I wouldn't call it obfuscation, for it's quite clear Booker is a con man, who like the Devil with Jesus in the Wilderness, quotes Scripture selectively, ignoring the numerous injunctions for Christians to not company with (i.e. discriminate against) false teachers in churches and the lawless in business and marriage.
Perhaps he has learned from organized churches, who for generations have failed to discipline such leaders in their midst. And when churches do discipline, it's more often on the victims than the perpetrators.
Tragic addiction story: Georgian Dr. John Pemberton suffered from a saber wound at the Battle of Columbus in 1865. He took morphine to relieve the pain but realized the danger of addiction to it, so he tried to formulate a non-addictive alternative. Sadly, after selling the formula to Asa Candler for $1750, he died and Candler made a fortune in the Coca-Cola Company.
Frank wrote: The most widely practiced Kurdish religion is Islam.
Yup, and by now we should know not to join hands with Muslims; it won't turn out well for us or them.
What propaganda professionals like Weber do is play on sentiment: "These poor victims need our help, let's send some." This "argument" is used in both welfare and foreign policy, and has been since the Spanish-American War at least.
I suspect Weber et al. of being in the pay of an intelligence agency, yet some people play the Useful Idiot for free.
Jim Lincoln wrote: ... (Kurds are the Evangelicals of the Muslim world)
What nonsense! Weber offers not a shred of evidence for this ridiculous claim, unless "Evangelical" means "Gentiles endorsed by Israelis." So Kurds were descended from the Medes. How is this pertinent? Radical Zionists must think American Christians, like the fool in Prov. 14:15, are morons who will swallow everything they're fed by propagandists, no matter how absurd. And given the anti-intellectualism rampant in America, on all sides, I fear they may be right.
Perhaps we should thank Jim for offering such astounding examples of shoddy journalism, even though it's irrelevant to the article anyway.
Yes, it seems cereal grains are here classed as vegetables, but if so, avoiding them seems difficult.
Boring trivia: We call "corn" what British and Mexicans call "maize," likely because early settlers originally called it "Indian corn." So "corn" in the KJV means "cereal grain" since maize is from the New World.
BTW the USDA Food Pyramid was influenced by agribiz lobbying: www.thedailymeal.com/cook/10-most-powerful-food-lobbies-and-how-they-decide-what-s-your-plate-and-your-glass
Anyone take a survey about which nationalities are the most insecure about their diets? Americans (except Southerners and Hispanics) would probably take first place🎖: we have a huge industry preying upon it, creating remedies for the consequences, and funding researchers constantly shifting ground about what's healthiest to eat. This dates back to the 19th Century at least; e.g. that quack Kellogg, and Graham's crackers. So while it might be crazy, it's part of being American.
By contrast, I doubt the French or Italians care much.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Neil, I think in this thread I only quoted one Democrat.
So what? That doesn't contradict what I say. It is naïve to quote Wehner as if he wasn't paid by a Democrat paper. And I don't give a rip what this or that Repub critic says about Trump anyway. He is *not* the problem, but only a symptom of what I see as a multigenerational, widespread, radical ethical collapse in American culture, and many Repubs are too blind or stupid to see it.
Jim Lincoln wrote: excerpt from, "Trump Is Not Well"
Until you compare him with those deranged by his election; then he looks sane by comparison. The Dems have gone absolutely bananas since then, proposing increasingly insane public policies, yet they call Trump a dangerous lunatic. Maybe they've gone off their meds; shrinks call this Projection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection [Wiki even quotes Jesus]
Mike wrote: War is attractive mostly to those who profit from it, or glory in it.
Theodore Roosevelt, the widely lionized Progressive, was keen for war with Spain because was ashamed that his father bought his way out of Union Army service. Shoot a Spaniard to feel better and prove one's manhood.
People so easily forget Sherman's rant: "I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, vengeance, for desolation."
Jim Lincoln wrote: ... Neil, this part is a conflict took very little effort on our part to keep the peace.
"Very little effort" when it's other peoples' lives and money. You pragmatist! And where's the peace anyway? American creates her "peace" by non-stop war.
The writer says, "let's embrace nuclear power now." But it has its own trade-offs, including waste disposal, groundwater consumption (if inland), and need for gov't insurance props because private insurance can't cover potential liabilities otherwise. The latter in particular seems like a Red Flag to me, especially now that we've seen some messy disasters.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Gentlemen, I would suggest you read more complaints--from Republicans.
No, for they too ignore the wisdom of God: "He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears." - Prov. 26:17
Jim Lincoln wrote: excerpt from, "A stain on America's honor': Lindsey Graham says Trump's Syria pullout abandons Kurds, helps ISIS"
"Stain on America's honor" What honor is there in lobbing cruise missiles at people? If it's not worth our soldiers' blood, it's not worth it at all.
"Undone all the gains" What gains? The US just grandstands in its so-called leadership, but is too cowardly to fight a war it knows isn't in our vital interest. Trump knows and admits this, for once. No wonder the Obama/Clinton gangsters and Deep State hate him so.
And if Israel wants to fool with Syria, they can go right ahead. It's their neighborhood, not ours.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Neil, I have never approved of either Billy's or Frankie's ecumenism,
Then why did you direct people to a writer who tells this outrageous fib: "He [Billy] ministered for a lifetime without serious controversy or compromise" Or to a website that says this about itself: "We embrace and work alongside people of different faiths, erasing the lines of ‘us vs. them." Sounds like Billy's ecumenism!
Jim Lincoln wrote: ... I did not care for either of the Grahams' ecumenical stances,
Sounds a bit Biden-ish: I was addressing the foolish opinion of the writer you quoted, not your own. Regardless of your history of TV watching, it is widely known that Graham collaborated with Catholics. Since you like quotes, here is one from a Jesuit[!] source:
"he defied his core audience by building bridges with Roman Catholics."
Jim Lincoln wrote: excerpts from, "Franklin Graham's Religion Is Not His Father's"
What hypocritical journalism! His father's religion involved getting tight with Rome, the most bloodthirsty, blatantly political church there ever was.
Some Southern states had anti-literacy laws, so the idea isn't new. What does one need math for when one receives Basic Income? I think this is the agenda behind such anti-educational proposals: ignorant morons are dependent and more easy to manipulate and control, just like American slaves were. Frederick Douglass recalled that learning how to read, while a slave, depressed him greatly, so in a way, the slaveowners had a point. BTW, Thos. "Stonewall" Jackson ignored this law, to his credit.
Even the Soviets would've considered this foolish, and produced some brilliant mathematicians.
Jim Lincoln wrote: especially the Jesuit branch of it.
There you go again, singling out Jesuits, the favorite villains of obsessive Christian conspiracy theorists. How are Dominicans or Franciscans any better? All RCC orders are equally bad.
RCC sodomy is not news in church history; e.g. the Lollards complained about it (and nunnery abortions) in 1395: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twelve_Conclusions_of_the_Lollards
The Quiet Christian wrote: .. that molecular biologists cannot deny the Designer and the genius behind what they study.
This is the classical Teleological Argument (e.g. Wm. Paley's Watchmaker), which was refuted centuries ago by David Hume: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument
Creation is convincing only to those who already believe; even if the Teleological Argument weren't fallacious (Circular Reasoning), it would still not convince a stubborn, unregenerate mind. The flesh profits nothing, John 6:63.
10/14/19 12:55 PM
