The lesser of two evils?

[Darrell C]

In a recent thread the issue of the lesser of two evils seems to have dominated the thread, so why no look at it further:

It's your way of life as well.

His way of life is not mine. I am a Christian, a constitutionalist, and do not have a long history of being sued for fraud.

And how exactly does supporting that which Obama and Clinton stand for qualify as Christian?

How does supporting those who would strip away, and can be seen as having worked towards that in the past, Constitutional Rights...qualify as "constitutional?

You cannot understand that gun control seeks to remove the right to bear arms?

You cannot understand that forcing people to render services against their religious beliefs does in fact remove the right to religious freedom?

You do not understand the government forcing Americans to purchase a product is a removal of our rights?

If you support these things...that is part of your way of life. There's no way around that.

I also have not spun up multiple businesses, filed for bankruptcy and left others holding the bills.

So Donald Trump's business practice is, in your view...far worse than what Obama and Clinton are doing and will do?

Amazing?

It's okay if babies are murdered, homosexuality is forced on Christians, Christians are murdered, and Islam gains strength...as long as we don't have someone who is a failure as a businessman in Office...

I did have a business go bad, but we shut it down and paid our bills on time so that we were the only ones who lost money.

So you are a failure as a businessman, but still possessed of far more integrity than Donald Trump, and this is a great reason to overlook the realities of the evil of Obama and Clinton.

[Added to provide context for what comes below: “I oppose Islam but I do not oppose religious liberty. I do not advocate using the sword to restrict Islam, nor treat people differently on the basis of their religious heritage.”]

You do oppose religious liberty, because you are supporting those who are stripping you of religious liberty right out from under you.

I do advocate using the sword against Islam, and that sword is God's vengeance on those who perpetrate evil.

Islam is evil.

When we see that sword persecuting law abiding Muslims, I'll stand right there beside you, but when that sword is stuck in a closet so that a Muslim Sympathizer can help embolden and strengthen Islam...we part company.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Baptist Believer said: ↑

I oppose Islam but I do not oppose religious liberty. I do not advocate using the sword to restrict Islam, nor treat people differently on the basis of their religious heritage.

My, how fabulously magnanimous of you.

No, that is the Christian position and a Baptist position. I am astounded that you claim to be both Christian and Baptist and them oppose that position.

It's neither Christian nor Baptist.

God uses government to effect vengeance on those who commit evil.

Obama uses government to effect evil.

Clinton will carry on that effort.

Was it religious heritage that drove two planes into the Twin Towers?

Nope. It was hatred and the desire for power, bolstered by a radical version of Islam. Religious liberty does not give sanction to criminal activity.

Sorry, but it was...religious heritage.

Islam does in fact sanction murder for the advancement of Islam.

You really do show an ignorance of the history of Islam.

Is it religious liberty heritage that stood many Christians on a beach and cut their heads off?

Your sentence doesn’t make sense. Terrorists have killed many people, Muslims and Christians. Religious liberty does not give sanction to criminal activity.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't make sense: religious heritage is what demands the murder of those who refuse to convert.

If you look at the level of violence in the world where there are Muslim populations, the level of violence usually correlates to the population. Where the population is primarily Muslim, violence against non-muslims is greatest.

Praise God we live in a country where, at least for the time, there is a rule of Law that includes freedom, and punishment for doing evil. But the greater hold Islam takes in this country, the more we are going to see "their rights" demanded.

It was religious heritage that stood those Christians up on a beach and murdered them. Whether Muslims kill muslims as well, or some who call themselves Christians kill Muslims makes no difference, the focal point is that radical Islam is the heritage that these people follow.

Is it religious heritage that has seen the deaths of, according to the last stats I looked at in May, has killed 350 Christians because they were...Christians?

Obviously not. ISIS has killed many more Muslims than Christians, because they want people who will be compliant to their agenda. ISIS is not mainstream Islam at all.

Great, change the focus again. This is irrelevant.

The point is that Muslims kill Christians, just as they kill homosexuals, and you are helping them achieve that goal.

The point is that...this is the religious heritage of Islam, and it is quite the opposite of the Religious Heritage of the United States. We are not founded on a premise of convert the world and kill everyone who refuses to convert, but, that men are free to worship God as they choose, rather than the government dictating what can, and cannot be believed.

That is foundational to this country, and while there are times when that foundation was not maintained, there is still a contrast, and you...

...are denying that.

You say, "Obviously not," and...you are wrong.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Again, you don't know how silly you sound. That is not ad hominen (and we will get to that shortly), that is just a simple fact.

You are expressing an opinion, not fact, that has been formed out of ignorance and propaganda. The fact that what I say may sound foolish to you has no bearing on whether or not it is true. You need to consider that you may be profoundly wrong.

Its not an opinion.

Its not formed out of ignorance or propaganda.

You said...

Baptist Believer said: ↑

I am no fan of Obama's foreign policy, but Trump doesn't seem to know anything about foreign policy or the history of the struggles between nations. He knows about making crooked deals, but that is a recipe for disaster when dealing with other nations.


And I now know why you are being so silly...

...you haven't even heard Donald Trump's position in regards to Foreign Policy.

Which makes it even worse for you to charge me with ignorance and succumbing to propaganda.

So here you are advocating for Obama, and by extension Clinton...and you have not even bothered to know what Trump has presented on Foreign Policy.

Then you charge me...with the very thing you are doing?

Go look through your psycho-babble excuses and find a term for that, my friend.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Let me tell you why: our Religious Heritage as Americans has always stood on the premise that forced religion is wrong.
Yes.

And you are destroying that. At least, you are helping those who seek to destroy it.

You seem to be unaware of what you are forced to do today that you were not forced to do before Obama took office.

Islam's religious heritage has always, from day one, stood on the premise of convert or die. World domination has always been the goal of Islam, and it still is.

That is a caricature, but Muhammad lived in a time when religion was used in that way (and it has through most ages of human history), and he merely appropriated that into his views.

Its not a caricature...it is fact.

Are your really going to try to divorce Muhammad's teachings and practice...from the true caricature presented to people by the prophet Obama?

Seriously?

Murdering people was simply "appropriated into his views?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

The Roman Catholic Church and a number of Christian groups also used the power of the state to persecute those who did not fit their molds. This is a very old problem

But the difference is this: when the Catholic Church departed from the teachings of Christ and abused their position of leadership...we understand this was not Christianity.

When Muslims kill those who either refuse to convert, or preach a religion that is not Islam...

...that is following the doctrine and practice of Islam itself.

Just because you do not understand how Islam began, spread, and is still spread today...doesn't mean the caricature you convince yourself as the "real Islam" corresponds with how it was originally introduced and spread.

Radical Islam is an issue, but Islam itself is not a grave threat to our existence.

And there it is...you dismiss radical Islam for what it is.

That is...the real Islam.

You are promoting the Islam Obama wants the world to embrace, which is an Islam that is a "Religion of Peace."

Never has been, never will be.


Continued...

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I don't claim to be any sort of expert on the U.S. Constitution, but is there not an amendment (the first, if memory serves) that reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?

If Trump is intending to tamper with the First Amendment, should you not oppose him with the same vigour that people here oppose Clinton's proposed tampering with the Second?

 

[Darrell C]

What you are saying is that you are willing to let people die, because you fear to impinge on their religious liberties.

That is insane.

Uh, no. You really don’t get it or else you are willingly trying to lay a false charge.

Its not a false charge: Muslims feel it is their mandate from God to spread Islam and achieve world domination.

Wake up.

What you are advocating is religious persecution against people who are Muslim - whether or not they have any intention of harming anyone else - simply because you are afraid that they might be/become radicalized.

That really is a false charge: as an American I believe everyone should be allowed to worship as they choose apart from persecution. This ensures our own rights as Christians to do the same thing, within which freedom we can continue to carry out the Great Commission.

However, when a Religion begins to force their will on us, or anyone, we have a responsibility to take action.

And the religion which you are advocating for, is just another Religion being forced on American Christians. It is Secular Humanism running under a guise of religious freedom, and it intends to remove the rights of both Americans and Christians.

Thanks, but I'll pass on Obama and Clinton's religion. Help yourself.

That’s actually a pretty good formula for creating radical Muslims - persecution radicalizes people.

Hmm, wonder where you got this from. The Prophet Obama maybe?

How am I persecuting Muslims? lol

Here's a little bit of information your prophet doesn't want you to know...no-one has to do anything for Islam to persecute other religious beliefs.

Nothing.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

You and Mr. Trump are wrongheadedly tossing aside the wisdom of the Constitution to make the problem worse - with the side effect of undermining religious freedom for everyone else.

Again, you don't realize just how silly you sound.

I used to not have to worry whether I might be hauled into court for refusing to render services that conflict with my Christian beliefs.

You can thank the prophet Obama, and his supporters (that would be you) for that.

But then, I am being intolerant if I refuse to render services based on religious belief, right?

I use to have the right to decide on how I spend my money, as well, but now, if I do not buy insurance...I am in violation of the Law, and penalized.

You can thank the prophet Obama for that as well.

Is he a failure as a business man in your book? I mean, he rescued businesses and made it possible for people to get free health care, right? We got to keep our policies, right?

Seems to me if being a good businessman cannot correspond to deceitful practices that harm people, then either you are unaware of the harm Obama has created, don't care, or you are a hypocrite.

Which is it?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

YOUR NEXT POST - I pointed out how skilled you were in the use of the ad hominem and you responded:

Its not ad hominem, it is simply a statement of fact. You don't really want to argue psycho-babble with me, my friend…

It’s not “psycho-babble” it is a logical fallacy.

Its Psycho-babble. lol

These are used to explain away that which is not understood by those who are weak-minded.

Can't argue a point...run to the list of logical fallacies.

The problem is that most who do this on a regular basis...have accepted that those logical fallacies are relevant to the points they cannot address, do not understand the fallacy to begin with, and have never even taken the time to see if the fallacy is not fallacious in itself.

The No True Scotsman Fallacy is...

...fallacious.

And it is usually applied erroneously, because we can define what is true and what is not.

We can say that a true Christian would not openly, knowingly, advocate for murder. That is just fact.

And you illustrate this truth by saying that I am attacking people personally when its the issues, which are legitimate and easily examined...I am attacking. Its not ad hominem if it is true. If this were the case, then Christ Himself is guilty of it.

You want to take your psycho-babble there?


Continued...

 

[Van]

LOL, Darrel, strong letter to follow.

I just wanted to address one of the fictions the dark side is spinning. People who want to halt the influx of Muslims are imposing a "religious test." No we are not. Risk management occurs all the time. We have security at airports, and so forth.

Islam incubates terrorists. An unknown fraction of those coming in already carry hatred in their hearts. But another faction will become terrorists. We do not know why this is happening, but until we have an effective means to stop this process, keeping potential terrorists out is simply risk management, and not a religious test.

Carry on.

 

[Darrell C]

...because you are not even of the level of the average atheist in debate...

You intended that as an insult, but I am quite pleased that you noticed. You don’t really know how good of a debater I am since I am NOT debating you. I don’t debate people anymore because debates are about “winning” arguments and ego, not discovering truth. I believe in persuasion, but not manipulation. I believe in helping people think, not telling them what to think. I believe the teaching of Jesus is true, so I just need to present that as helpfully and clearly as possible. Defeating someone in a debate does not make them a convert - it hardens them. “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” My job is not to harden people, but to work in concert with the Spirit for the kingdom.

You are debating me, lol.

Because you want to define things according to your belief system (which is another typical ploy of atheist debaters)...doesn't mean you can, or that anyone will view it as credible.

And I am not sure how you think you are helping anyone, seriously, when you are supporting the Liberal Agenda.

As far as hardening people through debate, tell that to Paul, who happened to dispute with people on a number of fronts: unbelievers, people of other religions...and Christians.

I have no control over hearts, that is within God's hands, but, I do have control over whether I sit by and let people present a "Christianity" that is literally killing people.

While I do not think abortion, homosexuality, or Islam will ever be totally eradicated, what I do know is that I will not, as you, advocate for those things and then call it Christian.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Logical fallacies are common irrational arguments used in discourse that are not valid, or off topic, that are used to try to manipulate others. It is imperative for Christians to avoid logical fallacies when presenting rational arguments (just like Jesus did) because the use of them reveals that what you say is either invalid, dishonest, or both invalid and dishonest in the way it is presented.

As I said, I hardly need you to explain logical fallacies to me, I have debated with atheists that would eat you for lunch.

I am quite content with you illustrating the reason why Christians need to debate and address the issues rather than fall into the same pattern of the world...which is to make excuses for evil.

And you appeal to Christ addressing error after you dismiss any effect of addressing error.

Wouldn't want to "harden the hearts" of those who need no reason but their religion to impose harm on others.

You can keep your tolerance, and good luck with trying to win people with a sugar coated response.

Debaters tend to use logical fallacies all of the time because it is a cheap and easy way to manipulate the audience with technique instead of presenting knowledge and truth.

Yeah, that ranks right up there with posting snide comments and disrupting actual discussion.

I guess you have missed the fact that you are the one appealing to logical fallacies rather than presenting knowledge and truth.

Your defense mechanism is failing. Your gates are coming down.

Knowledge and truth is the last thing anyone with a shred of common sense would correlate to the garbage you have presented.

You reiterate the liberal propaganda that has deceived many, and for this...you have my greatest sympathy.

I am stunned that you think it is “psycho-babble.” Since you are unfamiliar with it, I suggested reading up on it if you aspire to represent Christ before others. Here’s a poster of some of the major ones. Here is a more comprehensive list.

It is psycho-babble.

"Well, Johnny murdered his parents and fourteen others because he simply did not receive the nurture he deserved as a child."

"Well, if someone raises a point then appeal to a logical fallacy you can correlate to the point instead of answering."

Same thing.

"If they say anything negative about anyone...just say ad hominem. Don't worry about addressing whether what they said about you, or the one you are defending...is true or not."


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Noting your logical fallacies is not an “atheist” tactic anymore than having breakfast every morning is an “atheist” ritual. Over thousands of years, thinkers have recognized a number of logical fallacies and have pointed them out to each other. It is part of the philosophical search for truth. Of course, reason can also be employed in rebellion against God, but not without violating those logical fallacies.

Learning about logical fallacies is one of the most valuable training you can have as a thought leader. Please check into it.

How about addressing what I said about logical fallacies.

You seem to have overlooked my address on the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

Have you really convinced yourself that I am not familiar with Logical Fallacies, and you are telling me something I haven't already dealt with in discussion with atheists, who are usually the ones that have to make such an appeal to them?

Any Christian should be embarrassed to have to respond with that kind of respnse, rather than addressing the issues they respond to it with.

Also, I don’t appreciate your threat, “I assure you...not go very well for you.”

Its not a threat, its a promise, based on more discussions than I care to recall.

So if you don't mind, how exactly is this going for you so far?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Anyone who has a trained mind can see right through you novel-like missives.

I have broken up these responses to make it easier for you to cherry-pick.

Your welcome.

They are full of hot air and accusations. While people may get tired of responding, you have not won anything except a battle of endurance.

Great, point out the accusations, the basis for the accusations, and your response to those accusations.

And again, anything to remove a liberal platform...works for me.

If it is because the liberal has no stamina or because he realizes he making himself look foolish is really of no concern of mine.

Massive ad hominem. Two lies for the price of one!

How would anyone know?

Massive ad hominem. Three lies in a row!

How would anyone know?

Ad hominem. I really don’t. The things I know about Trump I have found on HIS website and from his speeches - in context. He is spouting propaganda, but I’m getting it from the source.

So how is it...you are not aware of his Foreign Policy?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Ad hominem. You really want to paint me as an Obama supporter! Do you somehow thing that will make what you say more true? I do not support Obama or his policies, and I never have.

You are an Obama supporter, and you...are the artist.

That you do not realize this makes it all the more clear to what extent the Liberal Agenda has achieved success.

The Clintons have been more centrist than Obama, but I’m not looking forward to another Clinton Presidency.

But at least we won't have a President that will take a traditional position on Foreign Policy, right?

I mean, that abortion thing, that homosexual thing, that Islam thing, secondary issues. I mean, really, Trump has hurt people in business, we really need to take a stand against anyone that has business associates upset with them.

What would the world think if we elected someone like that?

That saddest thing is that you may actually believe the lies you are telling.

Yeah, I do really believe the lie that Obama and Clinton have no problem with the deaths of other people.

I really do believe the lie that you don't either, because you are such a picture of integrity in trying to make sure Trump does not continue in his evil ways as a...

...Capitalist.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

I have to go to work now and won’t have time to respond to any more of your foolishness for awhile. If you decide to respond, take note of what I have said. Stop the ad hominems and the false accusations and maybe we can have a good discussion.

Will do.

Now, if you would point out what is ad hominem and false accusation, then be more than happy to continue examining them.

Here is another promise for you, my friend: the more you talk, while trying to maintain the liberal doctrine you are espousing, the worse it is going to go for you. The more you seek to appeal to that which you have obviously never given any real consideration to...

...the worse it is going to get.

And the more you speak, the more I have to draw on, to compare what you have said, what you are saying, and how that relates to your speech as we continue.

I'm okay with that.

If he wants to shut down this thread, I'm fine with it. My ego is not tied to having the last word or patiently responding to false accusations.

But mine is, right?

Careful, that seems suspiciously like passive aggression.

I'm okay with that too.

Darrell, your responds are essentially accusations combined with logical fallacies.

So you say.

So here is a question for you: is abortion okay?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Occasionally you make a point worth discussing. I posted a couple of links to lists of logical fallacies for your to review.

Great...which point/s are you speaking of?

Can you choose one I can address that will not receive a response of "Ad Hominem!"?

For the sake of Christ, I urge you to end the personal attacks and logical fallacies in your posts.

Your propaganda has nothing to do with Christ or anything that might be considered for His sake.

There is no way you are going to in a ny manner correlate advocating for Islam, abortion, or homosexuality to the Name of Christ.

You are sadly mistaken if you think you will.

And there is no way you are going to deny being an advocate for those things.

I tell you this in advance, for your sake.

I think you have some good things to contribute, but they get lost in all of the junk.

Great. And if I were the kind of person that is actually concerned with how people perceive me, and that impacts what I feel to be truth and knowledge, then perhaps this would mean something to me.

But here it is...I am not here to make friends. I am not here to convince people to agree with Darrell.

If you are going to pull out the Hitler analogy, Trump fits the pattern quite nicely. As I pointed out to Darrell, he's worried about who will be on the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. I'm worried that we won't have a Constitution in a few years.

I have never even mentioned the Supreme Court, except to say "I have never mentioned the Supreme Court."

Go find a logical fallacy for your error here, my friend.

And as far as Trump being a potential Hitler? Well, that potential lies in all men.

What we can say is that Hitler's guilt is not to be thought of as more culpable than the one who supports the deaths of innumerable people. In other words, one shouldn't think that they will fare better than Hitler because the murder they supported didn't take place during wartime.

There is an equable guilt for those who lend support to agendas that result in the deaths of women and children, as well as men. Abortion and homosexuality will kill more people than Hitler ever sould have.

Now, I ask you, if one supports this cause of death, which deaths among them will one...

...not be held accountable for?


God bless.

 

[TCassidy]

If Trump is intending to tamper with the First Amendment, should you not oppose him with the same vigour that people here oppose Clinton's proposed tampering with the Second?

Trump is not proposing tampering with the 1st amendment. He is proposing tightening and enforcing the libel laws. He is proposing holding the media accountable for publishing falsehoods which defame individuals.

Trump's desire to hold the media accountable is an admirable goal. Difficult to attain, but admirable.

If you want to compare it to the 2nd amendment, you would have to say that a person murdering another person with a firearm is constitutionally protected activity. Which, of course, is foolish. His right to keep (own) and bear (carry) firearms is what is protected, but he will still be held accountable for the misuse of that right.

Just as we must hold the media accountable for the misuse of their right to freedom of the press.

 

[Smyth]

Trump is not proposing tampering with the 1st amendment. He is proposing tightening and enforcing the libel laws. He is proposing holding the media accountable for publishing falsehoods which defame individuals.

Regardless of what Trump wants, the highest power in the land is the Supreme Court (the Constitution makes Congress the highest power, but the Constitution is half dead). Trump doesn't have five Activists on the court and hasn't proposed putting an Activist on the court (he has proposed some very good judges). Hillary already has four to-the-wall Leftwing Activists, she just needs to fill that empty seat to deal the fatal blow to the Constitution.

Hillary is far, far worse than Trump in her positions. But, even if Trump were as bad as Hillary, Hillary is in a position to get what she wants (not just the empty seat, but also her experience and connections). Trump is not.

Shame on #NeverTrump followers. Shame. I count them as America's enemies.

 

[Baptist Believer]

My goodness Darrell, you can't let it go. The thread is wisely closed and you create a new one just to counter my arguments. Don't you think enough has been said so that people can make up their own minds?

Some of us have lives and we don't want to spend them in front of the computer responding to random accusations that have no basis in reality. Almost everything you say about me is false and you are unwilling to set aside the personal attacks.

Trying to have a discussion with you is like trying to respond to Trump's Twitter-feed. It is nearly pointless. You disqualify your opinions in the minds of others here every time you accuse.

Let it go.

We have different views on Trump. I HOPE I am wrong about him. If he is elected, I PRAY I will be proven wrong. As a student of history, I am convinced he is an extremely dangerous man for us to elect. I can scarcely stomach the idea of casting a vote in Ms. Clinton's direction, but I am trying to prevent a complete catastrophe. Obviously, you feel differently.

So be it.

Please set aside your need to win every argument.