DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump warns evangelicals of 'violence' if GOP loses in the midterms

Ok. Let's take this one step at a time.

1) Q: What percentage of the people from the muslim countries banned from entering are muslims?
2) Q: Islam openly endorses pedophelia. Their head prophet that the entire religion is based on was a pedo. It is commonly practiced in that religion. Do you not have a problem with this?


3) What percentage of terrorists were stopped from entering, compared to what percentage of pedos were stopped from entering?

4)Why do you not care that a bunch of pedos were rejected, and you argued they should be allowed to enter?

there's no reason to take anything one step at a time.

i have made it very clear not only do i A) dislike all religions, but B) absolutely despise child molesters and abusers.

and thats all that needs to be said. nobody cares about your pathetic trap questions.

so you can politely kick rocks.

you can spin and play what about all you want. at the end of the day, guess what eve?

conservative christians tossed their values aside and voted for someone who couldn't be more opposite of christianity if his name was Satan.

lol but please, keep posting. lets keep demonstrating how illogical you really are. im down if you're down.

No man, its just that you lose all credibility when your arguments are biased and one sided. You cry and cry about Christianity, when bad priests are an extremely tiny percentage of the church. And their behaviour is flat out rejected by the church.

Yet you have never said one single word about Islam which endorses pedophelia as a religion.

It makes your arguments weak and hypocritical.

BECAUSE WE DO NOT LIVE IN A MUSLIM COUNTRY.

what part of that do you not get? we live in a secular country where the predominant religious demographic is christianity.

if we lived in the middle east, guess who'd i be criticizing way more?

the only people looking weak and hypocritical is you and LA right now. i went to combat against muslims 4 different times. my credibility is in great shape.

yours? sinking like the titanic.

Um. Please dont pretend that Muslims dont live in this country. Its the worlds fastest growing religion.

I am quite sure which number would be higher between pedo Christian priests, and pedo Muslims.

"quite sure" isn't the same as facts and numbers.

lol and i got the credibility problem?

lol damn. you sound like trump right now. "im hearing things" "my sources tell me" lmfao.

and then this:



how pathetic that you're once again making up narratives that dont exist.

keep making nonsense up. your credibility going down like

It was extremely valid.

You don't make the rules, yet you seem to think you do.

You gripe about a thread changing from the thread title in 1 thread, yet you do the exact same thing in a different thread. Period.

Or I could deflect like you, Dr Deflecto.

I'll stop giving you crap when you stop being hypocritical about a religion that condemns pedos vs a religion that endorses it. Until then you just look weak.

Eve, kicking butt and taking names.

wrong.

So Swish are you just high or trolling? Perhaps both.

Your argument is that voting for Trump INSTEAD of Hillary is anti Christian and a betrayal of Christian values.

Or is your argument that since there was no real Christian candidate with strong moral values that we should abstain and allow Hillary to win the election?

Your obviously delusional if you think any real Christian in this world would want someone like Hillary as president. IN fact, anyone who ran against her would most likely get the majority of Christian votes.

Voting for Trump was simply voting for anything other than the devil's servant Hillary. It certainly didn't betray Christian values to make sure Hillary wasn't president.

If you still want to proclaim that the only way to uphold Christian values was to either vote for Hillary or to not vote then go ahead but no one is going to take you seriously because at that point you either lost your mind or your just trolling.

I think we should allow this Religious Freedom stuff but we should tax it. Every public and private business who wants to claim religious freedom rights to deny service to anyone under those rights should pay a special permit fee to do so and be required to post a placard declaring the religion and exactly who they will serve and not serve for what exact reasons.

Their customer should also enjoy a sales tax for the right to do so. It would be a small price to pay for all those freedoms that fly in the face of an integrated open society, and the taxes/fees should be used to promote acceptance/integration via education, police training, etc.

This would give the general public fair warning of what to expect, allow them to decide if they want to do business with the company before entering, and keep religious freedom businesses from making up new rules every time they want to claim it.

They don't want to bake a gay cake, post it. They don't want to serve Atheists, post it. They only like pink people, post it... Then if they breach their own declaration they should be heavily fined and or charged under the current/new laws of discrimination or any other criminal law that applies.

Win win. Then the markets will work out who survives and thrives.

No, but it has to do with one of the many reasons why Evangelicals didnt want Hillary in

Or instead of unfairly singling out the charity you don't like we could go according to our constitution where no laws shall be made to restrict the practice of religion. Pesky thing that bill of rights. I mean if you think it's ok to take away my freedom of religion or to punish me for having it then I say we take away your rights to free speech. I mean let's start chipping away because obviously the bill of rights doesn't mean much to you anyways ...

You have an absolute right to practice your own religion, BUT NOT to impose your religion upon others. What don't you get about that?

I think what you're asking for is a double standard here. A politician can have a super pac endorse him, run ads and yet he has no supposed culpability in that. Yet somehow you seem to feel that others shouldn't be afforded those same opportunities. So those who support planned parenthood shouldn't have the same rights as politicians?

I'm far more opposed to televangilists living in multi million dollar homes claiming to be a charity than anything else they do. They build opulent churches where decadence is the norm then claim to be a charity. I'm not one who attacks all institutions of religion. But I do believe that with power comes corruption and we've seen a lot of evidence of it.

Reporting facts isn't a judgement.

Sure I do. The same way you do with yours of. The practice of religion is public not private. Religion has always been a community affair and a big part of the culture of said community.

You live in a democracy. People with the same views WILL band together to vote in people that support their beliefs and values. If they can garner the votes their candidate wins. Voters have every right to elect people who will write the laws they want.

There is no law in place that says you have to follow my religion and we don't force anyone who doesn't want to follow it to do so. We do however live our life based on the principle that our religion tells us to do so when we are living the way we are supposed to.

If you don't like it then move to a communist country where they also love to oppress religious people.

Imposing your religious beliefs on others is a clear violation of allowing others to follow religion as they choose.

Sorry to stay away so long...been busy.

BY LAW, a pastor can endorse a candidate, but a church cannot. SO PLEASE DO NOT CONFUSE THE TWO.

This article might help the widespread confusion around here...please refer to it with any complaints you may have against evangelicals getting involved in politics.

https://www.gop.com/what-churches-can-and-cannot-do-in-politics/

AND IT is still you, not I who is asking for double standards by saying it is OK for one tax exempt organization to endorse candidates and run ads, and not OK for others. And which evangelical organizations (tax exempt), are we talking about here?

"So those who support Planned Parenthood shouldn't have the same rights..." I never said that. I said that those who support an Evangelical worldview should have the same rights as those who support Planned Parenthood. Of course, which tax exempt evangelical organizations are we talking about? There is not even a question in regards to churches, yet you guys keep bringing up churches as if they are endorsing candidates and running ads. WHICH CHURCHES ARE DOING SUCH?

And bringing up mega church preachers is a marvelous red herring. Not to mention an example of gross stereotyping, lumping all evangelicals together with mega preachers. The vast majority of evangelical churches are small and for most pastors, being a pastor is not particularly lucrative. There are probably more preachers that preach for little or nothing than Mega preachers. I preached for decades and never tried to make a living off of it, being a lay preacher.

Plus, I've never cared for or supported a mega preacher like the kind you describe, and there are a great many evangelicals that havent either.

Plus, the mega church preachers argument has nothing to do with the fact that nowhere in article of the OP did Trump ask for evangelicals to run ads for any candidates. Completely ridiculous argument based on pulling a non existent argument out of thin air.

Another red herring. For Christian INDIVIDUALS to support, endorse, run ads, and vote for candidates is not imposing our beliefs on anyone, any more than it would be for Moslems, Jews, Hindus, atheists, or agnostics to be imposing their views on others by voting for, endorsing, etc a candidate that they agree with.

Please refer to the article in my last post that outlines what is and is not legal in these matters.

Bullseye!

So you're trying to suggest that using the political system to impose laws that represent Christians and no other religion is fair to all religions and those who aren't religious? Because that are the wishes and the end result desired when religion promotes certain politicians. To inflict Christian beliefs on an entire society.

And you misunderstood me about mega churches. I understand there are many churches that do a lot of wonderful work. I applaud the things they do. I pointed out mega churches because it was them who I have the issue with. It wasn't intended to suggest that I cast all churches in that light.

You see, I believe in Christian values. I however have never had anyone try to prevent me from going to church, from praying or following my beliefs. Since nobody is stopping me from following my beliefs, I have no intention of trying to inflict my beliefs on others. God told me, "be ye not of this world".

Quote- So you're trying to suggest that using the political system to impose laws that represent Christians and no other religion is fair to all religions and those who aren't religious?

No. First of all, what laws are we suggesting that represent Christians that don't represent other people? Secondly, if the majority of voters are Christians, that will reflect in the vote. If the majority are not Christian, that will reflect in the vote. But you cannot disenfranchise Christians and say they can't (AS INDIVIDUALS) be involved in things like endorsing candidates just because they are leaders in a church or whatever. That would be undemocratic.


Quote- Because that are the wishes and the end result desired when religion promotes certain politicians. To inflict Christian beliefs on an entire society.

What distinctive Christian beliefs are currently being inflicted on society by politicians? I don't know of any. Maybe you could be more specific.

quote- And you misunderstood me about mega churches. I understand there are many churches that do a lot of wonderful work. I applaud the things they do. I pointed out mega churches because it was them who I have the issue with. It wasn't intended to suggest that I cast all churches in that light.

I apologize for the misunderstanding on my part.

quote-You see, I believe in Christian values. I however have never had anyone try to prevent me from going to church, from praying or following my beliefs. Since nobody is stopping me from following my beliefs, I have no intention of trying to inflict my beliefs on others.

Voting for candidates that reflect your worldview, or at least are the closest to your worldview among choices that are all far removed from your worldview, is not inflicting your beliefs on others. It is merely voting according to your worldview, WHICH is what EVERYONE does. Christianity is not a religion to me. It is a way of life, a worldview, and a relationship. So I vote according to my worldview. You vote according to your worldview. An atheist votes according to his worldview. An agonostic votes according to his worldview. A conservative votes according to his worldview, an liberal votes according to his worldview. None of this is imposing your beliefs on others. It is nothing more than exercising your freedom to make choices based on what you believe. Each individual chooses for himself. But I don't know of any major laws that impose religious dogmas or practices on people that I know of. Maybe you could be more specific as to what you are talking about.

quote-God told me, "be ye not of this world".

Good quote, but that has nothing to do with politics. We are not to conform to the world. But have you not read that it has been written and spoken by the LORD, YOU are the salt and the light of the world?

SO Swish, where did the article say anything about Trump asking evangelical prganizations to endorse him? I see where he asked evangellicals to get out and vote and leaders to encourage such. Perfectly legal and within the Law. Google it.

SO what tax exempt churches have endorsed and placed ads endorsing political candidates? Name one. You can't


SO you don't understand that it is LEGAL for evangelical INDIVIDUALS and even evangelical leaders to endorse candidates, but not legal for churches to do the same. And you all don't realize that churches ARE DOING NO SUCH THING as endorsing candidates or putting out ads.


Some of you folks need to brush up on what a BIBLICAL church actually is, and the reality of the issue. The pastor or leader of the church is not the church. A church is ALL OF THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS EQUALLY, so the pastor endorsing a candidate is not even close to a church endorsing a candidate.

I don't think some of you really understand evangelicalism. At least not what the vast majority of evangeicals believe and practice.

As to the rest, talking about all the reasons why evangelicals should not have voted for Trump, all of that has NOTHING to do with the OP, and is therefore irrelevant

Hmmm...which EVANGELICAL pedo churches are you referring to, Swish?

LA, in case you haven't noticed, Swish is serving a ban right now. smh

Didn't know that. OK

Geez ... the ignorance around here is stifling.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Catholic

Evangelical Catholic. The word evangelical in this term is an MODIFYING adjective. The way the author is using the word evangelical is a NOUN. Evangelical used as a noun, IN IT'S NORMAL USAGE is referring to a subset of Protestantism. In other words, you are confusing the use of a word as an adjective with the use of a word as a noun. Please not the usual definition of THE NOUN Evangelical.

"...Evangelicals are a subset of Protestant Christians..."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts...tm_term=.ac98d7

Evangelicalism (/ˌiːvænˈdʒɛlɪkəlɪzəm, ˌɛvæn-, -ən/), evangelical Christianity, or evangelical Protestantism,[a] is a worldwide, transdenominational movement within Protestant Christianity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism

https://www.salon.com/2013/03/12/evangel...a_ring_partner/


https://www.christiancentury.org/article/2013-10/evangelicals-worse-catholics-sexual-abuse

Not sure if this is what you are looking for, but google is your friend.

OK, then don't just tax them, arrest the guilty parties within Evangelical Catholics and leave the rest of Evangelicals alone (ie don't tax non pedophile protestant evangelicals.. I'd be OK with that.

BTW, I edited my post earlier because I realized an error that you made. Evangelical is a noun which in it's normal refers to Evangelical Protestants. Evangelical in the term evangelical catholic is an adjective. You are confusing the usage of a term as an adjective with it's normal usage as a noun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism



...and let's not vote for anymore adulterous democrats, like John Edwards or Bill Clinton. (similar associative fallacy that Swish used in his "let's tax the pedophile churches.

BTW, the entry you linked to is kind of humorous because it says that Evangelical Catholics are both evangelical and Catholic, and then the word Evangelical is linked to an article that says evangelical is a protestant subset, which would mean that they are both Catholic and protestant.

That's what happens when you confuse the definition of a word when used as an adjective with the meaning of the word when it is used as a noun. YOU DO KNOW THERE IS OFTEN A DIFFERENCE, RIGHT?


Consider themselves evangelical...(evangelical is an adjective)

Evangelicals met with Trump (evangelical used as noun)

Know the difference between an adjective and a noun.

All you are posting is a bunch of silly confusion that makes no sense.

lmao, bro I just did a quick google on YOUR TERM. I didn't take a side or get into this mess, so I won't be joining you in going down the rabbit hole. Have a good day at church tomorrow.

You guys are trying to use a word (evangelical) out of context in order to change the intended meaning of the word,(the meaning that the author intended) that's all.


When a word has more than one meaning, CONTEXT DETERMINES WHICH MEANING IS INTENDED BY THE AUTHOR.

Especially important is to know whether the word is being use as an adjective or a noun or some other form of speech.

You have a good day tomorrow as well

BTW, it wasn't MY term. It was Perfectspiral's term, a term he used when he failed to discern the difference between a word's usage as an adjective and it's normal usage as a noun. A common but unfortunate grammatical/interpretive mistake.

Anyway's, I'm all for punishing pedophiles. But it is an associative fallacy to point the finger at ALL members of a group for actions of some of that group. That is called an associative fallacy. The fallacies around here, (associative fallacies, hasty generalizations, equivocations, etc) are stifling.

you're still rambling about?

last time i checked lying was a sin.

christians showed in alabama they were willing to vote for a freaking pedophile over a democrat. i dont wanna here crap from you about christians and values.

they've already displayed their "Values" plenty.

This is interesting.

A poster who continually riles against racial profiling against the black man, then turns around and lumps all Christians together.

I believe that there are good and bad blacks. I also believe that there are good and bad Christians. I believe that lumping all people in any group into one single category is biased, hateful, and not based on sound thinking.

christianity isn't a race. islam isn't a race. judaism isn't a race. i can do whatever i want and all you can do is be mad. kick rocks.

I know that Christianity isn't a race.

I also know that bias and prejudice is wrong no matter what group is being subjected to it.

I'm not mad at all and I won't kick rocks.

I am simply speaking my mind that racial or group profiling is not intelligent or fair.

life isn't fair. deal with it. i treat ppl the same way they treat me.

save your gandhi BS for someone who actually cares what you think.