This is the location for conversations that don't fall anywhere else on FlameFans. Whether its politics, culture, the latest techno stuff or just the best places to travel on the web ... this is your forum.

Moderators: jcmanson, Sly Fox, BuryYourDuke

#540405
dbackjon wrote:Junior?


He defends sexual predators, child molesters, etc. power has gone to his head.
I was unaware there was a Scripture verse that anointed a person with the Screen Name ‘dbackjon’ as arbiter of Christian piety. Now granted I haven’t bought one of the newer Translations or Paraphrases since the NIV Study Bible, and personally prefer the RSV so I might have missed something
#540415
ballah09 wrote:
dbackjon wrote:Junior?


He defends sexual predators, child molesters, etc. power has gone to his head.
There's a few of us that have stopped supporting Jr along time ago.
You realize that doesn’t make you a better or worse or even A Christian, right?
#540418
It’s hard to justify the Gospel and teachings of Jesus with supporting people who have done things so anti-Gospel. I can see how people look at Christians who blindly support politicians with anti-Christian backgrounds and question their actual relationship with Jesus. We are known by our fruit and defiantly supporting politicians in the wake of sexual scandals isn’t the best fruit.
#540420
Did Moore say the allegations are true?
On a side note it’s the intermingling of Religion and Politics that’s become an issue. As the OP demonstrates if your brand of Christianity isn’t like my brand of Christianity then you are not really a Christian.
I like Trumps policies. If Moore can help get them passed I hope he gets elected. If he had sex with underage girls I hope he does not.
#540431
TH Spangler wrote:
adam42381 wrote:Trump and Moore are more than likely sexual predators. You are free to root for the laundry, but you’ll be on the wrong side of history.
Moore should hire HRC to defend him. She's very experienced with these cases. :lol:
The “Jesus juke” has been replaced by the “but Hillary”. Hillary and Bill are awful people. That has nothing to do with the current President or any number of other people currently in office. She lost. I don’t understand the right’s fascination with her at this point.
#540432
adam42381 wrote:
TH Spangler wrote:
adam42381 wrote:Trump and Moore are more than likely sexual predators. You are free to root for the laundry, but you’ll be on the wrong side of history.
Moore should hire HRC to defend him. She's very experienced with these cases. :lol:
The “Jesus juke” has been replaced by the “but Hillary”. Hillary and Bill are awful people. That has nothing to do with the current President or any number of other people currently in office. She lost. I don’t understand the right’s fascination with her at this point.
Probably because she won’t go away?
I also seem to remember an Innocent Until Proven Guilty concept.
Vigilantism has replaced a pursuit of Justice.
#540433
I think we can be at a place where we disagree with someone's personal doings, but support their political agenda.

I don't support Trump because I am a Christian. I support him because I believe he will preserve Christianity in the United States. Justice Gorsuch is a prime example of someone he appointed that will help protect the first amendment.

I am fairly libertarian. I think the federal government should be small. I would rather localities have more laws that reflect constituents wishes. Prohibition didn't work, but there are still dry counties to this day.

The federal government's job is pretty clearly outlined in the Preamble.

Justice
Domestic Tranquility
Defense
Promote the general welfare
Secure Liberty

Anything beyond that should be delegated to the state and local legislatures where I vote my faith.

The United States isn't a theocracy.

Edit: A word
Last edited by Class of 20Something on November 11th, 2017, 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#540434
Class of 20Something wrote:I think we can be at a place where we disagree with someone's personal doings, but support their political agenda.

I don't support Trump because I am a Christian. I support him because I believe he will preserve Christianity in the United States. Justice Gorsuch is a prime example of someone he appointed that will help protect the first amendment.

I am fairly libertarian. I think the federal government should be small. I would rather localities have more laws that reflect constituents wishes. Prohibition didn't work, but there are still dry could ties to this day.

The federal government's job is pretty clearly outlined in the Preamble.

Justice
Domestic Tranquility
Defense
Promote the general welfare
Secure Liberty

Anything beyond that should be delegated to the state and local legislatures where I vote my faith.

The United States isn't a theocracy.


Well said Something.
#540440
Jonathan Carone wrote:There’s a difference in supporting someone’s politics/policies in spite of their personal shortcomings and going out of your way to dismiss/defens that person’s shortcomings.
I can agree with that to a point. The problem is that is sort of a ‘middle ground’ and that is a Wasteland in Politics today. There is also no consistency in condemnation. Sen Menendez - Let’s what for all the facts. Roy Moore - Skin him alive.
The Diefication of Politicians is disturbing to me.
#540443
thepostman wrote:Why should I put my faith aside to vote for someone? One is eternity based and another is temporary. I have struggled with that very question for years.
Yeah, that’s a fine line. How much do you expect your beliefs to line up with yours? Or do you look at their Policies and how closely they match your beliefs? I fall on the side of Policy. It’s why I can vote for a Mormon AND Trump.
#540452
Purple Haize wrote:
thepostman wrote:Why should I put my faith aside to vote for someone? One is eternity based and another is temporary. I have struggled with that very question for years.
Yeah, that’s a fine line. How much do you expect your beliefs to line up with yours? Or do you look at their Policies and how closely they match your beliefs? I fall on the side of Policy. It’s why I can vote for a Mormon AND Trump.
I think you can look at a combination of policies and character without expecting them to hold the same theological beliefs.

I think the major difference has nothing to do with theology and more to do with our different levels of tolerance on what we will accept out of a candidate.

Now, because our character is informed by our faith, those two can often be intermingled, so it can appear that people don't want to support a candidate because they are not a Christian.
#540477
makarov97 wrote:Pretty laughable and predictable responses by some of the triggered holier than thou millennials in here.

We are in a society right now, where this pathetic "accusers have the right to be believed" mantra has turned the entire nation into the Salem witch trials.

Accusers have the right to fairly present EVIDENCE. They ALWAYS, and WITHOUT QUESTION, must bear the burden of proof. In criminal court. In civil court. In the court of public opinion.

If it isn't that way, we no longer live in a free society, and anyone at any time, can destroy another with an accusation.

If there is actual evidence, so be it. Let the chips fall where they may. If its an accusation, you make the accuser PROVE the charge. Especially if there is a categorical denial on the part of the other.

The triggered snowflakes were devastated by the loss of their lesbian queen, and they are doing everything possible to try to turn society into something where they can gain power.

This latest attempt is one of the most dangerous that I have ever seen.

Duke Lacrosse and UVA come to mind as to why you don't believe accusers and accusations without question.

There were just a couple of hoax/false accusations incidents in Lynchburg not all that long ago.

And just to head off any nonsense, I believe that same standard should apply across the board, even to people whom I politically disagree with. For instance, the accusations against George Takei that just came out. I can't stand Takei. He's a disgusting sodomite. However, he should get all the benefit of the doubt, absent EVIDENCE, especially since he has issued a denial.

It can't be any other way in a free society.
Don’t forget Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. Ginger White and Herman Cain. And the earliest I remember is the McMartin Preschool Trial. I’m sure there are many others I’m forgetting
#540486
It woild be so awesome if people could have a discussion without the terms "snowflake" and "triggered" being thrown in there. I am not a millennial but not all millennials are the same.

Also nobody on this board is claiming this guy is guilty but you also can't completely dismiss it so quickly either.
#540488
thepostman wrote:It woild be so awesome if people could have a discussion without the terms "snowflake" and "triggered" being thrown in there. I am not a millennial but not all millennials are the same.

Also nobody on this board is claiming this guy is guilty but you also can't completely dismiss it so quickly either.
Umm, the Op certainly is making that claim you snowflakes! :) (notnthat we will ever see them again)

Maybe this article will trigger you. Apparently it’s ok to molest and rape if your cause is pure https://medusamagazine.com/why-we-shoul ... e-liberals
#540490
thepostman wrote:It woild be so awesome if people could have a discussion without the terms "snowflake" and "triggered" being thrown in there. I am not a millennial but not all millennials are the same.

Also nobody on this board is claiming this guy is guilty but you also can't completely dismiss it so quickly either.
This. I don't know if he's guilty, but based on the evidence I have (his story/her story) there's just as much chance in my mind of him being guilty versus him being not guilty. I don't know either party so trust doesn't play into this. The story sounds feasible to me (contrary to the protestations of PH) so it may have happened. I don't know if it did but it's certainly looking into. Moore's denial holds just as much water as her accusations for me. I wouldn't dismiss them outright because there is an important vote coming up, etc.

You can say "innocent until proven guilty" and that is how the court system works. That isn't how the court of public opinion works. The good thing (and it is a good thing) is that we as individuals aren't bound by the limitations of the legal system. We can form our own opinions based on the evidence and we don't have to worry about things like reasonable doubt, etc. I.E., if someone is found not guilty on a technicality we don't walk away and say, "oh well, they're innocent."

You can't compare the court system and public opinion. They are vastly different things.
#540491
thepostman wrote:Hahaahahaha medusa magazine?
I thought you were a Charter subscriber :dontgetit Study It’s been picked up by another blog and wouldn’t be surprised to see this as a talking point. Especially with Takei
Dondi Costin - LU President

Ive gone there a few times since moving to texas[…]

NCAA Realignment Megathread

Duke Gonzaga B12? https://larrybrownsports.com/co[…]

FlameFans Fantasy Baseball

We are on!!! Hope to see everyone tonight at 9:30[…]

Another player that most people who post on here[…]