Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,180 Year: 5,437/9,624 Month: 462/323 Week: 102/204 Day: 2/16 Hour: 1/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   The 2016 United States Presidential Election
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.4

Message 123 of 892 (793138)
10-21-2016 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Diomedes
10-21-2016 3:06 PM

Biased questioning by moderators?
Now that the 3 presidential debates are done, what are the opinions here about the debate moderation? Was Wallace of Fox news more biased than...Martha Raddatz (and others from the mainstream) less biased, or about the same?
Then the response by Diomedes
I am not a Fox News fan, but I have to give credit where credit is due: I thought Chris Wallace did an outstanding job as moderator in the last debate. He asked poignant questions, he did not let either Clinton or Trump divert too much from answers, and he was able to keep the audience controlled.
Wallace was indeed biased on Syria. He let Hillary get away with the whopper that her No-Fly Zone against Syria would somehow help to fight ISIS and related extremists. The truth is that it would ensure a stalemate in the west of Syria (and much increased bloodshed in the west) with the result being that Assad would still have the east of the country completely abandoned. There are like 5000 (or more) Kurdish refugees here in Lincoln, Nebraska and it is a direct result of (our government here in the U.S.A.)arming rebels (which also drastically help ISIS) which cause Assad and the Alawites to have to divert every last government troop (and any private fighters as well) into the east of the country to fight for their lives and very survival. Then ISIS, in the abandoned west, gets free reign to slaughter the guts out of the Kurds once Assad and the government are absent in the east.
We armed rebels (not as much as the gulf states who also funded them the earliest) a half-decade back and it caused Syria to see its legitimate internationally recognized government have to divert all troops to the west. ISIS was able to gain serious ground in the east (never mind the fact that the west was in shambles as well - the Assad government was on the verge of falling) AFTER the financial intervention of outside powers, and that is chronologically a fact.
The added dimension is that many of the rebels that were armed ended up fighting for extremist groups. Another issue (and one I don't want to spend any time on beyond this sentence), but it was Kentucky GOP Senator Rand Paul himself who said that it was very ironic that the rebels are called "extremists" when they cross the border into Iraq and slaughter Kurds, but they are called "moderate rebels" and "good guys" when they cross back into Syria.
Remember how right wing nuts (who are presented as reasonable Republicans on Meet the Press) like Hugh Hewitt kept calling the Iranian al Quds force "terrorist" in an effort to intimidate Iran from entering Syria (A media firestorm erupted for weeks/months in 2015 when a radio interview resulted in Trump displaying ignorance of the Iranian group when he thought Hewitt was asking him about the Kurds which sound similar to the Arabic word Quds). Remember the smear job of Iran when word was that they were finally about to consider intervening in Syria?
Russia entered Syria in September 2015 and it gave Iran and Hezbollah (a Shia group in Lebanon) the strength to make the decision to enter, despite endlessly dishonest smearing in the U.S.A. press.
It was long overdue intervention but it has helped raise the possibility that the opposition to Assad can be destroyed eventually. The possibility exists that there can eventually be a return of Syrian troops to the west and the Kurds can stop loosing lives in the (what like )100,000s to slaughter.
The No-Fly Zone of Hillary and Mike Pence will ruin that hope for certain.
Wallace never raised these issues and neither did any of the biased worthless journalists that moderated the debates. They told lies though and cleverly diverted AWAY FROM ACCURACTE PICTURES of what was going on in our policy as it relates to Syria. They know that Americans don't understand a thing about Syria and the players involved. Trump has helped educate them so that the number of informed has easily quadrupled since the debates. They now know that Iran is fighting ISIS (our disgraceful politicians regularly throw Iran and ISIS with the word "terrorist" into one giant slurred soup so that Americans don't have a chance of knowing they are bitter enemies as opposed to the same thing) and that Assad and ISIS are enemies and not the same thing. Trump parses the issues involved instead of the conflated soup of lies Hillary spits out as she cynically takes advantage of - and infact contributes to - the ignorance of the American people.
Perhaps Hillary can explain to the American people - in 2017 - why we are literally at war with Russia in the Mediterranean when Russia responds to a U.S. military attack on Syria when Assad violates our interventionist and aggressive No Fly Zone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Diomedes, posted 10-21-2016 3:06 PM Diomedes has not replied

Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.4

Message 203 of 892 (793364)
10-26-2016 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Taq
10-26-2016 10:53 AM

Re: What a friend said he liked about Trump
Some losses are a win. If Russia refuses to allow safe zones for innocent refugees protected by US air power, then that puts Russia in a very poor light, even poorer than the light they are currently under. This produces leverage that can be taken advantage of at the UN. It could even lead to economic sanctions against Russia.
A no-fly zone isn't about providing safe zones for civilians. It is 100% different from a safe zone.
Amazing that Russia used to be accused of tying to split off the western part of Syria into an Alawite nation (which could cause the Druze to split off into their own state around jebel Druze (mountain of the Druze) then a natural result would be a domino effect leading to an independent Christian nation (which naturally would come), then an independent Kudish nation, and then even an independent (non Ismaili) Shia nation (despit the fact that standard 12er Shia Muslims are only about 3% of the population while Alawites are 8%, Druze, 2.5%, and non-reincarnation/ non avatar (standard) Ismailis are about 1.2% for a total of 12% Ismailis).
This is just more deliberate garbling.
(Trump is a big proponent of a safe zone but 100% against a no-fly zone)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Taq, posted 10-26-2016 10:53 AM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by RAZD, posted 10-26-2016 4:47 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.4

Message 357 of 892 (794082)
11-09-2016 3:37 PM

Madeline Albright said 500,000 deaths of Iraqi children were "worth it" (sanctions)
Google type in "madeleine albright worth it"
That Secretary of State under Bill Clinton said it and it is on video.
Madeleine Albright - The deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children was worth it ...
Video for madeleine albright worth it▶ 0:24
Feb 9, 2011 - Uploaded by 91177info
The US, UK and Israel are hoping for the same effect on Iranian children with sanctions. Iran does not want or ...
Madeleine Albright - Wikiquote
Madeleine Albright - Wikiquote
I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" Albright was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations at the time.
Madeleine Albright, ethically challenged — William Blum
Madeleine Albright, ethically challenged – William Blum
Lesley Stahl, speaking of US sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. ... Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it.. ... 5) In February 1996, as UN ambassador, Albright reacted ...
Madeleine Albright - Wikipedia
Madeleine Albright - Wikipedia
Madeleine Jana Korbel Albright is an American politician and diplomat. She is the first woman ..... and Albright replied "we think the price is worth it." Albright later ...
Political party‎: ‎Democratic
Religion‎: ‎Episcopalianism‎; (Formerly Roman ...
Children‎: ‎Alice; Anne; Katherine
Spouse(s)‎: ‎Joseph Albright‎ (1959—1982)
College protests revive accusations against war criminal Madeleine ...
May 11, 2016 - The price is worth it, Albright bluntly replied. ... was taking place, and yet the Americans, led by U.S. Ambassador Madeleine Albright, played ...
'We Think the Price Is Worth It' | FAIR
Nov 1, 2001 - And, you know, is the price worth it? Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price—we think the price is ...
Democracy Now! Confronts Madeleine Albright on the Iraq Sanctions ...
Jul 30, 2004 - Madeleine Albright replied, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price we think the price is worth it." Last night, as people filed out of the ...
If Anyone's Going to Hell, It's Madeleine Albright Alex Jones ...
Feb 8, 2016 - Madeleine Albright's warning that women who don't vote for Hillary are going to hell ... We think the price is worth it, Albright responded.
Albright Apologizes - The Future of Freedom Foundation
Albright Apologizes – The Future of Freedom Foundation
Nov 7, 2003 - In 1996 then-UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright was asked by 60 ... think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.
Iraqi Sanctions: Were They Worth It? - Global Policy Forum
In May 1996 Madeleine Albright, who was then the U.S. ambassador to the UN, ... I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.
Hillary opposed letting in the Central American children who were refugees.
Sanders opposed it at the time.
Sanders said, on the Univision debate, that any child should have the right to cross the border. Hillary was forced to claim she agreed.

Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.4

Message 462 of 892 (794645)
11-18-2016 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 409 by Hyroglyphx
11-12-2016 8:58 AM

Re: The Clinton Machine
[ nwr]
It occurs to me that maybe you and dronestar don't fully understand what Clinton voted for.
It's not a question of what she voted for, but what she demonstrates that she will vote for. She wants to control Syria as a No-Fly Zone, to which the Chiefs of Staff have already expressed would require commitment to open warfare with both Russia and Syria. It is also based on her dealings with Libya and Syria thus far as her role as Secretary.
As for her role in Syria as secretary of state: she had no ability to commit any troops. She could only make recommendations to the president. Any decision to commit troops would have been the president's.
That's only because the public made it so abundantly clear that we don't want to get dragged in to yet another quagmire of endless wars, such as we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. The President was even reluctant to wage a small air campaign against ISIL based on such a negative response of the American people.
In half of her speeches during her push for the presidency, she threatened to engage Russia with an diplomatic, economic, and military response... That's pretty provocative given the fact that both Russia and NATO have been saber-rattling for the last year with these massive military drills.
Earlier nwr made it sound like Hillary has no record of support for attacks on Iraq. (I don't feel like chasing down the exact post that load can be found in) I remember the Bill Clinton presidency from 1993-2001 very well. Iraq was bombed constantly. Remember Christmas of 1998 (or 1997)?
More to the present though. Like Syria.
As for Syria, we were about to attack Assad until an education campaign changed things. In the U.K. the ruling Conservative/Liberal Democratic coalition had enough of a split over the war that their support for a war campaign against Syria needed Labor votes, which seemed to be very much there AT FIRST. Labor members were educated in the coming weeks by anti-war folks, and at the last minute (before a vote for war) the huge bulk of the minority Labor party choose to oppose the war. The House of Commons vote was pulled once the supporters for war became a sudden minority.
That gave the anti-war movement a shot in the arm in the U.S. congress to oppose the Clinton/Kerry war push. In the House Republicans like John Culberson (Houston) and Democrats like Alan Grayson (Orlando) were able to defeat the pro war push.
Btw your comments on Clinton have been somewhat/fairly accurate. She lost the election and she was about the only Democrat that could have lost to Trump. The fact that she lost to Trump proves that ANY GOP candidate would have beaten her. I'm just glad it wasn't a neo-con like Rubio or Fiorina. Trump is light years better, in fact he is about the best deal the country could hope to get considering the fact that the DNC made it a "it is (was)Hillary's turn alone to run in 2016 for the Democrats" type of election.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-12-2016 8:58 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.4

Message 579 of 892 (795027)
12-04-2016 3:16 PM

Dana Milbank says new video proves Trump is ( most extreme version of?) 9/11 Truther.
Trump's 'news' source: Alien lizards, fluoride mind control and voter fraud
By Dana Milbank Opinion writer
November 28
"Report: Three Million Votes in Presidential Election Cast by Illegal Aliens; Trump may have won popular vote.
Infowars, website of leading conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, Nov. 14
"In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.
Donald Trump, president-elect of the United States, Nov. 27
Jones’s rants would be funny if the soon-to-be most powerful man in the world didn’t rely so heavily on them.
Trump, the New York Times reported, called Jones after the election to thank him for his support. Trump has been on the Jones show and praised the host’s amazing reputation; Trump adviser Roger Stone is an Infowars regular.
As the Right Wing Watch website has documented, Jones has alleged that the U.S. government was responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks (Jones posted an old video Monday in which Trump appeared to suggest that aircraft alone couldn’t have brought down the towers), the Oklahoma City bombings and mass shootings such as Sandy Hook.
I raised the issue of the possibility of Trump's 9/11 views after the South Carolina debate in early February. (my posts were in the April-May vicinity I suppose, but I remember Percy responding to them anyway).
Here are google pages on the issue.
The hits mostly seem to be old material (from the primaries) where the GOP partisans are attempting to smear him as a 9/11 Truther for various reasons.
I'm not sure how groundbreaking the Milbank accusations are though. I haven't been able to research them but it seems a possibility that Jones possibly held back from releasing an "old video" before the election out of fear that it could hurt Trump.
Was the video never seen until late November of 2016 or is it something that has been available for a long time?
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 580 by Faith, posted 12-04-2016 3:48 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.4

Message 581 of 892 (795030)
12-04-2016 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 580 by Faith
12-04-2016 3:48 PM

Re: Dana Milbank says new video proves Trump is ( most extreme version of?) 9/11 Truther.
I'm not bothered (Milbank sure is bothered by just about everything about Trump).
I should have checked google "news" (as opposed to the basic web search) on this issue. It has lots of relevant hits.
Alex Jones Uses Trump's 2001 Remarks To Further 9/11 Inside Job ...
Media Matters for America-Nov 28, 2016
Trump Ally Alex Jones Uses Trump's 2001 Remarks To Further 9/11 ... and self-described "founding father" of the "9/11 Truth Movement" -- and ...
How Infowars and Breitbart could make lots of trouble for President ...
Washington Post-Nov 30, 2016
Roger Stone: InfoWars Is 'Far More Credible' Than CNN
Mediaite-Nov 28, 2016
Trump vs. the truth
Opinion-New York Daily News-Nov 29, 2016
Trump's election shed more light on 9/11 truth: Scholar
Press TV-Nov 27, 2016
Donald Trump's presidential election victory despite running an Islamophobic campaign shows how the September 11, 2001 attacks set the ...
Donald Trump Vows To Reopen 9/11 Investigation: Fake News ...
The Inquisitr-Nov 13, 2016
Donald Trump Vows To Reopen 9/11 Investigation: Fake News Report Sparks Excitement Among Members Of The 'Truth Movement'.
Donald Trump and the Rise of Alt-Reality Media
POLITICO Magazine-Nov 25, 2016
As Trump slouched toward the nomination, he was backed by a ... He is a 9/11 truther, who believes the U.S. government conspired in the ...
A Comprehensive Guide To Alex Jones: Conspiracy Theorist And ...
Media Matters for America (blog)-Dec 1, 2016
Donald Trump has taken Jones from the fringes into the mainstream ..... During a 2006 speech at a 9/11 truther conference, Jones said: The ...
Erica Lafferty Lost Her Mother in Sandy Hook. Trumps Ties to ...
Daily Beast-Nov 18, 2016
For those keeping track, yes, Trump called a 9/11 truther before he phoned the Pentagon. On the Jan. 13, 2015, edition of his show, Jones ...
Sandy Hook Fake Insists Donald Trump Ally Alex Jones: Conspiracy ...
International Business Times-Nov 18, 2016
Donald Trump September 11 Interview: He Said There Is No Way ...
The Inquisitr-Nov 27, 2016
Richard Gage, who originated the September 11 Truther group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, has dedicated his life to digging up the ...
Key Trump Backer and 9/11 Truther Joins Digital War on Fake News
Gizmodo India-Nov 18, 2016
The soldiers in the war on fake news have a new ally: 9/11 truther and prominent Trump supporter Alex Jones. Alex Jones is the founder of ...
9/11, global elites and goblins: How America's top conspiracy ... 26, 2016
If you want to know what powers Mr Trump, he said, individually it's a love of ... infrastructure that is outdated, [but] InfoWars is stone cold truth.
Was 11/8 a New 9/11? The Election That Changed Everything and ...
Truth-Out-Dec 1, 2016
In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, "regime change" became the phrase du jour. ... Donald Trump's administration, now filling up with racists, ...
And that's just from page one.
Anyway, I'm not bothered, and I find the issue interesting.
Roger Stone said Alex Jones has far more listeners than CNN does according to the ratings. Interesting times. Alex Jones used to be quite popular with minority communities in New York (Puerto Ricans, for example, would often bring him up and expect people to know who he was), but he might not be quite as popular now due to his harsh immigration views. He was little known in most places for a long time after 9/11 but seems to be gaining awareness. Trump's election is interesting indeed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 580 by Faith, posted 12-04-2016 3:48 PM Faith has not replied

Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.4

Message 582 of 892 (795031)
12-04-2016 4:22 PM

Election results as of Dec 2: Hillary up by 2.6 million votes. wowzers
Not only did Trump loose by nearly 3 million votes (a very large amount), but exit polls showed that 70% of Americans favored a pathway to citizenship for illegals (no deportation!) and a shocking 54% opposed "the Wall" being built.
The GOP won because they found a great (opposition) candidate in Hillary Clinton. That was the best recruitment they could have dreamed of. That enabled Trump (with his 61% negatives verses 37% positives) to win the electoral college.
I posted (before the Iowa caucus) that it was a joke that Hillary would be the Democratic nominee with her 54% negative ratings. I said that she was an unelectable fraud. Her negatives remained at 54% on election day, and her positives were the exact same 44%.
CNN said, during the times of November 8 voter returns coming in, it was groundbreaking that we have 2 candidates with overall negatives like these too.
It was more amazing that both had double digit negatives. More amazing yet that the one with 61% negatives actually won (electoral votes anyway).
| Cook Political Report has updated results for every state and nation
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 583 by Faith, posted 12-04-2016 4:27 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.4

Message 584 of 892 (795033)
12-04-2016 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 583 by Faith
12-04-2016 4:27 PM

Re: Election results as of Dec 2: Hillary up by 2.6 million votes. wowzers
Exit polls are based on very large samples of actual voters leaving polling stations. Yes, each polling station gets sampled (or a massive amount of them). Even states like Wyoming and Delaware get a large sample of voters opinions (as well as the actual voters telling how they actually voted)
Pre-election polls have very small samples of the entire nation (and dreadfully small samples from each individual state), and are problematic when it comes to deciding the "likely" demographic makeup might be on election day.
I was amazed that Hillary only lost Texas by 9.0%, Arizona by 3.5%, and Florida by 1.2%.
For an election that saw the GOP perform much better nationwide than typically, it should send terrifying message to the Republican individual's heart.
Trump lost nationally by about 1.5%+ in 2016
Better than the 3.9% loss in 2012 and the 7.5% loss in 2008.
Worse than the 2.45% GOP win in 2004 and the 0.5% Democratic (popular vote) win in 2000.
Arizona and Texas haven't done so good for Democrats since 1996. Clinton lost Texas by 6% in 1996 but he won nationwide by 8.5%. Gore lost Arizona by about 6% in 2000 but it voted GOP by double digits since then.
I'm not so sure the Republicans should be too excited.
They lost Virginia by 5.4% as well as loosing Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada.
North Carolina was won by less than 4% so it too might be getting closer.
Trump was a bad candidate but the "Trump effect" was no more devastating for the GOP than Hillary was hurtful to Democratic performance.
And Hillary did win the popular vote by about the same amount the opinion polls had her winning. The polls were accurate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 583 by Faith, posted 12-04-2016 4:27 PM Faith has not replied

Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.4

Message 586 of 892 (795035)
12-04-2016 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 585 by NoNukes
12-04-2016 5:24 PM

Re: The Italian hotel owner
[Faith said]"You all seem to be having a problem with the question of whom Jesus is addressing. He's addressing YOU. YOU are to take care of your neighbor. YOU are not to tell SOMEBODY ELSE to take care of their neighbor and YOU are not to send the police to MAKE them take care of their neighbor. YOU are to do whatever YOU can do, CHEERFULLY, as God also says He loves a cheerful giver, but instead you are for forcing a man to do something he clearly does not want to do."
[NoNukes responded]
I just quoted a verse for the Bible telling folks that they shall allow gleaning. That means that God told folks that they shall provide for their neighbor. It is not a voluntary thing at all. It was a commandment with the force of law.
You seem to be having a problem taking the Bible at face value.
Beyond that, Jesus instructions for Christians are not voluntary. If you call yourself a Christian, then you must follow Jesus example and teachings.
I thought the "police" policy was to send in border agents to police the border and keep people out.
Is Faith saying we should finally get rid of borders?
End the forced policing and impositions. I like that.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 585 by NoNukes, posted 12-04-2016 5:24 PM NoNukes has not replied

Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.4

Message 810 of 892 (796768)
01-04-2017 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 590 by Faith
12-04-2016 8:37 PM

Re: The Italian hotel owner
I'm talking about making SOMEBODY ELSE obey the commandments
One: Ananias and Sapphira who withheld some of the proceeds from the sale of their property from the disciples' fund, lied about it when they didn't have any reason to, since as the disciples said, they had the full right to use their property however they wanted to, to give or withhold whatever amount they chose. Instead they pretended to give it all when they gave only part of it. The point is this idea that the hotel owner had some kind of obligation to provide for the refugees is wrong wrong wrong. And again you have no idea what he may already do to obey the commandment. And you also have no idea whether he himself would suffer severely financially if he did what you self-appointed judges of his conscience want him to do, What a bunch of Pharisees you all are.
And the other thing was that Jesus tells us if someone steals our coat to also give them our cloak. He doesn't tell us that we are to make someone else give up their cloak, which is what you all are doing.
As usual I'm sorry I got myself trapped into any discussion at EvC
Here is what the Old Testament says about the issue. It has to do with the ACTUAL Biblical reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. (not the lies of the preachers)
Ezekiel 16:49-50
Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.
When one gets to the New Testament, then it gets to the most disgusting lie preachers peddle today. That lie is the issue that the tither is still in effect. It is not! That was an Old Testament law that is no more.
The New Testament features both the Gospels (via the words of Jesus) and Acts demanding 100% of income (and property) going into a (fledgling) governmental fund. I was just reading the World Book Encyclopedia on Apostle Barnabas. They actually mention the issue of 100% of income (and property) being required.
I have been in endless debates on this issue, and the only verses offered, by those trying individuals to show that a tithe is still in place in the New Covenant, are actually (contrary to their claim)verses where Paul is collecting money for the "poor" Jerusalem Christians of James (that seemed to have called themselves Ebionites or Nazarenes). It is most ironic considering todays fundamentalist Christians are from a tradition that killed off those Jewish Christians over 1500 years ago. And todays fundis continue to despise their views intensely.
Fundamentalists "Christians" of today are the biggest liars and phonies on the face of the planet. The last liar I debated was back in Lincoln (I'm not in the mood to argue with the endless trillions of New York City fundamentalists so I haven't agued much anymore) and he overheard me debating somebody else on the tithe. He stated matter with certainty that the tithe was indeed in the New Testament. All he could offer was 2 Corinthians 9. Ironic that he started talking to me by asking me what my source was for the "Pella Flight" which I mentioned to the others (before he jumped in)while talking about verses about Paul's collection for the Jerusalem Christians. He said "where do you get you information". I said Eusebius talked about the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem refusing to fight the Romans in the Jewish uprising during the 60s A.D and how they fled to palla in trans-Jordan. "Go read it", I said. I spelled out Eusebius, letter by letter, and told him that his c. 325 A.D. Church History is in most Christian bookstores either in book form of software. Fundamentalists like him a lot. He refused. He refused other book references too (I told him about the Interpreters Commentary Matthew-Mark volume 7 having scholarly articles that accept the historicity of the Pella Flight and the fact that Ebionites were their genuine descendants).
Romans 15, Acts 21, 1 Corinthians 16, Galatians 2 were already covered (in my debates with the others), then he brought up 2 Corinthians 9 when he jumped in. All refer to the "poor" Christians (Ebionites) that followed James.
Romans 15:25-26
At present, however, I am going to Jerusalem bringing aid to the saints. For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make some contribution for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem.
I have been in so many debates on this issue that it is unreal. And the arrogance is amazing . I've had to deal with people brag loudly about how they showed me "the tithe" in 1 Corinthians 16 even AFTER I showed that it was a collection for the Jerusalem Christians of James. I "refuse to see the truth" because I don't accept that it is a tithe and infact has nothing to do with a national Israel governmental law from the Old Testament.
Do you claim there is still a tithe that Paul is collecting? I do think the collection was voluntary. I still think a 100% "tax" was the ideal government that the Christians were to seek however.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 590 by Faith, posted 12-04-2016 8:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 811 by Faith, posted 01-04-2017 11:27 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024