Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Bruno X wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Well, off the top of my head:

1) He didn’t know Jesus was never called “Jesus.”

2) Said I didn’t know plenty of Christians who were nasty or evil. I do. And, before anyone says they were being nasty to ME and that I probably deserved it, nope. I have witnessed them being nasty to other people in front of me because they erroneously though I had the same opinion.

3) He said very few people in the world could be classified as evil. Just not so.

4) He said it is not evil to not believe in equality for gay people. It is profoundly immoral (and therefore evil) to want to limit the equality of a law-abiding adult person based on who they want to legally love. You can think it’s odd, be disgusted by it, not understand it, but to believe they should not have equality is evil.

5) Trying to dodge the question of literal interpretation of scripture…so maybe dodging or wish washy perhaps and not wrong, but the debating tactic was wrong.

6) Referred to my already described liberal Methodist Church as a “Fundamentalist” Church, and that was incorrect.

7) Believes that because everyone a hundred years ago had trouble with gay marriage that we should feel the same today about people who also do. Wrong idea. Wrong debate tactic. Just wrong.

8) He said that to be a Christian you have to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. There are several churches that disagree with that, both past and present. So, he is factually incorrect there. It is his OPINION that to be a Christian you need to believe Jesus is the Son of God, and that (in the US) is the prevailing opinion, but it is not the fact he presented it as.

9) He told me my faith was my own but then quickly changed that into a narrow definition that he defined…so wrong.

1. I call Jesus, "Jesus."

2. You are prone to exaggeration, so you probably don't.

3. He is correct.

4. He is correct.

5. What he said was actually correct. Your reading comprehension was poor.

6. He is both correct and incorrect.

7. Has nothing to do with knowledge a Bible/Christianity expert should know.

8. He is correct.

9. His definition was correct.

Flagpole wrote:

El Spaniard wrote:

Like what?

Well, off the top of my head:

1) He didn’t know Jesus was never called “Jesus.”

2) Said I didn’t know plenty of Christians who were nasty or evil. I do. And, before anyone says they were being nasty to ME and that I probably deserved it, nope. I have witnessed them being nasty to other people in front of me because they erroneously though I had the same opinion.

3) He said very few people in the world could be classified as evil. Just not so.

4) He said it is not evil to not believe in equality for gay people. It is profoundly immoral (and therefore evil) to want to limit the equality of a law-abiding adult person based on who they want to legally love. You can think it’s odd, be disgusted by it, not understand it, but to believe they should not have equality is evil.

5) Trying to dodge the question of literal interpretation of scripture…so maybe dodging or wish washy perhaps and not wrong, but the debating tactic was wrong.

6) Referred to my already described liberal Methodist Church as a “Fundamentalist” Church, and that was incorrect.

7) Believes that because everyone a hundred years ago had trouble with gay marriage that we should feel the same today about people who also do. Wrong idea. Wrong debate tactic. Just wrong.

8) He said that to be a Christian you have to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. There are several churches that disagree with that, both past and present. So, he is factually incorrect there. It is his OPINION that to be a Christian you need to believe Jesus is the Son of God, and that (in the US) is the prevailing opinion, but it is not the fact he presented it as.

9) He told me my faith was my own but then quickly changed that into a narrow definition that he defined…so wrong.

Fat hurts wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Well, off the top of my head:

1) He didn’t know Jesus was never called “Jesus.”

2) Said I didn’t know plenty of Christians who were nasty or evil. I do. And, before anyone says they were being nasty to ME and that I probably deserved it, nope. I have witnessed them being nasty to other people in front of me because they erroneously though I had the same opinion.

3) He said very few people in the world could be classified as evil. Just not so.

4) He said it is not evil to not believe in equality for gay people. It is profoundly immoral (and therefore evil) to want to limit the equality of a law-abiding adult person based on who they want to legally love. You can think it’s odd, be disgusted by it, not understand it, but to believe they should not have equality is evil.

5) Trying to dodge the question of literal interpretation of scripture…so maybe dodging or wish washy perhaps and not wrong, but the debating tactic was wrong.

6) Referred to my already described liberal Methodist Church as a “Fundamentalist” Church, and that was incorrect.

7) Believes that because everyone a hundred years ago had trouble with gay marriage that we should feel the same today about people who also do. Wrong idea. Wrong debate tactic. Just wrong.

8) He said that to be a Christian you have to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. There are several churches that disagree with that, both past and present. So, he is factually incorrect there. It is his OPINION that to be a Christian you need to believe Jesus is the Son of God, and that (in the US) is the prevailing opinion, but it is not the fact he presented it as.

9) He told me my faith was my own but then quickly changed that into a narrow definition that he defined…so wrong.

1) What you said was so irrelevant, I thought you must have meant something else. Yeah, it threw me, and you still haven't explained what it had to do with anything. I've probably heard about pronunciation of Jesus, but never thought much about it. This is something more of interest to linguists than Bible scholars.

2) There are very few truly evil people in this world. You couldn't possibly know them all.

3) See #2.

4) I am correct and I proved it.

5) I dodged nothing. I even provided background on the hermeneutics of literal interpretation.

6) Your church didn't sound liberal to me. If you think that Methodists can't be fundamentalists then you don't know what fundamentalism is. However, I am sorry if I mischaracterized your previous church.

7) I said nothing about how you should feel. You said you were a cultural relativist. That is the ethics equivalent of being a flat earther. But as a cultural relativist, you can't argue that a group of people in their own culture are evil for going along with what their culture says is right. Therefore, fundamentalist evangelicals are not evil for wanting to ban gay marriage.

8) I am correct. It is self-evident that a Christain follows Jesus and his teachings. Jesus as the son of God is central to those teachings. Any church who teaches otherwise should not call themselves "Christian". The fact that some wrongly do so proves nothing.

9) I always maintained that your faith is your own. That is also self-evident and there is no way to narrow such a statement.

Flagpole wrote:

Proofer wrote:

Prove it.

Well, I don't know how I could prove it to anyone's liking here on the internet, but I have a profound interest in The Bible. I am the son of a now-retired United Methodist minister, so I heard every sermon given twice each Sunday in my impressionable years, continued to be involved in the church into my 30s after I had children and co-taught Sunday school with my wife for a number of years. When I was in college, I took almost enough classes to major in Religion and for a while greatly considered taking my journalism degree to look to be the Religion writer at a newspaper somewhere. I changed course early on in journalism and became a sports reporter instead and then on to other types of journalism before I headed off in an entirely new direction altogether. Oddly enough, unbeknownst to each other, my father and mother have taken their already liberal Christian attitudes a step further and have left the United Methodist Church (they went to a different one than I did) and now attend a much more liberal church that has ideals similar to my own.

I'm sure that won't do it for you, but I have no need to try to convince you, so you won't see me trying to beyond the above.

Fat hurts wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Well, off the top of my head:

1) He didn’t know Jesus was never called “Jesus.”

2) Said I didn’t know plenty of Christians who were nasty or evil. I do. And, before anyone says they were being nasty to ME and that I probably deserved it, nope. I have witnessed them being nasty to other people in front of me because they erroneously though I had the same opinion.

3) He said very few people in the world could be classified as evil. Just not so.

4) He said it is not evil to not believe in equality for gay people. It is profoundly immoral (and therefore evil) to want to limit the equality of a law-abiding adult person based on who they want to legally love. You can think it’s odd, be disgusted by it, not understand it, but to believe they should not have equality is evil.

5) Trying to dodge the question of literal interpretation of scripture…so maybe dodging or wish washy perhaps and not wrong, but the debating tactic was wrong.

6) Referred to my already described liberal Methodist Church as a “Fundamentalist” Church, and that was incorrect.

7) Believes that because everyone a hundred years ago had trouble with gay marriage that we should feel the same today about people who also do. Wrong idea. Wrong debate tactic. Just wrong.

8) He said that to be a Christian you have to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. There are several churches that disagree with that, both past and present. So, he is factually incorrect there. It is his OPINION that to be a Christian you need to believe Jesus is the Son of God, and that (in the US) is the prevailing opinion, but it is not the fact he presented it as.

9) He told me my faith was my own but then quickly changed that into a narrow definition that he defined…so wrong.

1) What you said was so irrelevant, I thought you must have meant something else. Yeah, it threw me, and you still haven't explained what it had to do with anything. I've probably heard about pronunciation of Jesus, but never thought much about it. This is something more of interest to linguists than Bible scholars.

2) There are very few truly evil people in this world. You couldn't possibly know them all.

3) See #2.

4) I am correct and I proved it.

5) I dodged nothing. I even provided background on the hermeneutics of literal interpretation.

6) Your church didn't sound liberal to me. If you think that Methodists can't be fundamentalists then you don't know what fundamentalism is. However, I am sorry if I mischaracterized your previous church.

7) I said nothing about how you should feel. You said you were a cultural relativist. That is the ethics equivalent of being a flat earther. But as a cultural relativist, you can't argue that a group of people in their own culture are evil for going along with what their culture says is right. Therefore, fundamentalist evangelicals are not evil for wanting to ban gay marriage.

8) I am correct. It is self-evident that a Christain follows Jesus and his teachings. Jesus as the son of God is central to those teachings. Any church who teaches otherwise should not call themselves "Christian". The fact that some wrongly do so proves nothing.

9) I always maintained that your faith is your own. That is also self-evident and there is no way to narrow such a statement.

Um, ever heard of the inverted yield curve? wrote:

Question for you all: How long until Trump completely caves to the Chinese on trade (probably lifts sanctions of Huawei, allows them to operate in the US, gets nothing substantial on forced technology transfers, nothing on copyright enforcement, nothing on currency manipulation but gets some token like they’ll buy more agricultural goods from us) simply to try and declare “victory” in the trade war and try and salvage his slim chances in 2020?

It’s clear Trump’s economic, tax, and trade policies are a total disaster (not surprising) but he is trying to stave off total economic collapse prior to the election in a bid to avoid prison by outlasting the statue of limitations for his many crimes. So, how long until hjs full capitulation to China? I think he’ll make “the best deal” by late September. What’d you all think?