FOX News Defends Trump's Defense of Nazis/White Supremacists/Bigotry

[Blackleaf]

Yet it seems like those who detest Christians or Jews hold them up to a very high standard of moral and ethical behavior. Everyone knows the golden rule and that Christians subscribe to that belief. Just about everyone is familiar with the Sermon on the MT, a very high call to ethical behavior. Two problems I observe with bible believers is they don't live up to the standard much better than anyone else, yet they often scold others for failing to live by a standard they often fail at.

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh yeah. Christians apply the Golden Rule so well. They're not judgmental, overcontrolling, or quick to raise their voice or resort to violence. lol. Not only do Christians not live up to the rule "much better than anyone else," they're worse at it. MUCH worse.

[randomvim]

Yes.  That is exactly my position.  /sarcasm
You argued that the Ten Commandments should be kept at government courthouses because they've "already have been in a building for past several decades".  That's textbook argument from tradition.  I kinda feel sorry for you that you still don't get that.

Also, do you know that secularists don't actually intend on wiping away all historical record of the Ten Commandments but simply argue that they have no place on government property?  Probably not, because if you did you wouldn't equate that to ISIS demolishing historical sites.

2. "text book tradition?"
lets consider 10 commandments. they are followed or revered by Jews, Catholics, and JW's. however tradition among these groups are completely different. JW do not describe biblical passages same as Catholics, and Catholics poses a different description to some passages in Torah.

For court house A B C. there can be three different viewpoints on a single image which describe different traditions among them.

A might view an image religiously and therefore hold that image as a center for their actions.

B may view that same image with less endearment but reflect that such an image represents them and their goal in life.

C may see the same image as a rule of thumb for their predecesors but not themselves. looking for clarity in their own lives to adhere to for consistancy in their actions.

All three courthouses view same image differently and poses their own traditions. any number of good or bad may come from each court individually. but each poses a positive outlook on their history rather miss an opportunity to maintain what is still their history.

thus, not an arguement for tradition. as not even italians have gladitorial matches despite having the colliseum.

2. sarcasm. again you miss the point. Im not talking about wiping out all history of. not even isil is destroying history of their own ancestors. however the images and artifacts poses something more than that a word on paper could poses. which is why museums seek out such things to begin with.

no secularlists want to eradicate from public eye. all things that are religious or otherwise they deem unworthy which destroys public perception. such a negative view point will take away historical importance to how we once thought to consider it being something that just happened.



Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

[randomvim]

Oh yeah? Tell me, is global warming real or just a hoax? I'm ready to hear what your open mind has to say about this issue.

Sounds like religion to me. Seems a "cult" to you is just any religious group you don't like.

1. what I believe? truly has nothing to do with topic but fallacy influences arguement. so ill humor you.

global warming is not described well, as it is a moment the earth increases in over all temperature. Is that occuring now? perhaps. my main concern is our affect on the earth which is currently a bad affect regardless to whether or not global warming is occuring.

before global warming was a thing, the atmosphere was thinning. before that, local communities are poisoned with rivers that catch fire due to chemicals in them. all these are bad.

we need to nuture nature or at least come as close to neutral as possible, but not poison it.

2. again. fallacy. you are injecting your own meaning upon the way I think. assuming what i like or dislike along with what influences my decision.

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

[Mike Cl]

I do not believe methodists or baptists qualify under provided definition. perhaps at one time their size was not the same, but to consider what another post points out -which anyone can see based on documentation- bapwhats are not organized at the direct action against another group.

They did not develop or fracture with the goal of destroying or targeting a paticular community. Where as the satanists are. that is their goal. Or people who join do so as a farce and, like the athiest spaggetti group, possess no actual religious direction.

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

So to determine cluthood on a group, size and intent are important?  Anything else?

[randomvim]

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh yeah. Christians apply the Golden Rule so well. They're not judgmental, overcontrolling, or quick to raise their voice or resort to violence. lol. Not only do Christians not live up to the rule "much better than anyone else," they're worse at it. MUCH worse.

All christians are different.
path to their version of perfection is difficult and comes in stages. some who claim to be christian may abandon various responsibilities but not a single person's actions dictates what another christian is like.

otherwise this poses no known influence to removal of historical monuments

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

[randomvim]

So to determine cluthood on a group, size and intent are important?  Anything else?

those are the known factors for me. any other that may exist are unknown.

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

[Mike Cl]

those are the known factors for me. any other that may exist are unknown.

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

So a group of 10, for example, must always be a cult.  But their intent must be bad--who defines what is 'bad'?

[Baruch]

All christians are different.
path to their version of perfection is difficult and comes in stages. some who claim to be christian may abandon various responsibilities but not a single person's actions dictates what another christian is like.

otherwise this poses no known influence to removal of historical monuments

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

Many of our regulars love scifi.  They would be triggered if you wanted to remove monuments to Capt Kirk or Dr Who ;-))

[randomvim]

2. "text book tradition?"
lets consider 10 commandments. they are followed or revered by Jews, Catholics, and JW's. however tradition among these groups are completely different. JW do not describe biblical passages same as Catholics, and Catholics poses a different description to some passages in Torah.

For court house A B C. there can be three different viewpoints on a single image which describe different traditions among them.

A might view an image religiously and therefore hold that image as a center for their actions.

B may view that same image with less endearment but reflect that such an image represents them and their goal in life.

C may see the same image as a rule of thumb for their predecesors but not themselves. looking for clarity in their own lives to adhere to for consistancy in their actions.

All three courthouses view same image differently and poses their own traditions. any number of good or bad may come from each court individually. but each poses a positive outlook on their history rather miss an opportunity to maintain what is still their history.

thus, not an arguement for tradition. as not even italians have gladitorial matches despite having the colliseum.

2. sarcasm. again you miss the point. Im not talking about wiping out all history of. not even isil is destroying history of their own ancestors. however the images and artifacts poses something more than that a word on paper could poses. which is why museums seek out such things to begin with.

no secularlists want to eradicate from public eye. all things that are religious or otherwise they deem unworthy which destroys public perception. such a negative view point will take away historical importance to how we once thought to consider it being something that just happened.



Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

Wanted to clarify this argument is in regard to single aspect of public property.

Monuments that were put up by US in efforts to reunite amd honor all soldiers is a tradition I am in favor for.

Religious view point differs and religious monuments do not require same tradition or practice or viewpoint to be maintained.

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

[randomvim]

Many of our regulars love scifi.  They would be triggered if you wanted to remove monuments to Capt Kirk or Dr Who ;-))

I would be as well.

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

[Baruch]

Good point. I would certainly question the motives of the person who chooses to display symbols of the Confederacy on their private property, but they do have the right to do so (as we have the right to ridicule them). But those same symbols on public property should be donated, sold, or destroyed.

Drop all reference on public property to Democrats past and present, same for Republicans.  The I party will triumph!

[Baruch]

I would be as well.

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

They accept the fictional Union story over the equally fictional Rebel story.  It was politics back then, everyone was lying like a dog.  Funny how the D party isn't the D party anymore, same with the R party.  Same factions, different labels.

[randomvim]

So a group of 10, for example, must always be a cult.  But their intent must be bad--who defines what is 'bad'?

I didnt say "bad." action might not need to be "bad" though some could consider an action to being bad.

In consisering Confederate statues. were some put up at purpose to demoralize and destroy a paticular group? if yes. perhaps these were put up by a cult? though size may determine they are not, the people committing such actions considered  their acts to be good.

i do wish to also add that if others know or view other factors or wish to describe factors for a cult. please do. i would appriciate it.

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

[randomvim]

They accept the fictional Union story over the equally fictional Rebel story.  It was politics back then, everyone was lying like a dog.  Funny how the D party isn't the D party anymore, same with the R party.  Same factions, different labels.

I disagree. D party hail FDR and his policies, who not only was a Democrat, but his legacy occured before civil rights, which was led by many republicans.

Issue is that we are looking at this purely as a racist thing. whom ever is racist is on the left side. or right side. but there are racists on both sides and our political platform is not directly influenced by race.

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

[Blackleaf]

1. what I believe? truly has nothing to do with topic but fallacy influences arguement. so ill humor you.

global warming is not described well, as it is a moment the earth increases in over all temperature. Is that occuring now? perhaps. my main concern is our affect on the earth which is currently a bad affect regardless to whether or not global warming is occuring.

before global warming was a thing, the atmosphere was thinning. before that, local communities are poisoned with rivers that catch fire due to chemicals in them. all these are bad.

we need to nuture nature or at least come as close to neutral as possible, but not poison it.

Perhaps you are not as thoroughly assimilated into the Borg as I had thought, even if you are a Trump-supporting believer in a collection of books written thousands of years ago by anonymous authors. I could focus on your answer of "maybe," but if you agree that poisoning the earth is harmful either way, it doesn't really matter.

2. again. fallacy. you are injecting your own meaning upon the way I think. assuming what i like or dislike along with what influences my decision.

Your definition is vague and not useful, which is convenient for someone who wants the power to pick and choose which groups are "religions" and which are "cults."