Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Trump declares himself above the law.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Charles
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    Well for starters you could not
    1. Assume that Trump is evil incarnate
    2. That anyone who voted for Trump must support everything he does.
    3. Declare that no good Christian can follow someone as evil as Trump.
    That should be easy. I have never seen him assume any of the three. I cannot believe you wrote the last one as a reply to a post in which he wrote: "It seems that with many of you "This is not Christian" becomes "You are not a 'true' Christian", And I never intend it that way, nor is it what I think when I am bringing up the issues."

    The lack of a fair answer and a fair presentation of his points is a strange thing to watch. It seems you simply cannot adress his points in the form in which he shares them and so you need to find ways to turn it into something else. For those of us who follow these posts it is rather obvious. With MM it has been extremely obvious.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    I am not sure how to make progress, but I appreciate you are trying. There is nothing in this post that is offensive to me or that strikes me as a being personal attacks, so maybe we are on the right track.

    One thing that puzzles me though is that what I perceived as me trying to point out an issue that I perceive as a conflict with our shared Christian faith is almost universally taken as an attack on the legitimacy of your actual Christian faith. And at this point I'm still not sure how to get around that. It seems that with many of you "This is not Christian" becomes "You are not a 'true' Christian", And I never intend it that way, nor is it what I think when I am bringing up the issues.


    So how do we transcend that gap? For example, immigration is an issue where this sort of thing has come up. What the Bible teaches about how we are to treat a foreign person, about how we are to respond to 'aliens' who are in our land, those in need, those in prison, are very much in conflict with how Trump wants to address the issue, and I don't understand how a Christian can fully support Trump's approach without burying or ignoring scripture on those issues.

    So - let's suppose we were just starting a conversation on that. What way could that subject be discussed without it devolving into a perceived attack on the legitimacy of your faith?



    Jim

    Well for starters you could not
    1. Assume that Trump is evil incarnate
    2. That anyone who voted for Trump must support everything he does.
    3. Declare that no good Christian can follow someone as evil as Trump.

    Because that is what you have been doing, and we see that as you accusing us of not being good Christians. The fact is, many of the things you believe Trump has done, we don't believe he has done them, or that what he is done is actually the way the left has characterized it. Or we believe that despite him doing some things bad, Hillary was worse.

    An example:

    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    This is not an accusation. It is a question. My goal is to get all of us to ask the question. My expectation is that most would react as you have. But in asking the question I hope to remind all of us that name the name of Christ who we are. We can't ally ourselves with evil, no matter who it comes from, no matter what they promise in terms of the things of the world The biggest difference between Donald Trump and Obama and Hillary is that Christians are allying themselves with his form of evil and diluting their call to be salt and light in the world to get what they want out of their government. To quote Paul: "We are not of this world". And we can't compromise Christ's teachings to get what we want out of it.


    Jim
    There are a whole mountain of assumptions in that post of yours.

    Recognize that we don't see things the same way you do and we disagree on Trump. That doesn't mean we are supporting evil, or are not good Christians. And we don't need you preaching to us about morality.

    Avoid all that and we will get along fine.

    Like I said, my brother and I disagree about politics and we don't consider each other evil or unchristian. We might each think the other is a bit deluded and wrong, but we can live with that.

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    Or maybe the people you are asking just want to please you?

    Jim, I actually try NOT to disagree with you as much as possible, because I have seen how you react. You take anything said as a personal attack. I am sure you think this post is one too. I try not to respond to you at all unless you respond to me first. And I try to be as polite to you as possible. I don't see this as an attack on you, for instance. I am just trying to explain how I and others see your posts. I am being truthful and honest and not trying to insult you.

    I and several others, including MM, Teal, Cow Poke, and One Bad Pig have pointed out when you have made comments that looks like you are questioning our Christianity when we disagree with you about Trump. We have pointed it out to you at the time you did it, so I am not going to try to go back and find it like MM did, because I remember when we did point it out, you took it as an attack, when what we were doing was pointing out how you were attacking us.

    (BTW - In the example MM gave, I don't think you were questioning my Christianity when you said I was close to blaspheming. I think you just misunderstood what my point was, but you could have asked.)

    I am sure this post will not change anything, but maybe it will cause you to pause the next time you insinuate that we are not following Christ just because we disagree with you or don't condemn Trump for something you think he did but we don't.

    No, we are not all out to get you, and we don't have a groupthink going on. In fact, at this point I would rather not interact with you at all because I know you will get upset and I still like you personally. I don't like the person you seem to have become in the Civics area. And it isn't just because we disagree about Trump. I get along with others who are democrats or liberals, in fact one of my brothers is very liberal and a Trump hater, and we get along fine. I am sure we would in person too, but here on Tweb, we don't seem to. And I am sad about that. So I will continue to try to avoid interacting with you in civics unless you respond to me first.
    I am not sure how to make progress, but I appreciate you are trying. There is nothing in this post that is offensive to me or that strikes me as a being personal attacks, so maybe we are on the right track.

    One thing that puzzles me though is that what I perceived as me trying to point out an issue that I perceive as a conflict with our shared Christian faith is almost universally taken as an attack on the legitimacy of your actual Christian faith. And at this point I'm still not sure how to get around that. It seems that with many of you "This is not Christian" becomes "You are not a 'true' Christian", And I never intend it that way, nor is it what I think when I am bringing up the issues.


    So how do we transcend that gap? For example, immigration is an issue where this sort of thing has come up. What the Bible teaches about how we are to treat a foreign person, about how we are to respond to 'aliens' who are in our land, those in need, those in prison, are very much in conflict with how Trump wants to address the issue, and I don't understand how a Christian can fully support Trump's approach without burying or ignoring scripture on those issues.

    So - let's suppose we were just starting a conversation on that. What way could that subject be discussed without it devolving into a perceived attack on the legitimacy of your faith?



    Jim

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Were these "independent third parties" someone like Chuck who is predisposed to take your side?

    Oh, and I appreciate the passive-aggressive dig implying that anybody who doesn't agree with you is in some way not normal. Thought you could slip that one by us, did you?
    Sorry about that. But honestly, the way some of you guys interpret what I say simply is just not normal. No insult intended, but I imagine that simple fact would not be particularly flattering.


    Jim

    Leave a comment:


  • Charles
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Like I said, people can read his original posts for themselves, or they can accept his post hoc rationalizations.

    That's the last I will say about it.
    And that was yet another claim you did not support. And a precondition for your claim is that his words are rationalizations. You have been completely unable to show why or how. You have simply claimed they were with no reasons at all. He showed exactly why he found your statements wrong.

    So your last word on it is to simply presuppose that you are right without providing reasons? Interesting... But feel free to let it be your last word if you cannot provide anything of substance.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Chuckles View Post
    Since Ox showed you exactly why your statements regarding the three examples were wrong...
    Like I said, people can read his original posts for themselves, or they can accept his post hoc rationalizations.

    That's the last I will say about it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charles
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Were these "independent third parties" someone like Chuck who is predisposed to take your side?

    Oh, and I appreciate the passive-aggressive dig implying that anybody who doesn't agree with you is in some way not normal. Thought you could slip that one by us, did you?
    Since Ox showed you exactly why your statements regarding the three examples were wrong, you have not been able to provide any reasons, any line of analysis of his words or any detailed description supporting your case.

    You have been making claims that you have not been able to support. It seems you are not even trying to provide anything rational for the discussion to support your case. If you want to try to confront it with reasons and arguments then go back to this post and explain why Ox was wrong: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post670984

    If you cannot do that there is no need to answer this post.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Just read the three examples and MM's take on it. Any normal person I have asked to read it to check my own objectivity (now there is a thought - get an independent third party to look at what you've done) has seen exactly what I'm pointing out regarding them.

    And I will continue to point out when you guys go into left field reading my posts. It's just a matter of being objective about it Sparko and taking the risk of finding out if there is something subjective twisting your understanding. The number of times I've been amazed at myself on this by revisiting my own words has been informative.

    But it requires you take the risk of finding out you are wrong.

    Jim
    Or maybe the people you are asking just want to please you?

    Jim, I actually try NOT to disagree with you as much as possible, because I have seen how you react. You take anything said as a personal attack. I am sure you think this post is one too. I try not to respond to you at all unless you respond to me first. And I try to be as polite to you as possible. I don't see this as an attack on you, for instance. I am just trying to explain how I and others see your posts. I am being truthful and honest and not trying to insult you.

    I and several others, including MM, Teal, Cow Poke, and One Bad Pig have pointed out when you have made comments that looks like you are questioning our Christianity when we disagree with you about Trump. We have pointed it out to you at the time you did it, so I am not going to try to go back and find it like MM did, because I remember when we did point it out, you took it as an attack, when what we were doing was pointing out how you were attacking us.

    (BTW - In the example MM gave, I don't think you were questioning my Christianity when you said I was close to blaspheming. I think you just misunderstood what my point was, but you could have asked.)

    I am sure this post will not change anything, but maybe it will cause you to pause the next time you insinuate that we are not following Christ just because we disagree with you or don't condemn Trump for something you think he did but we don't.

    No, we are not all out to get you, and we don't have a groupthink going on. In fact, at this point I would rather not interact with you at all because I know you will get upset and I still like you personally. I don't like the person you seem to have become in the Civics area. And it isn't just because we disagree about Trump. I get along with others who are democrats or liberals, in fact one of my brothers is very liberal and a Trump hater, and we get along fine. I am sure we would in person too, but here on Tweb, we don't seem to. And I am sad about that. So I will continue to try to avoid interacting with you in civics unless you respond to me first.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Just read the three examples and MM's take on it. Any normal person I have asked to read it to check my own objectivity (now there is a thought - get an independent third party to look at what you've done) has seen exactly what I'm pointing out regarding them.
    Were these "independent third parties" someone like Chuck who is predisposed to take your side?

    Oh, and I appreciate the passive-aggressive dig implying that anybody who doesn't agree with you is in some way not normal. Thought you could slip that one by us, did you?

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    You know how paranoid that sounds?
    Just read the three examples and MM's take on it. Any normal person I have asked to read it to check my own objectivity (now there is a thought - get an independent third party to look at what you've done) has seen exactly what I'm pointing out regarding them.

    And I will continue to point out when you guys go into left field reading my posts. It's just a matter of being objective about it Sparko and taking the risk of finding out if there is something subjective twisting your understanding. The number of times I've been amazed at myself on this by revisiting my own words has been informative.

    But it requires you take the risk of finding out you are wrong.

    Jim

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    It doesn't mean anything here. There is some sort of very odd group think thing that goes on here within the subgroup I sometimes refer to as the peanut gallery. None of them can read my posts and understand my posts. It always gets twisted up in very bizarre ways. I rely on those I trust to read my posts and I ask them what I said. They usually tell me what I thought I said. They have also helped me to understand some of the things that have set you guys off, and I'm working to correct those as much as possible. But there is nothing I can do that will correct the sort of gross misunderstanding and/or distortions of my words that are reflected in MM's characterizations in the three examples and what I actually said.

    Jim
    You know how paranoid that sounds?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by dirtfloor View Post
    The GOP and the Christian Right, have made Trump their god.
    In Trump We Trust

    Leave a comment:


  • firstfloor
    replied
    The GOP and the Christian Right, have made Trump their god.

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    I'm not sure if my point simply went over your head, or if you ducked.
    I was addressing the part of your post addressed by charles. Your final comment is something I have no means to address at this point. It regards a comment not addressed to any specific person. Hence it is not relevant in the context of my response to cp which is a suggestion for a positive way forward regarding our one on one interactions.

    Jim

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Actually, there is no correlation between the percieved legitimacy of the concern and personal attacks. Personal attacks as a first response are never necessary.

    In fact, if one attacks rather than first discussing. It prevents or at least makes very difficult any learning or correction if one is in error - on both sides.

    Jim
    I'm not sure if my point simply went over your head, or if you ducked.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by seer, 04-21-2024, 01:11 PM
67 responses
392 views
0 likes
Last Post eider
by eider
 
Started by seer, 04-19-2024, 02:09 PM
10 responses
149 views
0 likes
Last Post seer
by seer
 
Started by seanD, 04-19-2024, 01:25 PM
2 responses
57 views
0 likes
Last Post seanD
by seanD
 
Started by VonTastrophe, 04-19-2024, 08:53 AM
21 responses
178 views
0 likes
Last Post oxmixmudd  
Started by seer, 04-18-2024, 01:12 PM
37 responses
268 views
0 likes
Last Post Sam
by Sam
 
Working...
X