They aren't, but it's seems a little odd to complain about people discussing/arguing about current news and events in a forum called current news and events.He says as if the two are mutually exclusive.
What is a bad tree? I have seen many forests but I have never seen a bad tree.As if everyone on this forum is full of hate? I can enjoy a forest despite a few bad trees.
So why bring it up at all if it's such a small thing?As if everyone on this forum is full of hate? I can enjoy a forest despite a few bad trees.
how about this one:What is a bad tree? I have seen many forests but I have never seen a bad tree.
Thank you. That's right. He did not call "some KKK and Nazis very fine people" as was claimed on this thread.To be honest about this discussion, and I do not like Trump, but he condemned Nazi's and White Supremacist, though he did say that there were some very fine people on both sides.
In the Current Events section people are free to discuss any topic which either encompasses faith topics or not.He says as if the two are mutually exclusive.
To inspire introspection in folks who would be tempted to follow such a path. Or perhaps just to understand what would motivate a Christian to act in such an un-Christlike manner, especially on a site designed to inspire the opposite.So why bring it up at all if it's such a small thing?
What was unChristian about him posting an article about the President having a Hanukkah celebration in the White House and leaving Jewish Democrats off the guest list? (Not that I blame him.)To inspire introspection in folks who would be tempted to follow such a path. Or perhaps just to understand what would motivate a Christian to act in such an un-Christlike manner, especially on a site designed to inspire the opposite.
That's actually kind of cute. How's it worked for you so far?To inspire introspection in folks who would be tempted to follow such a path.
hmmm... I might point out that what you find "un-Christlike" isn't necessarily what others see as "un-Christlike" true, things can get a little...heated around these forums but then that's also why CF started these particular forums, so the people who like discussing these things (and yes even arguing about them) could hang out and argue without disturbing the other Christians who don't like do that. How about this: would it sound better if we started calling other people "Satan, stumbling block, hypocrites, whited sepulchers, full of dead man bones and all manner of uncleanness!"? Because I'm pretty sure those would be against CF rules but then I don't really see the posters here getting to that level. And all of the above are things Christ called people. Would that be "un-Christlike"?Or perhaps just to understand what would motivate a Christian to act in such an un-Christlike manner, especially on a site designed to inspire the opposite.
Scripture also says "At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.".As scripture tells us, some have eyes yet do not see.
I don't remember the media saying that he called KKK or Nazis 'fine people' but that he did say that some of the people who were rallying with the white supremacists and others were fine people.He didn't do that, but we already know how the Fake News folks change words and misuse quotes in order to "fit" the purpose.
They sure did!I don't remember the media saying that he called KKK or Nazis 'fine people'
As I recall (and others too) what was said was that there were fine (or was it good?) people ON BOTH SIDES. The media and the Dems immediately turned that into what you said. They did not want to even make mention of Antifa (with which they sympathize) although those people caused most of the trouble.but that he did say that some of the people who were rallying with the white supremacists and others were fine people.
Do you mean that they were fighting for their economy?Very few people who fought for the South were slave owners but fought to protect their homeland.
They were fighting for what we would call today Patriotism. The state was what gave people their identity at that time, not the federation of states that we call the USA. In fact, the USA was referred to as "they" at that time and it only became "it" in our way of speaking at a later time.Do you mean that they were fighting for their economy?
That is what I remember as well. That is what I read in the media and then heard with my own ears.As I recall (and others too) what was said was that there were fine (or was it good) people ON BOTH SIDES
Hatred is a very strong word.Perhaps I'm trying to understand why some Christians would come to a Christian site and instead of discussing faith engage in seemingly compulsive partisan political hatred. It seems terribly un-Christlike. Oh well, sometime we're called not to understand, but simply to pray.
No. They were fighting to protect their homes, land, states, etc... from what many perceived as outsiders trying to force something on them. In my time studying genealogy I've read questionnaires which prisoners of war and those mustering out of military service were asked several questions including their reason for fighting.Do you mean that they were fighting for their economy?
I'm sure it played a part but being from Ky. I can say that in the areas where my ancestry comes from that family members surely fought on both sides.I think that many fought with the south because family members and neighbors were fighting with the south. It would be very hard battle, often to the death, or take a prisoner that is your own family member, friend, or neighbor.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?