40
Tracing the Roots of the Christian Nationalist Movement That’s Influencing Modern Politics
(projects.propublica.org)
What a bizarre thing to say.
Your trolling is tiresome. I'm done pretending you're discussing anything with any integrity.
Biden is the one deciding US policy, and the responsibility for our foreign policy failures rest with him. There are two viable candidates running to replace him. One candidate promises a less conciliatory approach with Netanyahu, the other promises to help escalate the atrocities.
Which do you think will get you closer to your stated goals?
When you start engaging in good faith, you will get good faith in return.
No, your second point doesn't make your case. Biden isn't running now, or did you forget? Not to mention, it doesn't change anything about what the author has to say about the political goals of evangelicals and how Trump would deliver for them, which is the topic of the article.
I hear Putin calling. You better check and see what he wants.
Nevermind that. He said he wanted to call out the military on anyone who didn't vote for him on live television. Why isn't the NYT reporting on that?
Oh, it's just Trump!
At this point, I'm fairly convinced that the people trying to argue that we shouldn't support Democrats because of a single issue, no matter how important that issue, are Russian assets.
You still haven't explained how the author is wrong here. All you've told me is why you think the author is icky.
My point stands.
...I'm not seeing anything explaining how the author is wrong. Ad hominem is not an argument.
Okay, but what about the not-kind things Jesus said? How are the people following those words somehow not Christian?
So please answer the question: what evidence do you have that these people aren't "Christian?"
He said more than that, though. They're probably following the other Jesus who called a foreign woman a dog, along other things. Let's take a closer look.
-
Jesus fails to "turn the other cheek" and instead gets violent: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+21:12-13
-
He threatens eternal torture in fire to anyone who doesn't accept his teaching:
https://biblehub.com/matthew/10-28.htm
https://biblehub.com/matthew/7-19.htm
https://biblehub.com/matthew/13-41.htm and https://biblehub.com/matthew/13-42.htm
https://biblehub.com/matthew/13-49.htm and https://biblehub.com/matthew/13-50.htm
https://biblehub.com/matthew/25-46.htm
https://biblehub.com/mark/16-16.htm
https://biblehub.com/luke/12-5.htm
https://biblehub.com/john/3-18.htm, etc. -
He kills a fig tree for not bearing fruit that he knew was out of season: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+11%3A12-25
-
He endorses racism: https://biblehub.com/matthew/15-24.htm
-
When a gentile woman begs for his help he calls her a dog: https://biblehub.com/matthew/15-25.htm and https://biblehub.com/matthew/15-26.htm
-
He plays favorites: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark+4%3A10-12
-
He destroys a village's livelihood: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+8
-
He teaches Christians to have a persecution complex: https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-11.htm
-
He teaches thought crime: https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-28.htm
-
He disputes the concept of personal responsibility: https://biblehub.com/matthew/6-25.htm
-
He condemns skepticism: https://biblehub.com/matthew/14-31.htm and https://biblehub.com/john/20-27.htm
-
He teaches self-harm in the cause of religious purity: https://biblehub.com/matthew/18-8.htm
-
He sends his disciples to steal a man’s donkey: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+19%3A29-34
-
He was not a peacemaker: https://biblehub.com/matthew/10-34.htm
-
He was divisive: https://biblehub.com/luke/14-26.htm and https://biblehub.com/luke/14-33.htm
-
He was a liar: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+7%3A8-10
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
This is a repost from 2009.
188
In an Unprecedented Move, Ohio Is Funding the Construction of Private Religious Schools
(www.propublica.org)
view more: next ›
To record their version of "truth." There was no distinction between fact and fiction, they were written to establish the "official" history with the political and religious (again, no distinction) agenda they wanted people to follow. The idea that history should involve accurate facts of what actually happened is a relatively new phenomenon in human culture.
Did the people of the time understand that nuance? I honestly don't know. I assume most of the uneducated masses didn't, which is why the elites wrote that way.