Who Promotes Propaganda?

[Darrell C]

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:

He quoted Romans 13. The Sheriff is a public servant that was elected to office to serve and protect those who elected him not to rule over them. We do not have kings, rulers or emperors in our republican form of government even though there are some public servants who believe they are our rulers and act accordingly.

In 1st century Rome Caesar was the law in the United States the constitution is the law.

If you'd like to have a debate on Romans 13 then I would ask you nicely to start another thread on that subject where it can be debated without hijacking this thread.

Thank you.

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?

If you'd like to have a debate on Romans 13 then I would ask you nicely to start another thread on that subject where it can be debated without hijacking this thread.

Now what was that first rule of propaganda again?

Oh, here it is:

1) It Prevents Dialogue.

“To be effective, propaganda cannot be concerned with detail... Propaganda ceases where simple dialogue begins… it does not tolerate discussion; by its very nature, it excludes contradiction and discussion.”

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...

The sheriff added that anyone who criticizes the police is defying God, and that this is merely “the ignorance of some people.” He urged officers to “hang in there” while Godless citizens criticize them for punching pregnant women in the belly.

...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.

 

[poncho]

Okay, simple enough

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:

What's interesting is that right off the bat you misrepresent what I said. I asked you to start another thread so as not to derail mine. That is not trying to shut down dialog. It was asking you nicely to move the dialog to another thread.

Look Darrell I have no qualms about having a dialog with you but when you start misrepresenting what I say and making accusations about me and what you assume I believe it makes me think you're more interested in making accusations and puffing yourself up than having a dialog.

In the interest of having a civil debate I'm going to ignore your previous accusations and assumptions about my beliefs. IMHO this confrontational approach isn't worth responding to as nothing positive can come from it. If you can't define your own position without resorting to personal gaffes and condescending statements then I will stop trying to have this dialog with you.

If you can abide by these reasonable requests then we can start over if not tell me now so I don't have to waste my time trying to have a civil discussion.

If you'd care to begin this discussion again minus the personal gaffes and condescending statements then by all means do.

 

[Darrell C]

What's interesting is that right off the bat you misrepresent what I said. I asked you to start another thread so as not to derail mine. That is not trying to shut down dialog. It was asking you nicely to move the dialog to another thread.

Look Darrell I have no qualms about having a dialog with you but when you start misrepresenting what I say and making accusations about me and what you assume I believe it makes me think you're more interested in making accusations and puffing yourself up than having a dialog.

In the interest of having a civil debate I'm going to ignore your previous accusations and assumptions about my beliefs. IMHO this confrontational approach isn't worth responding to as nothing positive can come from it. If you can't define your own position without resorting to personal gaffes and condescending statements then I will stop trying to have this dialog with you.

If you can abide by these reasonable requests then we can start over if not tell me now so I don't have to waste my time trying to have a civil discussion.

If you'd care to begin this discussion again minus the personal gaffes and condescending statements then by all means do.

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.

 

[Alcott]

If a goose thinks her ganda is propa, she will promote him.​

 

[poncho]

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.

The truth is I just don't see the point in trying to have a discussion with someone that can't state or argue his own position without vilifying his opponent which is exactly what are doing here.

I don't care if you change your view or not and you are free to have all the discussions you want in any thread you choose just don't expect me to take part in them when it's obvious you're only interest is to feed your own inflated ego.

Been nice talking with you Darrell. Bye.

 

[Darrell C]

The truth is I just don't see the point in trying to have a discussion with someone that can't state or argue his own position without vilifying his opponent which is exactly what are doing here.

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.

I don't care if you change your view or not and you are free to have all the discussions you want in any thread you choose just don't expect me to take part in them when it's obvious you're only interest is to feed your own inflated ego.

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.

Been nice talking with you Darrell. Bye.

Doesn't sound like it has been so nice.

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


God bless.

 

[poncho]

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.

In my opinion he is wrong. Accusing me of falsely accusing him doesn't prove you are right it only proves you won't think twice about doing the same to me that you are accusing me of doing to him.

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

So now you are distorting what I said and doing your best to vilify a Bible believer, me. There's a word for people like that Darrell and you already applied that word to me at least twice as I recall.

Then...you refused to talk about it.

No I refused to talk to you because you can't seem to support your position without resorting to personal gaffes and accusations.

You still refuse to talk about it.

No, I'd be happy to talk about it. But it's quite evident from your posts that you're more interested in making accusations and vilifying me than having a discussion about what the Sheriff did. You don't really want to talk about the Sheriff you're just using that as an excuse to vilify me.

Why should I go along with that Darrell? That would be akin to me tying myself to a pole and begging you to whip me bloody. No thanks, I'm not a masochist. I told you if you could act like a grown up I'd be happy to have this discussion with you but so far all you've done is make excuses as to why you don't have to act like a grown up.

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.

The propaganda technique you are using right now on me is called "character assassination". You're mad because I refuse to try to have a discussion with you after you refused my request for you to act civil during the discussion and now instead of trying to act civil you've chosen to attack my character instead, rather crudely too I might add.

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.

Yes you started a new thread then proceeded to misrepresent what I said, making accusations and acting like a "know it all". Maybe you should try acting more civil towards others then maybe you won't come off sounding so childish and rude.

I raised three children including my two younger brothers, I never gave in to their temper tantrums then and I see no reason to give in to your's now. If that makes me a "bad person" in your book that's fine I can live with it.

Doesn't sound like it has been so nice.

It could have been nicer if you had agreed to play nice.

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

You should give us all a break and act more like the Godly person you claim to be.

God bless.

Same to you.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell C said: ↑
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.
Click to expand...

In my opinion he is wrong. Accusing me of falsely accusing him doesn't prove you are right it only proves you won't think twice about doing the same to me that you are accusing me of doing to him.

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...

The sheriff added that anyone who criticizes the police is defying God, and that this is merely “the ignorance of some people.” He urged officers to “hang in there” while Godless citizens criticize them for punching pregnant women in the belly.

...on.

I asked you to do this before:

Can you tell me if this...

The sheriff added that anyone who criticizes the police is defying God, and that this is merely “the ignorance of some people.” He urged officers to “hang in there” while Godless citizens criticize them for punching pregnant women in the belly.

...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.

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:

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:


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.

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...

 

[Darrell C]

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

So now you are distorting what I said and doing your best to vilify a Bible believer, me. There's a word for people like that Darrell and you already applied that word to me at least twice as I recall.

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

He quoted Romans 13. The Sheriff is a public servant that was elected to office to serve and protect those who elected him not to rule over them. We do not have kings, rulers or emperors in our republican form of government even though there are some public servants who believe they are our rulers and act accordingly.

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...

Could you show me the Scripture the Sherriff quoted and why his view about that is in error?

The response?

He quoted Romans 13. The Sheriff is a public servant that was elected to office to serve and protect those who elected him not to rule over them. We do not have kings, rulers or emperors in our republican form of government even though there are some public servants who believe they are our rulers and act accordingly.

In 1st century Rome Caesar was the law in the United States the constitution is the law.

If you'd like to have a debate on Romans 13 then I would ask you nicely to start another thread on that subject where it can be debated without hijacking this thread.

Thank you.

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.

Then...you refused to talk about it.
Click to expand...

No I refused to talk to you because you can't seem to support your position without resorting to personal gaffes and accusations.

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

Here it is again:

Could you show me the Scripture the Sherriff quoted and why his view about that is in error?

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.

You still refuse to talk about it.
Click to expand...

No, I'd be happy to talk about it. But it's quite evident from your posts that you're more interested in making accusations and vilifying me than having a discussion about what the Sheriff did.

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 don't really want to talk about the Sheriff you're just using that as an excuse to vilify me.

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...

 

[Darrell C]

Why should I go along with that Darrell?

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.

That would be akin to me tying myself to a pole and begging you to whip me bloody. No thanks, I'm not a masochist. I told you if you could act like a grown up I'd be happy to have this discussion with you but so far all you've done is make excuses as to why you don't have to act like a grown up.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

The propaganda technique you are using right now on me is called "character assassination".

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

The sheriff added that anyone who criticizes the police is defying God, and that this is merely “the ignorance of some people.” He urged officers to “hang in there” while Godless citizens criticize them for punching pregnant women in the belly.

I'd say that qualifies as character assassination.

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

You're mad because I refuse to try to have a discussion with you after you refused my request for you to act civil during the discussion and now instead of trying to act civil you've chosen to attack my character instead, rather crudely too I might add.

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?

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.

Click to expand...

Yes you started a new thread then proceeded to misrepresent what I said,

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.

making accusations and acting like a "know it all".

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.

Maybe you should try acting more civil towards others then maybe you won't come off sounding so childish and rude.

You mean like this...

He quoted Romans 13. The Sheriff is a public servant that was elected to office to serve and protect those who elected him not to rule over them. We do not have kings, rulers or emperors in our republican form of government even though there are some public servants who believe they are our rulers and act accordingly.

In 1st century Rome Caesar was the law in the United States the constitution is the law.

If you'd like to have a debate on Romans 13 then I would ask you nicely to start another thread on that subject where it can be debated without hijacking this thread.

Thank you.

...?

I raised three children including my two younger brothers, I never gave in to their temper tantrums then and I see no reason to give in to your's now. If that makes me a "bad person" in your book that's fine I can live with it.

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.

Doesn't sound like it has been so nice.

Click to expand...

It could have been nicer if you had agreed to play nice.

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:

What's interesting is that right off the bat you misrepresent what I said. I asked you to start another thread so as not to derail mine. That is not trying to shut down dialog. It was asking you nicely to move the dialog to another thread.

Look Darrell I have no qualms about having a dialog with you but when you start misrepresenting what I say and making accusations about me and what you assume I believe it makes me think you're more interested in making accusations and puffing yourself up than having a dialog.

In the interest of having a civil debate I'm going to ignore your previous accusations and assumptions about my beliefs. IMHO this confrontational approach isn't worth responding to as nothing positive can come from it. If you can't define your own position without resorting to personal gaffes and condescending statements then I will stop trying to have this dialog with you.

If you can abide by these reasonable requests then we can start over if not tell me now so I don't have to waste my time trying to have a civil discussion.

If you'd care to begin this discussion again minus the personal gaffes and condescending statements then by all means do.

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...

1) It Prevents Dialogue.

“To be effective, propaganda cannot be concerned with detail... Propaganda ceases where simple dialogue begins… it does not tolerate discussion; by its very nature, it excludes contradiction and discussion.”

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

Click to expand...

You should give us all a break

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.

and act more like the Godly person you claim to be.

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

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

God bless.

Click to expand...

Same to you.

Hey thanks!

God bless.

 

[carpro]

The truth is I just don't see the point in trying to have a discussion with someone that can't state or argue his own position without vilifying his opponent which is exactly what are doing here.

Now, Poncho, just in the interest of balance. You do this a lot yourself.

Taking the high road now looks a little odd in view of the fact you take the low road so often.

So, on to other things while you 2 fight this out.

 

[poncho]

Now, Poncho, just in the interest of balance. You do this a lot yourself.

Taking the high road now looks a little odd in view of the fact you take the low road so often.

So, on to other things while you 2 fight this out.

There comes at time when enough is enough Carpro. My problem was I let people like Darrell get to me. I'm trying to act more mature these days and ignore the insulters and personal attackers on the board. I'm new at it so it's gonna take practice.

I would like to have a discussion about this Sheriff where as Darrell wants to have a discussion about me.

Where I failed here is giving him the debate he really wants. I shouldn't have sunk to his level of debate. I guess I was hoping we could have a civil discussion about this Sheriff but I see now that's not possible.

My apologies to the readerrs.

Darrell in our brief interactions you have shown me that no matter what I say or how sound my evidence is you'll twist fact and reason out of all proportion. You'll claim black is white and up is down you don't hesitate to use insults and smear tactics against your opponent.

Look the truth is I think it's foolish to even try to have to have a discussion with someone like that. At one time as Carpro reminded me I would have sat here and traded insult for insult with you all week but these days I don't see the point.

The bottom line here is I no longer wish to act like you Darrell.

And I have you to thank for helping me finally realize that. I started reading your posts and I thought no this Darrell guy reminds me of me.

I thought if I come across like that I don't want to be that person anymore

So thanks for your help and I hope you get better someday too.: )

 

[Berean]

The Bible is the greatest propaganda of all. It simply propagates the gospel.

 

[poncho]

The Bible is the greatest propaganda of all. It simply propagates the gospel.

That's the truth but people have been using it for both good and for evil.

Romans 13 in my opinion is the most misunderstood, misinterpreted, misapplied and misused section of scripture in the Bible. Tyrants that have inflicted unspeakable atrocities on mankind have held up Romans 13 as proof their authority to kill and destroy and or enslave their fellow man is ordained by God and therefore we are disobeying God if we resist their power.

Like this Sheriff (a minor tyrant) who claims . . .

that anyone who criticizes the police is defying God, and that this is merely “the ignorance of some people.

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

How dare these Godless citizens be critical of a cop that would punch a pregnant woman in the stomach? Apparently this type of behavior is in line with department policies. If that be the case then I would say the department policy needs to change. And if this Sheriff were a "Bible believer" as he is holding himself up to be then I have to ask where in the Bible does it give him or his deputies the authority to punch pregnant women?

For that matter where is it written in the law?

No, people have to obey the law. When the Sheriff is acting in accordance with the law and treating people with respect then he deserves respect and the support of the people but when he is acting outside or above the law and treating people like serfs then he deserves neither.

He should be replaced.

Same goes for those under his authority when his deputies are acting in accordance with the law and treating people with respect then they deserve respect and the support of the people but when they are acting outside or above the law and using pregnant women for punching bags then they deserve neither.

They should be replaced.

That's my opinion and calling me crazy or ridiculous for having that opinion isn't going to change it.

 

[Darrell C]

The Bible is the greatest propaganda of all. It simply propagates the gospel.

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.

 

[Darrell C]

There comes at time when enough is enough Carpro. My problem was I let people like Darrell get to me. I'm trying to act more mature these days and ignore the insulters and personal attackers on the board. I'm new at it so it's gonna take practice.

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

I would like to have a discussion about this Sheriff where as Darrell wants to have a discussion about me.

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...

Could you show me the Scripture the Sherriff quoted and why his view about that is in error?


God bless.

He quoted Romans 13. The Sheriff is a public servant that was elected to office to serve and protect those who elected him not to rule over them. We do not have kings, rulers or emperors in our republican form of government even though there are some public servants who believe they are our rulers and act accordingly.

In 1st century Rome Caesar was the law in the United States the constitution is the law.

If you'd like to have a debate on Romans 13 then I would ask you nicely to start another thread on that subject where it can be debated without hijacking this thread.

Thank you.

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.

Where I failed here is giving him the debate he really wants. I shouldn't have sunk to his level of debate. I guess I was hoping we could have a civil discussion about this Sheriff but I see now that's not possible.

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:

What's interesting is that right off the bat you misrepresent what I said. I asked you to start another thread so as not to derail mine. That is not trying to shut down dialog. It was asking you nicely to move the dialog to another thread.

Look Darrell I have no qualms about having a dialog with you but when you start misrepresenting what I say and making accusations about me and what you assume I believe it makes me think you're more interested in making accusations and puffing yourself up than having a dialog.

In the interest of having a civil debate I'm going to ignore your previous accusations and assumptions about my beliefs. IMHO this confrontational approach isn't worth responding to as nothing positive can come from it. If you can't define your own position without resorting to personal gaffes and condescending statements then I will stop trying to have this dialog with you.

If you can abide by these reasonable requests then we can start over if not tell me now so I don't have to waste my time trying to have a civil discussion.

If you'd care to begin this discussion again minus the personal gaffes and condescending statements then by all means do.

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.

My apologies to the readerrs.

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...

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell in our brief interactions you have shown me that no matter what I say or how sound my evidence is you'll twist fact and reason out of all proportion. You'll claim black is white and up is down you don't hesitate to use insults and smear tactics against your opponent.

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

The sheriff added that anyone who criticizes the police is defying God, and that this is merely “the ignorance of some people.” He urged officers to “hang in there” while Godless citizens criticize them for punching pregnant women in the belly.

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...

 

[Darrell C]

pornography removed

You show your heart, and it is evil.

 

[Darrell C]

Look the truth is I think it's foolish to even try to have to have a discussion with someone like that. At one time as Carpro reminded me I would have sat here and traded insult for insult with you all week but these days I don't see the point.

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.

The bottom line here is I no longer wish to act like you Darrell.

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.

And I have you to thank for helping me finally realize that. I started reading your posts and I thought no this Darrell guy reminds me of me.

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.

I thought if I come across like that I don't want to be that person anymore

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

So thanks for your help and I hope you get better someday too.: )

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.

 

[Darrell C]

Berean said: ↑
The Bible is the greatest propaganda of all. It simply propagates the gospel.

That's the truth but people have been using it for both good and for evil.

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.

Romans 13 in my opinion is the most misunderstood, misinterpreted, misapplied and misused section of scripture in the Bible.

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

Tyrants that have inflicted unspeakable atrocities on mankind have held up Romans 13 as proof their authority to kill and destroy and or enslave their fellow man is ordained by God and therefore we are disobeying God if we resist their power.

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...