Christian nationalism

[Realworldjack]

I want to start out here by saying that I have been on this site for a good number of years now, as a regular contributor. However, it has been a good number of months since I have participated here on this site. The reason for this is the fact that I became convinced that I needed to begin to focus my attention, in order to debate fellow Christians. With this being said, I would like to share my response concerning a blog of a fellow Christian, who is a pastor of a large Church who has a large following which I have just submitted. I do not intend to identify who this pastor is. Rather, I would simply like to share my response to this particular pastor in order to receive feedback from both Christians, and all others as well, concerning my response. My main focus here is, what should unite all of us as, Americans. With this being the case, please pay special attention to the last three paragraphs. It is my hope that all of us as Americans can find a way to be united together, in spite of some differences we may have.

Below is my response to this pastor,

There are a number of issues I would like to discuss, debate, and challenge, in this, and other posts, as far as your stance concerning such things as Christian reconstruction, theonomy, theocracy, and Christian Nationalism. However, this would be long and drawn out, and would require a lot of time, energy, and space, which would cause the conversation to become bogged down. Therefore, with that in mind I want to attempt to tackle a couple of issues, in order for the issues to be fully addressed.

In your post entitled, "Free Speech in a Christian Theocracy" you refer to Paul giving us,

"explicit and free permission to keep company with idolators who would worship Aphrodite by fornicating with prostitutes at her temple."

You are correct, and I would argue this also gives us permission to associate with the Muslim, Jew, homosexual, abortionists, etc. of our day. You go on to say, we are not given this permission, "because we are now instructed to make our peace with such idolatryfar from it." Rather, according to you,

"Our mission remains the same, which is to bring every thought captive."

Here I would have to assume you are referring to the passage in 2 Corinthians chapter 10, and you must be, because just a few sentences later you actually quote this passage. You go on to tell us, our mission as the Church "is the eradication of idolatry in the entire world." Since this is a huge endeavor you ask, how are we to accomplish such a task, and refer us to the passage mentioned above, as if this passage is explaining to us as Christians, these mighty weapons we have at our disposal, and commanding us as Christians to, "take every thought captive" and by being commanded by Paul to "take every thought captive" this would include our interaction with those outside the Church.

Okay, well let us take a look at this passage in order to determine if this is what Paul was attempting to communicate to the Corinthians? If this is not in the least the message Paul was attempting to convey to the Corinthians, then there is no way we can use the passage in order to claim we as Christians are commanded to, "take every thought captive."

So then, as we turn our attention to this passage, and begin in verse 1 of chapter 10 in 2 Corinthians, what we read there is,

"Now I, Paul, appeal to you personally by the meekness and gentleness of Christ "

So, as we can clearly see, Paul is making a plea to the Corinthians. What is the plea Paul is making? Let us continue in order to discover this. Paul continues,

"I who am meek when present among you, but am full of courage toward you when away!"

What does Paul mean here? Well, as we continue on, we will discover Paul knows there are some of the Corinthians who are questioning his authority, by claiming Paul was meek in his presence, but when Paul was away he would write these bold, and weighty letters. This was Paul's way of letting these folks know that he was fully aware of what was being said about him. Therefore, Paul goes on to say,

"now I ask that when I am present I may not have to be bold with the confidence that (I expect) I will dare to use against some who consider us to be behaving according to human standards."

Now, I do not care who you are, this is clearly a warning, and it is a warning to some in the Corinthian Church, and the Corinthians would have clearly understood it as a warning. Paul continues,

"For though we live as human beings, we do not wage war according to human standards"

Okay, who is the "WE" referring too? I can assure you the "WE" is in no way referring to the Corinthians. Rather, this is a warning to the Corinthians. Paul is warning the Corinthians, "although I myself, and Timothy (Since Paul and Timothy are identified as the authors of this letter) are indeed human, we do not wage war according to human standards". Therefore, this has nothing whatsoever to do with communicating to the Corinthians that they as Christians, "do not wage war according to human standards". Nor is Paul explaining to the Corinthians they have these Spiritual weapons at their disposal. Again, it is a clear warning to the Corinthians.

As we continue Paul says,

"for the weapons of our warfare are not human weapons, but are made powerful by God for tearing down strongholds."

The question here is, who is the "OUR" referring too? It cannot be the Corinthians, since they are not included in the "WE". In other words, this has nothing to do with teaching the Corinthians they as Christians possess these powerful Spiritual weapons.

The problem we have here is, this passage has nothing whatsoever to do with Paul teaching the Corinthians they had these powerful weapons at their disposal, and it certainly had nothing at all to do with commanding the Corinthians to, "take every thought captive" and this is very easily demonstrated by a simple reading of the text. The Corintians would have clearly understood it as a warning, and the Corinthians could not have possibly understood it any other way. If I am correct, (and I clearly am) then this passage cannot be in any way used as a command to Christians to, "take every thought captive" since it was not a command to the Corinthians.

Paul continues,

"We tear down arguments and every arrogant obstacle that is raised up against the knowledge of God"

And this brings us to the very phrase we are dealing with,

"and we take every thought captive to make it obey Christ."

So again, who is the "WE" in this passage referring too? Does it include the Corinthians? Or, is this a warning to the Corinthians? Well, it becomes extremely clear in the very next sentence.

"We are also ready to punish every act of disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete."

It is absolutely clear here! The Corinthians are not included in the "WE", therefore we cannot include us as Christians in with the "WE". Rather, the Corinthians are identified with the "YOUR" making it abundantly clear this is a warning to the Corinthians and is therefore not in any way a command to the Corinthians, nor us as Christians to "take every thought captive". This has nothing to do with Paul's train of thought, and the Corinthians could have never come away with such an idea. However, it continues on, making it even more evident. In verse 7 Paul writes,

"You are looking at outward appearances."

Who is the "YOU" referring too? Clearly it is the Corinthians, and since this is indeed the case the Corinthians were in no way included when Paul said, "we take every thought captive". The fact of the matter is, it was not a command to the Corinthians to, "take every thought captive." Rather, it was a statement of fact that Paul and Timothy had the authority, and power to come into the Corinthian Church and "take every thought captive".

The fact this whole passage was not in any way a command to the Corinthians, but rather a warning is demonstrated clearly in verses 10, and 11 where Paul says,

"because some say, "His letters are weighty and forceful, but his physical presence is weak and his speech is of no account." Let such a person consider this: What we say by letters when we are absent, we also are in actions when we are present."

How in the world anyone can read this passage and come away with the idea this is a command to Christians to, "take every thought captive" is beyond my ability to understand? What is even more baffling is how one can come to the conclusion this would have anything to do with us as Christians engaging those outside the Church, when it is clear Paul is dealing with those inside the Church, and had only those inside the Church in mind as he wrote? In other words, in order for one to claim Paul was talking about anyone outside the Church in this passage, one would have to force in a meaning which clearly is not on the mind of Paul. And this brings us to the next issue concerning a passage we have already brought forth, which is the passage in which you tell us, Paul gives us,

"explicit and free permission to keep company with idolators who would worship Aphrodite by fornicating with prostitutes at her temple."


Again, you would be correct. However, giving us as Christians this permission was not at all the intent of what Paul was attempting to communicate. In other words, it was not Paul's intent in this passage to give the Corinthians this permission. This was not at all on his mind. Rather, what was on the mind of Paul as he wrote this passage was, gross immorality inside the very Church he is now addressing. Therefore, Paul refers to the former letter and says,

"I wrote you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people. In no way did I mean the immoral people of this world"

Paul goes on to say,

"But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who calls himself a Christian who is sexually immoral, or greedy, or an idolator, or verbally abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler. Do not even eat with such a person."

So then, as we can clearly see, Paul's whole mindset, and focus here is to deal with this immorality inside this very Church. It had nothing whatsoever to do with giving the Corinthians, and us as Christians "explicit and free permission to keep company with idolators", even though as you say we can certainly draw this from what was said. And yet, you have Paul using this permission as some sort of, "strategy of attack." Not only is this nowhere in the text, but one also cannot even draw this conclusion from what is said, in the same way one could naturally draw the conclusion we as Christians are free to associate with immoral unbelievers. There is no way anyone can draw such a conclusion. Rather, it has to be inserted.

The problem with attempting to insert this idea that Paul was allowing us to associate with immoral unbelievers as some sort of "strategy of attack" against their idolatry is the fact that Paul actually gives us the reason we can associate with the immoral unbeliever, as opposed to the immoral believer, and that is the fact that Paul says, "For what do I have to do with judging those outside?" So then, you have Paul giving us the permission to associate with immoral unbelievers as some sort of "strategy of attack", while Paul says it is because we have no business judging those outside the Church. Therefore, it seems to me you are interpreting these passages any way you wish in order to support a certain agenda, while ignoring the plain and simple meaning Paul had as he wrote these passages.

With all the above being said, allow me to address the divisions we now have in these United States. Your answer seems to be, Christian reconstruction, theonomy, theocracy, or Christian nationalism. It really does not matter what you call it, the idea is the same. In other words, your answer seems to be we need to, and MUST, infuse God's moral law into our civil law. While it would be great if all of us as Americans were united in our theology, I am afraid this is not the case. I am also afraid it has never been promised to us this would be the case, which is exactly why Paul can tell us we can associate with the immoral of the world, otherwise we would have to leave the world. This seems to make it perfectly clear that Paul did not envision a time when there would be no immoral unbelievers in the world.

What unites us as Christians here in the U.S. in our Churches is Jesus Christ, and the Gospel. What unites Muslims in the U.S. in their Mosques, is Mohammad, and the Koran. What unites Jews in the U.S. in their synagogues, is the Torah. What unites homosexuals in the U.S. is their belief the lifestyle they lead is perfectly normal. What unites atheists is..........? Well, I am not sure the atheists even care to be united. The point is, all these groups have different things which unites them together. The problem is, all of us as Americans need to find what it is which unites us as Americans, no matter our religion, lack thereof, sexual orientation, etc. What it is which should unite all these groups together as Americans is, FREEDOM!

You see, as a Christian here in the United States, I have the freedom to freely express that I am convinced Islam is a false religion, and that Christianity is the Only One True Faith. I am free to proclaim homosexuality as a sin. I am also free to spread the Gospel to all those who are willing to listen. In other words, all of us as Americans, have the freedom to have a rigorous robust debate, exchange of ideas, and beliefs, but at the end of the day we can all embrace each other, being thankful for the freedoms we have to disagree, and still be united in some way. You would think we as Christians would be leading the way in this area. However, it seems as if we as Christians are actually leading the way in causing more division. One way or the other we better figure this out before it is too late. Or we can continue to insist that all must, and have to be united based upon our theology as Christians, and see where that will lead? I can tell you this, I am convinced this country is heading for a complete collapse, and it is not the homosexuals, abortionists, atheists, nor the left which will be the cause. Rather, it will be, Christian nationalism, and or, Christian reconstruction. But hey! As a postmillennialist a complete collapse of our society would be the aim. Correct?

[1213]

There is no fraud which has been exposed concerning the 2020 election…,

In post #136 I show part of it. since then, more information has come about the fraud. But, obviously if you ignore it and listen only the “democrat” propaganda, you will not know anything about that.

…The question now is, are you going to believe Pence ..

I think Trump is more trustworthy. But, I don't think he is perfect and I think he also have done wrong things.

Trump was wanting Pence to call the election for Trump. …

By what i know, he has not directly said so.

You are exactly right in that this is exactly what Trump said. If you and I as a Christian know that this is what Trump said, then how is there any defense?

I think saying "When you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything." is just truth. And saying the truth is not a problem. If he would have said, it is good and right to do so, that would be wrong, in my opinion.

…Trump was bragging about his ability as a star to grab women where he wanted to and get away with it. There is no other way to read it.

Sorry, I don’t think he was bragging. I think it was more like telling how women act poorly, when one is rich and famous. But easiest way to solve this would be to ask from Trump, does he think it is right to do so.

… Why in the world would anyone who identifies as Christian, and has moms, dads, siblings, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and very close friends want to do anything which would harm all these folks who hold to the Christian faith?

That is a good question. I believe most of them call themselves Christian only to get elected.

… no one here in the United States is attempting to infringe upon the rights of us as Christians ..

At least if you ignore all the evidence that tells otherwise.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to 1213 in post #151]

In post #136 I show part of it.

I know you did, and I refuted it because it is a fact that what is claimed to have occurred was not a crime.

since then, more information has come about the fraud.

You really cannot be serious! My friend, you know, I know, and everyone else knows that if there was any sort of credible evidence of fraud, the right-wing media would have it in front of our faces 24-7. There was no widespread fraud or any sort of plan by the democrats to steal the election. My friend, Trump was telling us before the election that if he did not win then it would have to be fraud. No one does such a thing. In other words what Trump is saying, "if I win all is good, if I lose you can be sure of fraud." I cannot imagine that you believe that any good leader would ever want to cause folks to lose faith in the system, and Trump was doing that very thing before the election. If you cannot see this then I do not know how to help you. If he wins it is all smiles. If he loses (and he did) he can play the Trump card which he planted in the minds of his cult followers.

But, obviously if you ignore it and listen only the “democrat” propaganda, you will not know anything about that.

My friend, I do not listen to the democrats. I am not a democrat, and have never, ever voted for a democrat until the last election. I do not and have not defended the democrats. So then, I do not listen to the democrats, rather I have listened to the republicans, and it is the republicans who are telling us to our face that they intend to take over. The republicans have an us versus them mentality, and anything that is not "us" is evil. The republicans have been telling us for decades now that it is the democrats who want to take away our freedom, when the fact of the matter is, it is the republicans who want to make this a Christian nation. All you have to do is to look at all the states in which the republicans want to mandate that the Ten Commandments be posted in every classroom. It is not the democrats who are doing this. So then, who is it that is looking to take freedoms away?

I think Trump is more trustworthy.

You are demonstrating that you are a cult follower of Trump, because there is no way anyone could ever put the words "trustworthy" and "Trump" in the same sentence. I am not defending the democrats as being trustworthy. I am not defending Biden as being trustworthy. I am not defending Harris as being trustworthy. I am not saying in the least that the democrats, Biden, or Harris are by any means trustworthy. What I am saying is, the democrats, Biden, nor Harris attempted to overturn an election, and they are not attempting to declare this nation a Christian nation. As a Christian I would be ashamed if I voted for Trump, but the sad thing is, Trump is now our president because of Christians. Pence is an Evangelical Christian, and is telling you that Trump wanted him to put Trump over the Constitution, and you are telling me that Trump is more trustworthy than Pence? Can you please explain why?

But, I don't think he is perfect and I think he also have done wrong things.

Really? What is it that you think Trump has done wrong? I cannot wait to hear it.

By what i know, he has not directly said so.

We are demonstrating over, and over that what you know is not very much. Of course, Trump is not going to say so directly, but according to Pence (you know the Evangelical Christian) Trump wanted Pence to put Trump over the Constitution, and he said so directly.

I think saying "When you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything." is just truth. And saying the truth is not a problem. If he would have said, it is good and right to do so, that would be wrong, in my opinion.

Then you think Trump is wrong. You continue to insist that Trump is somehow innocent in the comments concerning he as a star with lots of money being able to grab women any way he wishes, but take a listen to Trump's wife Melania explain that she knows exactly what he said.



You see, Trumps own wife is acknowledging what you refuse to acknowledge, and her excuse was that he was urged by the reporter. But here, listen to this interview of the reporter Billy Bush and maybe this will persuade you to acknowledge what Trump was saying.



And if this is not enough how about listening to Trump himself apologize for claiming to be able to "grab em by the P---y.

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r ... ORM=VAMGZC

You need to give it up. Trump said it, he admits he said it, he has to admit he said it because there is no way for him to deny it. His wife acknowledges he said it, and the interviewer admits he said it. It seems to me; you are the only one who does not get it.

Sorry, I don’t think he was bragging.

You have just been proved wrong, by his wife, by the interviewer, and by Trump himself, because they all admit that he was bragging.

But easiest way to solve this would be to ask from Trump, does he think it is right to do so.

He was asked, and he admitted to bragging, which is the reason for the apology. Now, if you believe the apology was sincere, I cannot help you. The apology was given because he had no choice, while you want to hold out hope against hope that Trump was not bragging about his ability to "grab em by the pussy." I mean, even Trump's wife could not make such an argument because she knew the evidence was damning.

That is a good question. I believe most of them call themselves Christian only to get elected.

GOOD GRIEF! You are demonstrating someone who does not have a clue. Democrats do not announce themselves to be Christian. That is what republicans do because they know that they cannot win without the Evangelical Christian vote. Democrats know they are not going to get the Evangelical Christian vote so there is no need for them to announce they are Christian even though they may identify as Evangelical Christians. The overwhelming majority of Evangelical Christians are not going to vote for a democrat no matter what religion they hold to. This is exactly why Donald Trump is our president. It is not because Donald Trump is a Christian, but rather the fact that he claims to be republican, and Evangelical Christians vote republican no matter the religion, or the lack thereof of the candidate.

[1213]

...My friend, I do not listen to the democrats.

It sounds that is all you do.

...I am not a democrat, and have never, ever voted for a democrat until the last election.

Why do you think it would be bad to be a democrat?

Pence is an Evangelical Christian, and is telling you that Trump wanted him to put Trump over the Constitution, and you are telling me that Trump is more trustworthy than Pence? Can you please explain why?

Because it seems Pence cares more about the appearance of right than what is actually right and can be pressed to do things that are not right. It seems he could be extorted, because of how easily he folded to the false narrative.

Really? What is it that you think Trump has done wrong? I cannot wait to hear it.

For example I think it was wrong to kidnap Maduro, even if he is a criminal and was part of the "democratic" voting fraud in 2020. If Maduro is really guilty for a crime, it would have been better to show the evidence first and perhaps then do something that would go by the laws.

You need to give it up. Trump said it, he admits he said it, he has to admit he said it because there is no way for him to deny it.

I don't think I have denied what he has said. And I don't think it is wrong to say what women allows a man to do, if a man is rich and famous.

I think it would be a problem, if Trump would think it is right to do whatever, even if women allow it. I don't think that is what he thinks, therefore to me there is no problem with his words.

You have just been proved wrong, by his wife, by the interviewer, and by Trump himself, because they all admit that he was bragging.

I don't hear Trump saying he was bragging. But, he says he said foolish things. So, if he admits it was foolish thing to say, does it show he has become a better person?

Democrats do not announce themselves to be Christian. That is what republicans do because they know that they cannot win without the Evangelical Christian vote. ...Evangelical Christians vote republican no matter the religion, or the lack thereof of the candidate.

If they vote republican anyway, why they need to pretend to be Christians?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to 1213 in post #153]

It sounds that is all you do

You see, that is the problem. You continue to tell us what you think, how you feel, or what it sounds like to you, and the facts and evidence does not get in the way. It is as though you have made up your mind and the facts and evidence are not going to get in the way. All you are doing is to demonstrate one who is a cult follower of Trump. A Christian should be appalled at the behavior of Trump, and you defend him at every turn. I mean the facts and evidence are in your face in that I have never, ever voted for a democrat until this last election, which clearly demonstrates I am no fan of the democrats and you ignore this fact and go on to tell us what it "sounds like" to you. It cannot possibly sound like that to you, because I have not defended any of the democrats. Rather, I have given you the facts and evidence which demonstrates that it is not the democrats who want to do away with democracy. It is not the democrats who are doing all they can to have folks lose faith in the system. It is not the democrats who are attempting to take away the freedoms of those who are not Christian. It is the republicans who are telling you their aim, and they are doing it in the name of Christian nationalism, and the sad thing is, most Christians are cult followers of Trump just like you.

Why do you think it would be bad to be a democrat?

This question above sort of demonstrates another problem. You seem to have it in your mind that one side is bad (evil) while the other side is on the side of good. The reason for this is because this is the way in which the republicans have planned it out. They have painted a picture of anyone opposed to what it is they are attempting to do as being evil, and this means the democrats are evil. Once you identify those who oppose you as being evil, there is no compromising with evil. Rather, the evil must be eliminated, and the ends justifies any means. I mean, it is clear that Trump and the republicans have you eating right out of their hand. I have never, ever once said anything about being democrat would be bad. Simply because I may disagree with the democrats on certain political issues does not mean I believe it to be "bad" to be a democrat.

Because it seems Pence cares more about the appearance of right than what is actually right and can be pressed to do things that are not right.

Exactly what did Pence do which was not right? What laws did he break? If he followed the law, then this means he was right. Trump was asking Pence to go against the Constitution, which is breaking the law, and Pence decided to follow the law. I mean it is clear as day. Pence is an evangelical Christian who is telling you that Trump wanted to go against the Constitution and you are defending Trump over the evangelical Christian. You have to know that Trump is a known liar. When have you ever known Pence to lie?

It seems he could be extorted

And here we go with the way it "seems" again. It is not how it "seems" it is the way that it is, and you refuse to acknowledge the way that it is, as we are about to see.

because of how easily he folded to the false narrative.

What false narrative are you talking about? The job of Pence that day was to certify the election. If Pence refused to do that he would be going against the Constitution. The false narrative is to be under the impression that Pence could have done anything at all other than follow the Constitution. Pence did not have a choice if he wanted the Constitution upheld.

If Maduro is really guilty for a crime, it would have been better to show the evidence first and perhaps then do something that would go by the laws.

You mean like Trump should have demonstrated fraud in the 2020 election before he set out breaking the law? My friend, Trump has set a pattern of doing exactly what you are accusing him of.

I don't think I have denied what he has said. And I don't think it is wrong to say what women allows a man to do, if a man is rich and famous.

I think it would be a problem, if Trump would think it is right to do whatever, even if women allow it. I don't think that is what he thinks, therefore to me there is no problem with his words.

The videos I have supplied to you demonstrate beyond any doubt that Trump was bragging about his ability to abuse women because he is a star with lots of money. If this is not the case, then there would be no need in the apology.

So, if he admits it was foolish thing to say, does it show he has become a better person?

My friend, he had no choice but to admit "it was foolish to say." When one is forced to say such a thing, this does not make him a better person. However, if Trump admits his mistake, and apologizes for the mistake, and goes on to demonstrate behavior which demonstrate a changed person, then I am all for offering such a one forgiveness. However, offering forgiveness does not mean that I must believe he should be the president, and it surely does not mean that we should allow him to escape the punishment he deserves for Jan. 6th. I mean, Eric Kirk forgave her husband's killer, but this does not mean that she does not want him to pay for his crime.

If they vote republican anyway, why they need to pretend to be Christians?

I have not said a word about anyone pretending to be Christian.

[1213]

...It is not the democrats who are doing all they can to have folks lose faith in the system. It is not the democrats who are attempting to take away the freedoms of those who are not Christian....

Their actions speak otherwise.

...This question above sort of demonstrates another problem. You seem to have it in your mind that one side is bad (evil) while the other side is on the side of good. The reason for this is because this is the way in which the republicans have planned it out. They have painted a picture of anyone opposed to what it is they are attempting to do as being evil, and this means the democrats are evil. Once you identify those who oppose you as being evil, there is no compromising with evil. Rather, the evil must be eliminated, and the ends justifies any means. ...

Actually I think about 95 % of all world politicians are evil. Most of the republicans are as evil as most of the "democrats". They don't care about the people, only about their sponsors and own benefit. Maybe Trump is also evil, but at least he speaks the truth more often and more often seems to care about the will of the people.

But, I don't think end justifies the means. Even if they are evil, it does not mean that then also I can be evil and do bad things.

Exactly what did Pence do which was not right?

Accepted election fraud and basically a democrat coup.

I have not said a word about anyone pretending to be Christian.

Was it not you who said: "My argument is, Trump knows he has to have the support of the Christian nationalists, and it is the Christian nationalists who want this nation to be declared a Christian nation. In other words, you know, I know, and everyone else knows, Donald Trump could not care less about Christianity, but he understands that he would not be president without the Christian vote"?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to 1213 in post #155]

Their actions speak otherwise.

I mean, you just type stuff out just for the sake of typing stuff out, don't you? There has never been a democrat who has announced before the election that if they did not win the election, then this would demonstrate fraud in the election. Do you know why this would be? That is because the democrats are not the ones who are attempting to have folks lose faith in democracy. Do you know who has announced before the election that if they did not win the election then we could all be sure there was fraud involved? That would be Trump. There has never been a democrat in my lifetime who has ever refused to turn over power peacefully. Do you know who has done just that? You guessed it, that would be Trump. There has been one democrat in my lifetime who contested the results of an election, not because they were insisting fraud was involved, but rather because the election was extremely close, and they wanted to go through the lawful process of making certain that all the results were accurate. Of course, I am speaking if Al Gore, and Gore could have continued on with this attempt, but he conceded the election instead of continuing on with the process when he could have continued on, and he conceded exactly because he did not want folks to believe the system may be flawed. Do you know who else has contested the results of an election which they lost? Again, you guessed it, because that would be Trump again. There has never been a democrat in my lifetime, who refused to concede an election. Do you know who has refused to concede an election? That's right, Trump again. There has never been a democrat in my lifetime, who has attempted to overturn the results of an election, but we all know that Trump did that. The fact of the matter is, Trump has still not conceded that he lost the election.

You see, the things I have pointed out above, is not my opinion, it is not what I think, it is not the way I feel, it is not simply the way it seems to me. Rather, it is simply a fact that there has never been a democrat who has been involved in any of the above, but we know for a fact that Trump has done all of the above. The types of behaviors above, is exactly the types of behaviors that authoritarians are involved in. One of the first things authoritarians do is to attempt to cause folks to lose faith in the system. Once this is accomplished, it is easy to get the folks like you who are eating right out of their hand, to go along with getting rid of the system in order to allow them to fix the system, because they want you to believe that they are the only one who can fix the system. Do you happen to know who actually said, "I am the only one who can fix everything?" WOW! You are getting really good at this because you are correct in that it would be Trump again. Trump is doing everything authoritarian dictators have done in the past, and the reason these authoritarian dictators are able to come to power is because of folks like you who seem to believe that he is the savior. There are numbers of Christians now who are telling us that Trump is anointed by God to save America, and I am wondering what in the world Trump is going to save us from, while you seem to be in lock step with those Christians who are convinced that it is God's will for Trump to be our president.

Actually I think about 95 % of all world politicians are evil. Most of the republicans are as evil as most of the "democrats".

Can you name one democrat who you do not believe is evil? I mean, this is incredible! You are doing exactly what Trump, and the Christian nationalists want you to do. They do not care if you believe the republicans are evil, as long as they have you convinced that they are not as evil as the democrats. You are playing right into their hand. They have convinced you that politics is concerned with good versus evil and all they need you to do is to be convinced that they (the republicans) are not as evil as the democrats. I'm just telling you that it is extraordinary that you have convinced yourself that you are on the side of good, and anyone who may disagree with you by necessity has to be on the side of evil. Have you ever considered the idea that it has nothing to do with good versus evil, and it may simply be that we have honest disagreements which we can sit down and discuss and debate attempting to compromise in an effort to come to a solution which we can agree would be for the common good? This cannot possibly happen when one side or the other has determined that those opposed are evil, because once you determine those opposed are evil, there is no compromising with evil, rather the evil must be eliminated.

Have you ever considered the idea that it maybe you who is on the side of evil as far as the way you think politically? I am not saying that you are on the side of evil, because I have never thought in such a way. However, if I ever did think in such a way, I am thinking I would have to be asking myself if it was me who was on the side of evil? I am just telling you that this is what is causing our Churches in the U.S. to empty out, and it is not because we are preaching Christ raised from the dead, but rather the fact that we are preaching good versus evil, and if you are not in agreement with us as Christians this demonstrates to us as Christians you must, and have to be on the side of evil. Do you happen to know who else it was, who were convinced they were on the side of good politically, and anyone who was opposed was evil (including Jesus)? My friend, that would be the scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees. So, you have convinced yourself that 95% of politicians are evil, so I guess this makes you righteous.

Maybe Trump is also evil, but at least he speaks the truth more often and more often seems to care about the will of the people.

How in the world could you possibly fix your fingers to type out such nonsense? Trump has cut health care to millions upon millions of Americans, and you somehow are convinced he cares about the will of the people? GOOD GRIEF! He is cutting the health care of folks on the lower end of the income level, in order to give tax cuts to those who are rich. I'm wondering if it is not that you not only do not live in the U.S. but rather maybe you live on a completely different planet.

Accepted election fraud and basically a democrat coup.

There is no way you are not getting it. Pence could not have done anything than exactly what he did, even if there was fraud. There was nothing Pence could have done on Jan. 6th other than to certify the election, otherwise he would have been going against the Constitution. What are you not getting here? It is called due process. Trump went through due process when he took his evidence of fraud to the courts. The courts followed due process by throwing all the cases out because of a lack of evidence. Trump then decided to go ahead with plan B which was to attempt to overturn the results. Pence could not help Trump because he would have been going against the courts, which is due process, and by the way it is against the law. So then, Donald Trump was asking Pence to break the law by going against the orders of all the courts.

Was it not you who said: "My argument is, Trump knows he has to have the support of the Christian nationalists, and it is the Christian nationalists who want this nation to be declared a Christian nation. In other words, you know, I know, and everyone else knows, Donald Trump could not care less about Christianity, but he understands that he would not be president without the Christian vote"?

Yes, I said all of the above. Where in the world in any of the above did I say a thing in the world about anyone "pretending to be Christian?"

[1213]

...There has never been a democrat who has announced before the election that if they did not win the election, then this would demonstrate fraud in the election.

Did you know that Hillary Clinton is a "democrat"?

Hillary Clinton: Biden Should Not Concede Under Any Circumstances

...That is because the democrats are not the ones who are attempting to have folks lose faith in democracy.

Why would they need to do so, when the vote rigging system serves them?

One of the first things authoritarians do is to attempt to cause folks to lose faith in the system.

Don't worry, it is not because of Trump that I don't have faith in the system.

Once this is accomplished, it is easy to get the folks like you who are eating right out of their hand, to go along with getting rid of the system in order to allow them to fix the system, because they want you to believe that they are the only one who can fix the system.

I don't think Trump can fix the system. It seems he might do some damage to the "deep state", but after few years the corrupt machine is very likely working again, stronger than ever.

Trump is doing everything authoritarian dictators have done in the past,

Biden's regime forced vaccines (going directly against Nuremberg code) and was against freedom of speech. I have not seen Trump being as tyrannical yet.

Trump is anointed by God to save America, and I am wondering what in the world Trump is going to save us from...

Maybe he can save America from few wars and losing freedom of speech, at least for few years.

and anyone who may disagree with you by necessity has to be on the side of evil...

No, I think the side of evil is determined by the actions. The people looting tax payer money, being against freedom of speech and forcing people to take experimental "vaccine"... are in my opinion evil.

...there is no compromising with evil, rather the evil must be eliminated.

I don't say the evil people must be killed.

Trump has cut health care to millions upon millions of Americans, and you somehow are convinced he cares about the will of the people? GOOD GRIEF! He is cutting the health care of folks on the lower end of the income level, in order to give tax cuts to those who are rich.

I would not call it health care. And by what I know, Obama made it very expensive, maybe to protect people from getting bad healthcare, or to help insurance companies to get filthy rich on the expense of desperate people.

I think it would be best, if healthcare is by private business, because I don't think monopoly works, even if arranged by government.

...Pence could not have done anything than exactly what he did, even if there was fraud. There was nothing Pence could have done on Jan. 6th other than to certify the election, otherwise he would have been going against the Constitution...

If there is no choice, why even the need for Pence to do anything?

Was it not you who said: "My argument is, Trump knows he has to have the support of the Christian nationalists, and it is the Christian nationalists who want this nation to be declared a Christian nation. In other words, you know, I know, and everyone else knows, Donald Trump could not care less about Christianity, but he understands that he would not be president without the Christian vote"?

Yes, I said all of the above. Where in the world in any of the above did I say a thing in the world about anyone "pretending to be Christian?"

Ok, so you think Trump is not pretending to be a Christian to get votes?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to 1213 in post #157]

Did you know that Hillary Clinton is a "democrat"?

Yes, I did know she was a democrat, but let us go back and take a look at what I said,

There has never been a democrat who has announced before the election that if they did not win the election, then this would demonstrate fraud in the election.

Was Clinton the candidate in that election? No, that would be Biden. Next, Clinton is not attempting to have folks lose faith in the system, rather she is advising Biden not to concede, but to rather "lawyer up" in order to go through the system in order to demonstrate any fraud which may have occurred. As we continue on, this would have been the same election in which Trump had already assured the folks in the U.S. that if he did not win, we could be sure of fraud which demonstrates he was willing to do whatever needed to be done in order to stay in office. It is clear that Clinton is advising Biden to not concede until all legal option were exhausted. As it turned out, Biden actually won the election, and we all saw to what extent Trump went to in order not to turn over power.

Why would they need to do so, when the vote rigging system serves them?

Well, let us see just how insane this question is. You can check my math, but since 1980, which is when the Christian right got involved in politics, we have had 28 years with a republican president, versus 20 years with a democrat president. My friend, it does not matter how far you go back inside 1980, we have had more years with a republican president as opposed to a democrat. If, "the vote rigging system serves" the democrats, how is it that we have had more years with a republican? The math doesn't lie. If "the vote rigging system serves" the democrats, then they are not getting any sort of advantage. You cannot make what you are saying make any sort of sense.

I am going to end here, and will get back to the rest, but I think you have enough to respond to here.

[1213]

...You can check my math, but since 1980, which is when the Christian right got involved in politics, we have had 28 years with a republican president, versus 20 years with a democrat president. My friend, it does not matter how far you go back inside 1980, we have had more years with a republican president as opposed to a democrat. If, "the vote rigging system serves" the democrats, how is it that we have had more years with a republican? The math doesn't lie. If "the vote rigging system serves" the democrats, then they are not getting any sort of advantage...

And by what I see, they have been on the same side most of thee time, if you look at their actions, increasing money for the wealthy elite, for their sponsors. But, I don't think thee vote rigging system has been as long, because the voting machines have not existed as long. By what I know, Smartmatic systems have been used after 2000. And they allow vote rigging. And the line actually does not go by the party line, but by what serves best the rich elite.

[Diogenes]

... you have a good number of republicans who want to insist this is a Christian nation, and want the federal government to declare this to be a Christian nation.

... and this despite the very clear language of the United States Constitution that says the opposite, that everyone in the U.S. is free to follow any belief and that none are to be held in higher regard than others.

Neither the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, nor even the Federalist Papers ever mention the words "Christian" or "Christianity," not even once. By Constitutional Amendment the Citizens could declare the U.S. a "Christian Nation," or Muslim, or Atheist, Buddhist, Jewish, or Animist. They have not done so during the TWO and a HALF CENTURIES of the existence of the United States of America.