Godstud wrote:Trump is not a good Christian.
President Trump is a believer in Christ. That is more than I can say for your atheist ass.
Praise the Lord.
- Albert Einstein
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods
Godstud wrote:Trump is not a good Christian.
Godstud wrote:Believing isn't enough unless you actually follow the rules, which is more than I can say for your fake Christian ass.
Hindsite wrote:Atheists, like you, do not understand what "believing in Christ" means.
The origin of the word ''Atheist'' comes from the Greek; ''atheos'', or ''without god(s)''. Not ''against'', or ''in denial of'' necessarily, but ''without''...
Now, we know from Scripture as Christians that the knowledge of the True God is impossible without the gift or grace of 'faith'. Heretics and Schismatics and Infidels don't have the grace of faith, so they are ''without god'', or ''Atheists'', themselves. Fortunately, God is good and loves mankind, so people are moving towards faith in Him all the time, and everywhere. It's a mystery known only to God Himself, who He draws to Him.
This is really a complicated issue in a number of aspects, but the fact remains that being without God is being without God, even if one thinks they have God, perhaps they do not and only adore an Idol which is a reflection of their errors about reality and those of others as well. This may not be easy for some to accept or hear, and all too easy for one to just dismiss.
Certainly, the worst position seems to be that of those who don't care one way or another, but definitely live life as if there was not a God. They are in the condition of what Kirkegaard called ''Despair'', or the ''sickness unto death'', but are not aware of it consciously. This is because these people are barely aware of being a self at all, and go through life in a most superficial way, either only dealing with life in terms of what is agreeable or disagreeable to them, what pleases or displeases them. Or they are of the sort who builds those Idols I was speaking of earlier, who generates abstract Ideas and believes those ideas have a life of their own independently of their own minds, and can never liberate themselves from those ideas that are after all, only in their head. If they awaken to their situation, these people, they may see what trouble they're in.
No, only ''Atheists'' who consciously understand what is at stake and are actively in the search for truth that will put an end to their very conscious despair, these perhaps will be granted faith to continue on their journey, and not sink back into the previous state of apathetic unconscious despair.
annatar1914 wrote:I believe that you neither understand Atheism nor what believing in Christ is, from insofar as I can tell. I wrote this a while back, maybe you or somebody might think it worth thinking about;
Anyway, here it is.
Hindsite wrote:Why didn't you write something explaining "believing in Christ" to help atheists like Godstud?
annatar1914 wrote:Christians help unbelievers come to believe, by living the Christian life through actions as well as words. Attacking people, not choosing one's words carefully, saying things that are untrue, mixing in one's personal views and politics in a partisan manner while speaking of Christianity, this does not help people see the light...
If one is still in darkness themselves.
So to make this more clear, you believe Godstud is too far gone to help with any words on how to believe in Christianity
, because he attacks people, says things that are not true, uses nasty words, and speaks of Christianity negatively by mixing his personal atheist views with his partisan politics.
Over the years, I basically came to believe much the same myself, because he has been attacking me in a nasty manner ever since I came on here, because of both my political and Christian views.
He is an extreme Trump hater and transfers that hate on to those that express their support for Trump policies.
Godstud's constant trolling of my posts to attack me got the better of my normal good nature and that is why I began to attack him back.
I didn't realize it at the time, but that attitude flowed over to all the left-wing liberal Trump haters on here that act similar to Godstud.
I made an attempt to ignore Godstud at one point, but I could no longer ignore his false statements without making an attempt to correct them.
Hopefully, one day someone will come along that can get through to him and others on here that are in darkness to save their souls.
I guess it is not going to be you or me.
However, we do have our disagreements too.
I told another poster by PM that I would probably leave here after the November election.
No, he isn't. And you aren't too far gone either to believe in Christianity instead of believing in men.
Let's say that he does that, just for the sake of argument. You attack people, say things that aren't true, use nasty words ,and mix your personal Evangelical views with your partisan politics. Specks and beams.
My thinking is that everybody has gone a little too worked up over things, and we need to be calm and reasonable with each other, respectful of one another.
Hindsite wrote:I apologize for misunderstanding you. I am not going to respond to all your comments because I feel that you really put me down and in my place. However, I still disagree with you on some Christian topics such as the rapture and the return of Christ. But it is nice to learn that you are willing to be more reasonable and respectful to me. I will try to be the same to you.
annatar1914 wrote:Today in our time we have an election in 2008 in which a small but significant portion of the political establishment and citizenry had psychologically refused to accept the results due to their perception of the incoming President as unacceptable, and developed a theory in which his very Presidency was thought Constitutionally invalidated by suspicion of his not being a natural born citizen of the United States. Trump was apparently one of those who latched on to this idea at one time.
annatar1914 wrote:In 2016, Trump was elected President (An irony that both men-thank God!-kept Hillary Clinton away from the White House as President is interesting). And sure enough, a significant portion of the political establishment and citizenry had refused to accept his Presidency and sought to stymie his every effort at every turn until we have arrived at the 2020 Presidential elections (another irony being that many millions of people have voted for BOTH Obama and Trump, and that both men will likely be two-term Presidents).
annatar1914 wrote:Will the Political establishment faction that hates Trump accept his re-election? I believe they will, and I think they actually in a way want him to win (everything else is a smokescreen to obscure that), because that way they can develop their candidates for 2024 when Trump is gone.
annatar1914 wrote:...Their own Democratic version of ''Donald Trump'' as a Candidate, appealing to the same politics of nationalism and populism
This isn't the first time an election has been contested or thought somehow illegitimate. Remember the Chicago Times headline, "Dewey Defeats Truman"? It was before my time, but political machine politics often have a way of coming up with the needed votes in spite of the lack of needed voters. Kennedy was also said to have cheated in Chicago, and squeaked out a win against Nixon.
Democrats accused Nixon of sabotaging peace talks before his 1968 election. They went on to force him from office after the largest landslide election in US history--(less absolute than Washington's, but America was a much bigger country in 1972). The Democrats claimed that Reagan worked with Iran to delay the release of hostages, stole Carter's "playbook", etc. They accused George W. Bush of stealing the election in Florida in spite of the fact that Democrats nixed nearly 8000 military ballots and not a single vote count favored Gore.
So it is not the first time that some whackado theory about a president was floated around.
The efforts to hamper Trump have been legendary, and substantially useless. One could even say it is backfiring. What reason does anyone have right now to vote for Democrats, other than sowing the seeds of discord?
Why do you believe this? Hillary Clinton already encouraged Biden not to concede under any circumstances, such as a landslide. They hate Trump with a passion--a passion that has driven them certifiably crazy. Did you write this before or after you knew that Ruth Bader Ginsberg had died?
Maybe they return to the DLC days. Who knows. John Hickenlooper and Steve Bullock got zero traction, even though they are "normal" Americans compared to the other Democrat candidates. It seems the Democrats are so invested in political correctness and intersectionality that they are unable to leave it behind. It's worse than that, though. The Democrats used to be the party that promised a better life to working class people--better in the sense of a higher standard of living. Today, the Democrats preach the opposite--that people need to do with less in order to save the planet from climate change. They preach this for everyone except the elite, who of course can fly in private jets to climate change conferences. The modern left has abandoned improved living standards for working class people. So they would have to fundamentally transform in 4 years--something I don't think is in the offing. I could be wrong. I just don't see them moving away from this dystopian narrative.
blackjack21 wrote:Today, the Democrats preach the opposite--that people need to do with less in order to save the planet from climate change. They preach this for everyone except the elite, who of course can fly in private jets to climate change conferences. The modern left has abandoned improved living standards for working class people. So they would have to fundamentally transform in 4 years -- something I don't think is in the offing. I could be wrong. I just don't see them moving away from this dystopian narrative.
annatar1914 wrote:I draw some comfort from that oddly enough, that if I'm objective I can see that this isn't too out of the ordinary for modern times. And yet, there is a batshit crazy wing of the Liberals that is not capable of objectivity or rationality.
Richard Rorty wrote:About two hundred years ago, the idea that truth was made rather than found began to take hold of the imagination of Europe. The French Revolution had shown that the whole vocabulary of social relations, and the whole spectrum of social institutions, could be replaced almost overnight. This precedent made utopian politics the rule rather than the exception among intellectuals. Utopian politics sets aside questions about both the will of God and the nature of man and dreams of creating a hitherto unknown form of society.
Richard Rorty wrote:This development has led to a split within philosophy. Some philosophers have remained faithful to the Enlightenment and have continued to identify themselves with the cause of science.
Ricard Rorty wrote:We need to make a distinction between the claim that the world is out there and the claim that truth is out there. To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states. To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations.
Truth cannot be out there - cannot exist independently of the human mind - because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or false. The world on its own - unaided by the describing activities of human beings - cannot.
The suggestion that truth, as well as the world, is out there is a legacy of an age in which the world was seen as the creation of a being who had a language of his own. If we cease to attempt to make sense of the idea of such a nonhuman language, we shall not be tempted to confuse the platitude that the world may cause us to be justified in believing a sentence true with the claim that the world splits itself up, on its own initiative, into sentence-shaped chunks called "facts." But if one clings to the notion of self-subsistent facts, it is easy to start capitalizing the word "truth" and treating it as something identical either with God or with the world as God's project. Then one will say, for example, that Truth is great, and will prevail.
annatar1914 wrote:They'll get frozen out of the process I believe. There's a reason why this thread is in the ''spirituality'' section; they simply have become enemies of both God and their fellow Man.
annatar1914 wrote:Some of the dirty tricks are on the GOP side I'm sure.
annatar1914 wrote:Like with Lincoln though, and the Southerners who were convinced in 1860 that he was wanting to end slavery by hook or by crook, these conspiracy theories have a way of becoming real because of the very actions of the crazies who float them.
annatar1914 wrote:When the time comes those sowers of discord will find the money spigot has run dry. I suspect many of these mobs out in the streets have been paid to do what they're doing, and if the Right were paying them they'd almost as soon do their bidding as easily as they have for the Liberals.
annatar1914 wrote:Actually I don't recall, lol. But I have a hunch about this election; Biden/Harris is taking a dive like McCain and Romney did for Obama. The crazies are just window dressing no matter what they think, camouflage for the Democrats giving up on 2020.
annatar1914 wrote:I think that they will give up much of this nonsense. They in fact are giving up this nonsense-or trying to- by letting it play out in front of the American people and discrediting this insanity for at least a generation.
Richard Rorty wrote:I have been urging that the democracies are now in a position to throwaway some of the ladders used in their own construction.
After reading Richard Rorty's "Contingeny, Irony and Solidarity" several decades ago, it occurred to me that it's not that the left is incapable of reason, it's that they cannot accomplish their political objectives with reason; hence, they actively abandoned it. I linked the text so you can save yourself the 20 bucks or whatever.
So this semantic game around the notion of "truth" ultimately rejects an aspect of the Enlightenment, and reduces much of it to semantics. This is where I profoundly disagree with them, and why I can never be a leftist.
Rorty is often considered an American pragmatist, but I think abandoning science is not pragmatic at all. Material developments resulting from science and reason have been too profound to pretend that it is all meaningless.
So I agree with your sentiment that some of these people are batshit crazy. However, there are some who know exactly what they are doing, and are deliberately undermining reason and truth as constructs upon which a society can be built. You could almost characterize them as intellectual anarchists.
Well, they have also become enemies not so much of the truth, but the notion that "truth" can exist.
Oh, no doubt. However, I don't think I've ever heard anything so bold as the pushing of mail-in balloting, assertions by people like Hillary Clinton that Biden should not concede under any circumstance, that there will be a "red mirage" where Trump wins big, and then they will come in ex post facto with tons of uncounted ballots where they need them that they have suddenly "discovered" and attempt to overturn the election. The transparency with which they are willing to commit fraud is unlike anything I've ever seen.
Much of what is happening to Trump is unprecedented in US politics--pushing a 25th Amendment removal, pushing an emoluments clause removal, launching a completely phony Russiagate scandal, impeaching him on completely bogus grounds, politicizing a pandemic, stoking riots across US cities, etc. Now we'll have the RBG seat riots on top of it.
Well, the Republicans did do just that. If you parse the slavery argument from a legal perspective--and why the confederacy rhetoric lingers on--what the Union did was straight up illegal. The Emancipation Proclamation took private property without just compensation; then, they ratified the 14th Amendment by the barrel of a gun, ultimately sanctioning a 5th Amendment violation against taking private property without just compensation, but only in the case of freeing slaves. I will not offer a moral defense of slavery, as I oppose it politically and morally myself. I used to debate an Italian gal who was a translator, who also could not understand my position on equality--it seems leftists can only understand someone who doesn't agree with them as defending the ancien regime. She died of brain cancer. Anyway, she said she was trembling when I posted the lyrics to the Battle Hymn of the Republic. That war was justified on moral grounds. "He (the Lord) hath loosed the fateful lightning
Of His terrible swift sword; His truth is marching on." "As He (Christ) died to make men holy, Let us die to make men free; While God is marching on." The Battle Hymn of the Republic scares the living shit out of atheists.
Agreed. That's also why Trump is a seminal figure, as someone like Bush probably wouldn't have used US Marshals or sedition laws among other things to bring the violent arm of the Democrats to heel.
I think so too, but I don't think the effort to delegitimize Trump will stop after election day.
Agreed. However, like Nixon, they still didn't let him govern in his second term. Trump needs to take the House and hold the Senate too. Nancy Pelosi has never proven to be anything but horribly divisive.
This is why I think the craziness is deliberate. It's why I couldn't take Anthony Kennedy seriously in Obergefell. It's why I can't accept Neil Gorsuch as a conservative either with his recent ruling on protection against sex discrimination applying to transgenders when such people were considered mentally ill at the time the law was written. Even the conservatives are radical liberals in my view. They've simply lost their minds.
I guess Barrett thinks allowing religious services[…]
Oh good grief. Trannys have your panties bunched[…]
Yes, it definitely seems that--as in 1876 with T[…]
Trump proved that you can lie and your followers […]