Would Jesus Support Republican or Democratic Values More?

One-on-one debates

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
ElCodeMonkey
Site Supporter
Posts: 1587
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:49 am
Contact:

Would Jesus Support Republican or Democratic Values More?

Post #1

Post by ElCodeMonkey »

I would argue that the Democratic policies focus on the well-being of the poor and the oppressed. As such, I believe Jesus would be more in favor of Democratic values than that of the Republicans which focus more on guns and military while being entirely calloused to the plight of the poor and tend toward discrimination of others not like them.
I'm Published! Christians Are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress
My Blog: Friendly By Nurture
The Wisdom I've gleaned.
My Current Beliefs.

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #41

Post by Elijah John »

ElCodeMonkey wrote: Yeah, I absolutely don't agree with Maxine's perspective nor Hillary's. Harassing and making noise is stupid. We need to fight with logic and kindness. I don't know if it will be extremely effective, but it's better than the alternative which is guaranteed to backfire. It is hard to reason when nearly everyone is being unreasonable. I might agree that the left is being far more vocally rude and less reasonable. That doesn't make them wrong in their political agenda, per se, but it does make it a lot less kind and compassionate than their actual agenda.

I learned to embed videos by "quoting" someone who did it and seeing the tag for it :-). It only works with YouTube. Just surround a YouTube link with the youtube tag.

Another example of the left being unwilling to reason and discuss and just plain being rude.
[youtube][/youtube]

At least lately, behavior-wise, I might think Jesus would sooner side with the right, though goal-wise I think he might side with the left.

It might also be worth considering tactics. Jesus is wise and even if he disagrees more with one side than another, if one particular issue would lead to greater change, he might first side with them to get that one issue out of the way......
I have heard Jordan Peterson on Fox, several times. He is none of those things the kids are chanting at him. He is thoughtful, reasoned and smart.

That video illustrates the intolerant, "heckler's veto". It's making more and more Trump voters. People who believe in actual free speech, law and order, civility etc, are disgusted with this kind of behavior.

Is this rare? Or representative of the youth of today? Of college students?

That we both agree these students are being ridiculous and obnoxious gives me hope. ;)

I'm working on my response to post #37.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

User avatar
ElCodeMonkey
Site Supporter
Posts: 1587
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:49 am
Contact:

Post #42

Post by ElCodeMonkey »

Elijah John wrote: Is this rare? Or representative of the youth of today? Of college students?

That we both agree these students are being ridiculous and obnoxious gives me hope. ;)
I don't know if it should give too much hope. I am indeed a bit of a rare oddity myself. I fight back against the left all the time even with my good friends about how words like "system racism" are hindering their goals. Hopefully it's helping...
I'm Published! Christians Are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress
My Blog: Friendly By Nurture
The Wisdom I've gleaned.
My Current Beliefs.

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #43

Post by Elijah John »

ElCodeMonkey wrote:
Elijah John wrote: Is this rare? Or representative of the youth of today? Of college students?

That we both agree these students are being ridiculous and obnoxious gives me hope. ;)
I don't know if it should give too much hope. I am indeed a bit of a rare oddity myself. I fight back against the left all the time even with my good friends about how words like "system racism" are hindering their goals. Hopefully it's helping...
Well you give me hope, anyway.

I wish the protesters would keep in mind that what they shout is recorded, and when they outgrow their youthful "exuberance", their bad behavior will still be on the internet for all to see. They may have some 'splainin' to do with their own kids.

Shall we break now for the Holiday? I should have my response to post 37 the day after Thanksgiving.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #44

Post by Elijah John »

ElCodeMonkey wrote:
I don't want to speak too much outside my knowledge and I don't know much about Maxine Waters. It looks as if she is not speaking for the whole of the Democrats though and that other Democrats are getting a bit anxious about her behavior. But I don't know the comments nor the situation just yet. I would point out, however, that this is exactly the kind of behavior that the right did to gay people. Same stuff, different enemy.
I know of no Republican (or Democrat for that matter) who has advocated for the harassment of homosexuals. Certainly not in the manner Maxine Waters incites her followers to harass Republicans in their private lives.
Obama was often disrupted by republicans during his speeches and he actually took a very firm stance that we ought to be better than them, respect them, and be nice.
I recall one occasion, by one Congressman. If there are others, I do not remember them.
I can't say that's our current left-wing which is sad, but again, it went both ways.
A welcome admission, but I disagree with your attempt to make an equivency here. In a subsequent post, you seem to make a more sweeping admission, which is even more welcome. ;). I agree, Jesus may not have approved of the tactics of the Left, but those tactics do not invalidate the Liberal cause, per se. But as you (will) indicate, the tactics of harassment do not help.
And Obama was bashed like crazy by the right the whole while he was president. I was practically forced to watch Fox News when I worked at my previous company and I didn't follow much for politics outside it so it had me believing that everyone hated Obama and I was surprised he was still in office. Both sides absolutely demonize and disrupt.
The opinion pundits on Fox, yes. Especially Hannity, whose shows often began with statements like "you'll never believe what Obama did today!". It gets tiresome when one side can do no wrong, and the other, do no right. At least according to the pundits on either side, and sometimes, (all too often) the players (politicians) themselves.
This is a bit extreme for her to say, but it's indicative of the current nature of the polarization and the extreme repercussions believed by certain decisions. The left VERY strongly believes in Global Warming and the global catastrophe that will be caused by not doing anything. Our very way of life and concept of life could drastically change if immediate action is not taken. This is potentially deadly on apocalyptic levels. To not do something and simply be kind is akin to politely requesting Mr. Hitler to stop his silly antics. That's how she and many left-wingers feel
It's not just about the climate issue. The Left just cannot seem to accept that Trump won, and HRC lost. But to demonize one side as Hitlarian because of disagreement on climate change, (and other matters) is an outrageous and offensive comparison. Here is where persuasion and reasoned, factual presentation (as Al Gore attempted to do) would work far better. When one engages in hyperbole and hysteria, one discredits the cause, in a "chicken little" kinda way.
I also felt it for quite some time and I'm still unsure if I should feel it. Is it that dire? I really don't know. Is racism really as dire as is painted? I don't perceive it, but how could I? If things really are as bad as they claim, I can see why they'd be so mad. Unfortunately, I've also been the brunt of their attacks so I lean toward thinking they're overdoing it for flame-baiting and garnering support. Doing so will only widen the gap and make things worse.But they truly believe it is that dire.


I think the race baiters, and race mongers (and other professional protesters and demigogues) are sorry they missed the Sixties, where protest was refined into an art form, and was based on things like real, actual racism and discrimination. Today's witch-hunters chase imaginary racism, and often see it where it doesn't exist. Yes, Black Lives Matter, but no one said they didn't. Yes, there are occasional racist cops, but not near as many as the Left and the media would have us believe. They take isolated incidents and weave them together to formulate a false narrative, and disregard any incident or pattern contrary to that narrative. Yes, racism still exists, but institutional, systematic racism? Not so much.

I'm sorry to read that you were the target of such false insinuations (accusations?)

You're taking the far-right perspective on these issues. They don't disrespect law enforcement, they believe that there is a severe racial issue. We can argue if that's the case separately, but that's the drive.
Perhaps, but perception is not always reality.
The "little guy" or the "voiceless people." They're trying to stand up for what they see as injustice. It's why they shout Black Lives Matter because it seems as if people act like they don't. The shout that all lives matter doesn't sound like a fair response because, though it is true, it need not be said because only the black lives are the ones being severely traumatized.
The only(?)ones? Severely traumatized?? It this is what they believe, it is probably the result of the media, Hollywood, and some extreme Leftist politicians feeding into the false narrative. (see above)

Have you ever heard of Michael Brown? How about Travon Martin? Most probably. The national media makes cause celebre out of such "victims (?)" (there is even a miniseries about Travon Martin), and painted both as victims and martyrs. Obama sent his AG Eric Holder to the funeral of Michael Brown. A thug, who tried to wrestle a gun away from a policeman, and was killed in the process.

Have you ever heard of Jerold Thurman? Probably not. The national media does not make such a big deal out of white lives, which do not seem to matter as much. Here's a story that was covered on a local network, but Mr. Thurman is far from a household name, unlike Michael Brown or Trayvon Martin.

http://www.newson6.com/story/19549437/s ... ng-justice

There are many, similar tales of black on white violence. But you'll never hear of them unless you do some research. The mainstream, national media will not make cause for them, because such incidents do not fit their narrative.

They want the wide open borders because people are fleeing from persecution, death, famine, and whatnot. They care for those "little guys."
Poverty is not grounds for asylum in the US. It is a humanitarian tragedy,yes, but what is the solution? Open the borders to the whole world's impoverished? Where would it end?
Even abortion isn't about having rampant and unrepentant sex or baby-murdering, it's about situations that exist, perhaps due to poor decisions, some due to unforseen circumstances such as rape or failing birth control, and recognition that forced babies causes problems for both the mother and the babies who, without a proper social safety net when born, will likely suffer and become delinquent. Again, we can argue the truth of these claims separately, but those are the justifications. Again, these all have consequences, but they're coming from a perspective of desire to help people. Which, I think, is very akin to Jesus.
Do you honestly think Jesus would favor abortion in any of those circumstances? Orthodox Judaism holds that the decision must be in favor of the life principle. Only if the mother's life would be in peril by giving birth, can abortion be (sadly) justified. Do you have any evidence that Jesus would differ on this?
The left is still very much pro-poor-white. This is why Obamacare was instantiated. By forcing health care upon everyone, it caused people who didn't need it to buy in so that it could help the poor. Yes, again, consequences, but we're talking about motive
The immigration policies of the Left would depress wages for the working class, and stain the social safety network. Common sense to me, but it seems we disagree.

As for traditional, what is so important about making one person's tradition forced upon other people? It seems a bit unfair to me. I don't make you drink egg nog while putting up a Christmas tree just because that's my family's tradition. We do our thing, other people can do theirs. Jesus destroyed all the Pharisee's traditions. The left holds a perspective that sexual identity is not really a choice of our own. We are what we are and we can hide it or be happy with who we are. Again, maybe true and maybe false (I believe true, of course) but the point is the perspective. Believing they have no choice, then they are being unfairly persecuted and prejudiced against. They are the little guy with no voice. People hate them, want to kill them, and ban them from stores because of a mere facet of who they are that they had no choice over. It's equivalent to skin color. No choice.
Do you mean sexual orientation or sexual identity? There is a difference. The former, I believe there is probably not much of a choice. The latter, clearly there is. If a man chooses to dress as a woman, or identify as a woman...that is a choice in defiance of reality. Or invent "non-binary" sexual identity in defiance of reality, science and biology, that is a choice. "Male and female created he them." Jesus' position on the matter seems to be at odds with PC gender issues of redefinition.

And do you honestly believe Jesus would buy-into the whole "LBGTQIA..etc agenda? Would he approve of the promiscuity that bi-sexuality necessitates? After all, what would a "bisexual marriage" look like. 2,3 4 or more partners in the union?

Now all this does not mean anyone should be denied human rights. And those that attempt to deny other people their human rights are clearly wrong, if not criminal. But those few people in no way define or characterize the Right. Yes, of course there are extremists, but....
As with my previous post, one person's actions do not constitute the entirety of the party. And again, if they feel there is SO MUCH on the line that it's likely to harm and kill millions, I can see why some people would want to get a bit more "in your face." Again, not that I agree, but they have a motive of support for life and liberty for all people.
The issues in question are not really global warming. The others, (immigration etc) reasonable people can disagree with civility. Unfortunately, the leaders of the Democrat party have not been too vocal in condemning the tactics of extremisim and harassment. Could it be that Antifah and the like are doing the bidding of the Democrats? With "plausible deniability"? The Cuomo (I get them mixed up) on CNN once said that Antifah at least, is not racist, implying they can be excused for their tactics, at least some of them? But it is refreshing that the same Cuomo later strongly condemned the group for harassing Tucker Carlson at his home.
It's not. But not believing that Jesus will swoop down and save things, it makes sense to take matters in their own hands. We didn't simply do unto others when Hitler was killing people either. Would Jesus have approved of stopping him? I think that rule applies mostly from a personal level, not a governmental level. I see this increase in divide and feeling of dire straights will be our undoing if we don't cut the hype and reach across the divide.
The Hitler comparison is offensive and outrageous. I doubt you mean that Republicans are rounding people up and slaughtering them like Hitler did.

Yes, we do need to work together and reach across the divide.

Now some of the issues raised in this post 37 you addressed in subsequent posts, and I think we actually agree on more than is apparent in this one.
Last edited by Elijah John on Fri Nov 23, 2018 4:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

User avatar
ElCodeMonkey
Site Supporter
Posts: 1587
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:49 am
Contact:

Post #45

Post by ElCodeMonkey »

Elijah John wrote:A welcome admission, but I disagree with your attempt to make an equivency here.
I'm not equating. I'm saying it does go both ways but then said "not equally" at this point in time. At least, not that I'm aware of. I perceive the left as more aggressive as of right now.

Elijah John wrote:The Left just cannot seem to accept that Trump won, and HRC lost. But to demonize one side as Hitlarian because of disagreement on climate change, (and other matters) is an outrageous and offensive comparison. Here is where persuasion and reasoned, factual presentation (as Al Gore attempted to do) would work far better. When one engages in hyperbole and hysteria, one discredits the cause, in a "chicken little" kinda way.
Trump is by far the worst Republican candidate we've seen to date. I don't know if you know, but our country is literally the laughingstock of the world right now. The UN laughed in his face as he proudly lied about how great he thinks he is. So no, we very much can't believe and accept that Trump won any more than the rest of the world. It's like we're in the twilight zone. As for hysteria, you see it as a Chicken Little crying wolf but only because you do not believe it. It is not likely to be total apocalypse, [strike]but there are already many deaths due to the increased strength and frequency of storms. This will continue to get worse and "the little guy" will be the most to suffer. [/strike] The well-to-do will likely be able to function in a more chaotic system of weather while the poor will continue to be destroyed despite being less to blame for the cause. Again, this comes more down to perspective than truth. If the left thinks we're all about to die in 20 years if we don't do something NOW, this is going to change how they act and react. [strike]A small percentage but a large population of people will indeed die due to global warming. They'll lose homes and lives. Millions of people even. But it's a few thousand here and a few thousand there and extremely hard to simply say our CO2 emissions did that exact one and those exact deaths. Storms always existed, after all. But it is getting worse and will continue. More lives will indeed be lost to an even greater extent than the holocaust if we do not take action. Hitler intentionally killed 6 million Jews. [/strike] This is where I went to see how many have died to extreme weather.... I... am not sure that the numbers are increasing at this point. It kinda looks like the numbers are going down... So, as of yet, there appears to be an increase in phenomena, but maybe we're taking it more seriously and preparing so that fewer are actually dying. Can we keep up? I guess I don't know. But again, it's back to perception. Up until this very moment, I thought it was super catastrophic. And maybe it still is in the future if we don't do something. Calling it a hoax is just plain wrong and indicates an allowance for it to continue and potentially kill more people. Maybe it's not quite so bad as Hitler... yet... but maybe it will be if we keep this trend. Very hard to tell, but the perspective is that it will indeed be worse than Hitler overall. Just not racially prejudiced :-)
Image
Elijah John wrote:Yes, Black Lives Matter, but no one said they didn't. Yes, there are occasional racist cops, but not near as many as the Left and the media would have us believe. They take isolated incidents and weave them together to formulate a false narrative, and disregard any incident or pattern contrary to that narrative. Yes, racism still exists, but institutional, systematic racism? Not so much.
This is still undecided overall for me. I definitely agree that the left is pushing its extremes and taking isolated incidences incorrectly as "evidence" which only harms the cause. Discussion on both sides, however, gets taken far too out of context and the points are missed. You bring up how white deaths don't get the same attention and seem to draw some conclusion from that. There's an obvious reason: whites aren't oppressed for whiteness. So why point out the whites? Our TVs would be nothing but white deaths. Black deaths, on the other hand, are important if it shows a continuation. Still, statistics are going to be a far better indicator than individual accounts, but statistics are boring, people fear them, and they don't draw upon our emotions. Nobody is "saying" black lives don't matter, but the perception is that the police are killing blacks at a high rate for little cause and our lack of outrage indicates we don't care. This is why they are chanting that their lives DO matter. Whites aren't being picked on by trigger-happy police and therefore nobody is assuming white lives don't matter. Thus the chant is for black lives and not all lives. Again, whether or not the perception is correct does not change the perception. And our actions are determined more by perceptions than facts. Reality will always be what it is, but we always make decisions based upon perception.
Elijah John wrote:
They want the wide open borders because people are fleeing from persecution, death, famine, and whatnot. They care for those "little guys."
Poverty is not grounds for asylum in the US. It is a humanitarian tragedy,yes, but what is the solution? Open the borders to the whole world's impoverished? Where would it end?
You are mistaken that they are merely fleeing poverty. As seen in my own quote, they are fleeing violence. Ever seen a safe-to-travel map of Mexico? It is quite unsafe at the moment. A lot of it isn't even from Mexico. it is instead people traveling through Mexico and getting stuck at the border and making things even worse. It's not simply money.
Image
Elijah John wrote:Do you honestly think Jesus would favor abortion in any of those circumstances? Orthodox Judaism holds that the decision must be in favor of the life principle. Only if the mother's life would be in peril by giving birth, can abortion be (sadly) justified. Do you have any evidence that Jesus would differ on this?
I think Jesus would see it much like I see it, to be honest. Ending an embryo that can't have a conscious thought is very similar to not ever having been conceived to begin with. It's no different than the many sperm that died en route to the egg. In fact, God kills more babies than we do with a known 10-20% rate of miscarriages and an estimated 50% overall (due to many ending so early they never go to the hospital). With our 4 kids, we had 2 miscarriages ourselves and our 4th almost didn't make it. If she didn't, it would have been 50% for us. And when people lack the ability to care for a child and their entire lives will be forever changed by a child, people get desperate and end up killing themselves either intentionally or accidentally via unhealthy attempts at abortion with coat hooks, punching, and poisons. I, myself, would likely never abort. I have the means to support it and it would simply be a tough decision. I can't make the decision for others though and God appears perfectly fine with allowing our embryos to die. It's not even a person yet and if we believe in souls, God likely would not even give the child a soul knowing it is to be aborted or miscarried.
Elijah John wrote:
The left is still very much pro-poor-white. This is why Obamacare was instantiated. By forcing health care upon everyone, it caused people who didn't need it to buy in so that it could help the poor. Yes, again, consequences, but we're talking about motive
The immigration policies of the Left would depress wages for the working class, and stain the social safety network. Common sense to me, but it seems we disagree.
Your response seems unrelated to my statement unless you're considering this is intentional to harm the working class. There are consequences, and maybe the left wants to have their cake and eat it, too. But they are still very interested in helping the poor and their party is far more likely to do it since it's their goal. They'll get better input as needed, hopefully, and/or learn from mistakes, but at least they're trying instead of denying.
Elijah John wrote: Do you mean sexual orientation or sexual identity? There is a difference. The former, I believe there is probably not much of a choice. The latter, clearly there is. If a man chooses to dress as a woman, or identify as a woman...that is a choice in defiance of reality.
I don't think Jesus spoke much about this, but I dare say you're absolutely wrong. It's a choice what to wear, sure, but it's not a choice to desire what to wear. Our desires are a fabric of who we are. I don't choose to dislike broccoli. I simply don't like it. If I force myself to eat it, I will barf. If I could choose, I would choose to like it since life would be better liking it than not and provide more options. Biology is crazy though. There are [strike]men [/strike] people with XX chromosomes and a penis because too much testosterone was present during gestation. Some people have both a penis and a vagina. Some XY people have vaginas because not enough testosterone was present during gestation. Imagine right now that you were technically female but "felt" exactly as you do now. You'd essentially be forced into skirts and high heels to fit the cultural identity of a female despite your feeling 100% male right this second. It is not as simple as binary. Maybe it is for the majority of people, but what about the rest? We can't just ignore the minority because it is inconvenient. And who decided men can't wear dresses anyway? That's purely cultural. There's nothing "wrong" with it beyond that. Scottish men wear skirts even. This is not a moral issue.
Elijah John wrote:And do you honestly believe Jesus would buy-into the whole "LBGTQIA..etc agenda? Would he approve of the promiscuity that bi-sexuality necessitates? After all, what would a "bisexual marriage" look like. 2,3 4 or more partners in the union?
Being bisexual doesn't mean you have to have two partners. It means you're open for either. Knowing Jesus and how God seems to operate, I don't think he'd enforce anything. I think he'd let people make their own decisions like he currently does and like Jesus did. Since I perceive Jesus as being all about doing what is "good" and hiding from what is "evil" I'd say I can't see where sexual practices fit into this. Where does good and evil apply to how a person obtains an orgasm? The entire concept was simply people using religion to control a population and to keep "weird" people away from them for fear and misunderstanding. In the end, whether Jesus agrees or not, I think this would be his absolute least concern when real, living, born people are suffering. Jesus dislikes suffering and hates evil. If something doesn't fit in either category, I think it'd get the back-burner.
Elijah John wrote:The Hitler comparison is offensive and outrageous. I doubt you mean that Republicans are rounding people up and slaughtering them like Hitler did.
It is not outrageous when people believe that lack of action will kill millions. Be it for immigration, poverty, or global warming, people are dying. Doing nothing allows them to die. It is pretty similar and especially if racially charged like immigration. The left focuses on the needs of the already born while the right seems to focus on forcing the unborn to be born then dropping them like a hot potato once they're born.
I'm Published! Christians Are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress
My Blog: Friendly By Nurture
The Wisdom I've gleaned.
My Current Beliefs.

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #46

Post by Elijah John »

ElCodeMonkey wrote:

Elijah John wrote:The Left just cannot seem to accept that Trump won, and HRC lost. But to demonize one side as Hitlarian because of disagreement on climate change, (and other matters) is an outrageous and offensive comparison. Here is where persuasion and reasoned, factual presentation (as Al Gore attempted to do) would work far better. When one engages in hyperbole and hysteria, one discredits the cause, in a "chicken little" kinda way.
Trump is by far the worst Republican candidate we've seen to date. I don't know if you know, but our country is literally the laughingstock of the world right now. The UN laughed in his face as he proudly lied about how great he thinks he is. So no, we very much can't believe and accept that Trump won any more than the rest of the world. It's like we're in the twilight zone.
If I recall correctly, Trump responded with disarming self-deprication. He knows he has a huge ego. And he is prone to gaffes. Can you imagine if Joe Biden gets in?

Regarding worldwide support, I know of a few here on this very site who applaud Trump's common sense approach. From Scotland to Austrailia. And I'm sure there are others here on this site.. And worldwide, many others.

And some may laugh now, but when their countries are brought to ruin because of continued, unfettered immigration by "refugees", Trump's approach will be vindicated.


-Re climate, I think you make some good points. And on this, I am confident Trump can be persuaded and worked with.
You bring up how white deaths don't get the same attention and seem to draw some conclusion from that. There's an obvious reason: whites aren't oppressed for whiteness. So why point out the whites? Our TVs would be nothing but white deaths. Black deaths, on the other hand, are important if it shows a continuation. Still, statistics are going to be a far better indicator than individual accounts, but statistics are boring, people fear them, and they don't draw upon our emotions.


And statistics can be manipulated and falsified. (in general, not you)

My point is that the deaths of some blacks are used to create a false narrative, that police are out to get black people based on their race. The media implication is that it is systemic. Highly doubtful.

And when black people commit murder against whites, even unusually grisly murders (as in victims Jerold Thurman and a 77 year old woman kidnapped and killed by the same pair of thugs, police believe.) no "pattern" is weaved by media outlets. Those white victims at the hands of African Americans are not championed like they would be if the victims were black. They are largely ignored and forgotten.

Whites aren't being picked on by trigger-happy police and therefore nobody is assuming white lives don't matter.
That is exactly my point. Neither are blacks. And your statement here buys into a false narrative to the contrary. Isolate incidents, at best.

Thus the chant is for black lives and not all lives. Again, whether or not the perception is correct does not change the perception. And our actions are determined more by perceptions than facts. Reality will always be what it is, but we always make decisions based upon perception.
Perhaps, then, we need to stop feeding into false perceptions. By not repeating clichés and false assertions. And questioning assumptions especially when they are chanted by ther Left, lately.
You are mistaken that they are merely fleeing poverty. As seen in my own quote, they are fleeing violence. Ever seen a safe-to-travel map of Mexico? It is quite unsafe at the moment. A lot of it isn't even from Mexico. it is instead people traveling through Mexico and getting stuck at the border and making things even worse. It's not simply money.
The caravan is mostly if not entirely Central Americans, not Mexicans. Mexico offered asylum, but he migrants refused. If they were in fear of their lives, why not accept asylum offers from a country of their own language?

I think Jesus would see it much like I see it, to be honest.
What makes you think so? Seems that is just speculation based on modern, Leftist sensibilities. More likely, Jesus would oppose the slaughter of unborn children. Your scientific meanderings are also comprised of speculation, it seems. How does science know when the soul is enjoined? It cannot. And since it cannot, should we not give the benefit of the doubt in favor of life? As opposed to modern, Feminist ideology. When does human life begin? It is a continuum.

I will agree though that Republicans could do a better job of advocating for the newly born, especially those born in poverty.

I had a liberal friend who used to say the "Republicans think that life begins at conception and ends at birth". An unfortunate, but real perception.

I will grant you that the Left seems to care more, even if their methods are not always effective. I applaud their advocacy for the "little guy" I just wish they would have a little more respect for law enforcement, national security, law and order, and traditional culture. And wish they would stop demonizing people who disagree with them, and stop the demonization of "white men" as though their race and gender was something inherently bad.

Re sexual orientation and sexual identity, a couple of questions.

-Is every desire a human being has "normal" and to be indulged? People have all kinds of strange desires, some even criminal. Should they all be indulged and celebrated? Where's the line?

-How many biological genders are there? Do you think we should listen to screaming college students who try to stretch the normative two, to ad infinitum? Why so?
Being bisexual doesn't mean you have to have two partners.
.
That's actually a good point. I guess theoretically there is a such things as a "bisexual, monogamous marriage" Actually, after having typed this, it seems a contradiction in terms.

Back to immigration, I heard in the news a few days ago the migrants were planning a "human stampede" to get into the US. And yesterday or the day before, some were throwing rocks and bottles at border agents. Are violent (some of them violent) people like this really who we want in our country?

If people were banging on your door demanding entry into your house, would you let them in? If they were throwing rocks, wouldn't you call the police?
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

User avatar
ElCodeMonkey
Site Supporter
Posts: 1587
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:49 am
Contact:

Post #47

Post by ElCodeMonkey »

Elijah John wrote: If I recall correctly, Trump responded with disarming self-deprication. He knows he has a huge ego. And he is prone to gaffes. Can you imagine if Joe Biden gets in?

Regarding worldwide support, I know of a few here on this very site who applaud Trump's common sense approach. From Scotland to Austrailia. And I'm sure there are others here on this site.. And worldwide, many others.
I think those that applaud his "common sense approach" are likely unfamiliar with the types of things he's doing. I'll give an example below.
Elijah John wrote:And some may laugh now, but when their countries are brought to ruin because of continued, unfettered immigration by "refugees", Trump's approach will be vindicated.
Immigration seems to be a huge topic for you. Why is that?
Elijah John wrote:-Re climate, I think you make some good points. And on this, I am confident Trump can be persuaded and worked with.
I have not seen him budge at all. Why do you think he would? Has he shown any previous ability to learn and change his political positions?
Elijah John wrote:And statistics can be manipulated and falsified. (in general, not you)
I think this might happen from random websites and Facebookers, but I like to think I can trust the data coming from legit government or scientific sources. We can't just throw it all out for suspicion lest we never come to any conclusions ever again.
Elijah John wrote:My point is that the deaths of some blacks are used to create a false narrative, that police are out to get black people based on their race. The media implication is that it is systemic. Highly doubtful.
I probably agree with you moreso than the generic left. I think the logic is going the other way though. The left sees there is a problem and then points out an event and shouts "see!!" Rather than seeing the event and then shouting "Egads, we have a problem!" The events they pick to "showcase" the problem, however, are often pretty poor in both our opinions but that doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist. It's just hard to showcase the problem in a way that people will get it.
Elijah John wrote:
Whites aren't being picked on by trigger-happy police and therefore nobody is assuming white lives don't matter.
That is exactly my point. Neither are blacks. And your statement here buys into a false narrative to the contrary. Isolate incidents, at best.
I wasn't stating it from my own perspective but that of the left. I'm not sure I believe it, personally, or that it is particularly racially charged or perhaps even unwarranted if it is. Not that it's "okay" but that it might be understandable. Our brains make patterns and we can't stop it from feeling certain ways based upon the patterns it makes. If some huge percent of black population is impoverished and therefore less educated, and therefore more prone to crime and violence, then it makes sense that our brains created a racist framework of "black people are scary." How that plays out in tense situations will indeed be unfortunate but not a cause to cry racism of the system or the police. What needs fixed is the poverty and education, not the supposed "racism." That will fix itself when there's no longer a pattern to draw the racist conclusions. I am fairly alone on this from the left side of things though. I will say the poverty is due to racist segregation laws and whatnot, but I do not think that is what is keeping it there. It's simply the spiral from the now-mostly-gone cause of racism. I don't see it as worthy or helpful to shout racism anymore but rather "hey let's help the poor people." That will be more effective than white-shaming for our forefathers actions.
Elijah John wrote:Perhaps, then, we need to stop feeding into false perceptions. By not repeating clichés and false assertions. And questioning assumptions especially when they are chanted by ther Left, lately.
Agreed, but I think both sides do that. I hear the same cliche responses to every position left and right. The left is baby-killing anti-life murderers and the right is anti-women patriarchal racists. It's all rather stupid on both ends. Conversations like this are in extreme necessity instead but currently few and far between.
Elijah John wrote:The caravan is mostly if not entirely Central Americans, not Mexicans. Mexico offered asylum, but he migrants refused. If they were in fear of their lives, why not accept asylum offers from a country of their own language?
As I showed, Mexico is not safe either. Why flee danger by going into danger? Detaining them at the border makes it all the more dangerous for them. To respond to the below rock-throwing statements, they're getting violent because they're getting trapped. That's what animals do when cornered and scared. And I'm not sure if you know, but the current Trump policies at the border, for people seeking asylum, not criminals, is to take away children and lose them to an arbitrary system. I'm hearing that they sometimes bring back the wrong child and that they "found" 14 kids to add to their kid-total that they somehow didn't have documented yet in their custody. It's all very appalling. Some of these kids are infants younger than 1 and they can't find them because they don't respond when calling out their name. What is happening at the border is horrible for any family let alone families trying to seek asylum from violence. Whether or not we should "let them in" is probably a clear-cut "yes", but what we do with them and how long we let them stay might be another thing. I don't have all the facts and figures to know how many more people we can support, but more people doesn't necessarily mean they will all live off government. They can find jobs and more people working means more need for services and goods which means more jobs. I don't think it's a guarantee that they'd simply be a strain and nothing more. Supply and demand will do it's thing. Capitalism will make it work. Aren't you righties pro capitalism? :-).
Elijah John wrote:
I think Jesus would see it much like I see it, to be honest.
What makes you think so? Seems that is just speculation based on modern, Leftist sensibilities.
...
I will agree though that Republicans could do a better job of advocating for the newly born, especially those born in poverty.
Well, because Jesus' main goal was that of "love your neighbor" as is mine. My idea of "love your neighbor" leads me to believe we should allow abortion perhaps up to a certain age or under certain circumstances. I think of it from a merely logical standpoint of losses and gains rather than an arbitrary "that's a life that is dying." Each sperm and egg is a life that is dying. I see good and evil as a battle between suffering and peace. If no suffering, no problem. The day-after pill has no suffering so I see it as no problem. The soul thing comes into play only for those who believe in souls and I provided a nice little "out" for that in that God knows ahead of time whether or not a soul is worth providing.
Elijah John wrote:I will grant you that the Left seems to care more, even if their methods are not always effective. I applaud their advocacy for the "little guy" I just wish they would have a little more respect for law enforcement, national security, law and order, and traditional culture. And wish they would stop demonizing people who disagree with them, and stop the demonization of "white men" as though their race and gender was something inherently bad.
I couldn't agree more!
Elijah John wrote:-Is every desire a human being has "normal" and to be indulged? People have all kinds of strange desires, some even criminal. Should they all be indulged and celebrated? Where's the line?
Clearly not, but it goes back to my statement above of suffering. If there's no harm there's no foul. Why not let people be if they're not hurting anyone?
Elijah John wrote:-How many biological genders are there? Do you think we should listen to screaming college students who try to stretch the normative two, to ad infinitum? Why so?
Why would it matter? If someone wants to call themselves a girliemanchick instead of male or female, what's that to me? Is it harming anything?
I'm Published! Christians Are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress
My Blog: Friendly By Nurture
The Wisdom I've gleaned.
My Current Beliefs.

User avatar
ElCodeMonkey
Site Supporter
Posts: 1587
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:49 am
Contact:

Post #48

Post by ElCodeMonkey »

This is a rather interesting TED Talk about left vs right. The graph he shows might help add to the idea of which Jesus might prefer although we may still disagree :-)

[youtube][/youtube]
I'm Published! Christians Are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress
My Blog: Friendly By Nurture
The Wisdom I've gleaned.
My Current Beliefs.

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #49

Post by Elijah John »

[Replying to post 47 by ElCodeMonkey]

I think society would be better off if they could "debate" like we do. Neither of us demonizing the other, both giving the other credit for good intentions and good will. Our conversation almost seems more suited to a discussion forum, like a "putting our heads together".

Some points, without quote by quote response, which gets a bit unwieldy.

-I think immigration is so important because it affects everything. Allocation of resources, culture, national language and unity, health, and yes, national security. So we really need to get it right. Obama seemed willing to risk the health of the American people by importing a couple of Ebola patients for treatment, instead of treating them in Africa. No matter that the treatment seems to have been safely contained, the point is, disaster could have occurred. And it is troubling to think that Obama was willing to take that risk with American lives. An American president is supposed to put America's interest first. And Hillary Clinton wanted to quintuple the amount of Syrian refuges the US would take in. Trump Jr's analogy of poison skittles was a good one. It would just take a few sleeper cells, Trojan horses to give the enemy a head start on inflicting major damage to the US.

Yes, those are humanitarian problems that call for compassionate solutions. But what about compassions for Americans in the process? Seems the Left isn't usually too concerned about that.

Same with race relations. We both agree that racism is bad. Horrible But so is using the charge as a weapon to attempt to discredit those who disagree with us. It cheapens the word to over-use it. And it is being over used today, mostly by the Left.
To want strong borders is not "racist" against "brown people" as some on the Left like to charge. Criticizing a black President is not "racist" per se. And so on..

Your position of "do the least harm" on questions like abortion reminds me of the Orthodox Jewish position, of always resolving in favor of the life principle. Which course of action best serves Life. Sometimes, like when the life of the mother is at stake, yes, abortion seems to be the unfortunate solution. But that really has nothing to do with "a womans right to choose". We pro-life people also consider the baby's right to live. Remember, abortion kills baby women too. And when in doubt as to when human life begins, or when their rights begin, or when the soul is imparted, why not err in favor of Life?

Regarding gender identity issues, yes, if someone wants to be "different" and they are not hurting anyone, sure, why not. I'm not the Cosmic judge. But the fact of the matter, some are attempting to force acceptence of deviant life styles on the rest of us. ("deiviant" is not a pejorative per se, just means deviation from the norm). They do this by attempting to mandate transgender bathooms by law, (unfunded mandates to compel businesses to construct gender neutral bathrooms, etc) and in some jurisdictions, there are penatles for offending someone by not guessing their gender identiy accurately. So they are indeed attempting to forcefeed their agenda on the rest of society. You heard it, by the video you provided. McMaster students screaming "Transphobic peice of ..." when Jordon Peterson was suppose to speak. One wonders what Peterson did or said to engender that kind of reception. But I really doubt it was anything substantial, or truly hateful. It doesn't take much nowadays to set some college students off. Then the herd mentality takes over and it seems they try to out do each other in attempting to trumpet their "virtue".

Yes, if things like trangender (or multigender beyond "binary" acceptance) is the "right side of history", why not attempt to persuade instead of using intimidation? I would say to the Left, remember, most cultures through most ages have been "hetero-normative" and "gender-binary". It is unrealistic to expect traditional people to change overnight, and shouting doesn't help.

If God, Science of Reason or even common decency is on your side, make your case, calmly.

And regarding the civility of our present debate, I credit my opponent and his good nature, as well as this site which champions civility and the free exchange of ideas.

Sean, I got about halfway though your latest video, it looks good. I'll try to resond soon.

Who is "TED"? ;)
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

User avatar
ElCodeMonkey
Site Supporter
Posts: 1587
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:49 am
Contact:

Post #50

Post by ElCodeMonkey »

Elijah John wrote:-I think immigration is so important because it affects everything. Allocation of resources, culture, national language and unity, health, and yes, national security.
...
Yes, those are humanitarian problems that call for compassionate solutions. But what about compassions for Americans in the process? Seems the Left isn't usually too concerned about that.
This is where statistics and likelihoods come into play. Over 37,000 people died in the US last year in car wrecks. It is inherently risky business. Do we make laws to stop driving? Of course not. There were just over 17,000 murders in the US last year. Twice as many people die by cars than by murders. Most of these murders occur by US Citizens, not by immigrants whether legal or not. It is clear that it is far more dangerous to drive than to allow an immigrant into our country and yet we still drive without hardly considering the danger. Not only is it quite safe to bring in immigrants, they also help the economy more than they hurt it. From the "George W Bush Presidential Center" you can see that immigrants tend to be better for our economy than even our own citizens. So this is why we're more focused on helping the lives that are guaranteed to be harmed (the refugees and asylum-seekers) rather than worrying about a fear-based concern without statistical merit. Immigration simply isn't that risky a business even if it "could" be.
Image
Elijah John wrote:We both agree that racism is bad. Horrible But so is using the charge as a weapon to attempt to discredit those who disagree with us. It cheapens the word to over-use it. And it is being over used today, mostly by the Left.
Agreed. And yet it is underused and underseen by the right. There is still a significant racial problem that the right refuses to see and the left explodes larger than life. There is a middle ground where there is significant harm being done without everything being a racial injustice.
Elijah John wrote:We pro-life people also consider the baby's right to live. Remember, abortion kills baby women too. And when in doubt as to when human life begins, or when their rights begin, or when the soul is imparted, why not err in favor of Life?
Pregnancy is a hugely invasive process and raising children is EXTREMELY difficult and life-altering. It is important to understand how much it changes a person's life. Yet if the man and/or woman had used some form of birth control, the pregnancy would never have happened. How is this any different than the pregnancy happening and being aborted in 4 weeks? How is it different than the millions of babies not born from the one load of semen? Why is there suddenly a "right" for this one sperm and egg to have life? When an abortion takes place (if it is early enough) there is zero pain, zero loss, and zero suffering. It is absolutely no different than if birth control were used. Beyond some undefinable threshold there could be guilt or remorse on the part of the parents for having aborted something they may have grown somewhat attached to, but in the end, forcing the baby is a HUGE imposition on the woman and/or father and their families while being zero impact on the baby itself since it's all the same to it. It is a guarantee, for people who don't want or can't take care of a child, that it will harm lives drastically. Instead, it makes more sense to take the "life" of the thing that has no hopes, no desires, no concept of life, no friends, no knowledge, and no competence. It is less capable and has fewer life attachments than a fly or a spider and never "should" have been created to begin with. If we have the ultimate power to prevent it, and thus choose if life is created, why do we not have the same choice to simply stop the life before the life can even hear, see, feel, or breathe? Again, it is equivalent to sperm never reaching the egg to begin with since no pain is inflicted.
Elijah John wrote:But the fact of the matter, some are attempting to force acceptence of deviant life styles on the rest of us.
I used to feel similarly. Why shove "pride" in people's faces? Why prance around saying look at me? If that's what you're going to do, go ahead, but don't gloat and parade, right? I changed my mind on that, however, when I realized how much they were hated, mistreated, murdered, and looked down upon. They lose friends, families, get kicked out of bakeries, etc, etc. The whole point of the pride and parades is to help bring awareness to others that these are real-life people with real feelings and they do need ACCEPTANCE as people even if people don't like their flavor of sexuality or dress-code. Being repressed and hated all their lives, they need groups and support and acceptance even if it is only by people in similar situations. They really do need to prance around and have parades. Once it is "normal" and they are accepted as human beings, there will be a lot less of a need to parade. Since it is still a minority of the population, however, there will likely always be some form of support for them in the same way we have Black History month and minority support groups at work and whatnot.
Elijah John wrote:You heard it, by the video you provided. McMaster students screaming "Transphobic peice of ..." when Jordon Peterson was suppose to speak.
This was indeed awful and is not something the left, as a whole, promotes even though some of the left does it. In the same way, there are people on the right such as Steve King who speak with racist metaphors, but that doesn't mean the entire right is racist.

As for civility, I am absolutely a proponent of that. It needs to be promoted far more than even our political agendas. If we speak with civility, we can reach far better conclusions and mutual agreements even if we never truly agree on what the "right" option is. Civility will be the best for both sides and everyone caught in the middle.
I'm Published! Christians Are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress
My Blog: Friendly By Nurture
The Wisdom I've gleaned.
My Current Beliefs.

Post Reply