Force NYTimes To Turn Over Op-Ed Writer To Trump?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Actually, we'll get to the crux of the truth, because you're being an incessant liar in your slander of me, and back tracking to cover your lies.

I'm not backtracking. I stand by everything I've posted. Any search of your posts will show I'm not lying.

Originally Posted by Aquila

1.) Did I say that protest should be brought into churches? Yes.

At least you admit it now.

Originally Posted by Aquila

2.) Did I argue for "left-wing political protests"? No!

Semantics. You know good and well the overwhelming majority of apostolic/pentecostal churches are conservative. As such, any protest would be from radical, left-wing liberals like you.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Saying that I can see how an unhinged individual could justify a terrible action doesn't mean that I agree with the unhinged man's logic.

And yet you continue to post justification of violence against conservatives without any condemnation. You go on and on talking about how you can understand why someone would kill a conservative while not one time do you condemn it in this post. And in the Scalise thread it took multiple posts calling you out for you to finally condemn violence against conservatives.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I don't even own a weapon. And I have no interest in owning a weapon.

That's good.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I've discussed common law marriage and its historical foundations and merits. But I've never claimed to be married under "common law". I've explained that I was married in accordance to the Quaker tradition of marrying couples in care of the meeting. It is a government-free religious marriage. Some call them "Quaker marriages". So, either you weren't paying enough attention to be trusted to comment on what I've said, or your deliberately twisting the truth.

So then you and your fiance met and spoke with the "cleanness committee" who allowed you both to be married and appointed time during the monthly meeting for the wedding? I'm sure you have a Quaker marriage certificate as well, right?

Originally Posted by Aquila

Slander. Does that not call for a misrepresentation of the person, much like you're misrepresenting me? If I say I think Trump is an idiot, I'm just expressing an opinion. You're free to say that you think Trump is an anointed super genius. LOL Now, if I claim that Trump raped my goldfish and should be tried for animal cruelty, that is slander.

Slander is not only misrepresentation or lies. Slander also includes speaking ill/evil of or to sully someone's reputation, which you do on a constant basis.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jito463

No, I'd feel justified in using deadly force because a stranger has broken into my home. It has nothing to do with what they intend to steal, it has to do with what else they might do while here.

I will respect your convictions. I can't say that I wouldn't feel the same if confronted with such a situation.

No, I'm not mentally deranged, so I can't think like someone who is. By your logic, we should feel morally obligated to use deadly force against a politician who wants to take our second amendment rights to keep and bear arms. That's crazy talk!

No, no, no. Slow down. Look, I was a 91B10, Combat Medic. A part of our training involved understanding the mental machinations of someone falling down psychologically. In addition, my current job involves some degree of psychological profiling. I've even worked with the BDO's in the TSA. I'm only saying I can see the red flags that can arise in someone's thinking. It doesn't mean that I agree with them. Nor does it mean that I think their justified. A simple comparison might be to imagine an American combat operation unintentionally kills an entire family accept their young 11 year old son. Now, I'm sure we can both see how that boy's frame of mind can produce the thought processes that could very well cause him to sympathize with terrorists or perhaps even make him open for being requited into terrorism. While we both might be able to see this, it doesn't mean that either of us personally think it's right, justified, or a good thing in any way. Because we both also understand that the tragedy was unintentional.

I wish I could believe you're being facetious, but I know for certain that you're not. Kasich is the very definition of a RINO. He's one step away from being a Dimmie. He is not - in any way, shape or form - a conservative.

Regardless of what anyone thinks about Kasich, he is a Republican. And he's done well to represent not only the Republicans of Ohio, but also the Democrats in Ohio. He's truly not a partisan. And, he has a good handle on the heartbeat of Ohio. Not every Republican policy would work well here. He hasn't been that bad of a governor at all. In a very real way, many Republicans and Democrats in Ohio have come to respect his leadership. So, what you call a "RINO", I call a sound leader who can see beyond loyalty to a party to what is actually what he believes is best for the people he represents... on both sides.

Even as much as I disliked and disagreed with Obama, I wouldn't have called him an idiot. Same with Trump.

That's very nice of you. But as we both know, many called Obama worse things than an "idiot". LOL Me, I'm not above saying that Hillary was an idiot. Nor am I above saying that I think Trump is also an idiot. In fact, there have been times when I've been an idiot. LOL Lighten up.

Really? You think NDavid is a "blind and mindless follower" of Trump? Yes, he's defended Trump, but so have I. Don't confuse one with the other. There are shades of grey in the real world.

Will you offer me some of those "shades of grey" instead of pigeonholing me into a position I don't actually hold? You seem level headed and pragmatic. Certainly you can see where NDavid colored me bad and completely misrepresented almost everything he said was allegedly my position.

It would be like if someone in the media were claiming Hillary Clinton kicks every dogs she meets on the street. I despise Hillary and everything she stands for, but I wouldn't just accept that at face value because it's too outlandish (well, then again.....).

LOL

I think you should be commended for your level headed even handedness. Now, can you apply some of that my way and explain to NDavid why what he stated isn't actually the whole truth?

Overall, I enjoyed reading your post. And, I walked away with much respect for you. You didn't get too personal, and you shared your thoughts and convictions. I can respect that.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Nope. I advocated protest against partisan politics in the pulpit, it doesn't matter if a pastor is allowing the church to be used to manipulate voters into voting Democrat or Republican. It's wrong. It's an abuse of authority. I see it no differently than a pastor using his authority to seduce or sexually abuse children. People need Jesus... not a political agenda.

A - this is ridiculous. There is nothing lower than a child abuser.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

I'm not backtracking. I stand by everything I've posted. Any search of your posts will show I'm not lying.

My post included comparisons of our statements and demonstrated how you twisted what was actually said, and even back tracked in your rewarding in at least one place.

At least you admit it now.

Yep, you deserve the door prize. I started the thread on brining disruption and protest to overly political churches. Therefore, the fact that I'd support such action is rather obvious. The distortion was that you painted my position as though I was strictly for protesting conservative pastors politicking from the pulpit. The truth is... I support protesting ANY pastor politicking from the pulpit, be they liberal or conservative. Certainly you can see how you misrepresented my entire premise.

Semantics. You know good and well the overwhelming majority of apostolic/pentecostal churches are conservative. As such, any protest would be from radical, left-wing liberals like you.

Perhaps in the Apostolic movement. However, I was talking in general. I'd have welcomed protest at Franklin's funeral when they all began Trump bashing... and I'm no fan of Trump. I'm surprised her family didn't stand and denounce such abuse of the podium and church... not to mention their exploitation of a beloved artists funeral to get their message out. You're desperately wanting to condemn me. But if you slow down and actually pay attention to what I'm saying here... I suspect you'll realize that I'm not being partisan. I'm simply saying... if a pastor brings campaign politics into the pulpit... then the saints should be able to bring campaign politics into the pew. If a pastor, who represents the entire congregation, wants to use his position and bully pulpit to endorse a candidate publicly, those he serves have the right to make it known that he's abusing his power, and failing to represent the entire congregation he serves.

And yet you continue to post justification of violence against conservatives without any condemnation. You go on and on talking about how you can understand why someone would kill a conservative while not one time do you condemn it in this post. And in the Scalise thread it took multiple posts calling you out for you to finally condemn violence against conservatives.

I'm beginning to think you're a special kind of person. I've repeatedly called such individuals "unhinged". And seeing that this is an Apostolic forum, I assume we all condemn such acts violence, regardless of target or party involved. Does someone really have to word it to your satisfaction to prevent you from thinking they find such violence deplorable?

That's good.

So then you and your fiance met and spoke with the "cleanness committee" who allowed you both to be married and appointed time during the monthly meeting for the wedding? I'm sure you have a Quaker marriage certificate as well, right?

NDavid, I've explained the entire process, discussed the house church we were attending, and their position. Also, the term "Quaker marriage" doesn't strictly apply to Quakers. It's a statement used to reflect an idea that was common among the Quakers, but isn't strictly a Quaker idea anymore. I'll recap because I don't think you will remember off the top of your head.

- We attended a non-denominational house church.
- The house church was not incorporated.
- Elders of this house church were not licensed with the state, therefore they cannot legally sign any marriage documentation from the state.
- The house church was in full agreement with what is known as, "The Marriage Pledge", in which ministers refuse to act as agents of the state in regards to marriages. (Frankly, I fully agree with the Marriage Pledge. Link here: https://www.firstthings.com/marriage-pledge)
- The house church membership included those previously involved with the Quaker movement and held the understanding that Christians should have the right to marry without Caesar's involvement if they desire.
- After talking with us they suggested a "Quaker marriage". And we had a rather short ceremony in which we exchanged rings, and were blessed by one of the elders in our home. We signed a family Bible (a gift from the elder) as husband and wife on the marriage certificate page (an early American tradition). They also counseled us on necessary powers of attorney and wills to secure specific rights that we needed as a couple married outside of civil authority.
- We were advised that the union is strictly spiritual, between God and us. And it was emphasized that if we wished to have any government recognition, tax benefit, or legal recourse should our union split, we should seek out a Justice of the Peace and have a civil ceremony downtown.

It's pretty cut and dry. Everyone likes to go on rabbit trails about if I'm Quaker or not a Quaker. The point is, the house church in question only blesses unions in the eyes of God. All civil aspects of the union are left up to the couple to determine and secure separately if so desired. They also bless existing "civil" marriages to sanctify them in the eyes of God. To them, the government is a passing necessity to keep the peace, not the final authority on marriage. In addition, they believe and teach that government has no authority to redefine marriage for the Christian and that participation in the civil system offers it, and its recognition of gay marriage, legitimacy. This was their position. And since none were legally licensed with the state, a "Quaker" style marriage is essentially all they could offer. And with both of us having been married before, and knowing the agony of dealing with the civil system regarding marriage and divorce, this suited our needs just fine. We'd much rather prayerfully govern our own union under God and keep the government out of it.

Slander is not only misrepresentation or lies. Slander also includes speaking ill/evil of or to sully someone's reputation, which you do on a constant basis.

NDavid, you're such a sweet soul. I think if you looked up every member of this forum, there isn't a single person who has faced more people speaking ill/evil about them, or efforts to destroy their reputation, or been purposefully misrepresented than I have. I think we can agree on that. I'm even mentioned derogatorily in threads I don't even post in. LOL

So, I pray I have helped put to rest some of these old bones that have been brought up here.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

A - this is ridiculous. There is nothing lower than a child abuser.

I can agree with that. But you missed the point. Both the politicking pastor and the child abuser is misusing their position and authority.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I can agree with that. But you missed the point. Both the politicking pastor and the child abuser is misusing their position and authority.

No, I got the point!
But, you said that you "see no difference".
And I see that it is very different!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

No, I got the point!
But, you said that you "see no difference".
And I see that it is very different!

I see no difference as in I see both as an abuse of power.

Now you're going to insist that I don't see a moral difference between both abuses of power. And I'm going to have to respond to 50 outrageous posts claiming that I see child abuse on the same level as a pastor waxing political by trying to explain the categorical differences of logic to refute idiotic category fallacies. C'mon... please show me you are more level headed than that. Of course child abuse is a greater moral wrong. But both child abuse and politicking from the pulpit are an abuse of power. Shoot, it's even an abuse of power if the pastor argues that the church is a Pepsi only church over Coke. But such would be nowhere near the same level as child abuse. LOL

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

My post included comparisons of our statements and demonstrated how you twisted what was actually said, and even back tracked in your rewarding in at least one place.

I didn't twist anything. I read the original posts before I typed #53. I didn't backtrack on anything.

Read the Scalise thread. Read the other thread calling for protests and disruptions in church.

Originally Posted by Aquila

The distortion was that you painted my position as though I was strictly for protesting conservative pastors politicking from the pulpit. The truth is... I support protesting ANY pastor politicking from the pulpit, be they liberal or conservative. Certainly you can see how you misrepresented my entire premise.

I misrepresented it? Obviously you have both forgotten your post and haven't looked it up before posting this.

Here is the opening line to your thread calling for protests and disruptions in churches:

Originally Posted by Aquila

Politically progressive and moderate Christians are starting to consider bringing protest, publicity, and disruption to right-wing churches.

Other quotes from the thread:

Originally Posted by Aquila

The strong delusion that has caused so many to align themselves with Donald Trump (in spite of his glaring fascism and hypocrisy) is fueling a movement that is preparing to confront right-wing Christianity.

Has the radical "conservatism" in our churches gone too far to the right?

Originally Posted by Aquila

The conservative church's marriage to the Republican Party might end up bringing significant social backlash as Donald Trump becomes more inept (and therefore more dangerous) as a President.

Might we be seeing a grassroots desire to make right-wing pastors more accountable for what they say and teach and how it effects social policy?

Originally Posted by Aquila

I do believe they would have to embrace the very strong possibility of being arrested and physically attacked by conservatives in order to stage their protests.

The protests and disruption could include:

- Standing up in the congregations and shouting down pastors and ministers who preach hate or right wing political messages.

- Blocking driveways, entrances, and roads that access the church.

- Gathering outside of churches with banners, picket signs, slogans, and prayer vigils to bring publicity to right-wing pastors and their messages.

So tell me again that I'm lying and that you posted about protesting conservative AND liberal churches. Your own posts from last year prove I'm telling the truth and that your thread and your posts were about "radical conservative" churches and "right-wing pastors."

Now, it was only AFTER my post -- #173, eighteen pages into the thread -- to which you responded (post #176) """Radical pastor who are using the pulpit to advance an extreme right wing (and I'll even include left wing) agenda need to be shouted down, protested, and exposed as political hacks in their communities."""

Then in the same post: """All I'm saying is that if a pastor preaches hate, extreme right wing politics (or extreme left wing politics), someone needs to start flipping tables and busting open cages and baskets."""

Funny you decided then to finally include the left, but only in parentheses.

After that, you continued to bash conservative, radical, extreme right-wing churches and pastors. A few times you would add the obligatory parentheses to include the left, but the overwhelming majority of your posts targeted conservatives, especially in the first eighteen pages.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I've repeatedly called such individuals "unhinged".

Right on, Captain Obvious. Want a medal?

Originally Posted by Aquila

And seeing that this is an Apostolic forum, I assume we all condemn such acts violence, regardless of target or party involved. Does someone really have to word it to your satisfaction to prevent you from thinking they find such violence deplorable?

I never "assume" when you're involved. And yes, I need to see explicit condemnation of the violence, especially since you spend post after post telling us how much you understand and sympathize with a person who would kill a conservative.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by n david

When Rep Scalise was shot, you posted that you could understand why someone would do that. You even said GOP members of Congress should start wearing bulletproof vests, and that conservatives are all talk, but liberals will actually take action. It was disgusting. You didn't condemn the shooter or shooting until several post after I pointed it out multiple times.


The scary thing is you really believe this. You believe this is a true comparison and that violent action against conservatives is okay.

Disgusting. I hope you're on a watch list somewhere, because you're exactly the kind of nut who would go on a shooting spree.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

I didn't twist anything. I read the original posts before I typed #53. I didn't backtrack on anything.

Read the Scalise thread. Read the other thread calling for protests and disruptions in church.


I misrepresented it? Obviously you have both forgotten your post and haven't looked it up before posting this.

Here is the opening line to your thread calling for protests and disruptions in churches:



Other quotes from the thread:







So tell me again that I'm lying and that you posted about protesting conservative AND liberal churches. Your own posts from last year prove I'm telling the truth and that your thread and your posts were about "radical conservative" churches and "right-wing pastors."

Now, it was only AFTER my post -- #173, eighteen pages into the thread -- to which you responded (post #176) """Radical pastor who are using the pulpit to advance an extreme right wing (and I'll even include left wing) agenda need to be shouted down, protested, and exposed as political hacks in their communities."""

Then in the same post: """All I'm saying is that if a pastor preaches hate, extreme right wing politics (or extreme left wing politics), someone needs to start flipping tables and busting open cages and baskets."""

Funny you decided then to finally include the left, but only in parentheses.

After that, you continued to bash conservative, radical, extreme right-wing churches and pastors. A few times you would add the obligatory parentheses to include the left, but the overwhelming majority of your posts targeted conservatives, especially in the first eighteen pages.



Right on, Captain Obvious. Want a medal?


I never "assume" when you're involved. And yes, I need to see explicit condemnation of the violence, especially since you spend post after post telling us how much you understand and sympathize with a person who would kill a conservative.

My focus was originally upon the growing righting fanaticism and Trump worship in churches. And as the conversation continued we discussed various elements of that concern. Once the discussion had progressed, with people bringing up liberal pastors endorsing liberal candidates, I indicated that yes, I oppose liberal pastors doing the same. What's so hard to understand about that NDavid?

I don't believe our obsession with politics contributes to unity within the body. And both sides are culprits in this.

Let me ask you this... Do you believe a brother can be a Democrat, and be counted a "brother" and just as in love with Christ as yourself? Or is being a Republican/conservative a litmus test by which all brethren should be judged?