Sam Lowry said:

---

They were all peaceful except Ray Epps. Amazing how one guy can do so much damage!

---

this is funny..

J.R. said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

J.R. said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

J.R. said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

correct.. you may or may not be a Christian

---

Unbelievable . who thinks this way, these days? Sad, really. Fairly sure JC would not approve.

---

so you would like me to judge whether you are a good Christian or a bad Christian based on a few internet posts? Who thinks this way.

---

You people judge on what party someone votes.

---

you people? Me and my fellow session members at church? Me and other random posters on this site? Me and the 12 members of my immediate family who voted for both Trump and Biden in the last election and we still all talk and go to church and on family trips together(you know, the important stuff)?

Exactly who is the you people you were derogatorily referring to?

---

I'm talking about you very good Christian folk who voted for Trump. I really have a hard time getting my head around how all the good Cristians square a human who resamples and act totally in conflict with Christian beliefs. How just do you people square that? I just do not get it. Hell , my parents are the same way and I don't get that either.

---

Jeez, JR. You have the political insight of a teenager. There is no correlation whatsoever between the highly subjective standard of "public godliness" and effectiveness in political office. Some of the greatest leaders in history have been very flawed people, while a great many leaders deemed to be of inestimable character have been downright ineffective, feckless, destructive. Every candidate is a sinner. Some more obviously than others. Only an nincompoop would fail to look beyond the questions of faith and make a broader evaluation of character. A politician who makes good promises and keeps them, is a good politician, regardless of his faith. And any politician which accumulates a record of policy outcome that comports with the views of a plurality or better of the public has a future in public service, no matter how well he combs his hair or climbs a jetbridge.

Much of this discussion conflates the outcome of policies...how they impact matters of faith.....with the far more subjective personal moral rectitude of the candidates on the tickets.

Interesting article on this subject:
https://wacotrib.com/opinion/columnists/robert-baird-what-does-the-trolley-problem-teach-us/article_ee8a364c-beb5-11ed-853c-2b6493365c4f.html

The article itself does not directly address the third-party voter, but the implication is clear. Selection of a third inconsequential option (or candidate) which will have no impact on the moral dilemma itself is a patent virtue posture that one is above the mundane weighing of turdage necessary to ensure the sewers continue to flow.

---

call my political insights what you will. I'm just not voting for a morally reprehensible human that we know. Your take on great pols were crap people, but effective, but what you fail to delineate is that we did not know their moral failings prior to being elected. With Trumps, it is most different. He is a know, serial adulterer, PornStar poker, cheat, bully, pathological liar and the beat goes on. this issue is you good folk just want to keep your religious blinders on!

---

LOL. You are the one with blinders. It was patently obvious Carter was a great human being, and also patently obvious he was a crap president. History abounds with examples of deeply flawed men who have been outstanding leaders; and the opposite.

Here, we see you erecting an artificial standard for a single man who just rubs you badly the wrong way, and then making sophomoric virtue postures as though your feelings about him make you morally superior to those who assess things more soberly.

HINT: You're not going to change anyone's mind on the question, so so why spoil the aura of your your sense of superiority by picking the argument. You're like the guy who has the racy magazine and vaseline ready to go, but decides to pick an internet argument over whether the Playboy or Hustler has the hotter girls.

Sam Lowry said:

---

The Hiroshima/Nagasaki scenario is the kind of false dilemma that often presents itself when you try to apply the trolley hypothetical to real life. A negotiated surrender would have avoided both tragic outcomes. However, it would not have secured our post-war hegemony in the way we desired.

Things get even messier when you consider that elections aren't surprises or one-time events. We all gather to watch this absurd scenario every four years. At some point, reasonable people have to ask who's tying all these people to the tracks and why. Who is this Whiterock, and why is he telling us we have no choice? For that matter, why is his company busy laying tracks and recruiting "volunteers" in countries all over the world? What's his angle? As repulsive as "virtue posturing" may be, there is something worse. Exploiting the misery of others while accusing them of hypocrisy is doubly hypocritical.

---

How many straw man can you pack into a single post? Thereo was no indication that Japan was prepared to negotiate a surrender. Neither is there significant evidence that hegemonic grandeur unduly affected US policy decisions. In fact, quite the opposite. No other similarly situated power in human history ever acted with greater restraint and enlightened self interest than the United States of America. Not.even.close.

things get messy when you cherry pick the lessons of history to apply to your analysis.
but, then, that's what you do!

LateSteak69 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LateSteak69 said:

---

I just took a tour of the Capitol, inside and out (awesome, highly recommend). The rotunda and several of the halls where the "tourists" broke in now have roped off areas. I asked the guard there why, and he said so we don't get a Jan 6th again.

Then outside, the front of the Capitol is going through a refresh. I asked our Rep what's behind that and she said the were fixing things from Jan 6 and decided to go ahead and refresh the entire facade.

But yeah, peaceful tourists that did nothing....

---

Whoever said that? Straw man alert.

---

Said what?

---

peaceful tourists that did nothing

---

except for the ones that did.

---

Nobody has said otherwise. Yours is a strawman.

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Hold on a second. Am I "preaching another Gospel. Faith + vote for your preferred candidate" or not?

You seem to be all over the place.

---

Yes you are. You say that if I vote wrong I need to do some self examination because I may not really be saved. IOW, faith +vote right. But if I vote right no self examination necessary
Below is a quote from your post from 2-3 pages ago:

"The idea that Christians can do and say anything they want (and vote how they want) because they are saved sounds eerily similar to the Gnostics, who believed that salvation was a mere get-out-of-jail free card. They believed how you live doesn't matter. And that's just not what Christ says in the Gospels.

I would respectfully submit that if you believe you are saved, but continue to make poor choices and decisions that you know to be contrary to your purported faith, you might need to do some self-examination, and ask yourself have you truly accepted Christ's grace. Again, how we vote doesn't affect our eternal security, but it might be a sign of where we are in our relationship with Christ, if at all."

---

I've said that how one behaves may be a sign of where they are in their faith, or if they even have a faith. Again, that is not a controversial subject, and one supported by the verses quoted above. Unfortunately, you seem to continue to either confuse or purposefully misinterpret those comments to allege that I am saying how one votes is a prerequisite to salvation. As I have tried to tell you, you're getting the order confused. Faith precedes both fruit and works. And fruit and works are a sign of faith.

---

And if my behavior includes voting Democrat, it may be a sign that I have no faith. And if I have no faith I'm not a Christian.

I'm not misinterpreting what you say, I'm quoting you word for word.

---

Indeed, if one votes for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity, one may not be a Christian, may be immature in his or her faith, or may be misguided, subscribing to a warped and erroneous view of Christianity. That is elementary and basic Christian theology.

---

If I vote for a Democrat, am I voting for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity, and I may not be a Christian?

---

Two part question, two part answer:

1. Yes, voting for today's Democrat party means voting for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity. This should be self-evident to any believer, as pointed out above.

2. Yes. As pointed out above, when a heart change is not accompanied by a behavioral change (faith that leads to fruit/works), that is a sign that one may not be Christian. It could also mean that one is saved, but has erred in their beliefs, or is immature in their faith. There are several possibilities.

---

You are adding works (voting preference) to the Gospel.

---

Sorry, but that is again a false and erroneous statement, and demonstrates a fundamental understanding of basic Christian theology on the subject of works and fruit. I'd suggest pulling out the Pauline letters and looking at the verses I've quoted in this thread. Paul does a much better job of explaining it that I could.

---

We disagree on your theology. I'd suggest you do a little self examination.

---

I would suggest you take the advice given out and use it for yourself. It could be your theology that is flawed. It may or may not be..

---

So, do you think your voting history is dispositive of Christianity?
Suppose a Christian believes Democrats will be better stewards of the planet consistent with Biblical teaching. Going to hell?

The point is voting patterns don't make you a Christian anymore than being heterosexual makes you a Christian.

---

so much enjoying the spectacle of a neverTrumper making the case on the importance of avoiding subjective, self-serving morality judgments in the ballot box.

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Hold on a second. Am I "preaching another Gospel. Faith + vote for your preferred candidate" or not?

You seem to be all over the place.

---

Yes you are. You say that if I vote wrong I need to do some self examination because I may not really be saved. IOW, faith +vote right. But if I vote right no self examination necessary
Below is a quote from your post from 2-3 pages ago:

"The idea that Christians can do and say anything they want (and vote how they want) because they are saved sounds eerily similar to the Gnostics, who believed that salvation was a mere get-out-of-jail free card. They believed how you live doesn't matter. And that's just not what Christ says in the Gospels.

I would respectfully submit that if you believe you are saved, but continue to make poor choices and decisions that you know to be contrary to your purported faith, you might need to do some self-examination, and ask yourself have you truly accepted Christ's grace. Again, how we vote doesn't affect our eternal security, but it might be a sign of where we are in our relationship with Christ, if at all."

---

I've said that how one behaves may be a sign of where they are in their faith, or if they even have a faith. Again, that is not a controversial subject, and one supported by the verses quoted above. Unfortunately, you seem to continue to either confuse or purposefully misinterpret those comments to allege that I am saying how one votes is a prerequisite to salvation. As I have tried to tell you, you're getting the order confused. Faith precedes both fruit and works. And fruit and works are a sign of faith.

---

And if my behavior includes voting Democrat, it may be a sign that I have no faith. And if I have no faith I'm not a Christian.

I'm not misinterpreting what you say, I'm quoting you word for word.

---

Indeed, if one votes for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity, one may not be a Christian, may be immature in his or her faith, or may be misguided, subscribing to a warped and erroneous view of Christianity. That is elementary and basic Christian theology.

---

If I vote for a Democrat, am I voting for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity, and I may not be a Christian?

---

Two part question, two part answer:

1. Yes, voting for today's Democrat party means voting for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity. This should be self-evident to any believer, as pointed out above.

2. Yes. As pointed out above, when a heart change is not accompanied by a behavioral change (faith that leads to fruit/works), that is a sign that one may not be Christian. It could also mean that one is saved, but has erred in their beliefs, or is immature in their faith. There are several possibilities.

---

You are adding works (voting preference) to the Gospel.

---

Sorry, but that is again a false and erroneous statement, and demonstrates a fundamental understanding of basic Christian theology on the subject of works and fruit. I'd suggest pulling out the Pauline letters and looking at the verses I've quoted in this thread. Paul does a much better job of explaining it that I could.

---

We disagree on your theology. I'd suggest you do a little self examination.

---

I would suggest you take the advice given out and use it for yourself. It could be your theology that is flawed. It may or may not be..

---

So, do you think your voting history is dispositive of Christianity?
Suppose a Christian believes Democrats will be better stewards of the planet consistent with Biblical teaching. Going to hell?

The point is voting patterns don't make you a Christian anymore than being heterosexual makes you a Christian.

---

so much enjoying the spectacle of a neverTrumper making the case on the importance of avoiding subjective, self-serving morality judgments in the ballot box.

---

He's saying outright obvious truths. Are you saying you think you can tell who is Christian by how they vote?

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Hold on a second. Am I "preaching another Gospel. Faith + vote for your preferred candidate" or not?

You seem to be all over the place.

---

Yes you are. You say that if I vote wrong I need to do some self examination because I may not really be saved. IOW, faith +vote right. But if I vote right no self examination necessary
Below is a quote from your post from 2-3 pages ago:

"The idea that Christians can do and say anything they want (and vote how they want) because they are saved sounds eerily similar to the Gnostics, who believed that salvation was a mere get-out-of-jail free card. They believed how you live doesn't matter. And that's just not what Christ says in the Gospels.

I would respectfully submit that if you believe you are saved, but continue to make poor choices and decisions that you know to be contrary to your purported faith, you might need to do some self-examination, and ask yourself have you truly accepted Christ's grace. Again, how we vote doesn't affect our eternal security, but it might be a sign of where we are in our relationship with Christ, if at all."

---

I've said that how one behaves may be a sign of where they are in their faith, or if they even have a faith. Again, that is not a controversial subject, and one supported by the verses quoted above. Unfortunately, you seem to continue to either confuse or purposefully misinterpret those comments to allege that I am saying how one votes is a prerequisite to salvation. As I have tried to tell you, you're getting the order confused. Faith precedes both fruit and works. And fruit and works are a sign of faith.

---

And if my behavior includes voting Democrat, it may be a sign that I have no faith. And if I have no faith I'm not a Christian.

I'm not misinterpreting what you say, I'm quoting you word for word.

---

Indeed, if one votes for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity, one may not be a Christian, may be immature in his or her faith, or may be misguided, subscribing to a warped and erroneous view of Christianity. That is elementary and basic Christian theology.

---

If I vote for a Democrat, am I voting for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity, and I may not be a Christian?

---

Two part question, two part answer:

1. Yes, voting for today's Democrat party means voting for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity. This should be self-evident to any believer, as pointed out above.

2. Yes. As pointed out above, when a heart change is not accompanied by a behavioral change (faith that leads to fruit/works), that is a sign that one may not be Christian. It could also mean that one is saved, but has erred in their beliefs, or is immature in their faith. There are several possibilities.

---

You are adding works (voting preference) to the Gospel.

---

Sorry, but that is again a false and erroneous statement, and demonstrates a fundamental understanding of basic Christian theology on the subject of works and fruit. I'd suggest pulling out the Pauline letters and looking at the verses I've quoted in this thread. Paul does a much better job of explaining it that I could.

---

We disagree on your theology. I'd suggest you do a little self examination.

---

I would suggest you take the advice given out and use it for yourself. It could be your theology that is flawed. It may or may not be..

---

So, do you think your voting history is dispositive of Christianity?
Suppose a Christian believes Democrats will be better stewards of the planet consistent with Biblical teaching. Going to hell?

The point is voting patterns don't make you a Christian anymore than being heterosexual makes you a Christian.

---

so much enjoying the spectacle of a neverTrumper making the case on the importance of avoiding subjective, self-serving morality judgments in the ballot box.

---

He's saying outright obvious truths. Are you saying you think you can tell who is Christian by how they vote?

---

The Bible says we can, but why don't you tell us how the Bible is wrong and we can't "know them by their fruit."

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Hold on a second. Am I "preaching another Gospel. Faith + vote for your preferred candidate" or not?

You seem to be all over the place.

---

Yes you are. You say that if I vote wrong I need to do some self examination because I may not really be saved. IOW, faith +vote right. But if I vote right no self examination necessary
Below is a quote from your post from 2-3 pages ago:

"The idea that Christians can do and say anything they want (and vote how they want) because they are saved sounds eerily similar to the Gnostics, who believed that salvation was a mere get-out-of-jail free card. They believed how you live doesn't matter. And that's just not what Christ says in the Gospels.

I would respectfully submit that if you believe you are saved, but continue to make poor choices and decisions that you know to be contrary to your purported faith, you might need to do some self-examination, and ask yourself have you truly accepted Christ's grace. Again, how we vote doesn't affect our eternal security, but it might be a sign of where we are in our relationship with Christ, if at all."

---

I've said that how one behaves may be a sign of where they are in their faith, or if they even have a faith. Again, that is not a controversial subject, and one supported by the verses quoted above. Unfortunately, you seem to continue to either confuse or purposefully misinterpret those comments to allege that I am saying how one votes is a prerequisite to salvation. As I have tried to tell you, you're getting the order confused. Faith precedes both fruit and works. And fruit and works are a sign of faith.

---

And if my behavior includes voting Democrat, it may be a sign that I have no faith. And if I have no faith I'm not a Christian.

I'm not misinterpreting what you say, I'm quoting you word for word.

---

Indeed, if one votes for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity, one may not be a Christian, may be immature in his or her faith, or may be misguided, subscribing to a warped and erroneous view of Christianity. That is elementary and basic Christian theology.

---

If I vote for a Democrat, am I voting for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity, and I may not be a Christian?

---

Two part question, two part answer:

1. Yes, voting for today's Democrat party means voting for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity. This should be self-evident to any believer, as pointed out above.

2. Yes. As pointed out above, when a heart change is not accompanied by a behavioral change (faith that leads to fruit/works), that is a sign that one may not be Christian. It could also mean that one is saved, but has erred in their beliefs, or is immature in their faith. There are several possibilities.

---

You are adding works (voting preference) to the Gospel.

---

Sorry, but that is again a false and erroneous statement, and demonstrates a fundamental understanding of basic Christian theology on the subject of works and fruit. I'd suggest pulling out the Pauline letters and looking at the verses I've quoted in this thread. Paul does a much better job of explaining it that I could.

---

We disagree on your theology. I'd suggest you do a little self examination.

---

I would suggest you take the advice given out and use it for yourself. It could be your theology that is flawed. It may or may not be..

---

So, do you think your voting history is dispositive of Christianity?
Suppose a Christian believes Democrats will be better stewards of the planet consistent with Biblical teaching. Going to hell?

The point is voting patterns don't make you a Christian anymore than being heterosexual makes you a Christian.

---

so much enjoying the spectacle of a neverTrumper making the case on the importance of avoiding subjective, self-serving morality judgments in the ballot box.

---

I see you understand theology as well as you do politics

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The Hiroshima/Nagasaki scenario is the kind of false dilemma that often presents itself when you try to apply the trolley hypothetical to real life. A negotiated surrender would have avoided both tragic outcomes. However, it would not have secured our post-war hegemony in the way we desired.

Things get even messier when you consider that elections aren't surprises or one-time events. We all gather to watch this absurd scenario every four years. At some point, reasonable people have to ask who's tying all these people to the tracks and why. Who is this Whiterock, and why is he telling us we have no choice? For that matter, why is his company busy laying tracks and recruiting "volunteers" in countries all over the world? What's his angle? As repulsive as "virtue posturing" may be, there is something worse. Exploiting the misery of others while accusing them of hypocrisy is doubly hypocritical.

---

How many straw man can you pack into a single post? Thereo was no indication that Japan was prepared to negotiate a surrender.

---

Of course there was.

Quote:

---

The top American military leaders who fought World War II, much to the surprise of many who are not aware of the record, were quite clear that the atomic bomb was unnecessary, that Japan was on the verge of surrender, andfor manythat the destruction of large numbers of civilians was immoral. Most were also conservatives, not liberals. Adm. William Leahy, Truman's chief of staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir I Was There that "the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.… In being the first to use it, we…adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

The commanding general of the US Army Air Forces, Henry "Hap" Arnold, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement 11 days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a New York Times reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said that "the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air."

Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz, the commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that "the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan." Adm. William "Bull" Halsey Jr., the commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. It was a mistake to ever drop it…. [The scientists] had this toy, and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…"

Gen. Dwight Eisenhower stated in his memoirs that when notified by Secretary of War Henry Stimson of the decision to use atomic weapons, he "voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." He later publicly declared, "It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." Even the famous hawk Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay, the head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that "the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."

The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan's emperor would be allowed to stay as a figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion could begin.

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/tnamp/

---

"In May, 33-year-old Shawn Michael Tillman was arrested and charged with second-degree murder after he allegedly shot and killed a 37-year-old man on a downtown St. Paul, Minnesota light rail platform, according to KTSP. This after having been released on bail for a prior charge of indecent exposure.

"In September of 2021, it was revealed that Minnesota career criminal George Howard had been arrested once again, this time on murder charges....The fund had paid Howard's $11,500 bail on August 6, 2021, which was set in connection to a domestic assault case."

https://thepostmillennial.com/man-freed-by-kamala-harris-backed-bail-fund-charged-with-murder

Sam Lowry said:

---

"In May, 33-year-old Shawn Michael Tillman was arrested and charged with second-degree murder after he allegedly shot and killed a 37-year-old man on a downtown St. Paul, Minnesota light rail platform, according to KTSP. This after having been released on bail for a prior charge of indecent exposure.

"In September of 2021, it was revealed that Minnesota career criminal George Howard had been arrested once again, this time on murder charges....The fund had paid Howard's $11,500 bail on August 6, 2021, which was set in connection to a domestic assault case."

https://thepostmillennial.com/man-freed-by-kamala-harris-backed-bail-fund-charged-with-murder

---

Yep. Just like I said.
"In the midst of the George Floyd riots of 2020, then-Vice Presidential candidate Harris tweeted her support of the fund, writing, "If you're able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota."
According to the Washington Post, weeks after the death of George Floyd in May of 2020 and tweets of support from Democrats like Harris, the fundraising for the Minnesota Freedom Fund skyrocketed to $35 million.

This is not the first person to be freed by the fund, only to be found back in jail once again.

In September of 2021, it was revealed that Minnesota career criminal George Howard had been arrested once again, this time on murder charges.

The fund had paid Howard's $11,500 bail on August 6, 2021, which was set in connection to a domestic assault case.

On August 29, Howard was charged with two counts of second-degree murder in connection to an alleged road rage incident, in which Howard allegedly shot driver on an interstate entrance ramp. The victim later was pronounced dead at the hospital.

In February of 2021, it was revealed that a rioter who had been freed twice by the fund had been arrested once again, this time for charges related to drug possession, weapon possession in a courthouse, and rioting with a weapon."

This is what Kamala used her power, position and treasure to support.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"In May, 33-year-old Shawn Michael Tillman was arrested and charged with second-degree murder after he allegedly shot and killed a 37-year-old man on a downtown St. Paul, Minnesota light rail platform, according to KTSP. This after having been released on bail for a prior charge of indecent exposure.

"In September of 2021, it was revealed that Minnesota career criminal George Howard had been arrested once again, this time on murder charges....The fund had paid Howard's $11,500 bail on August 6, 2021, which was set in connection to a domestic assault case."

https://thepostmillennial.com/man-freed-by-kamala-harris-backed-bail-fund-charged-with-murder

---

Yep. Just like I said.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"In May, 33-year-old Shawn Michael Tillman was arrested and charged with second-degree murder after he allegedly shot and killed a 37-year-old man on a downtown St. Paul, Minnesota light rail platform, according to KTSP. This after having been released on bail for a prior charge of indecent exposure.

"In September of 2021, it was revealed that Minnesota career criminal George Howard had been arrested once again, this time on murder charges....The fund had paid Howard's $11,500 bail on August 6, 2021, which was set in connection to a domestic assault case."

https://thepostmillennial.com/man-freed-by-kamala-harris-backed-bail-fund-charged-with-murder

---

Yep. Just like I said.

---

---

Oh look, Sam ignored the part of the response to him that contained the facts that blew up his narrative. Must be a day that ends in "Y".

This is why posting links is less instructive than one would hope.

Your distinction is obviously without difference.
"Biden didn't promote a violent ideology..."
"His vice President pick paid for the bail of rioters with her own cash."



If she did not contribute to the fund that she personally staked her reputation on during the riots, she is just as guilty for using her platform as an elected official to promote such a fund, as your link demonstrates. Thanks to her efforts and that of other idiots they raised over $35,000,000 for that fund. People are dead thanks to their efforts. But sure , jAnUaRy sIxTh!!!

Wangchung said:

---

Your distinction is obviously without difference.
"Biden didn't promote a violent ideology..."
"His vice President pick paid for the bail of rioters with her own cash."



If she did not contribute to the fund that she personally staked her reputation on during the riots, she is just as guilty for using her platform as an elected official to promote such a fund, as your link demonstrates. Thanks to her efforts and that of other idiots they raised over $35,000,000 for that fund. People are dead thanks to their efforts. But sure , jAnUaRy sIxTh!!!

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Your distinction is obviously without difference.
"Biden didn't promote a violent ideology..."
"His vice President pick paid for the bail of rioters with her own cash."



If she did not contribute to the fund that she personally staked her reputation on during the riots, she is just as guilty for using her platform as an elected official to promote such a fund, as your link demonstrates. Thanks to her efforts and that of other idiots they raised over $35,000,000 for that fund. People are dead thanks to their efforts. But sure , jAnUaRy sIxTh!!!

---

---

Indecent exposure /= rioting.

Domestic assault /= rioting.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

J.R. said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

J.R. said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

J.R. said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Hold on a second. Am I "preaching another Gospel. Faith + vote for your preferred candidate" or not?

You seem to be all over the place.

---

Yes you are. You say that if I vote wrong I need to do some self examination because I may not really be saved. IOW, faith +vote right. But if I vote right no self examination necessary
Below is a quote from your post from 2-3 pages ago:

"The idea that Christians can do and say anything they want (and vote how they want) because they are saved sounds eerily similar to the Gnostics, who believed that salvation was a mere get-out-of-jail free card. They believed how you live doesn't matter. And that's just not what Christ says in the Gospels.

I would respectfully submit that if you believe you are saved, but continue to make poor choices and decisions that you know to be contrary to your purported faith, you might need to do some self-examination, and ask yourself have you truly accepted Christ's grace. Again, how we vote doesn't affect our eternal security, but it might be a sign of where we are in our relationship with Christ, if at all."

---

I've said that how one behaves may be a sign of where they are in their faith, or if they even have a faith. Again, that is not a controversial subject, and one supported by the verses quoted above. Unfortunately, you seem to continue to either confuse or purposefully misinterpret those comments to allege that I am saying how one votes is a prerequisite to salvation. As I have tried to tell you, you're getting the order confused. Faith precedes both fruit and works. And fruit and works are a sign of faith.

---

And if my behavior includes voting Democrat, it may be a sign that I have no faith. And if I have no faith I'm not a Christian.

I'm not misinterpreting what you say, I'm quoting you word for word.

---

Indeed, if one votes for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity, one may not be a Christian, may be immature in his or her faith, or may be misguided, subscribing to a warped and erroneous view of Christianity. That is elementary and basic Christian theology.

---

If I vote for a Democrat, am I voting for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity, and I may not be a Christian?

---

correct.. you may or may not be a Christian

---

Unbelievable . who thinks this way, these days? Sad, really. Fairly sure JC would not approve.

---

so you would like me to judge whether you are a good Christian or a bad Christian based on a few internet posts? Who thinks this way.

---

You people judge on what party someone votes.

---

you people? Me and my fellow session members at church? Me and other random posters on this site? Me and the 12 members of my immediate family who voted for both Trump and Biden in the last election and we still all talk and go to church and on family trips together(you know, the important stuff)?

Exactly who is the you people you were derogatorily referring to?

---

I'm talking about you very good Christian folk who voted for Trump. I really have a hard time getting my head around how all the good Cristians square a human who resamples and act totally in conflict with Christian beliefs. How just do you people square that? I just do not get it. Hell , my parents are the same way and I don't get that either.

---

Yes, Trump is a scumbag and a sinner, but his personal sins are not going to wreck the damn country.

---

If we're lucky.

---

We have 4 years of evidence that they will not. The last 2 years, on the other hand, make a pretty strong case that Biden might indeed wreck the country.

---

His four years were a mixed bag. His last few months were a disaster. If his narcissism doesn't wreck the country, it won't be for lack of trying.

---

I agree it was 4 years of a mixed bag. But the one thing we weren't on the precipice of was a nuclear war.

There's no way any reasonable conservative could argue the last two years of disaster were in any way preferable to Trump.

---

Obviously they were preferable in some ways. At least Biden hasn't endorsed violent political ideologies or spurred his followers to open rebellion.

---

His party did that for the entire year of 2020, though. 500+ riots that were openly endorsed and sponsored by democrats.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Indecent exposure /= rioting.

Domestic assault /= rioting.

---

Kamala Harris donated her power to help bail out rioters WHO RIOTED. The same fund bailed out domestic abusers and sexual predators and murderers using the money raised by the woman chosen by Joe Biden to be his Vice President. But yeah, jAnUaRy sIxTh!!!

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Indecent exposure /= rioting.

Domestic assault /= rioting.

---

Kamala Harris donated her power to help bail out rioters WHO RIOTED. The same fund bailed out domestic abusers and sexual predators and murderers using the money raised by the woman chosen by Joe Biden to be his Vice President. But yeah, jAnUaRy sIxTh!!!

---

Well done.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Indecent exposure /= rioting.

Domestic assault /= rioting.

---

Kamala Harris donated her power to help bail out rioters WHO RIOTED. The same fund bailed out domestic abusers and sexual predators and murderers using the money raised by the woman chosen by Joe Biden to be his Vice President. But yeah, jAnUaRy sIxTh!!!

---

Well done.

---

Thanks! It feels like you knew you were wrong from the start, despite your surrender.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Indecent exposure /= rioting.

Domestic assault /= rioting.

---

Kamala Harris donated her power to help bail out rioters WHO RIOTED. The same fund bailed out domestic abusers and sexual predators and murderers using the money raised by the woman chosen by Joe Biden to be his Vice President. But yeah, jAnUaRy sIxTh!!!

---

Well done.

---

Thanks! It feels like you knew you were wrong from the start, despite your surrender.

---

Well, to begin with we were talking about Kamala personally funding and vouching for rioters who went on to kill people. Granted that was a long time ago. I give it about three months before you post the same claim again...so I guess my work is done for now.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

J.R. said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

J.R. said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

J.R. said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Hold on a second. Am I "preaching another Gospel. Faith + vote for your preferred candidate" or not?

You seem to be all over the place.

---

Yes you are. You say that if I vote wrong I need to do some self examination because I may not really be saved. IOW, faith +vote right. But if I vote right no self examination necessary
Below is a quote from your post from 2-3 pages ago:

"The idea that Christians can do and say anything they want (and vote how they want) because they are saved sounds eerily similar to the Gnostics, who believed that salvation was a mere get-out-of-jail free card. They believed how you live doesn't matter. And that's just not what Christ says in the Gospels.

I would respectfully submit that if you believe you are saved, but continue to make poor choices and decisions that you know to be contrary to your purported faith, you might need to do some self-examination, and ask yourself have you truly accepted Christ's grace. Again, how we vote doesn't affect our eternal security, but it might be a sign of where we are in our relationship with Christ, if at all."

---

I've said that how one behaves may be a sign of where they are in their faith, or if they even have a faith. Again, that is not a controversial subject, and one supported by the verses quoted above. Unfortunately, you seem to continue to either confuse or purposefully misinterpret those comments to allege that I am saying how one votes is a prerequisite to salvation. As I have tried to tell you, you're getting the order confused. Faith precedes both fruit and works. And fruit and works are a sign of faith.

---

And if my behavior includes voting Democrat, it may be a sign that I have no faith. And if I have no faith I'm not a Christian.

I'm not misinterpreting what you say, I'm quoting you word for word.

---

Indeed, if one votes for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity, one may not be a Christian, may be immature in his or her faith, or may be misguided, subscribing to a warped and erroneous view of Christianity. That is elementary and basic Christian theology.

---

If I vote for a Democrat, am I voting for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity, and I may not be a Christian?

---

correct.. you may or may not be a Christian

---

Unbelievable . who thinks this way, these days? Sad, really. Fairly sure JC would not approve.

---

so you would like me to judge whether you are a good Christian or a bad Christian based on a few internet posts? Who thinks this way.

---

You people judge on what party someone votes.

---

you people? Me and my fellow session members at church? Me and other random posters on this site? Me and the 12 members of my immediate family who voted for both Trump and Biden in the last election and we still all talk and go to church and on family trips together(you know, the important stuff)?

Exactly who is the you people you were derogatorily referring to?

---

I'm talking about you very good Christian folk who voted for Trump. I really have a hard time getting my head around how all the good Cristians square a human who resamples and act totally in conflict with Christian beliefs. How just do you people square that? I just do not get it. Hell , my parents are the same way and I don't get that either.

---

Yes, Trump is a scumbag and a sinner, but his personal sins are not going to wreck the damn country.

---

If we're lucky.

---

We have 4 years of evidence that they will not. The last 2 years, on the other hand, make a pretty strong case that Biden might indeed wreck the country.

---

His four years were a mixed bag. His last few months were a disaster. If his narcissism doesn't wreck the country, it won't be for lack of trying.

---

I agree it was 4 years of a mixed bag. But the one thing we weren't on the precipice of was a nuclear war.

There's no way any reasonable conservative could argue the last two years of disaster were in any way preferable to Trump.

---

Obviously they were preferable in some ways. At least Biden hasn't endorsed violent political ideologies or spurred his followers to open rebellion.

---

This is the beginning of the conversation, since you seem to conveniently have forgotten. Biden not only endorsed violent ideologies he installed a rabid supporter and funder of violence as his VP.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

J.R. said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

J.R. said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

J.R. said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Hold on a second. Am I "preaching another Gospel. Faith + vote for your preferred candidate" or not?

You seem to be all over the place.

---

Yes you are. You say that if I vote wrong I need to do some self examination because I may not really be saved. IOW, faith +vote right. But if I vote right no self examination necessary
Below is a quote from your post from 2-3 pages ago:

"The idea that Christians can do and say anything they want (and vote how they want) because they are saved sounds eerily similar to the Gnostics, who believed that salvation was a mere get-out-of-jail free card. They believed how you live doesn't matter. And that's just not what Christ says in the Gospels.

I would respectfully submit that if you believe you are saved, but continue to make poor choices and decisions that you know to be contrary to your purported faith, you might need to do some self-examination, and ask yourself have you truly accepted Christ's grace. Again, how we vote doesn't affect our eternal security, but it might be a sign of where we are in our relationship with Christ, if at all."

---

I've said that how one behaves may be a sign of where they are in their faith, or if they even have a faith. Again, that is not a controversial subject, and one supported by the verses quoted above. Unfortunately, you seem to continue to either confuse or purposefully misinterpret those comments to allege that I am saying how one votes is a prerequisite to salvation. As I have tried to tell you, you're getting the order confused. Faith precedes both fruit and works. And fruit and works are a sign of faith.

---

And if my behavior includes voting Democrat, it may be a sign that I have no faith. And if I have no faith I'm not a Christian.

I'm not misinterpreting what you say, I'm quoting you word for word.

---

Indeed, if one votes for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity, one may not be a Christian, may be immature in his or her faith, or may be misguided, subscribing to a warped and erroneous view of Christianity. That is elementary and basic Christian theology.

---

If I vote for a Democrat, am I voting for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity, and I may not be a Christian?

---

correct.. you may or may not be a Christian

---

Unbelievable . who thinks this way, these days? Sad, really. Fairly sure JC would not approve.

---

so you would like me to judge whether you are a good Christian or a bad Christian based on a few internet posts? Who thinks this way.

---

You people judge on what party someone votes.

---

you people? Me and my fellow session members at church? Me and other random posters on this site? Me and the 12 members of my immediate family who voted for both Trump and Biden in the last election and we still all talk and go to church and on family trips together(you know, the important stuff)?

Exactly who is the you people you were derogatorily referring to?

---

I'm talking about you very good Christian folk who voted for Trump. I really have a hard time getting my head around how all the good Cristians square a human who resamples and act totally in conflict with Christian beliefs. How just do you people square that? I just do not get it. Hell , my parents are the same way and I don't get that either.

---

Yes, Trump is a scumbag and a sinner, but his personal sins are not going to wreck the damn country.

---

If we're lucky.

---

We have 4 years of evidence that they will not. The last 2 years, on the other hand, make a pretty strong case that Biden might indeed wreck the country.

---

His four years were a mixed bag. His last few months were a disaster. If his narcissism doesn't wreck the country, it won't be for lack of trying.

---

I agree it was 4 years of a mixed bag. But the one thing we weren't on the precipice of was a nuclear war.

There's no way any reasonable conservative could argue the last two years of disaster were in any way preferable to Trump.

---

Obviously they were preferable in some ways. At least Biden hasn't endorsed violent political ideologies or spurred his followers to open rebellion.

---

This is the beginning of the conversation, since you seem to conveniently have forgotten. Biden not only endorsed violent ideologies he installed a rabid supporter and funder of violence as his VP.

---

That's the thing, though. Bail reform is controversial issue, but it's one that many people including Kamala have supported for a long time. In no way does it imply that you support violence.

Unless, of course, you actually do support violence. Like if some rioters attacked the US Capitol and tried to overturn an election, and Kamala insisted they were "political prisoners." Not that she would do that. I'm sure none of us would. But that is definitely something that would look bad.

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Hold on a second. Am I "preaching another Gospel. Faith + vote for your preferred candidate" or not?

You seem to be all over the place.

---

Yes you are. You say that if I vote wrong I need to do some self examination because I may not really be saved. IOW, faith +vote right. But if I vote right no self examination necessary
Below is a quote from your post from 2-3 pages ago:

"The idea that Christians can do and say anything they want (and vote how they want) because they are saved sounds eerily similar to the Gnostics, who believed that salvation was a mere get-out-of-jail free card. They believed how you live doesn't matter. And that's just not what Christ says in the Gospels.

I would respectfully submit that if you believe you are saved, but continue to make poor choices and decisions that you know to be contrary to your purported faith, you might need to do some self-examination, and ask yourself have you truly accepted Christ's grace. Again, how we vote doesn't affect our eternal security, but it might be a sign of where we are in our relationship with Christ, if at all."

---

I've said that how one behaves may be a sign of where they are in their faith, or if they even have a faith. Again, that is not a controversial subject, and one supported by the verses quoted above. Unfortunately, you seem to continue to either confuse or purposefully misinterpret those comments to allege that I am saying how one votes is a prerequisite to salvation. As I have tried to tell you, you're getting the order confused. Faith precedes both fruit and works. And fruit and works are a sign of faith.

---

And if my behavior includes voting Democrat, it may be a sign that I have no faith. And if I have no faith I'm not a Christian.

I'm not misinterpreting what you say, I'm quoting you word for word.

---

Indeed, if one votes for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity, one may not be a Christian, may be immature in his or her faith, or may be misguided, subscribing to a warped and erroneous view of Christianity. That is elementary and basic Christian theology.

---

If I vote for a Democrat, am I voting for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity, and I may not be a Christian?

---

Two part question, two part answer:

1. Yes, voting for today's Democrat party means voting for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity. This should be self-evident to any believer, as pointed out above.

2. Yes. As pointed out above, when a heart change is not accompanied by a behavioral change (faith that leads to fruit/works), that is a sign that one may not be Christian. It could also mean that one is saved, but has erred in their beliefs, or is immature in their faith. There are several possibilities.

---

You are adding works (voting preference) to the Gospel.

---

Sorry, but that is again a false and erroneous statement, and demonstrates a fundamental understanding of basic Christian theology on the subject of works and fruit. I'd suggest pulling out the Pauline letters and looking at the verses I've quoted in this thread. Paul does a much better job of explaining it that I could.

---

We disagree on your theology. I'd suggest you do a little self examination.

---

I would suggest you take the advice given out and use it for yourself. It could be your theology that is flawed. It may or may not be..

---

So, do you think your voting history is dispositive of Christianity?
Suppose a Christian believes Democrats will be better stewards of the planet consistent with Biblical teaching. Going to hell?

The point is voting patterns don't make you a Christian anymore than being heterosexual makes you a Christian.

---

so much enjoying the spectacle of a neverTrumper making the case on the importance of avoiding subjective, self-serving morality judgments in the ballot box.

---

He's saying outright obvious truths. Are you saying you think you can tell who is Christian by how they vote?

---

The Bible says we can, but why don't you tell us how the Bible is wrong and we can't "know them by their fruit."

---

It outright distances itself from the whims of politics. The idea that the Bible says how you vote determines your trip to heaven or hell is the exact type of legalism that nailed Jesus to a tree. I'm surprised you outright said it. Major Pharisee moment.

Zealot might not be a strong enough term for someone like you.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

J.R. said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

J.R. said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

J.R. said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Hold on a second. Am I "preaching another Gospel. Faith + vote for your preferred candidate" or not?

You seem to be all over the place.

---

Yes you are. You say that if I vote wrong I need to do some self examination because I may not really be saved. IOW, faith +vote right. But if I vote right no self examination necessary
Below is a quote from your post from 2-3 pages ago:

"The idea that Christians can do and say anything they want (and vote how they want) because they are saved sounds eerily similar to the Gnostics, who believed that salvation was a mere get-out-of-jail free card. They believed how you live doesn't matter. And that's just not what Christ says in the Gospels.

I would respectfully submit that if you believe you are saved, but continue to make poor choices and decisions that you know to be contrary to your purported faith, you might need to do some self-examination, and ask yourself have you truly accepted Christ's grace. Again, how we vote doesn't affect our eternal security, but it might be a sign of where we are in our relationship with Christ, if at all."

---

I've said that how one behaves may be a sign of where they are in their faith, or if they even have a faith. Again, that is not a controversial subject, and one supported by the verses quoted above. Unfortunately, you seem to continue to either confuse or purposefully misinterpret those comments to allege that I am saying how one votes is a prerequisite to salvation. As I have tried to tell you, you're getting the order confused. Faith precedes both fruit and works. And fruit and works are a sign of faith.

---

And if my behavior includes voting Democrat, it may be a sign that I have no faith. And if I have no faith I'm not a Christian.

I'm not misinterpreting what you say, I'm quoting you word for word.

---

Indeed, if one votes for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity, one may not be a Christian, may be immature in his or her faith, or may be misguided, subscribing to a warped and erroneous view of Christianity. That is elementary and basic Christian theology.

---

If I vote for a Democrat, am I voting for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity, and I may not be a Christian?

---

correct.. you may or may not be a Christian

---

Unbelievable . who thinks this way, these days? Sad, really. Fairly sure JC would not approve.

---

so you would like me to judge whether you are a good Christian or a bad Christian based on a few internet posts? Who thinks this way.

---

You people judge on what party someone votes.

---

you people? Me and my fellow session members at church? Me and other random posters on this site? Me and the 12 members of my immediate family who voted for both Trump and Biden in the last election and we still all talk and go to church and on family trips together(you know, the important stuff)?

Exactly who is the you people you were derogatorily referring to?

---

I'm talking about you very good Christian folk who voted for Trump. I really have a hard time getting my head around how all the good Cristians square a human who resamples and act totally in conflict with Christian beliefs. How just do you people square that? I just do not get it. Hell , my parents are the same way and I don't get that either.

---

Yes, Trump is a scumbag and a sinner, but his personal sins are not going to wreck the damn country.

---

If we're lucky.

---

We have 4 years of evidence that they will not. The last 2 years, on the other hand, make a pretty strong case that Biden might indeed wreck the country.

---

His four years were a mixed bag. His last few months were a disaster. If his narcissism doesn't wreck the country, it won't be for lack of trying.

---

I agree it was 4 years of a mixed bag. But the one thing we weren't on the precipice of was a nuclear war.

There's no way any reasonable conservative could argue the last two years of disaster were in any way preferable to Trump.

---

Obviously they were preferable in some ways. At least Biden hasn't endorsed violent political ideologies or spurred his followers to open rebellion.

---

This is the beginning of the conversation, since you seem to conveniently have forgotten. Biden not only endorsed violent ideologies he installed a rabid supporter and funder of violence as his VP.

---

That's the thing, though. Bail reform is controversial issue, but it's one that many people including Kamala have supported for a long time. In no way does it imply that you support violence.

Unless, of course, you actually do support violence. Like if some rioters attacked the US Capitol and tried to overturn an election, and Kamala insisted they were "political prisoners." Not that she would do that. I'm sure none of us would. But that is definitely something that would look bad.

---

She literally donated money and used her platform to help raise $35,000,000 for a group that bailed out rioters and violent murderers alike. That's not advocating for bail reform, that's outright funding political violence.

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Hold on a second. Am I "preaching another Gospel. Faith + vote for your preferred candidate" or not?

You seem to be all over the place.

---

Yes you are. You say that if I vote wrong I need to do some self examination because I may not really be saved. IOW, faith +vote right. But if I vote right no self examination necessary
Below is a quote from your post from 2-3 pages ago:

"The idea that Christians can do and say anything they want (and vote how they want) because they are saved sounds eerily similar to the Gnostics, who believed that salvation was a mere get-out-of-jail free card. They believed how you live doesn't matter. And that's just not what Christ says in the Gospels.

I would respectfully submit that if you believe you are saved, but continue to make poor choices and decisions that you know to be contrary to your purported faith, you might need to do some self-examination, and ask yourself have you truly accepted Christ's grace. Again, how we vote doesn't affect our eternal security, but it might be a sign of where we are in our relationship with Christ, if at all."

---

I've said that how one behaves may be a sign of where they are in their faith, or if they even have a faith. Again, that is not a controversial subject, and one supported by the verses quoted above. Unfortunately, you seem to continue to either confuse or purposefully misinterpret those comments to allege that I am saying how one votes is a prerequisite to salvation. As I have tried to tell you, you're getting the order confused. Faith precedes both fruit and works. And fruit and works are a sign of faith.

---

And if my behavior includes voting Democrat, it may be a sign that I have no faith. And if I have no faith I'm not a Christian.

I'm not misinterpreting what you say, I'm quoting you word for word.

---

Indeed, if one votes for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity, one may not be a Christian, may be immature in his or her faith, or may be misguided, subscribing to a warped and erroneous view of Christianity. That is elementary and basic Christian theology.

---

If I vote for a Democrat, am I voting for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity, and I may not be a Christian?

---

Two part question, two part answer:

1. Yes, voting for today's Democrat party means voting for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity. This should be self-evident to any believer, as pointed out above.

2. Yes. As pointed out above, when a heart change is not accompanied by a behavioral change (faith that leads to fruit/works), that is a sign that one may not be Christian. It could also mean that one is saved, but has erred in their beliefs, or is immature in their faith. There are several possibilities.

---

You are adding works (voting preference) to the Gospel.

---

Sorry, but that is again a false and erroneous statement, and demonstrates a fundamental understanding of basic Christian theology on the subject of works and fruit. I'd suggest pulling out the Pauline letters and looking at the verses I've quoted in this thread. Paul does a much better job of explaining it that I could.

---

We disagree on your theology. I'd suggest you do a little self examination.

---

I would suggest you take the advice given out and use it for yourself. It could be your theology that is flawed. It may or may not be..

---

So, do you think your voting history is dispositive of Christianity?
Suppose a Christian believes Democrats will be better stewards of the planet consistent with Biblical teaching. Going to hell?

The point is voting patterns don't make you a Christian anymore than being heterosexual makes you a Christian.

---

so much enjoying the spectacle of a neverTrumper making the case on the importance of avoiding subjective, self-serving morality judgments in the ballot box.

---

He's saying outright obvious truths. Are you saying you think you can tell who is Christian by how they vote?

---

The Bible says we can, but why don't you tell us how the Bible is wrong and we can't "know them by their fruit."

---

It outright distances itself from the whims of politics. The idea that the Bible says how you vote determines your trip to heaven or hell is the exact type of legalism that nailed Jesus to a tree. I'm surprised you outright said it. Major Pharisee moment.

Zealot might not be a strong enough term for someone like you.

---

It can be shocking for people to hear actual Christian doctrine when they've lived in ignorance for so long. Yes, when you knowingly empower evil you don't get to also call yourself a Christian. You can repent afterwards as long as you don't plan your relapse. "You people against killing babies are the types who killed JESUS!" Hahaha, what a ****ing moron.

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Hold on a second. Am I "preaching another Gospel. Faith + vote for your preferred candidate" or not?

You seem to be all over the place.

---

Yes you are. You say that if I vote wrong I need to do some self examination because I may not really be saved. IOW, faith +vote right. But if I vote right no self examination necessary
Below is a quote from your post from 2-3 pages ago:

"The idea that Christians can do and say anything they want (and vote how they want) because they are saved sounds eerily similar to the Gnostics, who believed that salvation was a mere get-out-of-jail free card. They believed how you live doesn't matter. And that's just not what Christ says in the Gospels.

I would respectfully submit that if you believe you are saved, but continue to make poor choices and decisions that you know to be contrary to your purported faith, you might need to do some self-examination, and ask yourself have you truly accepted Christ's grace. Again, how we vote doesn't affect our eternal security, but it might be a sign of where we are in our relationship with Christ, if at all."

---

I've said that how one behaves may be a sign of where they are in their faith, or if they even have a faith. Again, that is not a controversial subject, and one supported by the verses quoted above. Unfortunately, you seem to continue to either confuse or purposefully misinterpret those comments to allege that I am saying how one votes is a prerequisite to salvation. As I have tried to tell you, you're getting the order confused. Faith precedes both fruit and works. And fruit and works are a sign of faith.

---

And if my behavior includes voting Democrat, it may be a sign that I have no faith. And if I have no faith I'm not a Christian.

I'm not misinterpreting what you say, I'm quoting you word for word.

---

Indeed, if one votes for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity, one may not be a Christian, may be immature in his or her faith, or may be misguided, subscribing to a warped and erroneous view of Christianity. That is elementary and basic Christian theology.

---

If I vote for a Democrat, am I voting for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity, and I may not be a Christian?

---

Two part question, two part answer:

1. Yes, voting for today's Democrat party means voting for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity. This should be self-evident to any believer, as pointed out above.

2. Yes. As pointed out above, when a heart change is not accompanied by a behavioral change (faith that leads to fruit/works), that is a sign that one may not be Christian. It could also mean that one is saved, but has erred in their beliefs, or is immature in their faith. There are several possibilities.

---

You are adding works (voting preference) to the Gospel.

---

Sorry, but that is again a false and erroneous statement, and demonstrates a fundamental understanding of basic Christian theology on the subject of works and fruit. I'd suggest pulling out the Pauline letters and looking at the verses I've quoted in this thread. Paul does a much better job of explaining it that I could.

---

We disagree on your theology. I'd suggest you do a little self examination.

---

I would suggest you take the advice given out and use it for yourself. It could be your theology that is flawed. It may or may not be..

---

So, do you think your voting history is dispositive of Christianity?
Suppose a Christian believes Democrats will be better stewards of the planet consistent with Biblical teaching. Going to hell?

The point is voting patterns don't make you a Christian anymore than being heterosexual makes you a Christian.

---

so much enjoying the spectacle of a neverTrumper making the case on the importance of avoiding subjective, self-serving morality judgments in the ballot box.

---

He's saying outright obvious truths. Are you saying you think you can tell who is Christian by how they vote?

---

The Bible says we can, but why don't you tell us how the Bible is wrong and we can't "know them by their fruit."

---

It outright distances itself from the whims of politics. The idea that the Bible says how you vote determines your trip to heaven or hell is the exact type of legalism that nailed Jesus to a tree. I'm surprised you outright said it. Major Pharisee moment.

Zealot might not be a strong enough term for someone like you.

---

It can be shocking for people to hear actual Christian doctrine when they've lived in ignorance for so long. Yes, when you knowingly empower evil you don't get to also call yourself a Christian. You can repent afterwards as long as you don't plan your relapse. "You people against killing babies are the types who killed JESUS!" Hahaha, what a ****ing moron.

---

You must be going through a rough time. I understand needing to vent on the forum. Hope things will turn out ok for you in RL.

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Hold on a second. Am I "preaching another Gospel. Faith + vote for your preferred candidate" or not?

You seem to be all over the place.

---

Yes you are. You say that if I vote wrong I need to do some self examination because I may not really be saved. IOW, faith +vote right. But if I vote right no self examination necessary
Below is a quote from your post from 2-3 pages ago:

"The idea that Christians can do and say anything they want (and vote how they want) because they are saved sounds eerily similar to the Gnostics, who believed that salvation was a mere get-out-of-jail free card. They believed how you live doesn't matter. And that's just not what Christ says in the Gospels.

I would respectfully submit that if you believe you are saved, but continue to make poor choices and decisions that you know to be contrary to your purported faith, you might need to do some self-examination, and ask yourself have you truly accepted Christ's grace. Again, how we vote doesn't affect our eternal security, but it might be a sign of where we are in our relationship with Christ, if at all."

---

I've said that how one behaves may be a sign of where they are in their faith, or if they even have a faith. Again, that is not a controversial subject, and one supported by the verses quoted above. Unfortunately, you seem to continue to either confuse or purposefully misinterpret those comments to allege that I am saying how one votes is a prerequisite to salvation. As I have tried to tell you, you're getting the order confused. Faith precedes both fruit and works. And fruit and works are a sign of faith.

---

And if my behavior includes voting Democrat, it may be a sign that I have no faith. And if I have no faith I'm not a Christian.

I'm not misinterpreting what you say, I'm quoting you word for word.

---

Indeed, if one votes for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity, one may not be a Christian, may be immature in his or her faith, or may be misguided, subscribing to a warped and erroneous view of Christianity. That is elementary and basic Christian theology.

---

If I vote for a Democrat, am I voting for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity, and I may not be a Christian?

---

Two part question, two part answer:

1. Yes, voting for today's Democrat party means voting for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity. This should be self-evident to any believer, as pointed out above.

2. Yes. As pointed out above, when a heart change is not accompanied by a behavioral change (faith that leads to fruit/works), that is a sign that one may not be Christian. It could also mean that one is saved, but has erred in their beliefs, or is immature in their faith. There are several possibilities.

---

You are adding works (voting preference) to the Gospel.

---

Sorry, but that is again a false and erroneous statement, and demonstrates a fundamental understanding of basic Christian theology on the subject of works and fruit. I'd suggest pulling out the Pauline letters and looking at the verses I've quoted in this thread. Paul does a much better job of explaining it that I could.

---

We disagree on your theology. I'd suggest you do a little self examination.

---

I would suggest you take the advice given out and use it for yourself. It could be your theology that is flawed. It may or may not be..

---

So, do you think your voting history is dispositive of Christianity?
Suppose a Christian believes Democrats will be better stewards of the planet consistent with Biblical teaching. Going to hell?

The point is voting patterns don't make you a Christian anymore than being heterosexual makes you a Christian.

---

so much enjoying the spectacle of a neverTrumper making the case on the importance of avoiding subjective, self-serving morality judgments in the ballot box.

---

He's saying outright obvious truths. Are you saying you think you can tell who is Christian by how they vote?

---

The Bible says we can, but why don't you tell us how the Bible is wrong and we can't "know them by their fruit."

---

It outright distances itself from the whims of politics. The idea that the Bible says how you vote determines your trip to heaven or hell is the exact type of legalism that nailed Jesus to a tree. I'm surprised you outright said it. Major Pharisee moment.

Zealot might not be a strong enough term for someone like you.

---

It can be shocking for people to hear actual Christian doctrine when they've lived in ignorance for so long. Yes, when you knowingly empower evil you don't get to also call yourself a Christian. You can repent afterwards as long as you don't plan your relapse. "You people against killing babies are the types who killed JESUS!" Hahaha, what a ****ing moron.

---

You must be going through a rough time. I understand needing to vent on the forum. Hope things will turn out ok for you in RL.

---

It's okay, apparently no matter what I do I am saved since I said so...

There's no evidence that she donated money. Even if she did, so have many other people who don't support violence but do support peaceful protests and better treatment for low-income defendants. That includes J6 defendants, who should also be entitled to bail if they're not flight risks or a danger to the community. There's nothing wrong with advocating for that, nor does it mean you support the insurrection.

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's no evidence that she donated money. Even if she did, so have many other people who don't support violence but do support peaceful protests and better treatment for low-income defendants. That includes J6 defendants, who should also be entitled to bail if they're not flight risks or a danger to the community. There's nothing wrong with advocating for that, nor does it mean you support the insurrection.

---

Factcheck? Haha, sure, she just risked her reputation and future political aspirations and promoted the fund that bailed out violent blm rioters, domestic abusers and murderers but couldn't be bothered to donate a dime. "We didn't SEE her do it so we rate it false!" Pull the other one.

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Hold on a second. Am I "preaching another Gospel. Faith + vote for your preferred candidate" or not?

You seem to be all over the place.

---

Yes you are. You say that if I vote wrong I need to do some self examination because I may not really be saved. IOW, faith +vote right. But if I vote right no self examination necessary
Below is a quote from your post from 2-3 pages ago:

"The idea that Christians can do and say anything they want (and vote how they want) because they are saved sounds eerily similar to the Gnostics, who believed that salvation was a mere get-out-of-jail free card. They believed how you live doesn't matter. And that's just not what Christ says in the Gospels.

I would respectfully submit that if you believe you are saved, but continue to make poor choices and decisions that you know to be contrary to your purported faith, you might need to do some self-examination, and ask yourself have you truly accepted Christ's grace. Again, how we vote doesn't affect our eternal security, but it might be a sign of where we are in our relationship with Christ, if at all."

---

I've said that how one behaves may be a sign of where they are in their faith, or if they even have a faith. Again, that is not a controversial subject, and one supported by the verses quoted above. Unfortunately, you seem to continue to either confuse or purposefully misinterpret those comments to allege that I am saying how one votes is a prerequisite to salvation. As I have tried to tell you, you're getting the order confused. Faith precedes both fruit and works. And fruit and works are a sign of faith.

---

And if my behavior includes voting Democrat, it may be a sign that I have no faith. And if I have no faith I'm not a Christian.

I'm not misinterpreting what you say, I'm quoting you word for word.

---

Indeed, if one votes for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity, one may not be a Christian, may be immature in his or her faith, or may be misguided, subscribing to a warped and erroneous view of Christianity. That is elementary and basic Christian theology.

---

If I vote for a Democrat, am I voting for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity, and I may not be a Christian?

---

Two part question, two part answer:

1. Yes, voting for today's Democrat party means voting for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity. This should be self-evident to any believer, as pointed out above.

2. Yes. As pointed out above, when a heart change is not accompanied by a behavioral change (faith that leads to fruit/works), that is a sign that one may not be Christian. It could also mean that one is saved, but has erred in their beliefs, or is immature in their faith. There are several possibilities.

---

You are adding works (voting preference) to the Gospel.

---

Sorry, but that is again a false and erroneous statement, and demonstrates a fundamental understanding of basic Christian theology on the subject of works and fruit. I'd suggest pulling out the Pauline letters and looking at the verses I've quoted in this thread. Paul does a much better job of explaining it that I could.

---

We disagree on your theology. I'd suggest you do a little self examination.

---

I would suggest you take the advice given out and use it for yourself. It could be your theology that is flawed. It may or may not be..

---

So, do you think your voting history is dispositive of Christianity?
Suppose a Christian believes Democrats will be better stewards of the planet consistent with Biblical teaching. Going to hell?

The point is voting patterns don't make you a Christian anymore than being heterosexual makes you a Christian.

---

so much enjoying the spectacle of a neverTrumper making the case on the importance of avoiding subjective, self-serving morality judgments in the ballot box.

---

He's saying outright obvious truths. Are you saying you think you can tell who is Christian by how they vote?

---

The Bible says we can, but why don't you tell us how the Bible is wrong and we can't "know them by their fruit."

---

It outright distances itself from the whims of politics. The idea that the Bible says how you vote determines your trip to heaven or hell is the exact type of legalism that nailed Jesus to a tree. I'm surprised you outright said it. Major Pharisee moment.

Zealot might not be a strong enough term for someone like you.

---

It can be shocking for people to hear actual Christian doctrine when they've lived in ignorance for so long. Yes, when you knowingly empower evil you don't get to also call yourself a Christian. You can repent afterwards as long as you don't plan your relapse. "You people against killing babies are the types who killed JESUS!" Hahaha, what a ****ing moron.

---

You must be going through a rough time. I understand needing to vent on the forum. Hope things will turn out ok for you in RL.

---

It's okay, apparently no matter what I do I am saved since I said so...

---

Depends on how you voted in a political contest ...

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's no evidence that she donated money. Even if she did, so have many other people who don't support violence but do support peaceful protests and better treatment for low-income defendants. That includes J6 defendants, who should also be entitled to bail if they're not flight risks or a danger to the community. There's nothing wrong with advocating for that, nor does it mean you support the insurrection.

---

Factcheck? Haha, sure, she just risked her reputation and future political aspirations and promoted the fund that bailed out violent blm rioters, domestic abusers and murderers but couldn't be bothered to donate a dime. "We didn't SEE her do it so we rate it false!" Pull the other one.

---

The issue isn't whether she donated, but whether she paid specifically to bail out rioters, as you implied. She did not. Nor did any of her efforts support freeing any rioters who were accused of murder.

You're basically telling us that paying someone's bail is an endorsement of their crime. It really isn't. Paying someone's bail because of the crime they did? Sure, that would be endorsing. Not what happened.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's no evidence that she donated money. Even if she did, so have many other people who don't support violence but do support peaceful protests and better treatment for low-income defendants. That includes J6 defendants, who should also be entitled to bail if they're not flight risks or a danger to the community. There's nothing wrong with advocating for that, nor does it mean you support the insurrection.

---

Factcheck? Haha, sure, she just risked her reputation and future political aspirations and promoted the fund that bailed out violent blm rioters, domestic abusers and murderers but couldn't be bothered to donate a dime. "We didn't SEE her do it so we rate it false!" Pull the other one.

---

The issue isn't whether she donated, but whether she paid specifically to bail out rioters, as you implied. She did not. Nor did any of her efforts support freeing any rioters who were accused of murder.

You're basically telling us that paying someone's bail is an endorsement of their crime. It really isn't. Paying someone's bail because of the crime they did? Sure, that would be endorsing. Not what happened.

---

That's some impressive tap dancing but the fact is she promoted the fund during the riots. The fund bailed out rioters. The fund also bailed out domestic abusers and murderers. You can't pretend she didn't use her position to help raise $35,000,000 for the organization, even if you are going to pretend she didn't donate her own money.