the paltry poultry fowl butter balled orange thin skinned thing did admit that he had emitted that fowl odor wreaking like shit, no...? weigh him down, and sea witch float, asz the GOP should have oughta taken note, and when impeached, not under reached, around.

You are correct - I do not.

Remember that a near super majority (64%) of US citizens are Christian.

 Which pretty much ruins your argument. Because if Christians were doing the things you are implying, there wouldn't be an LGTBQ organization, gay marriage or anything else of the sort. And remember, that's 64% today, not ten or twenty years ago, when it was higher. Yet here we are. How do you explain that given what you've said here? 

Those Christians who believe that one must believe in Jesus as they do are damned would see far less rebuke if they kept those thoughts to themselves.

True, but not really an option for us. I won't bother to explain it. Yet even so, unless things happen wildly different in your neck of the woods, I don't see a lot of Christians shoving things down people's throats. I get maybe one Jehovah's Witness a year at my door and they go away with a polite "not interested". I hardly ever even get any tracts left at my door. 

Rather, what I think you're referring to is articles about who said what in their church and then someone uses it for propaganda on YouTube or whatever.  The vid you posted about the Texas pastor would be a good example of that. And, what the Left tries very hard to link all of Christianity that isn't foundationally Progressive as being a part of. That would be people looking for things like this vid so that they can confirm what they want to be true but isn't so they can apply it to all of us. Even you must know, since you're surrounded by Christianity, that what this guy is saying is not accepted teaching by conservative Christians. You even state this guy has a skewed understanding of what he's talking about. This guy is an outlier. Yet you put it here anyway, as if it somehow helps your point. 

Then, you get some news media that gets a Pastor from a church to come on air and explain why they are against homosexuality as a moral thing. That's not shoving it in peoples face, either. That's the media not trying to understand anyone's position or why they hold it. They do this so that they can present actual Christianity, as opposed to Progressive Christianity, as a hate filled religion. You can't call it shoving it in people's faces when you intentionally approach us and ask the questions. That the answers may not be to one's liking doesn't change that. 

But they do not.   They preach publicly and they act (e.g. translate their beliefs into votes, protests, etc.) to impose their beliefs on others.

And that would be different from Progressive activists, atheists, LGTBQ, BLM and every other Left wing organization and supporter trying to turn this country into their own vision of utopia how? Are you saying that because we are Christians that we are supposed to be, what? Like citizens but without the right to vote our conscience? Does the Separation clause have something in it about Christians (or any other religion) not being allowed to vote or participate in the political process but everyone else can? 

But it is the right of others who disagree with the manifestation of those beliefs in the public arena to oppose them.

Which no one is arguing with so why bring it up? You're moving the goal post. The issue is whether Christianity is being attacked. Posting the video about that Texas pastor is a part of that. There are thousands and thousands of churches that post their sermons online. If what this guy actually reflected what actual Christians think or believe, these videos would be easy to find because a statistically significant portion of all those vids would say the same sorts of things. But even a non-believer can easily read the NT and see that there's not one single verse in it that supports what that guy is saying. Even so, these things are still posted as if they are representative of the whole. That's what's called an attack, TiG. Intentionally posting things that aren't true. 

Christianity isn't being shoved in people's faces. Those people are actively looking for what they find offensive and weaponizing it. Like linking anyone who is opposed to homosexuality as moral to being the same thing this Texas preacher is saying, claiming they are one and the same. They're not. It's just propaganda for the purpose of caricaturizing conservative Christians as the enemy of right thinking people for people who don't think. 

I am not religious, but this picture of Trump holding the Bible is cringeworthy.   How any religious person can buy that this dolt holding the Bible as if to say " Look at me ... I am such a good Christian ... there has never been such a good Christian " is actually a devout Christian is just incredible.

Try looking up the difference between churched and unchurched "Christians". Generally, unchurched refers to people who claim Christianity but no longer attend church or associate with Christian groups for whatever reason. They tend to treat Christianity more as a philosophy. As such, they tend to use parts of Christian teaching to support their own views on things, especially politically. That is, rather than Christian principles driving the bus as to what is acceptable, they tend to go with what they themselves think and draw from Christianity the things they think support their views and ignore the rest. 

This makes them more susceptible to people like Trump, because they are making judgements based on their own thinking rather than God's. 

Which pretty much ruins your argument. Because if Christians were doing the things you are implying, there wouldn't be an LGTBQ organization, gay marriage or anything else of the sort. And remember, that's 64% today, not ten or twenty years ago, when it was higher. Yet here we are. How do you explain that given what you've said here? 

Your 'argument' is that if Christians were acting against gay marriage, homosexuality, etc. then they would have wiped it out?

Do you not consider the very realistic possibility that Christians do not have a totalitarian lock on what takes place in this nation?   And clearly I did not suggest they did so you did not get that from me.   

So the explanation is that Christians do not have total control over the nation.   

I don't see a lot of Christians shoving things down people's throats. 

I do not either.   Then again, I have not argued that all or even most Christians do this.   We were talking about why some have strong feelings against Christians and I offered an explanation.   Taking my explanation to the extreme and suggesting it is therefore invalid is not a good approach.

Even you must know, since you're surrounded by Christianity, that what this guy is saying is not accepted teaching by conservative Christians. 

I explicitly stated that this is an example of the other extreme.   I first gave my late father-in-law as an example of a good Christian that nobody should take issue with.   I then stated explicitly that we also have the other extreme.   I am penning objective, balanced comments but you seem to want to interpret my comments in the extreme.   In spite of my clear language.

And that would be different from Progressive activists, atheists, LGTBQ, BLM and every other Left wing organization and supporter trying to turn this country into their own vision of utopia how? 

It is not different.   It is the same basic dynamic.   And the groups you mentioned that operate in an aggressive manner are rebuked.  But, as I noted, the groups you mentioned are tiny minorities whereas Christians are almost a supermajority.   So you will naturally hear more negatives about Christian actions since they absolutely dwarf these other groups.

Which no one is arguing with so why bring it up?  You're moving the goal post. 

I have no need to move a goal post, you have yet to offer a threat to my argument.

I had just finished stating that Christians are within their right to take actions on their beliefs.   So, to be complete, I noted that others are also well within their rights to oppose them.   That is what one might call an objective observation that is complete.   

As usual, we cannot get far into a debate before the tactics emerge.

The issue is whether Christianity is being attacked.

And my posts have attempted to explain why behavior by Christian activists meets with opposition.   Pretty sure I have NOT argued that Christianity is not dealing with rebuke.

Posting the video about that Texas pastor is a part of that. 

And again, you take one part of my balanced comment and ignore the other part.   Not once have you acknowledged my father-in-law as the other extreme.  Instead you pretend (multiple times) that this example was my sole example of Christian behavior.   Not good, Drakk.   Don't unbalance my argument ... that is basically a strawman tactic.

If what this guy actually reflected what actual Christians think or believe, these videos would be easy to find because a statistically significant portion of all those vids would say the same sorts of things. 

And here again, I stated that this was the other extreme.   My father-in-law, the most decent man I have known, was one extreme and then this idiot was offered as the other extreme.    See my father-in-law never made videos.   He never would have engaged in activism like the extreme example.   So he, like a majority of Christians, simply do not get involved vocally.   Thus finding YouTubes of people like my late father-in-law to counter the negative extremes will not be easy.

But my point was not that the web was replete with people like my extreme example.   My point was that there are indeed good Christians (where my late father-in-law was an exemplar IMO) and bad Christians like the irresponsible bigot whose YouTube I posted.

Even so, these things are still posted as if they are representative of the whole. That's what's called an attack, TiG. Intentionally posting things that aren't true. 

And yet again, yet again.   You now have worked yourself into a frenzy and are now claiming that I posted the video to argue that this asshole was representative of the whole.   Now saying I am attacking.

I hope you are really trying to read my response objectively because I am illustrating in a crystal clear manner how you are step by step changing my argument into an entirely different posit.   Do you see what you are doing?    Is this accidental, or intentional?

This makes them more susceptible to people like Trump, because they are making judgements based on their own thinking rather than God's. 

My view is the opposite.   Those who follow the good principles of Christianity while reserving the right to consider reality and make their own decisions accordingly (i.e. think critically) are substantially better prepared to NOT fall victim to a demagogue con-man like Trump.

It is those who put their full trust in others (who believe what others say simply because they said it) or who believe whatever is written in a book simply because they believe it divine,  who are most susceptible.    A true believer who goes to church every week (or multiple times a week) and who trusts their pastor / preacher / spiritual leader's interpretation of what 'God' wants, is likely to follow that religious leader's praise of Trump.   'Just trust those who are closer to God than me.'

In short, those who are predisposed to believe things on trust rather than being convinced with evidence and logic, are most likely to follow a demagogue.   

( Now do not take my argument to the extreme.   Pay attention to the balance. )

This makes them more susceptible to people like Trump, because they are making judgements based on their own thinking rather than God's. 

What is God's position on Trump?

And once again you prove why engaging you on just about anything is a fools game. This is about the question of whether Christianity is being attacked, not you. Why do you always make it about you?  

My reply isn't geared to what you think. I take what you said as an explanation as to why others attack Christianity. So my reply has to do with those who attack Christianity, not you specifically. 

That's not going to matter, though. You're still going to make this about you. Not interested. 

This is about the question of whether Christianity is being attacked, not you.

Where do I suggest I am being attacked?   Good grief Drakk, calm down and read ALL of what I am writing.  Illustrating where you are only considering the negative side of my explicitly balanced arguments (e.g. first giving an exemplar for a good Christian and then noting that there is the other extreme)  (e.g. noting that Christians are within their right to take actions on their beliefs and that similarly others are also well within their rights to oppose them) is pointing out how you are (accidently or intentionally) arguing a strawman.   It is pointing out the fundamental flaws in your rebuttals.

Given you have now pulled out your generic accusation that (somehow) I am making this about me (you are making it about me), I conclude it is intentional.

My argument is NOT that Christianity is never challenged / rebuked / attacked ... but rather that there are very good reasons for why this is happening.    And I am not even remotely suggesting that the average Christian is necessarily a bad person (do you think that I think virtually all of my family and friends are bad people?) but rather that they are about 64% of the USA and the influence of Christianity just by sheer momentum cannot be avoided.   To wit, people will be rubbed wrong by the 600lb gorilla in the room.   And then when we add the fact that the sheer size of Christianity in the USA naturally means that Christianity's fair share of nutcases who make all Christians look bad (like the extreme example I offered) will be numerically larger than the nutcases of the tiny minorities, it is no surprise that people will have plenty of opportunities to criticize Christianity (fairly or not).

And just to add to this, look at the prosperity gospel crap.   In the USA these are all 'Christians' pushing this crap.   It is not Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.  it is Christianity that bears this.   It is part of the price one pays for being dominant.

Emphatically. Welcome back as well! May I say you 'read' as refreshed in word and possibly spirit.

I think this upcoming election may prove to be a bellwether of what our futures hold.

There is much I can say about your comment, emphatically. But, I will focus on this bit above. White Christian Conservative Evangelicals are a 'wild,' and yet somehow subtle bunch. That is, they do these things you (and I) have and will continue to charge them with and somehow the 'dots' never connect easily in the minds of the majority of the sly manipulation that is taking place!

Here is a for instance, Donald Trump, just attached himself to Lee Greenwood and rather "sanctimoniously" has inserted some pages into the 'front' or 'back' folds of a holy book belonging to so-called holy people and few of them likely will protest that Donald Trump is lying about reading a bible worthwhile or not even being a congregant of any church. Moreover, these evangelicals do not 'test the spirit' that allows Donald to say that he has never asked God for forgiveness—when any true test of the spirit means humbly oneself enough to ask for forgiveness is first and foremost to coming to God (Christian spiritual awareness).

And yet these people persist in this man! That makes it plain that a fraud is being committed in  and against the soundness of the whole body of believers. But we don't have to bother telling White Christian Conservatives this. . .if they can't discern it . . . maybe it's a spiritual lapse affecting and infecting their 'body' of believers and "Lordy" I hope the rest of the Church don't catch any of it!

I question that our nation doesn't want to step up to participate in soundness and goodness for all, after all that it has gone through to get to 2024 over the centuries. . . to be pining after going back to its womb or childhood of ignorance and gluttony for the few who made a deliberate point to suppress and keep suppressed its 'many' whom endured it. Well, "America" you can go back to the womb. . . grow the "h" up once and for all. America, maturity and a proper old age is staring us all in the face - let's get about that finally and save our nation, its place in the world, and ourselves from shame and indignities.

And Trump - you won't be able to explain him. Nor can you explain why the "holy land" is not so much so all our lifetime. But, I expect you will ignore this and that is okay too. Because I tried hard to do so too but some statements can not be allowed to go unchecked.

But they do not.   They preach publicly and they act (e.g. translate their beliefs into votes, protests, etc.) to impose their beliefs on others.   And that in itself is fair game.   They have every right to impose legislation that forces women to carry unwanted pregnancies, to teach religious 'science', to chastise and discriminate against homosexuals, etc.

And these White Christian Conservative Evangelicals have practiced subterfuge to amass conservative judges and justices in order to repress their delusional enemies, when God through Paul told them to keep themselves "separate" from the world. . . instead they preach and practice: domination.

And these White Christian Conservative Evangelicals have a black Justice who actually stands against helping his own (for God sake) and conservatives could not be happier. And a black justice who has stated that certain precedent sitting cases by the court he serves on should be revisited so a conservative and so-called "evangelical" bent can be placed on blacks who want diversity in the country and homosexuals who are married can be repressed.

And that is alright to this CONSERVATIVE God those evangelicals serve. Nevermind, the fact that these same Christians say with their lips "God can't fail or lose' but doubt in their hearts that God can win without lying, scheming, cheating, and REPRESSING the world. 

I tell you,. . .I am full. I am fed up. And, I am going to tell it like it is as I see it.

His bluff got called. And you can see him for what he is: A faker faking it until he makes it. And those shameful White Christian Conservative Evangelicals who license this foolish man to act on their behalf and call it "love" for a nation and love for all. Shameful and regrettable. 

Now you insult our intelligence. I simply could not read all of that above (maybe later but not now). Read enough to know that is stupid. As if several things can't be true at once, for example. But I digress (as you won't take me on in any meaningful discussion deeming yourself 'smart' or some such thing. But, you support Trump so that is. . .telling in and on itself).

"Unchurched" does not explain why a "churched" White Christian Conservative is susceptible to Trump. 

I don't see a lot of Christians shoving things down people's throats.  - Drakkonis .

Here is Justice Clarence Thomas making a complete ass out of his UNRECUSED self against the sake of the integrity of the high court, for the sake of decency, and for the representation of a great people for which he is a member.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 
Syllabus 
DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE 
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. v. 
JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION ET AL. 

. . . .

As I have previously explained, “substantive due process” is an oxymoron that “lack[s] any basis in the Constitution.” Johnson, 576 U. S., at 607–608 (opinion of THOMAS, J.); see also, e.g., Vaello Madero, 596 U. S., at ___ (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 3) (“[T]ext and history provide little 
support for modern substantive due process doctrine”). “The notion that a constitutional provision that guaranteesonly ‘process’ before a person is deprived of life, liberty, or property could define the substance of those rights strains  credulity for even the most casual user of words.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 811 (2010) (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); see also United States v. Carlton, 512 U. S. 26, 40 (1994) (Scalia, J.,
concurring in judgment). The resolution of this case is thus straightforward. Because the Due Process Clause does not secure any substantive rights, it does not secure a right to abortion.

The Court today declines to disturb substantive due process jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application in other, specific contexts. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, 81 U. S. 479 (1965) (right of married persons to obtain contraceptives)*; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (right 
to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to same-sex marriage), are not at issue. The Court’s abortion cases are unique, see ante, at 31–32, 66, 71–72, and no party has asked us to decide “whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised,” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 813 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Ante, at 66. 

For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. 

supremecourt

---

Oh this Justice plans to stuff a lot of cases back down the 'throats' of this country just as soon as he can. Justice Thomas is not interested in honest, sincere, citizen freedoms to live and prosper, he wants them to live his dream of idyllic conservative due to a constitution written that cries out for change. . .but no conservative (in congress) wants to vote for it.

White Conservative Christian Evangelicals know this, but are lying and winking and nodding to keep people 'down' or "re-downed."

One does have to ask what good is a court of justice that does not see justice as it thing to do, but instead trumpets one-sided ideology as serving for 'all'?

This is about the question of whether Christianity is being attacked, not you.

Where do I suggest I am being attacked?

Did I not say that you always make it about you? And you say "nu uhh!" and yet here we have you making this about you again. You actually quote me saying the question is whether or not Christianity is being attacked. The question is not about you. 

Illustrating where you are only considering the negative side of my explicitly balanced arguments (e.g. first giving an exemplar for a good Christian and then noting that there is the other extreme)  (e.g. noting that Christians are within their right to take actions on their beliefs and that similarly others are also well within their rights to oppose them) is pointing out how you are (accidently or intentionally) arguing a strawman. 

Actually, you did do this, but to what purpose? It was completely irrelevant to the issue. All you did is point out that Christianity, like anything else, exists on a bell curve. And? How does that explain that the media could care less about any of that and always puts in in terms of White evangelical Christians? Does that sound like there's a bell curve involved with that anywhere??? And what do you suppose "white" is doing there? That they're all racists at heart, maybe???

The straw man in this argument is making it seem that I don't expect pushback on Christian views. I have no problem whatsoever with pushback on Christian views. What I have a problem with is media and the Left's intentional effort to homogenize everyone right of their view as all having the same nefarious views and ideologies as that preacher from Texas. Even if all they do is oppose LGTBQ, CRT, socialism and other Leftist favorites. We're all the same threat to democracy in some way that's never explained and hates everyone not them. All that's necessary to be guilty of it is to oppose them. That, TiG, is not pushback. That's purely propaganda in order to manipulate public opinion. 

My argument is NOT that Christianity is never challenged / rebuked / attacked ... but rather that there are very good reasons for why this is happening.

No, there's not, because whatever those very good reasons might be have nothing to do with how we are being attacked. Or, to the extent that they do, they are manufactured caricatures of how they want Christianity to be viewed, which makes them not very good reasons. For instance, the Bad Christians want to control women and their bodies. Total crap with no truth in it. The simple reality is that we think it is murder. Period. They keep saying we do, though, because that's a much, much easier slogan to deal with than "It's not really murder" and the entirety of why they keep claiming it's about controlling women. 

Same goes for the claim that Bad Christians hate homosexuals. The vast majority of us don't hate them. But because we stand on God's word, we therefore hate homosexuals. Do you see a sound logical argument in that, TiG? 

How about Christians (and even non-Christians) objecting to the pornography being pushed into school systems? Oh, we're anti-democratic book banners, even though democracy had no part in those books even being there in the first place and parents can get those books for their children any time they want to. Somehow, citizens who are a part of that same democracy using their right to free speech to voice their objections concerning what is being pushed onto their children is anti-democratic. 

The rest of your post is just more of the same of what is the actual straw man. That this is about objecting to pushback to Christian views. That isn't it at all. Once more, the issue is the propaganda caricature the Left paints us as, is the issue. That is the attack and they're doing it in the same manner the Soviets went after the Kulaks and Mao went after intellectuals and the educated. But you go ahead and keep claiming I don't read or understand what you said or whatever other charge you want to lay. The truth is that there simply wasn't much that was relevant in your post in the first place as this was never about objecting to pushback. 

You have a bizarre notion of " making it about you ".   Challenging an accusation from you about me is not me making it about me, it is YOU making it about me.   Your posts have gone from thoughtful to obnoxious, gratuitous taunting.

How does that explain that the media could care less about any of that and always puts in in terms of White evangelical Christians?

First, I do not agree with "always" nor do I agree that the focus is strictly on "white evangelical" Christians.   My comments have been at the level of Christianity in the USA, not select demographics.    Second, apparently you missed a whole section of my explanation @4.1.17 :

TiG @4.1.17 ☞ Remember that a near super majority (64%) of US citizens are Christian.   Christianity remains the dominant religion in the USA and thus it imposes on everyone more than any other category of religion.   Naturally one will see more push-back on Christianity in the USA than others (e.g. Judaism, Hinduism, Islam).

-and-

TiG @4.1.32 ☞ My argument is NOT that Christianity is never challenged / rebuked / attacked ... but rather that there are very good reasons for why this is happening.    And I am not even remotely suggesting that the average Christian is necessarily a bad person (do you think that I think virtually all of my family and friends are bad people?) but rather that they are about 64% of the USA and the influence of Christianity just by sheer momentum cannot be avoided.   To wit, people will be rubbed wrong by the 600lb gorilla in the room.   And then when we add the fact that the sheer size of Christianity in the USA naturally means that Christianity's fair share of nutcases who make all Christians look bad (like the extreme example I offered) will be numerically larger than the nutcases of the tiny minorities, it is no surprise that people will have plenty of opportunities to criticize Christianity ( fairly or not ).

In other words, Christianity —being the dominant category of religion in the USA— will naturally have more vocal extremes and will be talked about more than the tiny minorities. 

I have no problem whatsoever with pushback on Christian views. 

Your emotional posts support that claim nicely.    

What I have a problem with is media and the Left's intentional effort to homogenize everyone right of their view as all having the same nefarious views and ideologies as that preacher from Texas. 

Take that up with people who think that and make that claim.   I think you have a hair-trigger stereotype that you are projecting.   Try rereading my intentional foundation of the good Christian:

TiG @4.1.17 ☞ My late father-in-law was one of the most honorable men I have known in my life.   He was a devout Christian (Catholic).   Was extremely active in his church and did all the things that a good Catholic is supposed to do.   He never said a bad word about anyone.   It would be a shock if he expressed a negative remark about homosexuals or would act to deny women the ability to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, etc.   He was very much a quiet man who operated on a   live and left live   and   we are here to help each other   philosophy.   Think anyone chastised this man about his beliefs?

I then pointed out that at the extreme other end we have people like the idiot in the video " driving a very bad ( and skewed ) stereotype of Christians ".    

For instance, the Bad Christians want to control women and their bodies. Total crap with no truth in it. The simple reality is that we think it is murder. Period. They keep saying we do, though, because that's a much, much easier slogan to deal with than "It's not really murder" and the entirety of why they keep claiming it's about controlling women. 

Are you not aware of how politics works?   Seriously?   You are complaining that the left is framing anti-abortion in a way that is politically powerful?   Surely you understand that the right frames the pro-life group as baby killers.   And abortion is not really an anti-Christian thing anyway.   It is a partisan / ideology argument more than a religious one.

Same goes for the claim that Bad Christians hate homosexuals. The vast majority of us don't hate them. But because we stand on God's word, we therefore hate homosexuals. Do you see a sound logical argument in that, TiG? 

I see no sound argument to discriminate against homosexuals because of what is written in the Bible.   Those are words reflecting ancient mores & values of mere men.   You, et.al., believe that these are divine words and then simply act accordingly.   No, Drakk, that is not based on sound reasoning IMO.   It is a fine example of how to NOT think critically.    

Same with slavery.   The Bible essentially condones slavery.   That is because slavery, in those days, was the foundation of the economic system.   The authors grew up with slavery and it was as normal to them as corporate employment (versus family farms) is to us.   Do you think it is sound to argue that God condones the owning of human beings as property or is this most likely merely a reflection of the mores, values, and customs of ancient men?

You, IMO, do not "stand on God's word".   You are simply letting the mores & values of ancient men guide you because you believe that their words are instructions/insight/explanations from a divine creator.    My late father-in-law was a devout Catholic, but he never to my knowledge discriminated against homosexuals or accepted other nonsense from the Bible such as condoning slavery.   Further, I would be surprised if your views were the majority view of Christians.   My family and friends do not seem to have problems with homosexuals (the 30 year old group have gay friends that I see at parties, weddings, etc.) and certainly none of them have suggested (that I know of) that it is God's will that homosexuals be discriminated against.   There are older Christians who clearly look down on homosexuals, etc.  ... but I do not know if that is based on religion or simply culture in play when they were growing up.

So, at least in my experiences, your views are atypical.   You are presenting a fine example of why Christians are attacked when you bring up utter nonsense such as suggesting that the creator of everything, based on an ancient collection of books, takes issue with homosexuality.   Those who take passages such as Leviticus 20:13 seriously are well deserved of rebuke.  

How about Christians (and even non-Christians) objecting to the pornography ...

You are way off topic now.

The rest of your post is just more of the same of what is the actual straw man. 

Obnoxious, dishonest crap rather than thoughtful reasoning.

For instance, the Bad Christians want to control women and their bodies. Total crap with no truth in it. The simple reality is that we think it is murder.

Totally ignoring the law/s of the land that allows abortions to happen. . . even now doing so constitutionally in some and more states on the way this November; the stories go. Now, while shoving accusations and mischaracterizations of abortions. . . do tell us that White Christian Conservative Evangelicals do not think liberals and progressives, who are going after their freedoms, are trying to control them. It would be a lie if stated, but maybe give a try and see what happens.

Oh, we're anti-democratic book banners, even though democracy had no part in those books even being there in the first place and parents can get those books for their children any time they want to. Somehow, citizens who are a part of that same democracy using their right to free speech to voice their objections concerning what is being pushed onto their children is anti-democratic. 

Please. Conservative children are no more special to society than any other child/ren. Moreover I see no indication that conservatives care for their children more than liberals care for their children. There is one of those control 'issues' right there. MAGAs take over and do not make compromises when legislating for MAGAs alone! It's a control (domination) issue. MAGAs need to stop lying. As doing so is against biblical law/teaching.

There are older Christians who clearly look down on homosexuals, etc.  ... but I do not know if that is based on religion or simply culture in play when they were growing up.

Could be both. If not both, then definitely based on religion. Because there is no getting around it (the Bible does not look favorably on male homosexuality; and, Paul in his letter to the Romans condemned lesbianism with is "women on women doing that which is unnatural" partial treatise on the subject.  Many older Christians are set in their ways. . . and also 'fearful' of falling into the (soon) "hands of an angry God." So they touch not! And feel a sense of obligation to tell others to follow their lead. 

Put another way: There still remains a great deal of "spookiness," taboo, and superstition in the Bible belt and Christendom. 

I do not find that most Christians (especially Catholics) are even aware of much of the OT much less accept it all as divine truth.

To me, those quoting Leviticus 20:13 or similar are likely using the Bible to justify their bigotry.   For example, how many of those bigots would claim that God is okay with slavery or the murder of children, etc.?   They pick portions (and meaning) to suit their purposes.

The Bible is a great source for cherry-picking and selective interpretation.   

Having never attended a Catholic mass or "service," and only going to Catholic school for one grade-level, I am not informed about Catholic doctrine, "books," or teachings, per se. 

No. There are two things happening at once with Leviticus 20:13. One of which you are alluding:

1. Christians are a 'captive' audience to the Bible. That is, the Bible 'speaks' to believers and in doing so believers are compelled to follow its approvals and strictures in body, mind, and spirit.

2. The Old Testament is regarded as a "tutor" that has passed away for the Christians, but, and its a big but, modern bibles have a tradition of joining the Old Testament to its New Testament inside one book cover. 

The two books inside the same cover are supposed to provide background (OT) and continuity, but in reality, for whatever reason, many church leaders prefer to TEACH the whole of the Old Testament right on through to the New Testament. The effect being generations of believers who see both books as equal to their Christian experience (and not one set, the Old Testament, being a "reference" set of books). 

This is what, in large part, leads to confusion and a great deal of "cherry-picking" and "selective" interpretation. . .as the two testaments should not be so co-mingled as I described above, but treated wholly as separated as old and new "contracts" would be when one is superseded.

As to why the practice of reading both testaments and those who ascribe equal treatment to both results in bigotries, plural, well that should be expected when one tries to live out the past sets of books in a (new and different) period when it does not categorically apply. 

Having never attended a Catholic mass or "service," and only going to Catholic school for one grade-level, I am not informed about Catholic doctrine, "books," or teachings, per se. 

Really?   Wow, I have attended more than I can count.   Catholics, as a rule, are taught all the good stuff about Jesus.   It is all about love and doing the right thing.   The OT is only referenced for specific purposes (e.g. Noah's flood, Tower of Babel) and these are quite sanitized.   A typical Catholic will NOT be aware of most of the negatives in the OT such as is found in Leviticus.

To wit, modern Catholicism is very much an NT-based religion.

What about the Apocrypha? My understanding is they are read in the Catholic Church too.

They are.   But the key thing to note here is that Catholic masses are message driven.   They gloss over the Bible as a whole and select only certain passages to emphasize their point.

We are not speaking of what a Catholic priest is taught vs that of Protestants but rather what a typical Catholic is taught via Religious Education (i.e. Sunday School) and masses.

 They gloss over the Bible as a whole and select only certain passages to emphasize their point.

The protestant churches, although I have not attended all denominations for sure (don't see the need), do follow the details of the Bible looking for ways to model themselves to its words and in some cases its characters.

Do they, for example, discuss the Mosaic laws?

How do they deal with issues such as slavery, homosexuality, stonings, etc?

Well, they are not completely 'gone' stupid. Though there is a great deal more or less of it.   The sundry laws and daily customs of ancient Israel are left to the past-mostly. Exception: Seventh Day Adventist Churches and Jehovah Witness and the like.

Do they, for example, discuss the Mosaic laws?

Yes. Primarily, what did God intend by them? The answer has multiple answers. For instance, one purpose was to keep the Israelite's attention focused on God and to what extent. Another was so that they could be a model and teachers for the other nations. Another was that in many ways the laws foreshadowed Christ himself. Another was intended to show the Israelites they could never measure up to God's standards no matter how long they lived or how hard they tried. If Old Testament laws no longer apply to us but, as Jesus said, will never go away until all is completed, how do we fulfill it in a manner consistent with the new covenant. How do we interpret what was said in the NT in light of what the OT said, including the law. I'm sure there's others I'm forgetting but...

How do they deal with issues such as slavery, homosexuality, stonings, etc?

Pretty much the same way. What did God say and what did He intend compared to what the Israelites actually did, mostly. What does it mean for us today? Why does this OT thing apply today but not that? What did Jesus have to say on these subjects? That sort of thing. Among ourselves, we don't usually look or deal with them the way we might to an atheist, for the most part. Rather, we try to understand these things from God's point of view. 

Many, if not all of the "so called" preacher of Christianity, listed above, are EVANGELICALS.

Perhaps, they should change their name to EVIL-GENITALS for clarity.

Did Jesus preach for MONEY, discriminate, ride about in an expensive carriage, wear expensive garments, condemn the poor, immigrants for all the crimes, support groups like the KKK, Christian Nationalists who stive to convert nations into their brand of Theology? 

Their is a reason why there is a provision in the US CONSTITUTION that "Separate Church & State".

More War have been fought over religion than any other know reason.

Evangelical preachers that I know (Two in my family) believe that those who are not evangelical are EVIL.  Is that a religion, or a cult?

I believe in GOD!  GOD spoke to me in 1971, until then, I had given up on the concept. However, I don't think GOD has anything to do with churches.

Oh, yes, the Devil spoke to me, too. Asked me "What do you want?"

Nothing from you, A-Hole.

Religion should not be a tool to control! If it does then it is NOT a religion.

The QUESTION is "WHAT GOD" are people talking about? 

And this would be a pretty good example of what I'm talking about, TiG. While the media isn't quite this blatant, this is the same sort of crap you find in so many articles about White Evangelical Christians, just with more subtle wording and innuendos. These aren't comments fueled by facts. They are caricatures fueled by an ideology. 

we try to understand these things from God's point of view. 

When you really stop and think about it; man can't understand much about God's perspective: 

Isaiah 55:

8 “For My thoughts

Nor

9 “For  as  the heavens

So

And My thoughts

God has 'delivered' to us aspects of God's perspective which humanity can 'do,' at best. However, there is no way humanity can perceive what God 'beholds' in the Spirit realm as capable of being accomplished there or even in the whole generations of humanity. For example, we scantily understand how we can be here and the purposes of growing and developing into old age. . .and of course, the true purpose of dying and not being 'taken' as Genesis states occurred once or twice with Enoch and Elijah. Now then as a side 'jest': Death is the ultimate "replacement theory."

Of course you will find a way to disagree. . . .

You support Christian nationalism. If you don't then you should be clear in stating you do not! Otherwise, don't tell others how to perceive what you support! Because it ain't helping to be vague and grandstanding. There is no 'mystery' about what White Christian Conservative Evangelicals are doing; writers write books on the topic of - those people. And the rest we can discern with our eyes, ears, and commonsense.

One more thing, people are going to believe something about everything they encounter in this life-it's the nature of this life. So should you want people to have a proper set of ideas and opinions about White Christian Conservative Evangelicals. . .then, speak openly and honestly. . . and also expect to have to explain some of the cult-like conduct that sees a  court determined 'Molester' as the 'head' of your political ideas.

You support Christian nationalism. If you don't then you should be clear in stating you do not! Otherwise, don't tell others how to perceive what you support!

Yeah, white evangelical 'christians' are such victims of constant persecution.  

Yeah, white evangelical 'christians' are such victims of constant persecution.

I didn't claim we were being persecuted. 

Rather, we try to understand these things from God's point of view. 

Do you?   Do you actually wind up understanding these things from "God's point of view"?

Do you, for example, know if God thinks male homosexual acts should be punished with death?    What is God's real position on slavery?    

Among ourselves, ...

Are you speaking for all Christians?

Again, I never suggested or even hinted that Christianity in the USA is not rebuked / attacked / ...     

What I have done is offer logical reasons for why this is happening.

My posts are still standing if you care to read them (objectively).

Yes, the evangelical white 'males' are such victims of persecution.

They're so tolerant, eh?  I too am repulsed by these entitled white 'men'

Intentional.

Isn't the devout christian also holding the bible upside down?

You have said nothing that is fueled by facts.  Just hate and intolerance

Yes, you did, in every single post.

Do you?   Do you actually wind up understanding these things from "God's point of view"?

Well, we certainly strive to. Consider. If the Bible is really inspired by God (whether you personally think so or not) what would be its purpose other than God communicating His will for us? As you agreed in another article elsewhere, the Bible is not devoid of meaning. Logically, there must be something there that is intended to be understood.

Are you speaking for all Christians?

Doubtful. I am speaking for those who actually give the entirety of their lives to Christ. 

What I have done is offer logical reasons for why this is happening. My posts are still standing if you care to read them (objectively).

Which is not the subject I am speaking of, TiG. It is the manner in which the attack is occurring. Think in terms of the Marxist conversation we've been having. The reasons are not what you claim they are. While I recognize the why's you present, they are just the seeds of how we are being attacked. Those why's are being distorted and applied to all non-progressive/woke Christianity in the same way Mao attacked anything deemed Western or not in line with his goals. Truth did not matter. Presentation did. Regardless of the fact that Evangelical Christianity exists on a bell curve and most of them are not guilty of what they are being accused of, they are presented as being homogenous and examples of "wrong think" for the purposes of creating an honor/shame system. That system is not concerned with individual morality but rather, group "morality" decided by one or a few, which is imposed on the rest.

If that isn't what you intend to discuss then I see no point in continuing this.

[deleted][✘]

If the Bible is really inspired by God (whether you personally think so or not) what would be its purpose other than God communicating His will for us? 

If the Bible was divinely inspired (and that God cares about the content and the expression thereof), the most likely purpose would be for God to inform us.   One would then expect that the expression of this information from a divine source would be crystal clear.

I am speaking for those who actually give the entirety of their lives to Christ

Thus you acknowledge other (legitimate) Christians hold different beliefs and that they too might believe theirs is the proper path.

If the Bible was divinely inspired (and that God cares about the content and the expression thereof), the most likely purpose would be for God to inform us.   One would then expect that the expression of this information from a divine source would be crystal clear.

Well, you might "expect" and, certainly one could wish for that, but there are things to consider. One of the things the Bible makes clear is that humans are corrupted by nature. If that is so, then perhaps the information is crystal clear but our corruption, i.e. our thought processes keep us from seeing it. People tend to put all the burden on God concerning this without considering that the actual problem is us. 

Then, the next argument would be that if God is all that He is claimed to be, surely He could put the information in a way that, even in spite of corrupted thought processes, He should still be able to make it clear to us. I believe He does exactly that, but people object to the method in which He does so. They have to go to Him personally so that He can explain it to them. They have to trust that He will. 

I am speaking for those who actually give the entirety of their lives to Christ

Thus you acknowledge other (legitimate) Christians hold different beliefs and that they too might believe theirs is the proper path.

This is too vague to respond to. You speak of paths as if there is more than one. What do you mean? 

I am speaking for those who actually give the entirety of their lives to Christ. 

How patently ridiculous. White Christian Conservatives majorly support Trump. That speaks for itself as against the truths in the Bible. Trump is actually selling bibles for pure profit sake. And, I have not read anywhere (or here) where White Christian Conservatives are upbraiding him for his arrogance. I will be watching this space to see if ONE CHRISTIAN IN PARTICULAR renders a positive or negative comment on that. Even as this touting of "giving all to Christ" (without fear or favor) is suggested. Or is it more 'lip service.'

Which is not the subject I am speaking of, TiG. It is the manner in which the attack is occurring. Think in terms of the Marxist conversation we've been having. The reasons are not what you claim they are. While I recognize the why's you present, they are just the seeds of how we are being attacked. Those why's are being distorted and applied to all non-progressive/woke Christianity in the same way Mao attacked anything deemed Western or not in line with his goals. Truth did not matter. Presentation did. Regardless of the fact that Evangelical Christianity exists on a bell curve and most of them are not guilty of what they are being accused of, they are presented as being homogenous and examples of "wrong think" for the purposes of creating an honor/shame system. That system is not concerned with individual morality but rather, group "morality" decided by one or a few, which is imposed on the rest. If that isn't what you intend to discuss then I see no point in continuing this.

P.S. In my opinion, there are individuals here who are a perfect example of those who are orchestrating the attack on Christianity using Marxist tactics are trying to produce. They simply only ever produce buzzwords or empty meaningless slogans. Nothing they say is an actual argument but, rather, what those people train them to say. That is because they don't want them to produce any arguments. They want them simply to react as they do. There are so many like that out there. They think they know the ideology they support but they certainly do not know the history. 

Always the persecuted victims, the white evangelical 'men'.

Always the persecuted victims, the white evangelical 'men'.

Yes, Tessylo, that would be an example of what I'm talking about. Thank you. This is how the Left often replies to arguments. An argument is made and, rather respond with a counterargument, an ad hominem fallacy is employed to dismiss the argument like the one you used. 

The Left often either redefines words or simply invent concepts such as CRT and create associated words and phrases to define it. Then they teach the ideology it generates to the part of the demographics susceptible to this kind of manipulation. They learn all the phrases and ideology. Then, when they run into someone with an argument, they pull out things like White Evangelical Christian, which has a pre-loaded Leftist meaning that is not questioned and use those to dismiss the argument. Just like you have here. 

Another good example would be the Palestinian protesters. They are given an image that is easy to hate. Doesn't matter whether or not it is true. Teach them slogans and ideologies that mostly come from Marxist patterns of thinking, get them riled up emotionally and presto. Shouting and demanding, even though almost none of them have a clue about the history or current realities other than the one they've been spoon fed.  

Well, you might "expect" and, certainly one could wish for that, but there are things to consider. One of the things the Bible makes clear is that humans are corrupted by nature. If that is so, then perhaps the information is crystal clear but our corruption , i.e. our thought processes keep us from seeing it. People tend to put all the burden on God concerning this without considering that the actual problem is us . 

The above quote is an "example" of why I stated, or attempted to state at 4.1.59   but it didn't show up properly there I see, that humanity can not know the mind of God or God's whole perspective - we can only know in part what God's perspective is directed towards humanity, biblically-speaking .  Here is the verse again that rendered itself so poorly and incompletely at 4.1.59 :

Isaiah 55:
⁸  “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the  Lord .
⁹  “For  as  the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways. And My thoughts than your thoughts. 

biblegateway 55&version=Nasb

Drakkonis, you started out supposing;  corruption and. . . then you switch to an assertion by the end of the paragraph to "Us" is the problem .  The paragraph cancels out itself in its delivery.  Consequently, the result is hasty , superficial , and invalid .

Then, the next argument would be that if God is all that He is claimed to be, surely He could put the information in a way that, even in spite of corrupted thought processes, He should still be able to make it clear to us. I believe He does exactly that, but people object to the method in which He does so. They have to go to Him personally so that He can explain it to them. They have to trust that He will. 

Now, you use the SUPPOSITIONAL 'strawman' argument that you continue to build. . . .  Use it to say that in your opinion (not fact) 'If God. . . .' does make it clear, again in your opinion, then it is people opposing God's method of sharing that is in error. 

You have not properly established that God has been clear. . . because what you have presented in 4.1.75 is a hasty, superficial, and invalid opinion trying to masquerade as 'knowing.'

In my opinion, there are individuals here who are a perfect example of those who are orchestrating the attack on Christianity using Marxist tactics are trying to produce

Since you went there. . . is is a "perfect" example of White Christian Conservative Christians trying to offend citizens of this country (and this democratic party President) over "petti-ness" (but MAGAs can not see their own 'stupe' for what it is before they commit to it):

WH bashes 'dishonest' GOP criticism of Biden's transgender proclamation on Easter

The White House is pushing back against top Republicans' misleading criticism of President Joe Biden for issuing a proclamation in support of transgender people on the same day as Easter . A spokesman for the president rejected the attacks from the House speaker and others that Biden's message for the Transgender Day of Visibility goes against Christianity.

"As a Christian who celebrates Easter with family, President Biden stands for bringing people together and upholding the dignity and freedoms of every American," White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said in a statement to ABC News.

"Sadly, it's unsurprising politicians are seeking to divide and weaken our country with cruel, hateful, and dishonest rhetoric. President Biden will never abuse his faith for political purposes or for profit," Bates added.

Biden, who is only America's second Catholic president and regularly attends Mass, faced mounting conservative criticism over the weekend because of a proclamation he issued on Friday honoring "the extraordinary courage and contributions of transgender Americans" for the Transgender Day of Visibility -- which occurs annually on March 31.

The date of Easter, which varies, fell on the same day this year.

Biden has issued a proclamation marking March 31 as the Transgender Day of Visibility every year since he took office in 2021.

He also issued a statement on Sunday marking Easter, saying in part that it "reminds us of the power of hope and the promise of Christ’s Resurrection. As we gather with loved ones, we remember Jesus' sacrifice. We pray for one another and cherish the blessing of the dawn of new possibilities."

Speaker Mike Johnson on Saturday   posted on X   that the Biden administration "has betrayed the central tenet of Easter--which is the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

The speaker went on to say that Biden's conduct around Easter was "outrageous and abhorrent," including him "proclaiming Easter Sunday as 'Transgender Day,'" though the president was actually marking a date that has been celebrated since 2009.

Former 2024 GOP presidential candidate and businessman Vivek Ramaswamy echoed Johnson's attack in social media posts of his own.

Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina , another former Republican presidential candidate, likewise sent a text to supporters -- accompanied by a donation link -- saying that Biden had "insulted Christians everywhere."

Former President Donald Trump's presidential campaign on Saturday joined the chorus of Republican critics, slamming Biden's proclamation as "blasphemous."  "We call on Joe Biden's failing campaign and White House to issue an apology to the millions of Catholics and Christians across America who believe tomorrow is for one celebration only -- the resurrection of Jesus Christ," Trump campaign press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement.

msn

---

Drakkonis, you keep on accusing and writing about how God changes people (people do change indeed). . .when it is evidentially clear that MAGAs can't let go of any of their PETTY CONTROL issues over the lives of other people not even bothering them. Clearly, God has not changed such people!

RHETORICAL : Do show us in the Bible, where it says White Christian Conservative Evangelicals, or any Christian denomination for that matter, should make 'political hay' out of a religious holiday ( a holiday which moves around on the calendar) landing on a given day to proclaiming a 'festive' okay for Transsexuals or any other human celebration. 

Another good example would be the Palestinian protesters. They are given an image that is easy to hate. Doesn't matter whether or not it is true. Teach them slogans and ideologies that mostly come from Marxist patterns of thinking, get them riled up emotionally and presto. Shouting and demanding, even though almost none of them have a clue about the history or current realities other than the one they've been spoon fed. 

Since you went there: One has to ask about the "bad" Christians and those "Good" Christians who see, read, and discern that something is foul in the so-called, "Holy Land" where rape and murder is currently happening among those who carry the mantles of three religious brands, plural, Palestinians and Israelites. . .and 'worldly' Society is asking what the heck is going on! Just look at the mess that is being modeled and the 'statement' it puts forth about the power of God or lack of control thereof!

White Evangelicals, go on about peripheral and petty "matters" - while the true problem is the world's branded "Holy Land" is demonstrating very unholy tendencies across the board!

Death, destruction, 'madness,' sickness, and disease is 'perpetual' there among two warring peoples and Christians thrown/drawn into the mix - all profess to love God (Allah) more than life itself! 

It is disgusting and beyond the pail to read and hear rumors of sexual violence, sexual mutilation and sexual maiming, listed among "God's People" on both sides, when these peoples are fully aware that the whole world is 'captive' and attentive to their every 'act'!

It's shameful to be listed (but ignored) that civilians are maimed, bloody, crippled, starving, and being "shuttled" up to the presence of God, because "God's People" have no longer: mercy, patient, compromise, or compassion for one another.

But. MAGAs are 'registering' silly complaints about Marxism and people making non-violent protests to save innocent life (men, women, children, the elderly, the handicapped, the cripple, the "shut-ins," orphans, mentally handicapped, and babies)!

If that is so, then perhaps the information is crystal clear but our corruption, i.e. our thought processes keep us from seeing it.

Then God would know that and one would naturally expect that He would mitigate it.   It does not seem reasonable that God would attempt to communicate with those who are incapable of understanding no matter how clear His language.

People tend to put all the burden on God concerning this without considering that the actual problem is us. 

Possibly because when a creation goes wrong, one usually faults the creator.   Especially if said creator is omniscient and omnipotent.

Then, the next argument would be that if God is all that He is claimed to be, surely He could put the information in a way that, even in spite of corrupted thought processes, He should still be able to make it clear to us. I believe He does exactly that, but people object to the method in which He does so. They have to go to Him personally so that He can explain it to them. They have to trust that He will. 

Yes that is indeed the immediate counter.   Your argument is that you believe God has provided "crystal clear". information but the problem is that some refuse to "go to Him personally so that He can explain it to them".   If God has to personally explain then the Bible certainly is not "crystal clear".

On top of that, you probably do not recognize how bizarre that sounds.   Each human being must go to a supernatural entity and be directly informed by same.  

This is too vague to respond to. You speak of paths as if there is more than one. What do you mean? 

Surely you understand that others do not agree that the path you believe is the only one (or that yours is even correct).   Just as you believe you have it all figured out and know the one path to divine enlightenment (God's personal explanation) others believe differently.   Others believe the path (the way of religious life) they are on is the correct one.   That is essentially the key problem, too many different views on something that can only be definitively cleared up by God.   

And yes, there are certainly multiple paths because people have many varied views of Christianity.   Since nobody has ever shown why their path is definitively THE path, it is very likely that nobody has a handle on this.

P.S. In my opinion, there are individuals here who are a perfect example of those who are orchestrating the attack on Christianity using Marxist tactics are trying to produce.

What are these 'Marxist tactics' you speak of?

As for God communicating through the Bible with us, as I said, it probably is crystal clear to a mind not encumbered by a sinful nature. Jesus, although living as a man, had no problem with understanding it, for instance. His mind was clear. 

But you seem to think that, for the rest of us, our difficulty in comprehending it indicates a flaw on God's part. That would be based on the assumption that if God really existed and wanted to communicate He would do so in a manner of your choosing. I shouldn't have to point out that this is only an assumption. I can give at least two reasons why it would be the way that it is, currently.

First, God's end goal is not simply to communicate. God's end goal is to gather people who will glorify Him as God over their lives and submit to His will. I know how that sounds. Such a thing goes against human nature. To submit so completely to anyone goes against the grain. But that's the way it is. 

As such, the only people He's going to help understand are those seeking Him on His terms or those who actually commit. And, even then, it's often very hard because so much in ourselves wants to resist.

The second reason that it is hard is that it forces us to think. It forces us to meditate on the concepts. It forces us to turn to Him in prayer for understanding. It's rather like an athlete training constantly to be the best in their sport. It takes hard work and dedication. It takes commitment. And that's the kind of person God wants. People who are willing to commit on that level. 

Surely you understand that others do not agree that the path you believe is the only one (or that yours is even correct)....

Jesus himself said he is the only way. Also, he said that many who claim to follow him will go unrecognized as one of his. There are many things people can disagree on and still belong to him. Whether one is a pre-tribulationist, mid-tribulationist or post-tribulationist makes no difference to one's salvation, to give an example. Whether one is a Calvinist or non-Calvinist is unlikely to be a salvation issue, either. However, there are issues that are and the NT goes into great detail about it. Not my invention. I didn't write it. It's just a fact. 

There's not really anything else I can say about this. Especially to someone who isn't a believer. You simply will not understand and it has nothing to do with how smart you are. I don't understand what I do because of my intelligence, either. One understands when they know God personally. It's that simple. 

What are these 'Marxist tactics' you speak of?

Look at what the Soviets did to the Kulaks. What Mao did to intellectuals. Then look at how they did it. You create a bunch of followers like this guy and set them loose. This kid is just a kid. No life experience. Just some no-nothing who has been filled with smart sounding ideology completely divorced from the real world and slinging buzzwords and phrases like he's some sort of gunslinger. And with such conviction, too. 

The only difference between this kid and Mao's Red Guard is the people using this kid don't have the power they need to actually use this kid that way. 

This "kid" is one person saying some thing ridiculous and MAGAs will exploit what you have labeled a "kid," as a pretext to insult millions of mature adults. Pure desperation. The kid is not even articulate. For that matter neither is the "journalist" holding the microphone who just accepting a 'soundbite' so he can run with it like many of those "people on the street" chats do. 

Indeed, Dr. King, came talking about change and he was assassinated: John Kennedy came talking about change and he was assassinated. Robert Kennedy came talking about change and he was assassinated . 

Poor People's Campaign

Martin Luther King announced the Poor People’s Campaign at a staff retreat for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference  (SCLC) in November 1967. Seeking a “middle ground between riots on the one hand and timid supplications for justice on the other,” King planned for an initial group of 2,000 poor people to descend on Washington, D.C., southern states and northern cities to meet with government officials to demand jobs, unemployment insurance, a fair minimum wage, and education for poor adults and children designed to improve their self-image and self-esteem (King, 29 November 1967). 

Suggested to King by Marion Wright, director of the  National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ’s Legal Defense and Educational Fund in Jackson, Mississippi, the Poor People’s Campaign was seen by King as the next chapter in the struggle for genuine equality. Desegregation and the right to vote were essential, but King believed that African Americans and other minorities would never enter full citizenship until they had economic security. Through nonviolent direct action, King and SCLC hoped to focus the nation’s attention on economic inequality and poverty. “This is a highly significant event,” King told delegates at an early planning meeting, describing the campaign as “the beginning of a new co-operation, understanding, and a determination by poor people of all colors and backgrounds to assert and win their right to a decent life and respect for their culture and dignity” (SCLC, 15 March 1968). Many leaders of American Indian, Puerto Rican, Mexican American, and poor white communities pledged themselves to the Poor People’s Campaign. 

Some in SCLC thought King’s campaign too ambitious, and the demands too amorphous. Although King praised the simplicity of the campaign’s goals, saying, “it’s as pure as a man needing an income to support his family,” he knew that the campaign was inherently different from others SCLC had attempted (King, 29 November 1967). “We have an ultimate goal of freedom, independence, self-determination, whatever we want to call it, but we aren’t going to get all of that now, and we aren’t going to get all of that next year,” he commented at a staff meeting on 17 January 1968. “Let’s find something that is so possible, so achievable, so pure, so simple that even the backlash can’t do much to deny it. And yet something so non-token and so basic to life that even the black nationalists can’t disagree with it that much” (King, 17 January 1968). 

After King’s  assassination  in April 1968, SCLC decided to go on with the campaign under the leadership of Ralph  Abernathy , SCLC’s new president. On Mother’s Day, 12 May 1968, thousands of women, led by Coretta Scott  King , formed the first wave of demonstrators. The following day, Resurrection City, a temporary settlement of tents and shacks, was built on the Mall in Washington, D.C. Braving rain, mud, and summer heat, protesters stayed for over a month. Demonstrators made daily pilgrimages to various federal agencies to protest and demand economic justice. Midway through the campaign, Robert  Kennedy , whose wife had attended the Mother’s Day opening of Resurrection City, was assassinated. Out of respect for the campaign, his funeral procession passed through Resurrection City. The Department of the Interior forced Resurrection City to close on 24 June 1968, after the permit to use park land expired. 

Although the campaign succeeded in small ways, such as qualifying 200 counties for free surplus food distribution and securing promises from several federal agencies to hire poor people to help run programs for the poor, Abernathy felt these concessions were insufficient.

kinginstitute.stanford

Dr. King was labeled a communist/socialist, because he came advocating for the poor, mistreated, and suppressed peoples, plural in our society. Both Kennedys because they "mightily" cared and planned change for the same. This is what is the background 

But you seem to think that, for the rest of us, our difficulty in comprehending it indicates a flaw on God's part.

An omniscient, omnipotent creator who created creatures incapable of comprehending His crystal clear information probably is complicit in their inability.

First, God's end goal is not simply to communicate.   ...   And that's the kind of person God wants. People who are willing to commit on that level. 

Do you not recognize these as your assumptions?

Jesus himself said he is the only way. 

You do not recognize other legitimate interpretations of what that means?   Surely you are aware that, for example sola fide , many people hold that belief in a divine Jesus is all that is required.

One understands when they know God personally. It's that simple. 

Where do you get the idea that Marx invented these tactics?    And yes, when you label something a "Marxist tactic" you are implicitly stating that this is an original tactic of Marxism rather than behavior that has been seen repeatedly in recorded history.

Actions taken by the former USSR, Red China, etc. are not ipso facto "Marxist tactics".    Especially if the tactics are performed by the state for the benefit of the state (not the people).    To even remotely claim something as a Marxist tactic you at least need to get the agents correct:  the aggressor will be an oppressed majority taking power from the oppressive minority.

... like this guy ...

Is it your posit that this is how the average liberal thinks (and behaves)?

Do you recognize that this guy is extremely irrational?    Is that your stereotype of liberals??

continued. . . 

This is what is on background for the 'marxist tactics' Drakkonis is putting forth. Any change that is not conservative "traditional" and seeks to right obvious wrongs in our country are mocked, diminished, discounted by the "killer" terms: Marxism/Socialism/"Agitators." Yes! Unfortunately, there are people in this country who advocate for citizens in the wealthiest country in the western world to do nothing to be as supportive of its citizens as other less wealthy countries can find the 'grace' and efficiency both to do for their citizens. Even though our country is 'big' on corporate welfare!

Any change that is not conservative "traditional" and seeks to right obvious wrongs in our country are mocked, diminished, discounted by the "killer" terms: Marxism/Socialism/"Agitators.

For the most part, that is what is taking place.

It forces us to turn to Him in prayer for understanding. It's rather like an athlete training constantly to be the best in their sport. It takes hard work and dedication. It takes commitment. And that's the kind of person God wants. People who are willing to commit on that level. 

Sounds more transactional than "God so loved the world" and/or "do all things out of love" (which MAGAs do not by the way. They do things out of bitterness, mocking, intimidation, and force). 

Let's cut the malarkey. Salvation is relatively easy. Jesus has accomplished the hard 'part.' Our part is to have faith in God. God has need of nothing - nor is God 'pining away' for lack of human love either. Because, as you can see manifested, God has time under God's control. As people who can't love God come and as they invariably  'go' or leave this planet . . . God has "reproduction channels" pumping away for the 'next candidate' for love already in the pipe-line 'waiting' and 'working through.' 

God needs nothing from humanity that God can not achieve without any one, or many, of God's creations. 

As I am pretty sure you have heard: Jesus was 'found' to state and I quote:

Luke 19: ³⁹ Some of the Pharisees  ^{[ a ]} in the crowd said to Him, “Teacher, rebuke Your disciples.”   ⁴⁰  But Jesus answered,  “ I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out!”

So it is clear, for the believers, that they just need to have faith and serve to the best of their abilities and not be or become a worry-wart. God will provide for God's 'needs' and if God can not humanity can not provide for God either.

Time to go and apply what having Faith in God means. It means: "Let" God be God and trust that God will do what God has promised/committed to do in the life of any believer. And, 'rest' in God being FAITHFUL to do it!

The only thing I wish to share about this video, beyond the possibility of a joke I heard: Words oddly sound more 'truthy' coming from an individual with an accent of some kind. . . is this:

If people are going to claim something and believe it to be so, then at the least, be true to its 'Calling.'

In other words, if a Christian is going to follow a 'bible,' as a course through life. . . then, get it as right as they possibly can and me true to that understanding of it. 

Consequently, this set of books we possess under one book cover ultimately tells humanity to be 'good' to self, others, and to keep peace with others as much as it lies within 'you.' (New Testament - Letter to the Romans).

Not to go out and persecute others. Because no one - including believers of any faith- truly wants to be persecuted and suppressed of their freedoms, liberties, or beliefs. And, when "believers" are found doing just 'that' to non-believers then that becomes an important problem: Believers not following even the simple 'beauty' of the message they supposedly honor, cherish, and dedicate their lives to living.

So then, if a man, woman, girl, or boy is going to be a proper worshipper of any religion-try to get the overall message of that faith right (as possible)!

Do you not recognize these as your assumptions?

Are they assumptions? Prove it, then. 

You do not recognize other legitimate interpretations of what that means?   Surely you are aware that, for example sola fide , many people hold that belief in a divine Jesus is all that is required.

First, how do you know they are legitimate, TiG? Second, what do you mean by belief in a divine Jesus? 

Where do you get the idea that Marx invented these tactics?

Where did you get the idea that I said he did? 

And yes, when you label something a "Marxist tactic" you are implicitly stating that this is an original tactic of Marxism rather than behavior that has been seen repeatedly in recorded history.

To be more precise, I label them Marxist tactics because they have been used by those claiming Marxism repeatedly throughout their history. 

Actions taken by the former USSR, Red China, etc. are not ipso facto "Marxist tactics".

Apparently, your argument is that these things can't be nailed to Marxism's door because they don't reflect Marxism, the ideology. If so, we may as well end this right here because I could care less about that. What is relevant to me, and to all the people that you say don't understand Marxism, is that when Marxism is tried you always get the same result. Therefore, they are Marxist tactics. I won't argue this point further. 

Is it your posit that this is how the average liberal thinks (and behaves)?

As I said, my posit is that this kid is an example of how Marxists tactics look in the field. How did you come up with that question? What, in my post, led you to ask it? I thought it was clear that I was speaking of Marxist tactics.

Do you recognize that this guy is extremely irrational?

Yes, TiG. That was rather my point in posting it. I assume that you are familiar with Mao's Red Guard. They were also irrational. Just like quite a few of the people supporting the Palestinians and Hamas in the West. This guy is not an outlier.

Here is an example of a teacher telling us how she is making kids just like the one in the vid you are referring to. Notice how she expands the meaning of "colonialism". That is impossible to understate how important that is to the way these guys operate. You can make words mean whatever you need them to mean in order to accomplish whatever goal one has. This woman is at a TED Talk telling the audience not only how she works to turn her students into the kind of activists she wants, she tells the audience that is her goal for them. 

And these vids aren't that hard to find. 

Is that your stereotype of liberals??

No. Those are examples of what are essentially Marxist tactics for the purpose of achieving political goals. 

I'm not sure what you want me to get from this. That others have different views? Obviously. Perhaps it is that I have no basis for insisting my position is the correct one. Well, from within Watts point of view, he's correct. But it needs to be understood, which I don't think you do, that he is making an insistent claim, just as I am. For one cannot insist that claiming a particular position is an incorrect view without, at the same time, claiming that your own position is the correct one, even if that position is simply "it's whatever you think it is" or some form of "you can't really be sure" or that one can't really land on anything solid at all. It is still a claim in opposition to another claim. Watts is saying in effect "this is what it really is". 

First, how do you know they are legitimate, TiG? 

I generously included your interpretation as legitimate.   So if you want to play this game then I will retract my comment and suggest that none of these interpretations have a good claim to being legitimate.   Does that work for you, Drakk?

Second, what do you mean by belief in a divine Jesus? 

Not a question I figured you would need to ask.   Divine Jesus = Jesus as God;  in contract to non-divine Jesus = Jesus as a mere man or prophet (as per Islam, for example).

Where did you get the idea that I said he did? 

Your support for the notion that Marxim is the genus.

I label them Marxist tactics because they have been used by those claiming Marxism repeatedly throughout their history. 

Then you are using an imprecise, propaganda-infused meaning for "Marxism".   As I have noted.

Apparently, your argument is that these things can't be nailed to Marxism's door because they don't reflect Marxism, the ideology.

If something does not abide by the framework established by Marx then it should not be attributed to Marx.   I think it is fair to hold Marx and Engels as the defining authority for Marxism.   If something violates Marxism it is wrong to call it Marxism.

What is relevant to me, and to all the people that you say don't understand Marxism, is that when Marxism is tried you always get the same result. Therefore, they are Marxist tactics. I won't argue this point further. 

Marxism has never been tried.   Even Lenin violated Marxism off the bat.   Further, I do not see how Marxism will ever be tried.   I do not see how capitalism will result in an acute class consciousness that triggers a revolution where the workers take over their places of employment.   Maybe this was possible in the 19th century but this makes no sense today.   There might be variations on this theme and if these variations are on a path that lead to a stateless, classless society where the people have democratic control over their economy and governing authority then it could be deemed Marxism in result.     

Again, fidelity to what Marx wrote is critical if one is going to label something Marxism.   Just labeling something Marxism does not make it so.

As I noted, some of the principles of Marxism have been tried.   Are you familiar with workplace democracy, cooperatives, employee-owned enterprises and the prime example Mondragon Corporation?    These are not at the societal level so they are clearly not a result of how Marx expected things to work, but the principles of these democratic, worker-owned enterprises is certainly in alignment with Marx' vision of communism.

I'm not sure what you want me to get from this.

The Bible is a largely fictional work of human beings — not truth from God.

That was rather my point in posting it.

Posting the utterings of an irrational person is not a persuasive argument.    You are doing more.  You are framing this guy as a representative Marxist.   

Those are examples of what are essentially Marxist tactics for the purpose of achieving political goals. 

You insist on labeling these 'Marxist tactics' yet have not once shown how these came from Karl Marx.

Do you think it's fair to name a government after the person who founded that government? Like calling the USSR Leninist, then Stalinist, ect, China started out with Maoism, now they've gone to authoritarian capitalism.

I think it is accurate to provide a unique name for a new system.    And if that system was created under the leadership of an individual then labeling that system as an -ism of that leader makes sense to me.

Labels like authoritarian capitalism are descriptive.   They serve to describe the nature of a system without concern for the history of how the system arose.   In effect, they define categories of systems for intellectual study.

The key, to me, is to not use the same name to define systems that are fundamentally different.   Such a practice makes thoughtful communication nearly impossible.

is to not use the same name to define systems that are fundamentally different.   

Yes, I agree. Stalinism was no where near Marxism

I generously included your interpretation as legitimate.

Uh, what? Do you even remember what I was responding to? 

Jesus himself said he is the only way. 

You do not recognize other legitimate interpretations of what that means?   Surely you are aware that, for example sola fide , many people hold that belief in a divine Jesus is all that is required.

What relevance does my interpretation have when your question is about what you consider legitimate interpretations that are different from it? 

So if you want to play this game then I will retract my comment and suggest that none of these interpretations have a good claim to being legitimate.

Again, what? Is this not about my refusal to accept other interpretations that I do not consider scripturally supportable? If Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the light. No one comes to the father except through me" and you suggest there are other legitimate ways to interpret that, should I not ask how you consider them legitimate? All you're asking me to do is accept that they are without basis otherwise. No game is being played by me. 

Not a question I figured you would need to ask.   Divine Jesus = Jesus as God;  in contract to non-divine Jesus = Jesus as a mere man or prophet (as per Islam, for example).

So, your answer to my question is that all that is necessary, according to their interpretation of sola fide, is to believe that Jesus is God and that saves them? If so, I suggest you read about Jesus' interactions with the demon possessed. They also recognized that Jesus was God. 

The Bible is a largely fictional work of human beings — not truth from God.

LOL. Well, good luck with that. 

Posting the utterings of an irrational person is not a persuasive argument.    You are doing more.  You are framing this guy as a representative Marxist.

Believe what you want. I believe I framed this guy as a tool of those who consider themselves Marxist and use tactics for actualizing their vision traditionally used by others who said they were Marxist. 

You insist on labeling these 'Marxist tactics' yet have not once shown how these came from Karl Marx.

Because they believed what Marx wrote. That they either couldn't figure out a way to implement it in a pure fashion or modified Marx's theories to suit realities doesn't change that. 

We can make the same argument about Capitalism that you're trying to make about Marxism, yet it doesn't mean it isn't Capitalism just because it isn't practiced in its purest form. Not how the real world works. 

What relevance does my interpretation have when your question is about what you consider legitimate interpretations that are different from it?

Simple.   I included your interpretation along with others as 'legitimate' because I was not arguing that none are legitimate but rather that whereas you think your interpretation is the only correct one, others ( who have just as much right to claim legitimacy as you ) believe they are correct.

 If Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the light. No one comes to the father except through me" and you suggest there are other legitimate ways to interpret that, should I not ask how you consider them legitimate? 

I am suggesting exactly what I stated.   That other Christians take passages from the Bible and form interpretations of what is the correct path for a Christian to take.   Again, are you unfamiliar with sola fide?   Your interpretation is just that:  your interpretation.   

So, your answer to my question is that all that is necessary, according to their interpretation of sola fide, is to believe that Jesus is God and that saves them? 

No, the answer to your question is my distinction of divine Jesus versus non-divine Jesus.   That is what you asked for.

If so, I suggest you read about Jesus' interactions with the demon possessed. They also recognized that Jesus was God. 

So?   Do you think I have argued that the NT does not consider Jesus divine?   Do you not understand that my original point on this was that some Christians believe that simply believing in Jesus as divine is sufficient.   I mentioned sola fide for a reason, Drakk.   I thought that would make this crystal clear.   compellingtruth

Well, good luck with that. 

I am not the one claiming that the Bible contains divine truth from an active, participatory god.   You have the burden of proof here.   I simply presented a video that makes a case why it makes sense to hold that the Bible is largely fictional work of human beings rather than truth from a god.

Because they believed what Marx wrote.

Okay, so they believed what Marx wrote and then implemented something completely different.   That does not mean that they implemented Marxism.   You get that, right?   During this period of time Trotsky, another Marxist aficionado, was criticizing how what was taking place in the former USSR was NOT Marxism.    His key criticisms (of Stalin mostly) were about failure to uphold Marxist principles and especially authoritarian rule by an oppressive state.

That they either couldn't figure out a way to implement it in a pure fashion or modified Marx's theories to suit realities doesn't change that. 

So it does not matter what you actually do .... it only matters what you believe?   So if you believe in Jesus you are ipso facto behaving as a Christian even if you spend your time doing the exact opposite of Christian philosophy of 'Love thy neighbor' and 'follow Jesus' way' ...?   

We can make the same argument about Capitalism that you're trying to make about Marxism, yet it doesn't mean it isn't Capitalism just because it isn't practiced in its purest form. Not how the real world works. 

Capitalism is much better defined than Marxism.   The word Marxism has been overloaded for decades now.   Your comments illustrate how polluted it has become.

Further, and importantly, capitalism today is true to the fundamentals of capitalism in the past.   We are not talking about a concept of capitalism and an implementation labeled 'capitalism' that is the polar opposite of the concept.

With Marxism (for those who redefine it to mean 'the system of the former USSR') that is exactly what is taking place.   The concept of Marxism (that defined by Marx and Engels) vs. the former USSR implementation of so-called 'Marxism' are polar opposites.

Believe what you want. I believe I framed this guy as a tool of those who consider themselves Marxist and use tactics for actualizing their vision traditionally used by others who said they were Marxist. 

You presented a (confused) tool.   And if he considers himself a Marxist then that is also largely meaningless.

People merely claiming to be Marxists is of no value.   What matters is how Marx and Engels defined Marxism (their collective works) if someone is going to legitimately label their behavior and beliefs as Marxist.

I included your interpretation along with others as 'legitimate' because I was not arguing that none are legitimate but rather that whereas you think your interpretation is the only correct one, others ( who have just as much right to claim legitimacy as you ) believe they are correct.

Which completely ignores my response:

Again, what? Is this not about my refusal to accept other interpretations that I do not consider scripturally supportable? If Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the light. No one comes to the father except through me" and you suggest there are other legitimate ways to interpret that, should I not ask how you consider them legitimate? All you're asking me to do is accept that they are without basis otherwise. No game is being played by me. 

You are insisting that they are legitimate for no other reason than because other people hold them to be. I'd really like to see you apply this reasoning to the flat earth debate. 

Again, are you unfamiliar with sola fide?

Moreso than you, apparently. Sola fide isn't about considering Jesus divine. It is about whether faith or works saves a person. Sola fide; faith alone. It's actually right there in the link you provided at the end of your post, TiG. 

But, it's more complicated than that, because of what it means to have faith in Jesus. Because if that faith doesn't include works, then one doesn't have the faith God is looking for. This is because if one has the faith God desires, works naturally occur. Works are the evidence of faith, not the supplier of salvation. 

And that faith is not simply the belief that Jesus saves, but how he saves. First, through his blood shed on the cross for the forgiveness of sins, then through sanctification, meaning being made in the image of Christ. That is the point of salvation. It isn't to avoid Hell, it is being made from what separates us from God into what unites us to Him. That is the meaning behind being born again. From God's legal standpoint, we are already considered to be the image of Christ on the day we accept him. Practically, though, sanctification is the process of turning the legal view into reality. 

All of this must be considered to understand fully what sola fide means. Otherwise, sola fide simply becomes a get out of jail free card in the minds of those who don't understand the full implications. 

No, the answer to your question is my distinction of divine Jesus versus non-divine Jesus.   That is what you asked for.

Not exactly. I assumed you'd understand the question within the context of what you said. Apparently not. 

So?   Do you think I have argued that the NT does not consider Jesus divine?   

No. More like why are you even bringing it up. Apparently because you don't understand sola fide, even though you post a link describing its most basic meaning. 

Do you not understand that my original point on this was that some Christians believe that simply believing in Jesus as divine is sufficient.

Which pretty much demands a big AND??? Do you think that because they believe that it is legitimate? I guess you think flat earthers have a legitimate view as well. Of course you're going to say no because it can be proven that the earth isn't flat. Great. I can do the same with the "legitimate" beliefs you're talking about. I can empirically prove that believing Jesus is divine is insufficient to salvation. 

   I mentioned sola fide for a reason, Drakk.   I thought that would make this crystal clear.

I'm sure you did, but since you demonstratably do not understand the concept it doesn't really matter, does it. 

Look. This is pointless. You apparently believe that, because in your view the Bible is just the words of men and nothing else, Christianity is whatever anyone thinks it is, since their views would be as valid as any other. Say, Christianity is actually believing that Satan is the real savior because he tried to give us knowledge God wanted to deny us, for example. 

You want to hold that view (about the non-inspiration of the Bible, not Satan), be my guest. That's your choice and I'm not going to say you can't. But my view is that the Bible says specific things meant to be understood in specific ways. We're never going to end this debate when we begin from completely different grounds. 

Your usual intolerance.

I am not the one claiming that the Bible contains divine truth from an active, participatory god.   You have the burden of proof here.

Oh, TiG. I don't need to do that. All I need is the Bible. It contains what is called "words". Those words are there to communicate what is called "concepts". All I need do is show whether or not a given position is supported or denied by those words and concepts. In other words, I don't need to prove it is divine in origin. I just need to be able to prove what the book that not only establishes the concept of Christianity in the first place, but what it defines as Christianity. 

You know, pretty much like what you've been trying to do with the ideology of Marxism???

Okay, so they believed what Marx wrote and then implemented something completely different.   That does not mean that they implemented Marxism.   You get that, right?

Yes, as I and others have told you a number of times. What you can't seem to grasp is that we're not concerned with whether a state represents a pure form or corrupted form of Marxism. We're only concerned with what happens when one tries. 

So it does not matter what you actually do .... it only matters what you believe?   So if you believe in Jesus you are ipso facto behaving as a Christian even if you spend your time doing the exact opposite of Christian philosophy of 'Love thy neighbor' and 'follow Jesus' way' ...?

I'm surprised it has taken you so long to make this point. I was expecting it a long time ago. I'm glad you made it, though, because it puts us both in the same frame of reference for once. 

First, an important difference between Christianity and Marxism is that Christianity is achievable. I, and others, have said that what Stalin, Mao and the rest do not represent Marxism as Marx and Engle envisioned it. I have also expressed why it can't be. Because Marx got humanity wrong. What is left is the result of Marxism being tried. Had Trotsky been ushered into the seat of power it would not have turned out significantly different. In a real sense, it therefore doesn't matter much what the pure definition of Marxism is, because it is unattainable. 

Second, because Christianity is attainable, it does matter what Christianity is defined to be. It is attainable in part because it isn't something to be imposed on the masses for political purposes. Rather, it is an individual choice that is primarily directed inward first, then offered externally. 

Further, and importantly, capitalism today is true to the fundamentals of capitalism in the past.   We are not talking about a concept of capitalism and an implementation labeled 'capitalism' that is the polar opposite of the concept.

My point was along the lines that even if Marxism was attainable, you'd still have variations that differed from what Marx himself envisioned. That's essentially what Stalin and the rest did. It isn't accurate to say that Stalin did not try to implement Marxism at all. From everything I have read about him, he did believe in Marxism. But, in my opinion, he saw the impracticalities of a bottom up approach and tried to implement it his way. Same with the others. Of course, their own human frailties, like desire for power and how it corrupts, were also a factor, which is another example of how Marx got humanity wrong. 

Enough of this.

Does Donald Trump selling Bibles to pay his legal bills make him unfit to be president? yes or no. 

He is clearly a fake Christian. 

You are insisting that they are legitimate for no other reason than because other people hold them to be. I'd really like to see you apply this reasoning to the flat earth debate. 

Why must I constantly explain and reexplain so much of what I write to you only to have yet another iteration of strange misunderstandings emerge?   It is as though you are seeking ways to not understand my points.

I am NOT stating the other interpretations are legitimate or illegitimate.   As I told you clearly:

TiG@4.1.111 ☞ I included your interpretation along with others as 'legitimate' because I was not arguing that none are legitimate but rather that whereas you think your interpretation is the only correct one, others ( who have just as much right to claim legitimacy as you ) believe they are correct.

Your interpretation is no more or less legitimate than that of anyone else who has made a valid biblical argument.   People clearly can read passages from the Bible and come up with sound arguments with very different conclusions.   Yours is just one of many.

Sola fide isn't about considering Jesus divine. It is about whether faith or works saves a person. Sola fide; faith alone. It's actually right there in the link you provided at the end of your post, TiG. 

Now you conflate two different points of discussion.   Again, as if trying to find ways to misunderstand.   Sola fide was not mentioned regarding divinity but rather in response to your claim that there is only one path to salvation.   As you noted:

Drakk@4.1.107 ☞  "I am the way, the truth and the light. No one comes to the father except through me" 

You claim that one must follow the way of Jesus.   Sola fide says that belief in Jesus is all that is required.   In both cases, the assumption is that Jesus is divine ... not a point of comparison.    Or do you want to try to argue that sola fide is NOT based on the assumption that Jesus is divine ... that Jesus is simply a non-god human being?

Sola fide was mentioned as a very common belief that counters your belief.   Which is correct?

All of this must be considered to understand fully what sola fide means. 

An overengineered response.   Sola fide is "salvation by faith alone".   It is a belief different from that which you claim is the only way.

Not exactly.

A non-answer.   Let's go back to what you wrote:

Drakk@4.1.85 ☞ First, God's end goal is not simply to communicate. God's end goal is to gather people who will glorify Him as God over their lives and submit to His will. I know how that sounds. Such a thing goes against human nature. To submit so completely to anyone goes against the grain. But that's the way it is. 

As such, the only people He's going to help understand are those seeking Him on His terms or those who actually commit. And, even then, it's often very hard because so much in ourselves wants to resist.

The second reason that it is hard is that it forces us to think. It forces us to meditate on the concepts. It forces us to turn to Him in prayer for understanding. It's rather like an athlete training constantly to be the best in their sport. It takes hard work and dedication. It takes commitment. And that's the kind of person God wants. People who are willing to commit on that level.    ...  Jesus himself said he is the only way. 

You describe a lifestyle of full commitment / submission to God's will.   No doubt you could provide a long list of various behaviors that you believe are required.

Other disagree with you.   Others believe that belief in Jesus (implicitly that means belief in divine Jesus versus some human being) (i.e. "as Lord") alone is sufficient.   The point I made is that you have a particular interpretation of what is required for salvation and others have a different view.   And there is no way for you or anyone else to determine who is correct or if any are correct.

You apparently believe that, because in your view the Bible is just the words of men and nothing else, Christianity is whatever anyone thinks it is, since their views would be as valid as any other. Say, Christianity is actually believing that Satan is the real savior because he tried to give us knowledge God wanted to deny us, for example. 

The evidence almost certainly shows the Bible is merely the work of ordinary men and is clearly not divine.   It also shows that the Bible can be (and is) repeatedly interpreted in different ways.   I follow the evidence.

But my interim conclusion that the Bible is man-made has nothing whatsoever to do with the problem of defining who is a Christian.  You are again conflating two notions.   The problem of defining who is a Christian is the absence of a single authority which clearly establishes the defining criteria for Christianity.

You claim the Bible is this authority and seem to refuse to acknowledge that this authority does not have a single, clear interpretation.   That is the problem, not that it is (almost certainly) man-made.   There is nothing wrong with human beings serving as a defining authority ... every defining authority we have is ultimately human beings.   The key is that we all agree that, yes, this is the defining authority.   Well, you are out of luck when it comes to the Bible.

hat even if Marxism was attainable, you'd still have variations that differed from what Marx himself envisioned.

This is such a obvious concept that they refuse to acknowledge. Marx dealt in theories and big picture outcomes. There's no such thing as a detailed Marxist roadmap to the endstate because he left details and the actual implementation pretty much in the air.

Labeling something "Marxism" is very different from labeling it a "form of Marxism" or a "variant of Marxism" or "inspired by Marxism".

Leninism was at best inspired by Marxism.   It violated Marx' views too much to even qualify as a "variant" and thus "form" and "actual" Marxism are immediately wrong.   Stalinism was far worse and is thus even further from Marxism.

If the system of the former USSR was even a variant of Marxism then you should be able to identify defining characteristics of the system that align with defining characteristics of Marxism.  Right off the bat, Marxism is about control by the demos (the proletariat).   It is about taking control from the bourgeoise.   Marx sure as hell would not consider a system Marxism whose primary defining characteristic is a brutal authoritarian state that oppresses and exploits the people and leaves them largely powerless both economically and politically.   Just amazes me that you refuse to recognize this killer distinction.

There's no such thing as a detailed Marxist roadmap to the endstate because he left details and the actual implementation pretty much in the air.

Nobody has argued or even implied that there is a detailed roadmap.   And apparently it does not matter how many times I make you aware of this.   Nonstop strawman nonsense from you.   I have stated pre-conditions, defining characteristics, philosophy, and an idealized vision of the end state (the ultimate objective).

If a system is implemented whose objectives and principles differ from Marxism, it is NOT Marxism.   If that system's implementation produces a result that is the polar opposite of what Marx defined, then it is even moreso NOT Marxism.

All I need do is show whether or not a given position is supported or denied by those words and concepts.

Yes, if your argument was sans faith then you could do that.    Do I need to now pretend that you make secular arguments?

Okay, let's pretend that you are now secular Drakk.   My argument will then accept the current incarnation of the NT as the defining authority for Christianity.   Christianity is thus defined by mere human beings.   The remaining problem is the lack of the definitive defining characteristics.

You have those which you propose and others have theirs.   Both point to the Bible.   Which is correct?

You claim that one must follow the way of Jesus.   Sola fide says that belief in Jesus is all that is required.   In both cases, the assumption is that Jesus is divine ... not a point of comparison.    Or do you want to try to argue that sola fide is NOT based on the assumption that Jesus is divine ... that Jesus is simply a non-god human being? Sola fide was mentioned as a very common belief that counters your belief.   Which is correct?

This is the problem. You do not understand what you are talking about. Sola fide is not based on the assumption that Jesus is divine. It is not a point of contention. Sola fide came about because of conflict between the RCC and the emergence of Protestantism. Both sides already believed Jesus was divine and that issue had nothing to do with sola fide. The issue was, is it faith alone in the sufficiency of Christ's atoning sacrifice or are works also necessary? It is not "Is Christ divine", but "how does salvation work"? 

And it wasn't a common belief (past tense), it IS a common belief. Nor does it counter my belief because I believe sola fide is correct. That's because I understand what sola fide is, and it isn't saying that one "just needs to believe in Jesus". What does that even mean? What does it mean to believe in Jesus? 

Sola fide means exactly one thing. The sacrifice of Jesus was entirely sufficient to forgive all our sins to attain salvation. Works have nothing to do with it. It is not saying anything more or less than that. 

In other words, it isn't saying that all one has to do is have some fuzzy "belief in Jesus" and then expect to be saved while they still carry on the same life that made needing salvation necessary in the first place. 

Your interpretation is no more or less legitimate than that of anyone else who has made a valid biblical argument.   People clearly can read passages from the Bible and come up with sound arguments with very different conclusions.   Yours is just one of many.

Look. The issue is my insistence on what it means to be Christian, is it not? You object to my refusal to consider other views legitimate. The reason I do so is because we have a manual that defines what being Christian is. If someone has made a valid biblical argument on what is a Christian, I'm not likely to disagree with it, am I? 

But, for someone who claims to be Christian, such as a Mormon, but cannot make a valid Biblical argument, how can I accept that they are Christian? Just because they claim it? Because you do not think the Bible is divinely inspired? Why would I make a decision like that off of what you think? 

Also, I need to reiterate that this is about what defines a Christian. That doesn't mean there isn't theology that I disagree with coming from those I know are legitimately Christian. I think Calvinism is wrong, but that doesn't mean I don't think they are Christian. That's because that particular theology doesn't define what a Christian is, although I suspect some Calvinists might disagree. 

As I pointed out earlier, there are seven or eight different views concerning the Tribulation. Which one a person believes doesn't qualify them as a Christian.

There are a lot of other issues like those, which do not define what it means to be a Christian. I am not saying that everyone has to believe everything I believe within the realm of Christianity. I am saying that to be in that realm, there are certain things that must be believed or you're not a Christian. Jesus will reject them and says so. 

Christianity is not a philosophy. It is a concrete reality where the practitioner rejects himself and the world and follows the path Jesus commands us to follow, for his sake, not our own. That is, it isn't for the purpose of living a happy life and getting all the things we want. It is a life spent in the service of someone else's desires. Jesus'. The reward for this sacrifice is to be made complete in the image of Jesus and an eternity spent with God. 

That's a pretty dry description but, it is full of life. Real life, to the one who understands. That's why this issue is so important to me and why I will never budge from it. To deny it would be to deny Jesus. 

What you can't seem to grasp is that we're not concerned with whether a state represents a pure form or corrupted form of Marxism. We're only concerned with what happens when one tries. 

I would think that "try" means following the pre-conditions, principles, objectives, and pursuant to the stated (idealized) end state.

If one "tries" to implement a philosophy and violates these factors (especially the most critical defining characteristic of proletariat control over the economy and politics) then it is absurd to declare this an attempt.

Lenin did not try to implement Marxism, he tried to implement Leninism.   Stalin did not try to implement Marxism, he tried (and succeeded) to implement Stalinism.

I, and others, have said that what Stalin, Mao and the rest do not represent Marxism as Marx and Engle envisioned it.

Really?   Then why are you arguing with me?

I have also expressed why it can't be. Because Marx got humanity wrong.

The notion that Marx was wrong does not mean that alternate approaches can simply be called Marxism.   

What is left is the result of Marxism being tried.

Wrong, see my opening statement.   To try to implement Marxism one would have to actually try to do what Marx defined.   If not, one is trying to implement something else.   In this case we are talking about Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism.   What compels you to want to define these as Marxism when you (should) know that they are fundamentally different in terms of defining characteristics, principles, objectives and end state?

Had Trotsky been ushered into the seat of power it would not have turned out significantly different. In a real sense, it therefore doesn't matter much what the pure definition of Marxism is, because it is unattainable. 

Trotsky could not have implemented Marxism either.   The pre-conditions did not exist.   It would be a false start regardless of who was in control.   Trotsky, however, would likely have produce a system (Trotskyism) that was closer to Marxism.   Hard to say, but he certainly was more orthodox than Lenin.

Second, because Christianity is attainable, it does matter what Christianity is defined to be.

Irrelevant.   It does not matter if Marxism is attainable or not when someone misapplies the label of 'Marxism' to a system that violates the defining characteristics, principles, objectives and end-state vision of Marxism.

Yes, if your argument was sans faith then you could do that.    Do I need to now pretend that you make secular arguments?

Not the point I was making. Rather, that even approaching the subject from a secular viewpoint, I could still prove what is and isn't a Christian. And, to be clear, most of this argument I have been arguing from a secular point of view, not from faith. 

Okay, let's pretend that you are now secular Drakk.   My argument will then accept the current incarnation of the NT as the defining authority for Christianity.   Christianity is thus defined by mere human beings.   The remaining problem is the lack of the definitive defining characteristics.

I don't understand the parameters. For instance:

Christianity is thus defined by mere human beings.

Unless I misunderstand you, nope. The Bible is still right there on the table, filled with words that define concepts. Still what defines Christianity. 

The remaining problem is the lack of the definitive defining characteristics.

Not certain what you mean here, either. Still seems like the Bible is still the answer. 

You have those which you propose and others have theirs.   Both point to the Bible.   Which is correct?

Impossible to answer without a real life example. 

Sola fide is not based on the assumption that Jesus is divine.

Then clearly you do not understand sola fide.   Sola fide absolutely requires the notion of Jesus as god to have any meaning.   Do you actually think that Protestants support the idea that salvation is achieved by believing in a non-divine Jesus??   

What does that even mean? What does it mean to believe in Jesus? 

It means to believe in the sacrifice and resurrection of a divine (critical attribute) Jesus is sufficient for salvation and that works are not required.   This is clearly stated in many sources.

Sola fide means exactly one thing. The sacrifice of Jesus was entirely sufficient to forgive all our sins to attain salvation. Works have nothing to do with it. It is not saying anything more or less than that. 

Okay now take what you just wrote and attempt to understand how your scenario of devoting your life to God, etc. is a different interpretation of what is required for salvation.   What you 'require' is substantially more than mere believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus (as a divine entity).   I know you will now come back with something like "but is it the same thing".   

You object to my refusal to consider other views legitimate. The reason I do so is because we have a manual that defines what being Christian is. If someone has made a valid biblical argument on what is a Christian, I'm not likely to disagree with it, am I? 

Yes I think you will absolutely disagree with it.   In matters of theology you have shown for years that it is your way or the highway.   

But, for someone who claims to be Christian, such as a Mormon, but cannot make a valid Biblical argument, how can I accept that they are Christian? 

Who determines if their argument is valid (I suspect you mean sound)?   This is the same old problem that has always existed.   There is no single, definitive interpretation of the Bible.   No matter how deeply you believe you are correct, I promise you there are countless others who see things differently and are just as convinced that they are right.

It is a life spent in the service of someone else's desires. Jesus'. The reward for this sacrifice is to be made complete in the image of Jesus and an eternity spent with God. 

And, as noted, that is substantially MORE than sola fide:   belief in the sacrifice and resurrection of a divine Jesus.

Really?   Then why are you arguing with me?

We aren't arguing with you. You are arguing with us. We've all agreed that Stalin and the others did not achieve Marx's vision. You're arguing with us about our application of the term Marxists to those who are currently trying to destroy the West using tactics Marxists, whether in truth or in claim, have consistently employed since they existed. 

The notion that Marx was wrong does not mean that alternate approaches can simply be called Marxism.

Okay. How about you come up with a dictionary definition you think would adequately describe them.

 Wrong, see my opening statement.   To try to implement Marxism one would have to actually try to do what Marx defined.   If not, one is trying to implement something else.

Meaningless. Get back to me when you have an example of someone actually succeeding in the attempt. Otherwise, it's perfectly valid if the result of an attempt always has the same result, no matter how genuine you judge the attempt to be. 

You say they never even tried. I say the error of Marxism makes it impossible even before making the attempt, meaning it's impossible to try. Even with your understanding of Marxism, you'd end up the same way.

End result? The same thing we always get. If so, then it is Marxism. Hence the equation Marxism + people = dictatorship. Whether intended or not, it is built into Marxism to end thus. 

In this case we are talking about Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism.   What compels you to want to define these as Marxism when you (should) know that they are fundamentally different in terms of defining characteristics, principles, objectives and end state?

Just explained it. 

Irrelevant.   It does not matter if Marxism is attainable or not when someone misapplies the label of 'Marxism' to a system that violates the defining characteristics, principles, objectives and end-state vision of Marxism.

That argument only has value to people such as yourself, who are only concerned with the question of what Marxism is, ideologically. I, and others, are only concerned with the results. 

Does Donald Trump selling Bibles to pay his legal bills make him unfit to be president? yes or no. 

Well, it certainly doesn't make me want to vote for him. 

He is clearly a fake Christian. 

I can say I don't see any of the fruit Christians are supposed to produce coming from him. That tells me a lot. 

hing "Marxism" is very different from labeling it a "form of Marxism" or a "variant of Marxism" or "inspired by Marxism".

But the rhetoric here shifts from the laughable "opposite" of marxism to the defensible "form of Marxism."  No one has denied that other "forms" of marxism exist, but that doesn't make it wrong to simply describe it as Marxism either.  Just like calling a Methodist a Christian doesn't negate Presbyterians being called Christians as well, despite  doctrinal differences. Marxism, like Christianity is an umbrella. Much like marxism itself is a variant of socialism whose followers can also be called socialists even though all socialists are not Marxists. 

mary defining characteristic is a brutal state that oppresses and exploits the people and leaves them largely powerless both economically and politically.

The defining characteristic  of Marxism is the abolition of private property, which can only be achieved by a brutal state. Again, the whole point of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and revolutionary terror was to weed out capitalist elements, which is exactly what the soviets were trying to accomplish.      Marx recognized that it would take hundreds of years for the state to wither away and "communism" to be achieved.  That the process would be brutal was not a problem for Marx and it's ridiculous to sanitize him and pretend otherwise. 

 a system is implemented whose objectives and principles differ from Marxism, it is NOT Marxism.

The Soviet objectives and principles did not differ from Marxism. End of debate. 

I could still prove what is and isn't a Christian.

Do so!   Help out all the Christians in the world who have differing interpretations of the defining characteristics of 'Christian'.

An actual proof would be a very strong argument ... irrefutable.  

I expect that what you consider 'proof' will be just another argument based on your exegesis and your preconceived notions.   Join the crowd of those who think they have a handle on truth.

Unless I misunderstand you, nope.

Obviously I was not implying that the Bible no longer exists so just use common sense and figure this out.   Perhaps I am saying that the Bible (that is on your table) contains words that ostensibly clearly define Christianity and that those words (and thoughts) are the product of mere human brains.  In short, I was noting that Christianity is almost certainly an invention of human beings (not a god).

Not certain what you mean here, either. 

A defining characteristic is one that is necessary.   Anything not having this characteristic does not match the definition.

A definitive defining characteristic is even more potent.   It goes one step further since it would be non-debatable.   It is truth.   The definitive defining characteristics of a Christian therefore are the absolute authority, the litmus test, for what constitutes being a Christian.

Impossible to answer without a real life example. 

You have never come across Christians whose interpretation of what is necessary and sufficient to be a Christian vary from yours?

We've all agreed that Stalin and the others did not achieve Marx's vision. You're arguing with us about our application of the term Marxists to those who are currently trying to destroy the West using tactics Marxists, whether in truth or in claim, have consistently employed since they existed. 

Who is this 'we'?   Have you become plural?

Yeah, Drakk, I am arguing that your application of the term Marxists and 'Marxist tactics' is nothing more than using emotive language that is at odds with the actual work of Marx and Engels.   That these tactics and notions predated Marx by centuries.   You are playing fast and loose with labels.   It is factually incorrect and dishonest.

Okay. How about you come up with a dictionary definition you think would adequately describe them.

A definition would provide the defining characteristics of whatever you are talking about.   If what you are talking about is not a special form of Marxism then calling Marxism or {adjective}Marxism is semantically incorrect.   If what you are talking about involves class disparity that does not mean that it is Marxism simply because Marxism too dealt with class disparity.   Class disparity, as an example, has been around probably as long as homo sapiens.   It is a function of human nature.   Marx observed it, predicted it, but did not invent it.

Get back to me when you have an example of someone actually succeeding in the attempt.

Another pathetic dodge.

You say they never even tried.

Because that is factual.

If you know anything about this history you would know that Lenin tried to get the results of Marxism with his own method (Leninism).   His method, however, was in direct violation of a defining characteristic of Marxism (the proletariat is in economic and democratic control).   He tried to achieve Leninism (authoritarian rule that would build an industrial base that would then evolve into socialism (now possibly per Marx).   That is as close as you are going to get.  Stalin was pure propaganda and took Leninism into a brutal oppressive authoritarian state that had no future for the people being free, much less in control.   Mao simply created his own version of Stalinism.   Same basic model and thus fundamentally at odds with Marxism.

Hence the equation Marxism + people = dictatorship

You stubbornly insist that these men were implementing Marxism.   No counter argument, just stubborn insistence.    Stalinism + people = dictatorship

... ideologically. I, and others, are only concerned with the results. 

If that were true you would not be stubbornly insisting that this is Marxism.

The defining characteristic  of Marxism is the abolition of private property, which can only be achieved by a brutal state.

That is one defining characteristic.  But then you poison the credibility of your answer by declaring that collective ownership of the means of production and distribution can only be achieved by a brutal state.   

Further, a brutal stated violates THE key defining characteristic of Marxism of the proletariat having democratic control of the economy and politics.

Again, the whole point of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and revolutionary terror was to weed out capitalist elements, which is exactly what the soviets were trying to accomplish.  

No that was not the objective of Stalin.  Stalin's objective was to quickly build the former USSR into a modern industrial nation so that he would have war-machine power.   Capitalism was no threat to the former USSR.   The threat was those who disagreed with Stalin.   They were the ones who were eliminated.   It is laughable that you would even attempt to argue that capitalism was Stalin's concern.

Marx recognized that it would take hundreds of years for the state to wither away and "communism" to be achieved.  That the process would be brutal was not a problem for Marx and it's ridiculous to sanitize him and pretend otherwise. 

Another strawman.  Nowhere have I suggested otherwise.   My point was about the presence of a brutal state oppressing the people.   If you think that is what Marx envisioned then you further confirm your understanding of Marx is woefully inadequate.

The Soviet objectives and principles did not differ from Marxism. End of debate. 

Mere declarations are not an argument.   Further you are wrong.   Marx did not advocate an oppressive state controlled by a minority at the expense of the majority.   In direct contrast, Marx advocated the proletariat (the people) collectively and democratically having economic and political control.   What kind of a confused mind would think that is what was taking place in the former USSR?

ut then you poison the credibility of your answer by declaring that collective ownership of the means of production and distribution can only be achieved by a brutal state. 

Yes, human nature exists. Until it doesn't, private property can only be eradicated by a brutal state because it will require force. 

   It is laughable that you would even attempt to argue that capitalism was Stalin's concern.

That's an insane claim. Insane. You've been exposed to some serious misinformation that has resulted in a catastrophically misguided understanding of Stalin. 

arx did not advocate an oppressive state 

A government that centralizes all power and means of production in its control  must be oppressive.  Again, human nature exists. 

What kind of a confused mind would think that is what was taking place in the former USSR?

what kind of a confused mind thinks anyone is claiming that? Are you still struggling to understand what a goal is? 

Private property can only be eradicated by a brutal state because it will require force. 

The French revolution (a key inspiration for Marx) did not result in a brutal state yet it did bring many good changes to France; many changes desired based on the revolution itself.    So right off the bat, your naive belief that major change requires force by a brutal state is wrong.

Beyond that, it is ridiculous for you to claim knowledge of future societal dynamics.   Although I do not expect that Marxism will ever emerge as Marx defined it, the idea that a society would evolve away from capitalism to a system that focuses more on collective efforts and rewards is clearly not out of the question.

We are seeing the hints of such a system even today.   Unionization, workplace democracy, cooperative entities are an early seed for societies to evolve the culture and discipline needed to have more collectivist control.   The emergence of AI is disruptive.   It will change the game for how our system works.   Part of the problem will be a lack of employment opportunity.   We are facing the very real prospect of the force of technological advancement (not stoppable) producing an employment crisis.   That stresses the existing model of work to live and will force societies to change paradigms to some degree.

Ultimately, as long as people have freedom to live their lives comfortably and enjoyably, the notion of private property versus public property is immaterial.   

What would require state-based force, however, would be something like trying to confiscate personal property (assuming you know the technical difference here).   Or the state trying to impose an egalitarian system (everyone has the same stuff, treated the same way, etc.), or anything else that would be perceived as PERSONALLY undesirable.   If people, for example, were unable to achieve rewards based on their own skills and merits but were treated the same no matter what they do, then, yeah, that would be a problem.   Do you think that is what Marx proposed?   (I would not be surprised.)

To wit, do you think people prefer that Wal-mart be owned by a few rich descendants of Sam Walton rather than being owned collectively by the employees?   Do you think people prefer to work for a corporation where the executives dwarf the average compensation by 344-fold ... that such is valuable to them?

Private property is not the issue.   The personal impact on each individual is what matters and this is what will drive / inhibit societal evolution in the future.

Still hedging I see. The question and the statement were both straight-forward.

ench revolution (a key inspiration for Marx) did not result in a brutal state

Lol.  The Jacobin Republic was about as brutal as they come. They only lacked the technology to murder on a larger scale. 

But where do you imagine I, or Marx, claimed the Republic either abolished private property?

nd that, it is ridiculous for you to claim knowledge of future societal dynamics.

I believe in human nature. It hasn't changed in 10,000 years and will not change because of unions.

ng as people have freedom to live their lives comfortably and enjoyably, the notion of private property versus public property is immaterial.   

You confidently state such outrageously wrong  ideas. It's impressive.  

Then clearly you do not understand sola fide.   Sola fide absolutely requires the notion of Jesus as god to have any meaning.   Do you actually think that Protestants support the idea that salvation is achieved by believing in a non-divine Jesus??

Fine, TiG. Jesus as God is a requirement for sola fide. Rather than argue about it, let's just agree that it is.  

It means to believe in the sacrifice and resurrection of a divine (critical attribute) Jesus is sufficient for salvation and that works are not required.   This is clearly stated in many sources.

Okay, with you so far.

Okay now take what you just wrote and attempt to understand how your scenario of devoting your life to God, etc. is a different interpretation of what is required for salvation.   

Okay, so I'm taking it that you think my "scenario" is different because it goes beyond what you have defined sola fide as consisting of. Specifically, that all that is necessary is the belief that Jesus was God and he died for our sins. As long as one believes that, then they are saved. Is that correct? 

Assuming that it is, it's pretty easy to demonstrate that this is wrong. In Mark 1:15, the first words Jesus speaks Mark's gospel are:

"The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!"

If belief in the atonement provided by his death, why would Jesus himself command repentance? In Mark 8:34-38 he says:

Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."

Does that sound even remotely like "Just believe I'm also God and that I am going to die for your sins and you'll be good to go"? How about Mark 9:42-48?

"If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea. If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where "'the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.' 

What would be the point of Jesus saying something drastic like that if simply believing he died for our sins is sufficient? How about James? Read it. It's only five chapters. What's the point of all of that instruction if it doesn't matter? After all, Jesus died for our sins and sola fide apparently means that all it takes is belief that Jesus is God and that he died for our sins? Make sure you pay close attention to James 2:14-26. 

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

That's just scratching the surface, TiG. Try reading Romans for something really deep. 

Salvation is not a get-out-of-Hell-free card, which is all it would be if sola fide is what you seem to think it is. There wouldn't even be a need for anything in the NT except the four gospels. Just believe Jesus died for your sins and you can get back to running your string of hookers with barely a pause. 

The avoidance of Hell is not what salvation is primarily about. Jesus didn't die so we could avoid Hell, he died so that we could be with God on God's terms as humans He intended us to be, not what we are now. Salvation only works if you know your need for it, i.e. repentance. One is not repenting if they continue fat, dumb and happy in their old life. It isn't really possible to read the Bible and not come away with the idea that God expects us to turn from our old life and head towards him, which is a meaning of repentance. Turn around, change one's mind, make sorry, regret. 

There is too much in the NT that tells us there's more to salvation than simply believing Jesus died for our sins. That is central to everything, along with his resurrection, but it isn't all of it. Those who say otherwise are simply dismissing everything else the NT, and Jesus himself, has to say about it. 

I will never understand the thought that Christians are under any kind of attack.

Well, actually yes it is happening. Just look at the state of Christians in Iraq, Iran or Saudia Ariaba. Let's face it, the majority rules crowd can be a real bitch against those they don't like or understand. Just like racism I'm afraid, so long as there are humans there will be bigotry. 

I do wish that people were more open and willing to just let people be, but that's not a state the human being seems to be able to obtain. 

yes it is happening. Just look at the state of Christians in Iraq, Iran or Saudia Ariaba.

That is a very fine example, but it isn't happening in the USA. I feel bad for the Christians in the ME. They don't deserve the treatment they receive

They also do that to any religion or faith that is not theirs.  So it is not like they are singling out Christians.  Think of what they would do an admitted Wiccan (not to mention - a woman witch).

Well, actually yes it is happening. Just look at the state of Christians in Iraq, Iran or Saudia Ariaba.

They are religious theocracies. We, are not. 100% freedom of religion, all of them here in the USA. If Christians are being persecuted in other countries, perhaps they should.....move. 

We are a secular nation, a nation of laws, not religion. Never have been a "Christian Nation", never will be. 

Considering the "Crusades" of the Middle ages, comes around goes around . Just another "religious war", it's how they (believers) justify their acquisition of someone else's property . False Churches, Bigotry and Greed !

Just another "religious war", it's how they (believers) justify their acquisition of someone else's property.

How do atheists justify it?

How do atheists justify it?

god only knows...?

 Bigotry and Greed !

Thanks, wanted to make sure that I wasn’t alone in recognizing bigotry and greed in atheists as well as religious folks.

If Christians are being persecuted in other countries, perhaps they should.....move. 

Perhaps you would apply that to Palestines as well?  They seem to be successful when they are outside the ME.

Had a girlfriend a few years ago whose daughter was Wiccan.  

She made sure that I saw her naked on a regular basis.

Is that a Wiccan thingy?

Is that a Wiccan thingy?

For some.  Some really like to be that close to nature.  For me, I am too self-conscious.

I will never understand the thought that Christians are under any kind of attack. 

'They,' White Christian Conservative Evangelicals, the operative word being, conservative, decry the changing in the culture that removes them from their "steady" control over the hearts and minds of the majority (they do not concern themselves with minority or "marginal" membered groups so much.)

For instance, conservative evangelicals, believe it is their spiritual goodness. . . and not the natural goodness of ordinary people that is the glue holding this country together and is the cause of its preeminence. 

This is why they attack 'everything' liberal as wrong-headed, damnable, mockable, taboo, and as a candidate for suppression. 

And yes, I am sick and tired of White Christian Conservative Evangelical arrogance that has been wrapped around the spine of our shared country for too damn long. And so, here we have the "prostitution" of a Bible. . . a selling of the Bible for pure purposes of an agenda and capitalism.

Jesus would/could/should shutter (in Heaven). 

I will never understand the thought that Christians are under any kind of attack.

But what about "The War on Christmas"?

But what about "The War on Christmas"?

(in case it wasn't obvious, that was sarcasm)

I will never understand the thought that Christians are under any kind of attack.  They are allowed to worship openly, wear jewelry that shows their faith.  Just because they are not allowed to force others to follow their beliefs and worship as they do does not form an attack.  Sigh - so sick of it.

I've heard people saying that Christians are the most persecuted group in America!

In fact some go even further-- claiming that the most discriminated against are White, Christian. Men!

Inexplicably the Bible didn't burst into flames when the Godless Trump touched it. 

A few questions.

1. Will it be printed upside down?

2. Will Greenwood have his photo in it as St. Peter or St. Paul?

3. Was this bible endorsed by Elmer Gantry, Pope Francis or Putin?

The latest Trumpism, ''You can't have an election during political season''.

Is there such a thing as a non-political season?

all Americans
need a Bible in their home and I have
many it's my favorite book