Impossible To Simultaneously Be A Democrat And A Christian. The Democratic Party Is Anti-Christian

Grafix

That the best you can muster, Killbot?  A LOL vote?  Not prepared to debate the very notion you floated?

Happy_Killbot

https://christiandemocratsofamerica.org/

Grafix

You waste space.  Where do I argue there are no Democrats who claim to be Christians?  That's my very beef, that there are Democrats who claim to be Christians, but how can they be truly Christians, given the Democratic Party's political platform is quintessentially anti-Christian?

Grafix

Another vote, but no comment?  What are you afraid of?

Happy_Killbot

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

Grafix

???  So your response is an advertisement for "Super Thinking" accompanied by the definition of a logical fallacy?  OK.  Argue the logical fallacy you claim I engage.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Grafix said:

You waste space.  Where do I argue there are no Democrats who claim to be Christians?  That's my very beef, that there are Democrats who claim to be Christians, but how can they be truly Christians, given the Democratic Party's political platform is quintessentially anti-Christian?

THE TITLE

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - This is the Title ...

Impossible To Simultaneously Be A Democrat And A Christian. The Democratic Party Is Anti-Christian

That does not mean that there are no people who THINK they are Christians, who call themselves Christians and who vote for the Democratic Party, does it?  Although they THINK they are Christians, my argument is that they cannot be true Christians, because the Party they vote for is anti-Christian, by virtue of its political platform.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Grafix said:

@Happy_Killbot - This is the Title ...

Impossible To Simultaneously Be A Democrat And A Christian. The Democratic Party Is Anti-Christian

That does not mean that there are no people who THINK they are Christians, who call themselves Christians and who vote for the Democratic Party, does it?  Although they THINK they are Christians, my argument is that they cannot be true Christians, because the Party they vote for is anti-Christian, by virtue of its political platform.

That is a no true Scotsman fallacy, consider the example from https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Example: Angus declares that Scotsmen do not put sugar on their porridge, to which Lachlan points out that he is a Scotsman and puts sugar on his porridge. Furious, like a true Scot, Angus yells that no true Scotsman sugars his porridge.

Now lets splice in your argument:

Example: Grafix declares that Democrats are anti-Christians, to which Happy_K points out that there are Christian who are Democrats. Furious, like a true Scot, Grafix yells that no true Christian is a Democrat.

Please, try to use logic and reason.

Grafix

LOL!  So on the face of it, your argument is that The Democrat Party is so lowly, that all it represents is the non-political Agenda of porridge?  I think that's a pretty poor analogy, given porridge is simply porridge, no ifs, no buts.  Conversely, can we argue that The Democrat Party is what it purports to be?  Simply a Democratic Party?  I don't think so.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix No,all I did was just dismissed your argument for being predicated on a logical fallacy...

Which you continue to make!
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Another down vote?  That all you got in your wee bag of arrows?  Can't defend your own notion that God is Satan?  Can't defend your own Party and its primary donor class, notorious for engaging in Satanic rituals - NXIVM - a very large donor of Hillary's campaign both for Senator and again later for the Presidency.  Then the Middle Eastern ruling class money pouring in from those known for their child bride marriages - paedophilia simply legalised by marriage.  Similarly, Epstein also a huge donor of Democratic Party candidates and the Clinton Foundation.  The list of unenlightened obscenely wealthy individuals which support this political Pary is 'UGE, yet they pretend to be the Party for the workers????  Really????  Here's just one example below ....  (Remember, porridge is just porridge)

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic

The fact that the DNC has donors who are not Christians does not mean that the DNC is anti-Christian.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You wrote:

The fact that the DNC has donors who are not Christians does not mean that the DNC is anti-Christian.

True.  But that is not the premise of the argument being made.  The argument is backed up by an evidentiary anti-Christian political platform, coupled with the loud anti-Christian and anti-Constitution rhetoric proclaimed by its Party elect and its political class.  Tell me that's not true.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix You should probably stop for you own sake.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

If you think the DNC is an anti-Christian political platform and anti-Constitution, you have to provide evidence for that. Right now there is none.

BTW i'm not a Democrat or in any way affiliated with the Democratic party.

Grafix

OK.  I don't give a rat's arse what you vote for.  Doesn't change the problematic condition of the Democratic Party's platform, does it?  I pointed to just one major piece of evidence in my topic text ...

Witness the political Agenda of opening our borders to nations which teach that we are infidels to be slaughtered for our Christian beliefs.  Look then carefully at who argues justifications for violating our Constitution and who it is who maligns, vilifies and ridicules Christians.  Look then at who brutally slaughters Christians, daily.  Look at who defends their cousins, even when illegally on our soil.  Tell me then that the Democratic Party doesn't indirectly support our slaughter, with its border policies, its sanctuary cities, its driver licence I.D.'s enabling voting by these same illegal immigrants from these same nations, trading our pro-Christian, pro-American votes for votes from cultures responsible for our slaughter abroad and that there is no Agenda here.

We can add how religious church ministries were prevented from contributing donations to political candidates of any ilk.  Trump has since reversed that.  We could discuss the anti-business 700 + very oppressive Regulations which Obama imposed upon small businesses, sending many to the wall in bankruptcy, while supporting big crony-capitalism.  Trump struck every one of those egregious Regulations down and look what happened.  New businesses opening up everywhere, offering the likes of you and your mates new jobs.

We could discuss the fallacy of Gay Marriage which Obama enacted and which flouted the law - The Marriage Act.  We could discuss how the Democratic Party supports transgenders speaking to little kids in libraries and the whole LGBQT brigade or how someone like Milo Yiannopoulos, a very accomplished, witty public speaker who toured the U.K. and the U.S. as an advocate for Conservatism and Christianity, was banned from speaking at Leftie University campuses after the leftie brigade set fire to University property, objecting to Universities giving him a public speaking platform, although he is GAY!  There's your innocuous "porridge" again, only supportive of an Agenda, not sticking to its Party line with what the Party preaches, eh?  Although Milo is gay and the left supposedly champions gays and gay rights, it seems Milo suddenly lost his right to speak freely at Universities across America, all because he wasn't gonna say what the leftie Luddites wanted to hear.  That's democratic?  Yeah right.  

I could go on and on with the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party and how it is anything but innocuous "porridge".  Still think you have a logical fallacy, somewhere in there?  Sheesh.

ZeusAres42

Grafix said:

LOL!  So on the face of it, your argument is that The Democrat Party is so lowly, that all it represents is the non-political Agenda of porridge?  I think that's a pretty poor analogy, given porridge is simply porridge, no ifs, no buts.  Conversely, can we argue that The Democrat Party is what it purports to be?  Simply a Democratic Party?  I don't think so.

No, @Happy_Killbot did not say this or imply it. He was giving you an example of what the no true Scotsman fallacy was. 

Here is another example. One that I created myself:

Bob: "where is your yanaka Jim?"

Jim: "I don't feel like wearing it just now."

Bob: "A true Jew always wears his yanaka."

Grafix

@ZeusAres42 = You wrote ....

No, @Happy_Killbot did not say this or imply it. He was giving you an example of what the no true Scotsman fallacy was. 

I responded that he was using a poor analogy, which he was, because porridge is innocuous, incapable of having a clandestine Agenda,  porridge being simply porridge.  An analogy is supposed to offer the same equivalents, but his does not, because a political party is anything but innocuous and always has an Agenda, in some cases a secret Agenda, which is exactly what I am accusing the Democratic Party of having.  It has sold out its original platform for the Agenda of its donor class, in exchange for campaign funding and donations.  I don't see how porridge is capable of doing that.

Your analogy is not even close.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

We can add how religious church ministries were prevented by Obama from contributing donations to political candidates of any ilk.  Trump has since reversed that. 

Doing so is in direct violation of the first amendment to the Constitution. And to say Trump has reversed the Johnson amendment is mostly false.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/jul/18/donald-trump/trump-claims-he-got-rid-johnson-amendment-true/

We could discuss the anti-business 700 + very oppressive Regulations which Obama imposed upon small businesses, sending many to the wall in bankruptcy, while supporting big crony-capitalism. Trump struck every one of those egregious Regulations down and look what happened.  New businesses opening up everywhere, offering the likes of you and your mates new jobs.

This is irrelevant to the discussion. Businesses opening or closing has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

We could discuss the fallacy of Gay Marriage which Obama enacted and which flouted the law - The Marriage Act. We could discuss how the Democratic Party supports transgenders speaking to little kids in libraries and the whole LGBQT brigade or how someone like Milo Yiannopoulos, a very accomplished, witty public speaker who toured the U.K. and the U.S. as an advocate for Conservatism and Christianity, was banned from speaking at Leftie University campuses after the leftie brigade set fire to University property, objecting to Universities giving him a public speaking platform, although he is GAY! 

Contrary to popular belief, the bible actually allows for homosexual relations. I am no expert on this topic, but an old member of this site (a bisexual Christian) did direct me to resources that I will present as evidence against the conception that Christianity must be anti-LGBTQ.
https://www.rmnetwork.org/newrmn/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Booklet-about-Homosexuality-and-the-Bible-Sept.-2016.pdf

There's your innocuous "porridge" again, only supportive of an Agenda, not sticking to its Party line with what the Party preaches, eh?  Although Milo is gay and the left supposedly champions gays and gay rights, it seems Milo suddenly lost his right to speak freely at Universities across America, all because he wasn't gonna say what the leftie Luddites wanted to hear.  That's democratic?  Yeah right.  

You did say that this individual incited violence during protests. The US constitution gives the right to peaceful protest, but if they turn violent then the law must do what it is purposed to do. The DNC has revoked ties with him for this reason, that is perfectly acceptable because the DNC would not want to be dealing with such an individual. Just because one person associated with a group has certain beliefs, does not mean everyone in the group holds those same beliefs.

This is itself yet another fallacy:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division

I could go on and on with the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party and how it is anything but innocuous "porridge".  Still think you have a logical fallacy, somewhere in there?  Sheesh.

So far you have yet to make a single statement that was logically sound, or for that matter made a sound argument at all.

ZeusAres42

@Grafix your latest responses about porridge was a strawma fallacy. I've been seeing a lot of those today. 

Just for fun here is a strawman I have deliberately created:

John: " I believe in the the theory of evolution."

Jim: " How dare you compare the whole human race to a bunch of monkeys"

Debra doesn't seem to like the word monkeys for some reason haha.

MayCaesar

Far more wars were fought over what Christianity denomination or what Muslim denomination is right, than over whether Christianity or Islam is right. That speaks a lot about the nature of organised religion: it has little to do with seeking truth or making people happy, and a lot to do with controlling them and pitting them against each other, while the powerful clergy is enjoying a lavish sinful lifestyle.

Islam has not been reformed significantly over the past 1,500 years, but Christianity has, multiple times - and still we have a lot of Christians who call other Christians "not true Christians". Muslims do the same with regards to other Muslims; socialists do the same with regards to other Socialists... All these totalitarian ideologies excel at this kind of thing.

I am so, so unbelievably grateful to my parents who taught me to be critical of everything from a very young age, especially various ideologies. My life would have turned out very differently if I were one of these folks constantly picking on everyone over ideological differences; I would be a hateful and toxic person, my social circle would consist of similar people, and I would be constantly stressed over the world not bending to my will. Tribal thinking is cancerous, and organised religion is one of the best promoters of it.

ZeusAres42

With all that being said what I said before if we accept the premise that the whole democratic party is anti Christian then we also have to accept that it would be rather odd for a person to claim that they are a devoted Christian as well as a member of the democratic party. Wouldn't we?

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You wrote 

Doing so is in direct violation of the first amendment to the Constitution. And to say Trump has reversed the Johnson amendment is mostly false.

I agree the Johnson Amendment is a violation to the First Amendment, but they somehow got around that by linking it to Tax Exemptions.  What Tax has to do with free speech, God only knows.  Lyndon Johnson introduced it in 1954 as a Democratic Senator. He was upset because several churches attacked him for his Communist ideas and rhetoric, expressed in his Senate campaign.  It had been OK for churches to have political rights for centuries, but then along comes a butt-hurt Senator, who decides he doesn't like what they have to say about him and shuts them up with a new law.  I think it's excellent proof of the lawless hypocrisy of the Democrat Party. 

Republicans have been trying to repeal the Johnson Law ever since.  I agree that Trump's Executive Order has no power to completely repeal it, because his EO can be struck out by the very next President, however whilst ever it stands, it has the same effect as reversing it, which is all I said.  The point remains, it was introduced for dubious reasons.  Democrats are simply afraid of the what they call the religious hard right, who deplore Democrat moral bankruptcy.  It is a blatant gagging of free speech by fierce opponents to silence them. That's all it was ever about and they call themselves "democratic".  Yeah right.  The irony should not escape you. Then you write 

This is irrelevant to the discussion. Businesses opening or closing has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

The egregious and oppressive Regulations against small business are relevant. They gutted medium and small businesses, family businesses, the very staple of the employment sector.  Up until Obama this sector had employed 70% of the work force.  Obama deliberately removed a tranche in the sector that was competitive against crony-capitalist big shot globalists.  That's democratic?  Yeah right.  You then claim ...

Contrary to popular belief, the bible actually allows for homosexual relations. I am no expert on this topic, but an old member of this site (a bisexual Christian) did direct me to resources that I will present as evidence against the conception that Christianity must be anti-LGBTQ.

It does? You claim to have read all three, the Bible, the Torah and the Q'uran from cover to cover ???  Quote me a Biblical text which condones homosexuality.  I'll quote you the most definitive one, although there are others, which loudly condemns it, as follows ....

Leviticus - Chapter 18

22  "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
23  "Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; these are perversions. 

24  "Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these, the nations which I am casting out before you, have become defiled.
25  "For the land has become defiled, therefore I have visited its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants. 

26  "But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you. 

29  "For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people
30  "Thus you are to keep My charge, that you do not practice any of the abominable customs which have been practised before you, so as not to defile yourselves with them; I am the Lord thy God."   

Then you try this on concerning Milo Yiannopoulos ...

You did say that this individual incited violence during protests. 

I said that?  Where?  These lawless, arrogant students rioted before Milo even got to the podium - trashed and set campus property on fire .  He had to "escape" out the back route in fear of injury and never got to stand before them, let alone open his mouth to "incite" anything.  The only thing he incited was their hatred of hearing a gay guy condemn their "gay Agenda".  He was against sexuality being politicized and said so, many times.

.

Grafix

@MayCaesar - You wrote ...

Far more wars were fought over what Christianity denomination or what Muslim denomination is right, than over whether Christianity or Islam is right. That speaks a lot about the nature of organised religion: it has little to do with seeking truth or making people happy, and a lot to do with controlling them and pitting them against each other, while the powerful clergy is enjoying a lavish sinful lifestyle.

Absolutely agree.  If they were interested in the truth, then only the truth could prevail, because truth is not about power.  It is about what is right. The knowledge of truth has great power, however with no need to wield any power via status, wealth, position, class or office.  That's a fundamental ideology of Christianity.  You also wrote ...

... socialists do the same with regards to other Socialists... All these totalitarian ideologies excel at this kind of thing.

Nice to see you include Socialism as a totalitarian ideology.  Couldn't agree more.  Lenin even admitted it, when he said that the ultimate goal of Socialism was only ever Communism.  If the power-mongers who seek to subdue others, set aside their grubby ambitions and paused to look at the simple truths of Christianity, they would be compelled to admit that there is nothing totalitarian about it at all.  The only thing that is totalitarian is the totalitarian mentality of those who use and abuse it to obtain power.  Then their actions no longer reflect the non-totalitarian openness of the fundamental Christian doctrines, as taught by its founder, Christ Himself.  There was not a single cringe-worthy element in that man's rhetoric.  He was totally humble.  His humility His flagship mantle.  He was compassionate, loving, kind, gentle, forgiving and welcoming to all and sundry, even the worst of sinners, the Bible replete with so many of that ilk, forgiven and welcomed into God's congregation, so why do people think Christianity is "totalitarian".  It seeks no power of its own accord.

Yes, it is tribal thinking when used and abused for advantage and to broker power grabs.  I agree.  But, nevertheless, you still make the error of faulting the doctrine by erroneously blaming it for man's abuse of it and for  the consequences of that abuse, rather than study it at its source and the fundamental teachings.  Big mistake, a mistake repeated time and time again by anti-Christians, particularly those who cite that terrible history when it was abused to justify the burning of heretics at the stake and to wage wars.  In spite of that awful dark and uncivilized history, it must be acknowledge that Christianity, when deployed as intended,  civilized the world.
.

Grafix

@ZeusAres42 - You wrote ...

With all that being said what I said before if we accept the premise that the whole democratic party is anti Christian then we also have to accept that it would be rather odd for a person to claim that they are a devoted Christian as well as a member of the democratic party. Wouldn't we?

Yes we would and that is my point.  If one supports the Democratic Party's political platform, then it demonstrates immediately that they are not willing to adhere to the teachings of Christianity, because much of the Democratic Party's political platform repudiates Christian values and Christ's teachings.  There is no denying that. 

piloteer

@Grafix

The bible says that we ALL have a personal relationship with God, and Jesus is our messenger between us and God. There is nothing in the Democratic platform that severs that link between individual Democrats and God. So long as a Democrat accepts that Jesus is their Lord and savior, and they do have a personal relationship with Jesus, they can be Christian. There is nothing in the bible that says if a person agrees with any of the ideals espoused by the Democratic party, they cannot be Christians. Yours is a political rant, but you erroneously appeal to Christianity as your evidence regardless of the fact that the bible does not back your assertions.       

Grafix

@piloteer - You wrote ...

The bible says that we ALL have a personal relationship with God, and Jesus is our messenger between us and God. There is nothing in the Democratic platform that severs that link between individual Democrats and God. So long as a Democrat accepts that Jesus is their Lord and savior, and they do have a personal relationship with Jesus, they can be Christian. There is nothing in the bible that says if a person agrees with any of the ideals espoused by the Democratic party, they cannot be Christians. Yours is a political rant, but you erroneously appeal to Christianity as your evidence regardless of the fact that the bible does not back your assertions.   

Agreed the Bible does teach that.  To then claim however, that there is nothing in the Democrats' political platform which severs the link between the individual and God is difficult to substantiate because we would have to make some assumptions here to support your argument and even then it would still be a dubious argument.  We would have to assume a Christian voting for a Democrat Party candidate, who campaigned in support of abortion and gay marriage, that the Christian did not personally support these two policies, yet was prepared to vote for the candidate in any event.  How would God view that choice of politician to govern His people?

In legal terms it would be seen as "aiding and abetting" the enemy.  I think God would view it in the same frame and therefore it would sever the Christian's spiritual commitment to God's teachings.  The Bible explicitly states that if we adhere to all of God's teachings with the exception of a single one, then we repudiate them all, that we must accept the whole  of the teachings.  In other word's to be a genuine Christian, we cannot supermarket shop our Christianity, taking only that which suits us, otherwise we are not true Christians.
.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

 agree the Johnson Amendment is a violation to the First Amendment, but they somehow got around that by linking it to Tax Exemptions.

Thanks for another straw man! I never argued this nor do I agree, the Johnson amendment is not in violation of the firsts amendment in any way.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

What Tax has to do with free speech, God only knows...

...It is a blatant gagging of free speech by fierce opponents to silence them. That's all it was ever about and they call themselves "democratic".  Yeah right.  The irony should not escape you. Then you write 

So in other words, you have no idea why just that it is a blatant gagging of free speech? First off, no it isn't in any way. Second off, If you don't know than why would you turn right around and say that it obviously is? This kind of inadequacy and general lack of integrity is a key component of what seems like all of your arguments.

The egregious and oppressive Regulations against small business are relevant. They gutted medium and small businesses, family businesses, the very staple of the employment sector.  Up until Obama this sector had employed 70% of the work force.  Obama deliberately removed a tranche in the sector that was competitive against crony-capitalist big shot globalists

You still fail to explain what businesses have to do with Christianity, thus it is still irrelevant. If Jesus was alive today, he would almost definitely be a socialist, and at any rate he would not vote for any Republican candidate who ran over the past 20 years. https://acton.org/publications/transatlantic/2018/07/30/if-anyone-was-ever-socialist-it-was-jesus-democratic

It does? You claim to have read all three, the Bible, the Torah and the Q'uran from cover to cover ???  Quote me a Biblical text which condones homosexuality.  I'll quote you the most definitive one, although there are others, which loudly condemns it, as follows ...

Leviticus 18

 Levitical law also says you can't eat pork, fat, or shell fish, get tattoos, or tons of other things that most modern Christians do not follow. This is because Levitical law doesn't apply to Christians, according to Christians (you don't hang out with RickeyD do you?) https://reformationproject.org/case/levitical-prohibitions/

I said that?  Where?  These lawless, arrogant students rioted before Milo even got to the podium - trashed and set campus property on fire .  He had to "escape" out the back route in fear of injury and never got to stand before them, let alone open his mouth to "incite" anything.  The only thing he incited was their hatred of hearing a gay guy condemn their "gay Agenda".  He was against sexuality being politicized and said so, many times.

.

You say it here:

[Milo Yiannopoulos] ...was banned from speaking at Leftie University campuses after the leftie brigade set fire to University property, objecting to Universities giving him a public speaking platform, although he is GAY! 

The point I am making still stands. If people are going to riot over him, then yes it only makes sense that the DNC might not want to deal with him, even if their messages and agendas align, because they don't want that association.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before we continue with this conversation, you need to answer this question: "What are logical fallacies and why do we care about them?" So far every single one of your arguments has contained a logical fallacy. If that doesn't bother you, it should because it indicates something about your reasoning that is deeply concerning and has huge implications for your arguments.

We_are_accountable

@Grafix

You are stating the obvious truth. Just as KKK members can not be considered true Christians, so called Christian Democrats are false as well.

The so called Christian Clan supported the right to kill black people, and so called Christian Democrats vote for a Democrat Party that almost unanimously supports aborting any unborn life with no restrictions, even though God says he knows them in the womb!

Nuff said!

ZeusAres42

Grafix said:

@ZeusAres42 - You wrote ...

With all that being said what I said before if we accept the premise that the whole democratic party is anti Christian then we also have to accept that it would be rather odd for a person to claim that they are a devoted Christian as well as a member of the democratic party. Wouldn't we?

Yes we would and that is my point.  If one supports the Democratic Party's political platform, then it demonstrates immediately that they are not willing to adhere to the teachings of Christianity, because much of the Democratic Party's political platform repudiates Christian values and Christ's teachings.  There is no denying that. 

And it is this premise that I have a problem with. It doesn't sound accurate to say that the whole democratic party is anti Christian. 

Furthermore, what now if we accept the claim that some of the democratic party are antichristian then it is it still logically sound to conclude that a true Christian wouldn' be democratic?

Happy_Killbot

@We_are_accountable
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

Grafix

@We_are_accountable - When a Party sells out to the highest bidder, this is precisely what happens - all previous values cast to the wind, in exchange for dollars from a Satanic donor class to finance the DNC and candidates' political campaigns, no matter what, at any cost.  Worshipping that false God - more difficult to get into Heaven with that baggage, than it will be for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.

They are too far gone now to ever regain any moral high ground and clearly don't even care to be seen as moral, having sold out to an Agenda that is not their own, never was and should never have been, but sadly is, because their donor class demands it, demands a certain Agenda in exchange for their dollars.  Look at how much that same evil donor class invested in Hillary.  God was surely watching over us the day she failed to snare the Oval Office. Just imagine it.  I would have wept for America and for God's people.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

When a Party sells out to the highest bidder, this is precisely what happens - all previous values cast to the wind, in exchange for dollars from a Satanic donor class to finance the DNC and candidates' political campaigns, no matter what, at any cost.

So much for republicans then...
https://www.investopedia.com/news/top-republican-donors/

They [Republicans] are too far gone now to ever regain any moral high ground and clearly don't even care to be seen as moral, having sold out to an Agenda that is not their own, never was and should never have been, but sadly is, because their donor class demands it, demands a certain Agenda in exchange for their dollars.

Happy_Killbot

[deleted due to repost]

Grafix

@ZeusAres42 - 

ZeusAres42 said:

Grafix said:

@ZeusAres42 - You wrote ...

With all that being said what I said before if we accept the premise that the whole democratic party is anti Christian then we also have to accept that it would be rather odd for a person to claim that they are a devoted Christian as well as a member of the democratic party. Wouldn't we?

Yes we would and that is my point.  If one supports the Democratic Party's political platform, then it demonstrates immediately that they are not willing to adhere to the teachings of Christianity, because much of the Democratic Party's political platform repudiates Christian values and Christ's teachings.  There is no denying that. 

And it is this premise that I have a problem with. It doesn't sound accurate to say that the whole democratic party is anti Christian. 

Furthermore, what now if we accept the claim that some of the democratic party are antichristian then it is it still logically sound to conclude that a true Christian wouldn' be democratic?

I don't mean to imply that Democrat Party voters themselves would harbor anti-Christian sentiments towards Christians.  Not at all, although I do sincerely believe that a vote for the Party is a vote for anti-Christian policies.

My topic solely pertains to the political class in that they are wilfully joining Satan's army and marching against God's teachings, prepared to enact repudiations of God's law as civil laws, specifically laws funding and aiding abortion and already gay marriage law.
.  

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

You realize the bible doesn't mention abortion right?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12178933

Furthermore, it could be argued that it supports it. To say abortion is anti-Christian is wrong, that is entirely a political question having nothing to do with the bible.

You might quote Psalm 139:13, Jeremiah 1:5, or Isaiah 44:22, but none of these prove the bible has an anti abortion stance, because if god made a baby in the womb, then it is his will that it be removed.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - A very silly link, Killjoy, in that it is a false equivalence.  UNLESS the Republicans start abandoning conservative and Christian values, then there is no demonstration that they have sold out to their donor class.  There is no demonstration that the donor class is demanding to control the Party's Policy Platform in exchange for funding it, unlike the situation the Democrats have put themselves in.

In other words, it can be seen that as the Republican Party still adheres to its stated platform that it is still in control of it, unlike the Democrats who have sold out that control to the highest bidders.  That's the difference.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Oh but it does.  The Bible makes it abundantly clear that life is sanctioned by God and God's spirit is with the embryo from the moment of conception.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix ;

Grafix said:

@Happy_Killbot - A very silly link, Killjoy, in that it is a false equivalence.  UNLESS the Republicans start abandoning conservative and Christian values, then there is no demonstration that they have sold out to their donor class.  There is no demonstration that the donor class is demanding to control the Party's Policy Platform in exchange for funding it, unlike the situation the Democrats have put themselves in.

In other words, it can be seen that as the Republican Party still adheres to its stated platform that it is still in control of it, unlike the Democrats who have sold out that control to the highest bidders.  That's the difference.

Oh? Then couldn't I say the same about your analysis of the DNC's donors?

And yes actually, there is. For example, the Koch brothers have been funding the anti-climate change agenda because they make money through the sales of fossil fuels. If this is not adequate proof, nothing will change your mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers
What do you expect? That all of these rich people are going to fund the GOP and not get anything in return?

Oh yeah, there is also this:

Might I direct your attention to item 8? Do you think that fascism is American? Or should religion and politics be separated, the way the first amendment says it should be?

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Grafix said:

@Happy_Killbot - Oh but it does.  The Bible makes it abundantly clear that life is sanctioned by God and God's spirit is with the embryo from the moment of conception.

Then prove it.

No, the bible is effectively neutral on the abortion ground. Anyone who tells you the bible forbids it is lying to you. Ask a priest what the bible actually says about abortion.
https://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/25602-abortion-rights
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/weekinreview/on-abortion-its-the-bible-of-ambiguity.html
https://time.com/3582434/6-abortion-myths/
https://qz.com/959736/abortion-is-never-mentioned-in-the-bible-a-christian-ob-gyn-on-why-choice-is-pro-life/

It is as much god's will that a fetus be aborted as it is that it be born. It is all part of God's plan.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You wrote:

You realize the bible doesn't mention abortion right?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12178933
Furthermore, it could be argued that it supports it. To say abortion is anti-Christian is wrong, that is entirely a political question having nothing to do with the bible.
You might quote Psalm 139:13, Jeremiah 1:5, or Isaiah 44:22, but none of these prove the bible has an anti abortion stance, because if god made a baby in the womb, then it is his will that it be removed.

Our Christian faith is not to be selected like groceries from a supermarket shelf.  The Bible makes it abundantly clear that we must adhere to the whole of the teachings, not window shop the bits we like.  It even goes as far as to say if we repudiate even a single one of God's laws then we repudiate them ALL.  It is all or nothing, in other words.  I don't know how you can justify killing a life which God has already sanctioned, according to the following verses, given that God Himself sanctions life.  

Jeremiah 1:5 

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Isaiah 49:5 

And now the Lord says, he who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him; and that Israel might be gathered to him— for I am honored in the eyes of the Lord, and my God has become my strength

Isaiah 44:2  

Thus says the Lord who made you, who formed you from the womb and will help you: Fear not, O Jacob my servant, Jeshurun whom I have chosen.

Job 31:15 

Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?

Psalm 139:13-16 

For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.

Galatians 1:15  

But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace,

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix You have listed a few more here I didn't already mention, but the point I am making still stands. None of these scriptures explicitly forbid abortion.

They all say that god makes you in the womb, but it requires a leap of logic to come to the conclusion that these forbid abortion. Simply put, the bible doesn't forbid abortion.

if it is god's hand that makes a fetus, then it is god's will that it be aborted.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Your claims that whatever the Koch Bros. do is somehow reflected in Republican Policy is clearly not true and ABUNDANTLY clear, by virtue of those policies.  Where's the Republican Party's support for Climate Change policy?  Come on then show it to us, as you are claiming Koch Bros are  influencing that policy, so how exactly are they?  You're making a fool of yourself, because the absence of any influence by them on that Policy clearly reinforces my statement and not your wild claims.

As for the so-called definition of fascism.  Pffft!  Junket tabloidesque nonsense.  Doesn't even come close.  Is a dumb definition that is way off.  Firstly, there must be a single leader as a dictator, who alone is in control of Policy with no Congress and no voting on proposed legislation, no democratic process involving the people, either. THAT's  what DEFINES fascism, not POLICIES.  Policies can't define fascism, but Hey!  I do understand your neediness to dig up trailer trash articles from Mother Jones websites, so desperate are ye to prove something which is totally unprovable, and even more ridiculous given that the Republicans do not even control the House.  You people truly are laughable.  Ignorance could not be on greater display.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Your reply in reference to the Biblical verses I provided, which prove God's sanctioning of life in the womb, was as follows:

You have listed a few more here I didn't already mention, but the point I am making still stands. None of these scriptures explicitly forbid abortion.They all say that god makes you in the womb, but it requires a leap of logic to come to the conclusion that these forbid abortion. Simply put, the bible doesn't forbid abortion.if it is god's hand that makes a fetus, then it is god's will that it be aborted.

You really should leave off waxing lyrical and pontificating on matters you have zero knowledge of and minus-zero understanding in.  When a life is sanctioned by God, then it is deemed as a living being.  From that point forward to murder it wilfully and knowingly is a crime against God's law, thou shalt not kill.  Got it?  End of story.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Grafix said:

@Happy_Killbot - Your claims that whatever the Koch Bros. do is somehow reflected in Republican Policy is clearly not true and ABUNDANTLY clear, by virtue of those policies.  Where's the Republican Party's support for Climate Change policy?  Come on then show it to us, as you are claiming Koch Bros are  influencing that policy, so how exactly are they?  You're making a fool of yourself, because the absence of any influence by them on that Policy clearly reinforces my statement and not your wild claims.

As for the so-called definition of fascism.  Pffft!  Junket tabloidesque nonsense.  Doesn't even come close.  Is a dumb definition that is way off.  Firstly, there must be a single leader as a dictator, who alone is in control of Policy with no Congress and no voting on proposed legislation, no democratic process involving the people, either. THAT's  what DEFINES fascism, not POLICIES.  Policies can't define fascism, but Hey!  I do understand your neediness to dig up trailer trash articles from Mother Jones websites, so desperate are ye to prove something which is totally unprovable, and even more ridiculous given that the Republicans do not even control the House.  You people truly are laughable.  Ignorance could not be on greater display.

You miss the point about the Koch brothers -  they oppose all climate change policy! They spend ridiculous amounts of money on campaign finance, propaganda, and disinformation campaigns to get people to oppose or even deny climate change and relevant policies, such as a carbon tax. You want something anti-Christian? There you have it. The bible says we should be stewards of the earth, but instead we seem content polluting it with greenhouse gasses.
https://www.campaigncc.org/climate_change/sceptics/funders

Here is your fallacy: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

I do not post a definition of fascism, I post the 14 defining characteristics of fascism, in case you can't read the whole title. These are the things that if true in a society are evidence of fascism, and in the US all 14 are true to some degree. Fascism does not require a dictator, nor does it have to be non democratic. The policies are what result from the political ideology, thus it follows that policies could be used to reconstruct what the political ideology is. It is provable that some politician or policy is a fascist one, to say it is not provable is simply a denial of reality.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Grafix said:

@Happy_Killbot - Your reply in reference to the Biblical verses I provided, which prove God's sanctioning of life in the womb, was as follows:

You have listed a few more here I didn't already mention, but the point I am making still stands. None of these scriptures explicitly forbid abortion.They all say that god makes you in the womb, but it requires a leap of logic to come to the conclusion that these forbid abortion. Simply put, the bible doesn't forbid abortion.if it is god's hand that makes a fetus, then it is god's will that it be aborted.

You really should leave off waxing lyrical and pontificating on matters you have zero knowledge of and minus-zero understanding in.  When a life is sanctioned by God, then it is deemed as a living being.  From that point forward to murder it wilfully and knowingly is a crime against God's law, thou shalt not kill.  Got it?  End of story.

Here is a fact you may be uncomfortable with- Atheists, agnostics, and religious 'nones' know more about religion on average than any other religious group with the exception of Jews. 
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/21/among-religious-nones-atheists-and-agnostics-know-the-most-about-religion/

Statistically speaking, I most likely know more about religion than you do, and since I have read the bible in its entirety and the Quran and some Hindu Vedas I think it is reasonable to say I know at least as much as you do, and on the subject of the bible supporting the pro-life movement, there simply is no evidence and I have referenced an official paper by actual theologians who agree with me!

It is you, not I, who has no knowledge of the bible.

Oh, and here is your logical fallacy, for which you have yet to give me an answer on why they are important.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division

piloteer

Grafix said:   

Agreed the Bible does teach that.  To then claim however, that there is nothing in the Democrats' political platform which severs the link between the individual and God is difficult to substantiate because we would have to make some assumptions here to support your argument and even then it would still be a dubious argument.  We would have to assume a Christian voting for a Democrat Party candidate, who campaigned in support of abortion and gay marriage, that the Christian did not personally support these two policies, yet was prepared to vote for the candidate in any event.  How would God view that choice of politician to govern His people?

In legal terms it would be seen as "aiding and abetting" the enemy.  I think God would view it in the same frame and therefore it would sever the Christian's spiritual commitment to God's teachings.  The Bible explicitly states that if we adhere to all of God's teachings with the exception of a single one, then we repudiate them all, that we must accept the whole  of the teachings.  In other word's to be a genuine Christian, we cannot supermarket shop our Christianity, taking only that which suits us, otherwise we are not true Christians.
.

If there is any text in the scriptures that proves our personal relationship with God can ever be severed, it would be of much importance to your claims. In fact, without that, your arguments are unfounded altogether. There is nothing in the scriptures that says we can somehow lose our personal relationship with God. God has patience, and will always be willing to hear us if we speak to him. Even radical atheists have this personal relationship with God. No human on this earth does not have a direct link to God through Jesus. Voting for, and campaigning for any political party cannot be considered a severed link with God, and scripture in the bible will demonstrate that it cannot be considered such.

https://www.biblestudytools.com/2-peter/3-9.html

Furthermore, you would need to provide evidence that the bible says that we are committing a sin for espousing the ideals of individual freedom and individual free will. Even if those freedoms may be considered a sin, it is not a sin- in and of itself, to espouse the ideals of free will which God has granted each human being. Nowhere does the bible say we must only campaign for political parties that outlaw sin, and nowhere does the bible say that God does not grant each and every individual free will, and within that free will, we are not allotted the freedom to commit sin. 

Next we must consider your claim that committing the sin of homosexuality, or abortion, are actually unforgivable sins that warrant the label of being anti-Christian. Without any evidence provided by you that those things will end our personal relationship with God, it can certainly be argued that they are not unforgivable sins. It can also be argued that there are no unforgivable sins. According to the bible, a sin is a sin is a sin. No one sin is considered more abhorrent than any other sins in Gods eyes, and if we're guilty of any, we're guilty of them all. Before anybody tries to claim they are free of sin, let me squelch that claim before it even gets off the ground. We are ALL guilty of sin. We are born of sin, and we will die of sin.

According to the bible, no human on earth can truly know of Gods plan, and cannot be considered a proper authority on what things God will and will not forgive. So as far as any claims that elude to your authority about the knowledge of what is and is not forgivable or is or not "anti-Christian" is totally unfounded as well. This goes for your supposed authority on who Jesus would and would not consider his, or all of humanity's "enemy". Therefore, what YOU "think God would view" in any frame, regarding any topic whatsoever can be cast aside as totally false and bordering on a sinful accusation and claim itself. 

In light of the fact that you cannot demonstrate that campaigning for political parties that espouse policies based on free will being a sin, or that those things will put an end to our personal relationship with God, it is an unfounded claim to say that Democrats can't be Christians. This coupled with the fact that you cannot demonstrate that the bible considers campaigning for political parties, or political ideals that espouse policies based on free will is a sin, or somehow "anti-Christian", you've got no moral, logical, or intellectual ground to stand on. The fact that you are in no way an authority on what sins are unforgivable, who will or will not be forgiven for their sins, and who Jesus or God would consider to be an enemy of Christianity, or humanity as a whole, anything you've argued thus far is devastatingly unfounded.

 Yours is only a political rant based solely on your personal image of political activism based on your personal image of Christian tradition. But your claims are not factually rooted in Christian doctrine whatsoever, and can be disregarded as a legitimate political stance based on Christian morality, or logical political reasoning. It's just a rant based on your "emotions", and in no way are those emotions tied to Christian doctrine or political reasoning or factual evidence in any form. FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!                                 

piloteer

@Grafix

Woop whoa whoa whoa, what's happening here ""? It's seems that every time I get involved in a conversation with you, I seem to always be getting the last word, and you seem to be disengaging from any further dialogue on the topic. Am I stealing your thunder? If you would like for me to start posting arguments to counter the ones I made against your arguments to make it seem like somebody is at least trying to make an attempt at making a valid point from your side, then let me know. I can argue this case from both sides if I need to. Lemme know if you need my assistance. I got your back brohan!!!

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You wrote ...

You miss the point about the Koch brothers -  they oppose all climate change policy! They spend ridiculous amounts of money on campaign finance, propaganda, and disinformation campaigns to get people to oppose or even deny climate change and relevant policies, such as a carbon tax. You want something anti-Christian? There you have it. The bible says we should be stewards of the earth, but instead we seem content polluting it with greenhouse gasses.

Yeah, I did misunderstand what you were saying, but in spite of that, I have not missed the point of the discussion, which is that the Democrat Party has altered its Policy Platform which it held dear for centuries, while the Republicans have not changed their platform which they have also held dear for centuries.  L E T   T H A T    S I N K   I N.

Missing the point that the Koch Bros. oppose climate change, still does not change the fundamental observation made above, does it?  So, behove you to PROVE that the Koch Bros. have somehow influenced the Policy Platform of the Repub. Party, which is a great deal older then they are by centuries. 

Then you W H I N E , which is your usual wont, about things you don't like and cannot control.  I can equally point to not the billions but the T R I L L I O N S, which the leftosphere demagogues spend on P U S H I N G climate change.  So, what's your point, Einstein?  That you want only one-way streets?  Yeah we know you do - a viral problem among all lefties, so narrow is their purview of life, the world and tolerance of the rights of others.  Philistines, the lot of you.

I could even make a very legitimate and sound criticism of the left .. No ... make that an accusation directly levelled at "establishment" science from the leftosphere.  The gold standard for scientific methodology is not to PROVE any theory, but rather to DISPROVE  it and if a theory cannot be disproved, then it is accepted as viable, as credible, believable, probable and as accepted scientific fact, until  it is disproved.  That's the rule of scientific conclusion, for the very simple reason that much of what science researches is not readily observable, having already become history in the past before our time.

Now, let's apply that to climate change.  Instead of applying the gold standard of making every endeavour to DISPROVE the climate change hypothesis, what do we see coming from the scientific community?  A multi, multi trillion-dollar campaign of propaganda to PERSUADE us to accept the hypothesis.  That is not applying the gold standard.  That is an aberration of the gold standard of rigorous science.  But wait for it .... it gets worse.  Instead, we see these same propagandists, who call themselves "scientists" ATTACKING those who actually DO apply the gold standard, the very scientists who DO present arguments to disprove climate change science. 

Is it any wonder that conservatives have lost all faith in the credibility of science, then?  Add insult to injury, these same scientists are still pushing the theory of Evolution, which was DISPROVED nearly a decade ago by Dr. James Tour, the world's leading molecular and nano-technology scientist.  It beggars belief that you people can peddle so many lies with a straight face.  It really does.  It also beggars belief that there is not a well-funded
A G E N D A which has caused this dishonest hiatus in science, in that some are so rabidly ready to abandon all scientific principles to push a propagandist and deceitful campaign, we having now witnessed the Climate Change authority caught more than once with its pants on fire for "doctoring" climatic records, to favor the climate change narrative, yet you still believe all of these obviously compromised and dishonest individuals.  We know who are the dummies here.
.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - then you wrote this -

Here is a fact you may be uncomfortable with- Atheists, agnostics, and religious 'nones' know more about religion on average than any other religious group with the exception of Jews. 

Presumption much.  Meh.  There is no "discomfit".  There is a derision for those who just love to spend their every waking minute knocking Christianity and our Constitution, when they know absolutely zilch about the former, yet presume with the most abject arrogance that they know more about it than anyone else, even more than theologians and scholars.  Your prideful hubris is simply gobsmacking and can only be ridiculed.  My strenuous objection to THAT is what you pridefully mistake for discomfit.  No I'm not uncomfortable.  I am full of derision and disgust.  People who are uncomfortable with things run away and won't confront them.  I confront the army of ignorance represented by GungHO atheists, by willingly leaping into the battle for souls, brandishing the sword of knowledge, God's sword given to us, to smite their insolent and arrogant ignorance.

Then we get this below.  Really gotta laugh, cracking my sides at the unbridled hubris.  Man, you really are the devil incarnate, demonstrating every single one of God's "dont's".  Atheists always pretend they have read the Holy Books.  Why on earth would they if they don't believe in any of it?  These sorts of claims belie all credibility and can be dismissed in a trice.  You claim ...

Statistically speaking, I most likely know more about religion than you do, and since I have read the bible in its entirety and the Quran and some Hindu Vedas I think it is reasonable to say I know at least as much as you do, and on the subject of the bible supporting the pro-life movement, there simply is no evidence and I have referenced an official paper by actual theologians who agree with me!

It is you, not I, who has no knowledge of the bible.

Yeah right.  I don't think so.  , it's not possible.  You are just making an utter fool of yourself.  It's embarrassing.  As Christians rely on the opinion of scholars and theologians to interpret our Holy Books and as we do a great deal of reading ourselves, while spending too, a lot of time listening to authoritative voices defining the meaning of Christianity every Sunday and other days, then behove you to prove that you UNDERSTAND Christianity better than Christians themselves do.  We also pray to God for better understanding of His Word.  He does answer with an ability to obtain greater knowledge.  To self-righteously and pompously believe you are better, does not correlate to a fact that you actually ARE, now does it?

As mentioned many times, the practice of "proof texting" verses from the Bible to support an argument without any understanding of or having read the WHOLE Book is abhorred, scorned and derided by scholars, but yet you still lob your little proof texts, trotting them out in ignorance every time and shown your folly, because you have no  U N D E R S T A N D I N G of what to be a Christian even M E A N S - an obstacle for every atheist.
.