Featured Who Promotes Propaganda?

Okay, simple enough question.

In an effort to discuss a point made in another thread, I was told I was derailing the thread by asking about something said. What was said was misleading in my view, and not only was an anti-biblical sentiment expressed, a completely false charge was raised against a Law Enforcement Officer who apparently believes Romans 13 calls for Christians to be in subjection to the governing powers. It was implied he was condoning punching a pregnant woman in the stomach.

What is interesting is the OP takes the time to list characteristics of propaganda, yet being called on the information being supplied is a no-no, lol.

So here you go, here is the off topic response:

How does that change whether what he said is correct or not?

Are you saying that elected officials should not be allowed to have an opinion in regards to Scripture?

You are saying that elected officials should be secular?

Let me ask you this, Poncho, do you not approve of those in elected office agreeing with Scripture?

Now what was that first rule of propaganda again?

Oh, here it is:

You are doing exactly what you rail against...shutting down conversation and censoring free speech. Or does that Sherriff not have that right in your interpretation of American policy based on interpretation of those documents which are relevant to our rights?

Did the Sherriff establish Law that People have to obey police officers because that is God's will? Could you show me where he did that?

Can you tell me if this...

...is representative of the man you are speaking about when you say this? I looked twice at the link and I found nothing concerning this fellow advocating, or even mentioning a pregnant woman being punched in the belly.

Here is another characteristic of propaganda: it always distorts the truth so it's agenda is served. This one was missing from the list.

It's okay, Poncho, you can look at it as derailing the thread. I see it as a matter of discussion.

It is absurd to vilify this Sherriff because he happens to believe the Bible. The kind of Separation of Church and State you seem to be vying for is a liberal fight.

Those in Law enforcement who believe God's Word to be the rule for our lives are less likely to engage in the actions of police officers who do questionable acts, such as punching a pregnant woman. Now, if we can just get all of you propagandists into the Word of God, and out of the newslines, we might see a kinder, gentler Police Force.




Now who is it again, that is contributing to America's road to Fascism?


God bless.


The secular world has a problem, summed up in the lyrics "Here comes the new boss...same as the old boss."

So here is the thread requested, look forward to the response.


God bless.

 

Have to get going, but what I have written I have written, Nothing in that is going to change.

You do not want to have a discussion in that thread, which excludes the propaganda you spread from being associated with discussion.

Addressing a statement from your propaganda is not derailing the thread, it goes right to the heart of what you are trying to do, which is vilify people, and you do not want anyone addressing it.

If you want me to change my view, then allow discussion in that thread.

Gotta go.


God bless.

 

Maybe you should think about that the next time you falsely accuse someone, especially when it's a man that simply states his view of belief.

You vilified a Bible believer, you vilified a Law Enforcement Officer, and you distorted the facts.

Then...you refused to talk about it.

You still refuse to talk about it.

If I chose to pursue this in the other thread...I could. Because it is on topic, a topic you are falsely promoting using the same tactics you rail against.

I honored your request and started a new thread, yet you are still shutting down discussion. The only way to reverse that, Poncho, is to allow the discussion in the other thread, then maybe you could be seen not to break the characteristic you presented as so revulsive.

Doesn't sound like it has been so nice.

You should give Politics a break for a little while. Just a suggestion.


God bless.

 

It's not a matter of opinion, Poncho, it is a readily drawn conclusion from the facts as presented so far.

I have tried to get you to discuss the issue but you have tried to shut it down.

This is a little better, lol, but not by much.

Now, if you want to show that I am in error in saying you are accusing him falsely, then show me what you base this...

...on.

I asked you to do this before:

You say I am falsely accusing you, but you refuse to defend yourself.

The fact in view here is that you falsely accuse the man of having...

...urged officers to “hang in there” while Godless citizens criticize them for punching pregnant women in the belly...

Where is your source? It's certainly not in the link you provided.

As far as me falsely accusing you...how?

Here is the OP minus the quote:

And I stand on the fact that I was told I was derailing the thread, the fact that your statement was misleading, the fact that it was a completely false charge against a Law Enforcement Officer (exercising his rights you present yourself as concerned about), and the fact that it was an antibiblical sentiment expressed.

As well as the fact that you did exactly what you presented as identifying propaganda, so I am at a loss as to how you feel so badly misrepresented.

Continued...

 

I have a hard time with a Bible Believer teaching...

The Sherriff speaking his mind in regards to Romans 13 is taken by you to be a violation of governing authority.

That is nonsense.

Most Bible Believers I know would agree with this fellow based on their view of Romans 13, rather than get upset because a man speaks his mind.

My first attempt to discuss this was simply to ask...

The response?

So please explain to me how you can speak about the quelling of discussion as a characteristic of propaganda, then demand that only what you want in a thread is going to be received?

And by the way, if you wanted to ask nicely, you should have left the hijacking part out, lol.

I did nothing of the sort. I asked a simple question.

Here it is again:

If you are going to imply his view is wrong, then you should be able to back it up with a reasonable presentation of why he is wrong. If that is because you interpret that passage differently than he (and pretty much the entire Church Body), then please do so.

That is why you are upset, because you know you have vilified this fellow unjustly, distorting the facts, and probably because you know many people who read that thread are not going to check your resources.

So let's go back to my first post in your thread...and discuss it.

It's a valid question and does not hijack the thread.

Are your threads a Bible Free Zone?

Are the Bible and Politics mutually exclusive?

Explain.

You do a fine job of that all by your lonesome, my friend. Anyone reading that post would see you as anti-Biblical and anti-authoritarian, two characteristics which are mutually exclusive themselves to a Christian worldview, which is precisely what our Sherriff presented.

I asked to see if there was a legitimate reason why you would post such garbage.

Continued...

 

What you should go along with is presenting the concept that people who shut down conversations display Propaganda Characteristic #1 and that this is wrong and then doing that very thing yourself is the height of hypocrisy.

It's just a conversation, Poncho, lol.

Remember, Debate Forum, discussion forum, and all that...

If you want to see my questions and comments as childish, okay, I don't have a problem with that. If you want to censor discussion unless it caters to your views, I'm okay with that too.

Just don't think you can dictate terms of discussion, or that you have a right to speak your mind without consequence. Don't think everyone is missing the underlying issues.

So nyaah.

I have made my case, now it's your turn:

I'd say that qualifies as character assassination.

Now you point out what I have said that isn't true, lol.

Not sure why you think I am mad.

And this is simply not true. In either thread.

I have maintained civility in both, and I am very sorry that the truth hurts.

I am not attacking you character at all, I am just exposing it, and you, my friend, are the only I care about understanding that. If you would be honest with yourself you would see that.

And point out what I have said that was crude?

If you want to discuss it, I'll be glad to. I do not view anything I have said as misrepresentative.

That goes beyond the point that you refused to discuss it in the first thread.

Hey thanks!



But I have made no accusations. An accusation is not the same as exposing truth. An accusation might be false, my statements were not. That is what has you riled.

You mean like this...

...?

You misunderstand, it takes quite a bit more than a trivial debate about an anti-biblical presentation like yours to upset me.

I will admit that when I do get mad and throw a temper tantrum, it can get rough, lol, but, if that ever happens, amigo, I'll let you know.

And I am sure you did a fine job raising your brothers and kids. That is not even an issue.

I was playing nice, but, you did not see it as such. It was a simple question, you could have answered it and that would have been the end of it.

And I am still playing nice, despite the fact you again try to govern what people say and think:

Now I ask you, what is left to discuss? lol

You demand that the very things I want to discuss be left out of a "civil discussion."

But that's the heart of the matter, falsely accusing someone. You attack the man in regards to his biblical convictions and then accuse him of condoning police officers of punching pregnant women in the stomach.

Again...you don't really want to discuss anything if you can't control the content.

And I quote...

Who is us all?

My posts are directed at you, and there are only two people involved as far as I know. Apparently you have an audience to play to. That's okay, you can invite them to defend this garbage.

And don't worry, I am getting close to having to withdraw from BB again, because there are other fields to investigate. So when I am gone, keep in mind, while you roost here stewing in your radical antiauthoritarian views, and spewing propaganda which undermines a Biblical view...I may be back someday.

Another false statement. Quote me saying I am a godly person. lol

Just no end of this stuff with you, is there?

Hey thanks!

God bless.

 

The context of propaganda in this discussion is not the same as the revelation and conveyance of the Word of God. Propaganda is defined as something revulsive in the threads at hand.

God bless.

 

I wish you well on this endeavor, and congratulate you on this new understanding.

No, Poncho, you don't want to have a discussion on it, if you did you would have entered into that discussion when I first responded in your thread.

Where in this do you imply you are going to join in on the discussion...

The point you are missing here is that my post was not irrelevant to the thread, and it was not hijacking. It was not derailing.

You cast the Sherriff as one who has made an erroneous statement, and the implication is that it was error because he presumed to mingle his belief in his interpretation with his office.

The hypocrisy is that you rail against propaganda yet that is all this thread is. As long as you are allowed to post your truth and perspective, all is fine, and you are not going to suffer someone challenging it. Thus violating what you had already posted as Characteristic Number One in identifying propaganda.

If that makes you feel better, okay. I can't force you to discuss anything.

You say you were hoping for a civil discussion but...you want to dictate terms.

And the terms demanded that the actual issue not be discussed. Here is your first response in this thread:

You have taken my address of the issues as attack, and request I stop attacking.

Nothing I said was untrue, and I showed that in my last responses.

Whereas I apologize for nothing. If your beliefs can be assumed by yourself to be correct, then there is no reason why I cannot assume mine are. The only difference between us is that I am willing to have you correct my views, whereas you are not. Thus it turns to issues simply not relevant to the original issue.

You keep saying you wanted to discuss the Sherriff...so do that.

Are you willing to back up and start over again? I am. But I have continued to seek to discuss the issue I first brought up, and you deflect the issue with this martyr syndrome nonsense.

And you continue to drag your propaganda into this thread, which I will address when I am finished with this response.

Glad to see you have changed how you presented it, though, that too is an improvement over your original presentation which I sought to discuss with you.


Continued...

 

How can you possibly see that you have any sound evidence to support your statement?

You cannot even be honest about this, as you seek to justify your position.

That is what I wanted to discuss, which you refused in your thread.


Continued...

 

You show your heart, and it is evil.

 

The truth is that you want the liberty to spread your doctrine without interference from anyone that seeks to discuss your views.

So spare me the martyr syndrome.

Posting truth does not equate to attack or insult, and if you would realize that then you might be able to engage in discussion and not be seen as doing the exact opposite of what you are posting.

Nothing wrong with that.

However, that does not mean that what I posted was an attack, but simply posting exactly what took place.

You did not allow discussion in your thread...that is a fact.

Thanks, it is a teaching technique I prefer not to engage in, but, it is effective sometimes.

Sometimes a person needs to see how they are acting, because it is all too easy for us to settle into characteristics without understanding where it is we have arrived at.

As I said, I wish you well in this, Poncho.

That is the goal, lol. All of us are on a pursuit of growth, and we are dependent on our brothers and sisters from time to time pointing out character flaws.




God bless.

 

That is not the truth...the Bible is not propaganda, it is the Word of God and should be distinguished from people using the Word of God as propaganda.

And that brings us back to my original question which, had you simply engaged in discussion, could have discussed if this is the case in the Sherriff's statement, and how you applied it to him, as well as the misinformation you gave.

You did not mention his acknowledgement that there were bad officers and that they slip through the cracks sometimes.

Instead, you misinformed readers just as you are doing now.

We could have discussed that if you had not refused conversation.

That is true, but how we determine whether there is justification for those actions is to measure what Scripture teaches and the actions themselves.

No-one has sought to justify the actions of the police officers involved, and the Sherriff did not condone their actions.

What he said was entirely true, that people should, according to the Bible...submit to the governing authorities.

Did the woman do that?

No.

Would it have turned out differently if she had.

Yes.

And that is the point the Sherriff makes.

Yet because you are consumed with your "Police State" mentality...you wrest the facts as well as present an anti-biblical presentation which does not at all qualify itself with a counter statement that you yourself have a view concerning what that passage means.

And when you are given the opportunity to open up the possibility that you believe the Bible but see the interpretation wrong...you shut down discussion.

You are the only "minor tyrant" here, Poncho. That is not an attack, but an assessment of the facts, of which you only post that which is convenient to your agenda.

And we will look at some of the facts which deny your wresting of the account and your false charges against the Sherriff himself.


Continued...