JosephM

8 hours ago, thormas said:

I didn't start this thread and it is in response to Pipiripi so it seems he should be credited with 'starting' a thread. Also the PC in Revelations seems a bit narrow.

You are correct Thomas ... You didn't start this thread but you opened a discussion in a PC thread that calls for no response or questions to the posts that turned into a prolonged discussion. If you want to give Pipiripi a point you can do so on any of his posts. He didn't start a thread. If you want a discussion only for PC's , start a new thread in the PC forum under a different topic,

JosephM (as Admin)

This thread post was moved to debate and dialog as this is not the place to dispute others. It is a thread to share your view of what progressive Christianity is to you. There are no wrong answers. See opening post  #1 for clarification

JosephM (as Admin)

Paul,

Here is an interesting bias chart of news here in the US. https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444

It seems relatively accurate to me. I notice that most of those mentioned on the left of 0 in my opinion slant their reporting negative to Trump and Republicans in general  while those to the right of 0 slant their reporting positive to Trump and Republicans in general. The number of news agencies on the left far outweigh those on the right .

Is she really President Trump's personal spiritual adviser as the paper s commonly report or just 1 of many evangelists Trump has brought in and used in  the white house to strengthen his ties with Christianity? If you believe the the Liberal paper and propaganda  it is the the first. If you research it you may find it is the second. Just saying .....

16 hours ago, romansh said:

So are we going to be reduced to a "it's your opinion" type discussion or are we going to bring evidence to bear?

#1 This is the cafe, not the debate center. Best for light chatting and comments.

#2 Yes it is my opinion and i am not interested in debating or discussing it further.

If others wish to , the Debate and Discussion forum section would be more appropriate

4 hours ago, romansh said:

And yet he epitomizes those that ran against you for Senate.

Only in your mind and according to the media here.. 🙂

9 hours ago, romansh said:

And you ran for Senate ❓

Yet I believe people like Mitch McConnell, Trump, Hillary, Hitler believe they are on the side of the angels. And therein lies the problem.

(snip)

But to answer the original question … anyone but Trump. Primaries Yang … but that would be like spoiling my vote so some pragmaticism maybe required?

😄😄 Well , i did say "not too many" . I guess that could include me. 😄

Trump is my choice. He's like an alligator in the swamp in DC, a junkyard dog, just what our political scene and the country needs at this time. His very unorthodox way makes for  a love or hate relationship with people here. 🙂     

Paul,

Actually , I am a registered independent here but i have voted for both democrat and republican presidents. Occasionally i have changed so i am allowed to vote in the primaries but then i usually switch back to independent. Neither party is ideal and it seems to work best with some balance and occasional change from one party  to another. Overall i think this is a wonderful country to live in  though very large  cities seem to have their problems that i choose to avoid. The problem with news in the US, in my view, is that it is too much sensationalism with 90 % or so being negative and politically biased. It seems they can say whatever they want whether its true or not and base it on sources that they say are not named for the quote based on the condition of anonymity which they do not have to reveal. It is an abused power used in the news.

In my view, not too many honest and truly caring people run for US office as it takes too much money and influence to do so which inherently breeds corruption with the perceived power that comes with it. So we do the best we can to keep them in check with what we have to work with. 🙂

4 hours ago, PaulS said:

I understand it's legal and all and how your voting system weighs votes, just pointing out that he wasn't the most popular person voted for.

 

Well, the truth be known , neither one was really popular. Our system picks our choices for us and then they make promises they can't keep and let us vote.🙂

5 hours ago, PaulS said:

Mate, we would gamble on two drops of rain running down a window pane to see which one hits the bottom first!  And you've not gambled properly until you've played our "Two-Up".  Gambling is regarded as part of a wholesome character here - who would trust somebody not prepared to put their money where their mouth is! 

Edit - It seems up until Trump's reign, betting on US Presidential Elections was illegal, but your courts have now said (in 2018) that not being allowed to bet on these outcomes is unconstitutional.  Subsequently, in many US States you can now bet, with more coming on line soon.

 

 I wasn't aware of that . Yep, the arbitrary points (norms) on the continuum continue to change. What was once considered a character flaw (gambling) here is now healthy. One can imagine what some will do to make their candidate win now that money can be personally made from it by anyone. 🙂

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

Well to be fair, it seems the majority of US citizens agreed with me (and others) and wanted to see Hillary as the next President compared to Trump (Hillary - 65,853,514 versus 62,984,828) but as you know, your electoral system didn't allow the most popular person with the US voters to be put into the top job.

 

Well you are correct and for good reasons you can look up if interested.

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

Incidentally, I did win $600 by betting on the correct winner of our Aussie government last year when everybody said they couldn't win.  The bookmakers even paid out over $2m to punters who bet the Opposition would win, over a week before the election was even held!

Edit - I just checked one of the main bookies here (Sportsbet) and Trump is currently offering $1.83 with the closest contender being Joe Biden at $5.  Not bad odds for Joe, but not enough in it to tempt me backing Trump (yet).

So you Aussies gamble on elections eh? That sounds like real wholesome 'character' . 😀

9 hours ago, PaulS said:

As you know, I'm all for consensual sex.  But lying to people and trying to cover the matter up cuts to character, whether running for president or not, in my opinion.  Same with Bill Clinton - trying to deceive people cuts to character.  What I'm amazed about is how prepared people are to accept poor character in their leaders.  How does one say with a straight face - this person is a great leader when they lie, deceive and exaggerate to achieve their ends.  To me, it doesn't seem the character that any society should be prepared to accept of their leaders.

Unfortunately very few saints have the inclination to run for office here in the US. It takes an enormous amount of money and friends in high places to compete. It also routinely uses many times lies and exaggerations which might fall in your description of 'poor character' when one researches very deeply. Trump didn't fit in the system well and was hated from the start so they dug pretty deep and yes to get where he was perhaps there was plenty. New York is known for it. 🙂 I ran for senator in KY in the 90's and my background is relatively clean by most any standard. I took no money from PACS (political action committees) and they (a then powerful KY senator and cohorts of the same party backing another which is not considered ethical in a primary) made up dirt, and used every trick in the book and i lost by a few hundred votes after much hard work and using mostly my own money. The political scene , i found can  be a dirty game. No regrets now and learned some great lessons first hand.

At what point on the the continuum does character become 'poor' ??? 😄

Here it is make your choice from this list of current candidates.

BTW - I just closed the old poll in post 1. Will be starting a new one soon. Geez, you guys here had Trump in last place. I guess your not too good at picking winners. lol😄

17 minutes ago, PaulS said:

Unless he is paying porn stars hush money to keep quiet about his extra marital affairs!  Character.

You might do the same if you were running for President and were so inclined to enjoy consensual sex beforehand, No? 🙂 Heck President Bill Clinton did it in the Oval office with Lewinsky, while president, No? You don't see me attacking his character now that i know better. 🙂

5 minutes ago, PaulS said:

I don't understand the import to you of the article you referenced.  Yes Trump was the 1st President to meet Jung (Obama never wanted to for good reason) and since then (a year and a half ago) nothing has improved in relations or bringing NK into our world.  NK are the same threat level as pre-Trump meeting.  

The middle east has already ended poorly for all involved, irrespective of what develops from this latest conflict with Iran.  It's not that Trump is to blame, it's just that he's not a peacemaker and he hasn't done anything significant to change the situation.

You say 'personality', I might say 'character'.  Whilst he does have some strengths, I think his character is poor and that's what betrays the Presidency of your nation, in my opinion.  Undoubtedly there is bias in much reporting so I try to not take opinion too seriously, but fact checking does reveal a lot of lies and exaggeration by Trump which I think should be considered embarrassing for the Presidency.  If you don't mind those things, well, it is your country.

Polling seems to indicate that the majority of Americans don't approve of his performance (but admittedly polling can be off) and his ratings have changed very little since his term began.  It doesn't seem like he's gotten the rest of the country on board and moving in his direction but rather, his 'people' are digging in and nobody else is joining the party.  That said, elections don't necessarily elect the most popular person (as we well know with Trump never getting a simple majority) and for some of the reasons you mention there may be those who don't rate Trump but don't want perhaps a rabid democrat as President either.  So for both of us, I don't think it should be a case of I told you so no matter how it falls - unless Trump performs outstandingly at the next election - then I would accept that the majority of America has lost it's mind!

Views on Trump are a perfect example of perception and perspective at work!

Well it seems to me, relations can't get better if you don't talk. Maybe i got it wrong.

Nobody has made a lasting peace there since i was born and most likely before. So which other of our presidents were peace makers?

I'll give you that one 'character'. But i remain saying he is exactly what we needed. We don't need a president that gets embarrassed too easily. Trump can handle it. Perhaps you have a problem with his lies? . None of us are saints....i take that back, i can't speak for you or  others.  He does know how to assign catchy names to people. 

Trump is more popular today than at any other time in his presidency. Even CNN will tell you that and they are basically anti-Trump. You can take that for gospel. Just come to the Villages here and take a poll. 

Yes they are just like your comment above on the middle east ....  "The middle east has already ended poorly for all involved" Do you already have the big picture? Cause i don't and am interested in it if you do. 🙂

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

Regarding NK, I actually meant 'as low as ever' so to be fair, I don't think Trump has made anything worse with them, just nothing better and indeed, nothing even coming close to a peace prize.

Same for the mideast - yes, there may have been war there 'forever' but my point is, Trump is no Peacemaker and gets no credit for improving anything there in my opinion.

Whilst it has been demonstrated that Russia interfered with and influenced your last Presidential election, I agree that it is my 'presumption' that 'because' of the advantages given to Trump by the Russians that he has then favoured Putin.  But if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

But I certainly agree with you - Trump is the most polarizing leader the US has ever had.  He certainly doesn't seem interested in bringing your country together  but rather he seems to give the finger to anybody that doesn't agree with him - your own people included.  I just see it as a shame and a poor representation of what I think the US used to stand for.

Well on North Korea ... read this https://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-trump-kim-north-korea-summit-updates-htmlstory.html

I'll concede on your middle east view if it ends poorly for us.

I can quack like a duck but i am not a duck though i have been called worse things. 😀

That may be the way most of the world sees it especially with our news propaganda because he is hated by much of our 'swamp people' mostly democrats and media because of his personality,  but i think the majority of Americans really don't see it that way. Let's see what the next election says. If he doesn't get elected in spite of this mess, you can say i told you so and i will bow down to your clarity in judgement. 🙂 and my smile will look like this 😥

8 hours ago, romansh said:

Is the 90 %+ negative coverage because his actions are 90 %+ negative?

The article itself does not explain why people voted for and continue defend such an unsuitable candidate. 

Your article says:

I don't see any redeeming features in Trump.

Maybe you are not looking hard enough. He seems to me,  to be, exactly what we needed. He doesn't cover himself in a veil. 🙂

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

I think your view may be a little pessimistic in that you think 'your level' has no influence!

You vote don't you?  Politicians do respond to voter demands even before elections.  A pessimistic view could drive one to ask more questions and demand more answers and thus ensure the picture being provided is accurate.

You really think the democrats would listen now even if i had a clear picture! 🙂🙂

I guess I'm just not as well informed as you guys in Australia that read all our fake news. 😛

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/04/heres-why-trumps-poll-numbers-are-defying-the-impeachment-mess.html

Here is an interesting article why Trump has so many supporters in spite of over 90+% negative coverage by the new media (only Fox news reports more positive than negative news on Trump)

7 hours ago, PaulS said:

Do you think you might need to revisit this, Burl?

-No war with Russia (because Russia help him win elections)

-North Korea ignoring disarmament and relations as low as they'v ever been.  I reckon that Nobel might be out of Trump's reach at this stage.

-As for the Mideast, indeed Trump abandoned Syria to their fortunes but you'd have to say minimal improvement (perhaps enhanced problems now) in Iraq & Iran.

Ever since the Korean war relations with North Korea have been hostile. My view would not say that relations are as low as they have ever been. We are at least talking to them.

The (because Russia help him win elections) insert  seems to me to be a presumption.

The Mideast remains to be seen as we have had nothing but wars (declared or not) there since before our 1st president took office.

Having said that i have doubts that our president will win a Nobel prize for anything or even be considered a peacemaker but then again the story is not  over yet. My guess is he will go down as both the most hated and loved president at the same time (most extreme differences in perception). 😉

Yes, the author has a point. We do switch between them as necessary. Labeling people one or the other seems to me like labeling all Christians the same. But related to the thread question at hand my hope remains optimistic as i see no benefit from a pessimistic hope at our level of influence and the partial picture we see.

2 hours ago, romansh said:

If this were universally true, we would not need the advice of Matthew 7:3

Human beings are notoriously poor at evaluating themselves. So I don't mind the occasional nudge.

 

While my experience also seems to indicate human beings are poor at evaluating themselves and see more easily the problems of others, it remains that change is more likely when we challenge ourselves. Opposition  to change is more likely when others challenge us. We as human beings (in general) seem not to be as receptive when others are trying to correct or challenge us. So on the contrary, that is exactly why we need the advice of Mathew 7:3 to keep our focus on our own errors so that change is more likely to occur. 🙂 Perhaps you personally don't mind soo much as others do?

PS Humans in general seem to have a strong need to be right or to win or to think of themselves as better than the other. Perhaps that is why they look so intensely at the perceived flaws and need of correction in others more than themselves.

49 minutes ago, romansh said:

On the other thread "Baby steps" struck a cord. And I think there is a truth to this. 

Again speaking from personal anecdote spending six or seven years in a very secular environment, I slowly assumed an agnostic stance and an active disbelief in formal Christianity. So I inched my way to agnosticism, basically became a reflection of the environment I found myself in. 

But there are times we let in huge beliefs (or let them escape) … especially in times of trauma. Our own potential deaths or perhaps a death of a loved one. 

In discussions like those found on fora, I think Lewis's point could very well be often accurate.

While this is true for me as much as anyone else, it's the challenging of beliefs that leads to change. Whether we challenge ourselves or someone does it for us.

I like you have found that "it is our challenging of beliefs that leads to change". It does seem more effective to me when we challenge ourselves rather than when someone else does it but that is just me. We all have our own conditioning (genetic and otherwise) to overcome.

5 hours ago, romansh said:

Thinking of my kitchen chair as red is really useful. And it is in accord with my experience. But … it is illusory.

Being useful and being illusory are not mutually exclusive.

 

Well, it seems to me, nothing is really as it seems. I just prefer having a skeptical list a little shorter than yours at least for the time being. 😉

Some things just may have to be experienced for oneself to understand how one can with a fair amount of certainty believe without the evidence you seek. Or perhaps you do understand? Or at least think you understand? Anyway, it seems to me you won't find the answer in my words.