Your response below, was weak, to say the least.

Youre a poster boy for the internal contradictions that make Libz what they are.

in your response below, you

1. Challenged the historical existence of Saint Paul.(!) 

2. Assert "humans" are "animals" without offering any meaningful distinctions.

( "very very unique animals" applies equally to all species, from bacterium to German Shepherds, please elaborate!) 

3. Seem to acknowledge the existence of SIN, but you imagine God's mercy extends to all humans regardless of their spiritual disposition,  which negates the meaning and purpose of the Christian Incarnation, Crucifiction, and atonement. 

4. Reduce the factual history of Christianity to your opinion, you reduce FAITH to an abstract concept which needs no particular or proper locus.(faith in What? ) 

5. celebrate your own sexual deviance .. (sexting up other men's' wives) and suggesting banging trannies is within the realm of normalcy.

6. Support the Lincoln Project, a perverse organization dedicated to opposing Trump in particular, which imagines the Republican Party as a feckless cooperation with the Democrat Mafia, itself an offshoot of corrupt anti-democratic influences ( big money ) 

Yeah, , and you think you're a "Republican" too.

----

Now let me set you straight, line by line.

1. Saul of Tarsus was a well known historical figure, being groomed to become a member of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem during Jesus life on earth. He became the Apostle Paul after reputedly receiving a vision of a resurrected Christ while on the Road to Damascus -- this, where he originally intended to persecute, torture and kill members of the budding Christian sect, just as he had before in Jerusalem.

These historical facts are not disputable

There is more historical and textual evidence for the existence of Paul than Aristotle, for example. Paul's writings comprise most of the New Testament, with texts extant to the first century. Who, if not Paul spread Christine Doctrine throughout Asia Minor? 

If you deny this, you are simply being obtuse.

Do you deny the existence of Mohammed? Joseph Smith? Alester Crowley? 

All of them claimed they had "visions" and left a written legacy, which turned into an organized religion.

What they claimed about the nature of man, God, and the universe, was profoundly different in each case

Pick your poison. Buddha? Zoroastrianism? Hare Krishna? Secular humanism? 

Your position would fall more in line with Crowley ( Ordo Templi Orientis) since Crowleys motto

"Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" and he was a sexual libertine, rivaling the Marquis De Sade! 

This would be in keeping with your self-referent "religious" pronouncements and gratuitous denials of fact

Even Crowley didn't question the existence of St Paul, and like you, his sexual proclivities ranged the entire spectrum of married women (he reputedly fathered Barbra Bush--she looked just like him at age 60, even GW knows it!) 

You deny the meaning of Christianity by denying that sin exists, or that sin necessitated an Act of God ( the crucifiction) to atonest for mankind's sin.

Jesus said "all men's sins will be forgiven except this: Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit."

To deny the existence of Paul, to attempt to relativise his message, to reduce the historical resurrection to mere myth, to assert your own feelings in the matter contrary to sound doctrine and historical fact, are all indications of such --Blasphemy--

Don't worry. We don't burn people at the stake for this anymore, as Protestants we let God judge the eternal destiny of a mans eternal soul- A judgement which you also deny, ( hell ) despite evidence of the depravity of humans, and the obvious need for Gods judgement. 

what exactly survives the death of the body? You say you don't believe in a human soul, "death is death".. I showed you a picture of a specter linguring in the graveyard by Crowleys home in Scotland.. you deny photographic " "evidence"., and you don't believe in Christian concepts like an "immortal soul."

 Even Crowley knew better!

But then you go on to say ( below) Gods infinite mercy won't send anyone to hell? Wait a minute. You can't have it both ways, either the eternal human soul exists ( to be judged) or it does not.
Which is it?

2, since you assert Humans are animals- where is the distinction?

Your dodge "very very unique" is whistling past the graveyard. if there is no soul in humans then "welcome to the jungle" ( Guns n Roses) and stop pontificating about your personal conception of God. Naturalistic Evolution is an atheistic premise, and you can't have it both ways.

Madeline Ohare once remarked: "agnosticism is gutless atheism" I couldnt agree more.

if you wanna be an atheist, a leftist, a crypto communist, fine. That is your God ordained freedom as a human, but it doesn't mean that your understanding of yourself, humanity, and the universe is accurate.

Logical Consistency is a test of truth. You are inconsistent, and your philosophical assertions are contradictory

( indicating falsehood) 

3. Sin. Does it exist? Does evil exist? How do you define it, and why should we agree? 

Paul/ Jesus/ Christianity asserts sin is a violation of your own spiritual makeup, having been created in the "Image of God"..

that characteristic is what makes you human. Lacking a better definition, do you deny sin snd evil objectively exist? if not what is your reference point? 

My dog killed ( murdered?) my cat last winter. Very sad. A Maine Coon-Cat, about ten pounds,  but no match for the jaws of my 80 lb springer-spaniel-pitbull "Tavern."

I was angry with Tavern, but he had no concept of why. As his master, i could legally execute him for his "crime" but him not being a human made in the Image of God- I can't hold him to human standards ( first degree murder) 

I can and I do punish him if he shits on the carpet. He knows better.

according to Christian doctrine, God holds humans accountable for what they know is HIS moral truth. That is righteous judgement. Deny it at your own peril! 

4 your concept of FAITH : in what exactly? Like all moral relativists you must attempt to relativize the source of a moral standard. relativising religious proclamations you assert your own. (Alester would be so proud, as would be his father in Hell, Lucifer) You deny the proper object of faith, and substitute a black hole in which all factual and moral distinctions  are reduced to irrational  and inconsistent personal opinion.

That is properly called "solipsism" in philosophy- look it up. 
And your arguments reduce by extension to "sophistry".

5. As you have said before, you like to chase other men's wives. That's pathetic, even among chimpanzees! the Beta males furtively mate with the Apha Males pride behind his back, lest they be caught in the act get their assess kicked.
if no one (but your ex wife perhaps ) has "kicked your ass" for that that sort of behavior, maybe it's because the women you chase really aren't with it?

Delusions of grandeur, I suspect.

Yes, and Christie Brinkley has a thing for 40 foot Great white Sharks like me, i constantly rebuff her advances!

But then, she is divorced at least. And just another misguided Democrat!

6. Lincoln Project? I guess RINOs need a place to call home too, but the fact is-

THE REPUBUBLICAN Party will be what the people of this country want it to be. Romney and Biden and you don't get to decide. You can say "Trump isn't a Republican" but the truth is, Trump has become the souls of thevRepublican party. it's you who is outta step, Crowbot,

you thinking otherwise

makes you look like a 

useful idiot! 

Pooty- why is it EVERY sexual animal displays homosexuality if it isn't 

As a deeply closeted Lib -tard I don't expect you to understand this issue. You seem to think you're a "Republican" and seem to advocate for returning the Republican Party to being a scape goat for the Democrat mafia. Good job if you can get it, being a RINO-- you can gaslight the grey haired old ladies and angry old men seeing their fixed incomes being inflated away by shameless ignorant puppets like Creepy Joe, and never be in a position to change a damn thing!

"Lib -tard" is a word without meaning from an, ah? what? A poster who presents himself as a garbage eater. Garbage in, garbage out.

The so-called "Republican Party" is no longer republican. It is a Trump puppet. I support the Lincoln Project.

 

That's why you hate Trumpism., or shall we call it "DeSantism?"

DeSantis is not Donald Trump:

Why Never Trumpers Should Bet on DeSantis Now

 ;

You know, this is why Democrats can't win. Their house is build on sand, when their agenda is finally recognized by the masses, the masses get out their clubs and pitch forks. November will be a bloodbath, and you only have yourselves to blame. 

But I digress.

Now to your comment vis a vis animals and homosexuality. Perhaps you have a lavender tinge to your own sexuality  and to compare yourself to s chimpanzee makes you feel better about opposing what you imagine as "puritanical sexual morality?"

"Perhaps"?  It could well be so. As soon as I get done sexing up all the buxom wenches/wives, I might try that. I don't see that possibilty ever existing, half the world's population is female.

I used to subscribe to The National Lampoon and as it said the odd missing limb or extra bits don't disqualify any woman from being my 'wife for the night' or twenty minutes in the dark. Suppurating sores are a disqualifier, however.

No one who has lived as long as you and I can say we are ignorant of human sexual choices and yes, " animal instincts" but the problem I see with your point is We are not animals. We are human.

(oops.. You humans are human-- I almost forgot I'm a Great White Shark!) 

Humans are, indeed, animals. Look it up.

You might try to define that difference. Being a secular humanist at heart, you have little time for a religious analysis of what it means to be a "human made in thd image of God" apparently. Most people today have been educated by naturalistic evolutionist propaganda (bad 19th century science) to imagine they are just animals.

I never said humanity was 'just animals'. However, we are animals but very, very unique animals.

So you look down to the animal kingdom as a guide for human behavior. One of the enobling characteristics of Western Civilization was that it's conception of humankind was based on a Creation of an intelligent creator.

Humanity did not create God. Your premise is false.

 ;

When God created this world he apparently started with Bacteria ("let there be life") and over the course of a billion years or so, humans emerged from that process. God "created man from the dust of the earth and breathed into him the breath of LIFE, and man BECAME a LIVING SOUL"

that "soul" is eternal, immaterial, and made in the image of its creator. That's what makes you human.

How do you know any of that? What evidence do you have that animals do not have a soul? If you can't prove that, you can't exclude any living thing from incorporating a soul.

Animals are to a degree, sentient beings. Sin and evil are common to humans only, because they often recognize they violate their own higher nature.

Again, how do you know that?

And so, describing sexual immorality of his own time (Romans) Saint Paul recognized that " though they knew God, they worshipped the creature rather than the creator" God gave them over to their unclean lusts. He endorsed human freedom as an extension of His own Divine nature. But humans would rather damage themselves and destroy their own higher natures in order to pursue fleshly pleasures, which in turn leades to greater excesses, until, like Sodom and Gomorrah they reap the fruits of their own perversions,

"their condemnation is just" Paul concluded.

Prove that Saint Paul existed.

Does that mean "God hates f a g s " --as the Crazy Baptist-Okie Cult claims?

On the contrary. Jesus died for all mankind's sin, because

"God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believed on him should not perish, but have eternal life."

The jury is out concerning Gods finsl judgement of individuals. I am not that judge. But apparently, you humans have a BIG unresolved problem, seen throughout your recorded history, a problem you won't ever solve by modeling the behavior of mere brute animals acting on instinct alone. 

I don't believe that God will condemn any souls, period. The God knows that mankind is flawed, and is capable of infinite mercy and forgiveness.

There is much to humans that involves language and intelligence which is not common to the animals.

If mankind are not animals, what are we? Easy question for a completely detached observer, like a shark. I don't expect much of you, it is a demonstrated fact that sharks will eat anything they can swallow.

Since you Libz aarently want to think you're a bunch of souped-up chimpanzees, you often act that way.. and to comfort yourselves in your sexual ( human ) perversions you NOW insist on brainwashing FIVE year olds?!

Interesting statement. You believe that teaching children of the dangers they may encounter is somehow wrong, sinful.

Jesus, the crucified,  would-be savior of your eternal souls. had no time for what you (and Disney) are presently advocating ..

"If anyone causes any of these little-ones to sin.." ( read brainwashing them into pre-pubecent gender confusion, and maybe making them would-be anchovies on Hillary's Pizza! A pedophile paradise, led by Mickey Mouse himself..)

It would be better for them on the Day of Judgement that they be tossed into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck"

As far as I know, Disney is not advocating homosexuality. Admitting the existence of something is not the same as promoting it, nor is respecting the "right to privacy in bedrooms", as it were. 

Yeah. I'm thinking of all the broken lives, and destroyed health and futures of humans who enter apparenyly "looking down" and serving their animal "instincts" ( actually driven by lower brain functions) rather than "lookin up" to the Creator  and accepting his enlightenment and hope for their personal salvation.

Now, there is some bullsh. YOU have absolutely no idea of my religious opinion.

People like you, who endorse sexual deviance, abortion, eugenics, and The BIG LIE, all hope in vain ( and support your criminally insane politicians) looking for a better world.

You haven't found it yet. "Welcome to the Jungle."

It's very telling that you have to invent stuff to argue your position. Extremely Trumpist.

 

<em>Satan, afterall, was characterized as "the father of lies, and a murder from the beginning"

It isn't "hate" that inspires this present parental rebellion against everything you and the "Woke left" believes and wants to teach our children. Your present foolish fight is not against flesh and blood, but against the Spirit and love of God which you have choosen to reject.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Saint Paul was correct in his analysis of this problem.

Prove that Saint Paul existed. If you can't, the principle you argue is just as unfounded as the principle you say he propagated.

(Wisdom 2000 years old, and counting!) 

Thus Quoth the Whales.

Our Libz are unwittingly, in fact, Satan's Useful idiots! 

Prove that Satan exists. Again, if you can't, you express a dogmatic opinion.

The Bible is not scientifically or historically a factual, credible document. It is a message that each of us interprets in FAITH. Faith is not, and can not be historical, scientifically proven.

&nbsp;

P.S. What is a 'lib'? Your posts present them as being people who do not have absolute faith in Trump or his presidency.

The Lincoln Project implodes amid infighting and scandal

The anti-Trump super PAC has seen an exodus of its leading figures after investigative reports and allegations of abusive behavior.

 

In this Jan. 20, 2016 file photo, John Weaver is shown on a campaign bus in Bow, N.H. | Charles Krupa/AP

By ALEX ISENSTADT

02/12/2021 10:56 PM EST

The Lincoln Project, the anti-Donald Trump political outfit, imploded Friday evening amid mounting criticism of its handling of sexual misconduct allegations against one of its co-founders and of the management of its finances. 

Steve Schmidt, a prominent political strategist and one of the original co-founders of the organization, on Friday evening became the latest in a string of departures from the group. In a lengthy statement, Schmidt said he was “incandescently angry” about allegations that former Lincoln Project leader John Weaver sent sexually explicit text messages to young men. 

Advertiseme

“I detest John Weaver in a way I can’t articulate,” wrote Schmidt, who in the statement divulged his own experiences of being molested when he was young. “My heart breaks that young men felt unseen and unheard in an organization that I started. I am ashamed of it.”

Also announcing their departures Friday were senior adviser Kurt Bardella and Nayyera Haq, who earlier this week signed on to host an online program for the organization. Tom Nichols, a foreign affairs columnist and professor, announced on Twitter that he was stepping down as an unpaid adviser. Jennifer Horn, a senior figure in the organization, resigned earlier in the month over the Lincoln Project’s handling of the Weaver accusations.

Ron Steslow and Mike Madrid, two other leaders, left in December. George Conway, a former Lincoln Project official and the husband of ex-Trump counselor Kellyanne Conway, has also stepped away from the outfit.

The Lincoln Project, which was made up of current and former Republican strategists who were stridently opposed to Trump, made a splash during the 2020 election. The organization aired hard-edged ads targeting the former president and his allies — some of them in starkly personal terms — and raked in more than $87 million in donations. Its senior officials — including Florida-based operative Rick Wilson and Schmidt — became cable news regulars.

Advertisement

But the organization’s downfall has been swift. The New York Times reported on Jan. 31 that more than 20 men had accused the 61-year-old Weaver, who served as a top strategist for the late Arizona Sen. John McCain and later worked on former Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s 2016 presidential bid, of sexually harassing them through online messages. In the days that followed, questions intensified about when Lincoln Project leaders first learned about the accusations and what they did to address them. 

People familiar with the organization’s internal dynamics say specific complaints about Weaver’s conduct were brought to managers in the summer of 2020, though Schmidt has pushed back on those claims. In his Friday evening statement, Schmidt said that he “learned about John Weaver’s misconduct with an underage boy this past January.”

The Lincoln Project released a statement earlier in the week saying that it was retaining a “best-in-class outside professional to review Mr. Weaver’s tenure with the organization.”

Weaver, who is married with a wife and two children,has acknowledged sending “inappropriate” messages to men.

Then, on Thursday, the Associated Pressreported that more than half of the organization’s funding had been directed to consulting firms that had been controlled by Lincoln Project officials — a massive sum that fed accusations that leaders had enriched themselves. The crisis intensified later in the day, when the Lincoln Project’s Twitter feed posted screenshots of private online messages between Horn and Amanda Becker, a reporter for 19th News who had been working on a story about the organization’s work culture.

The Lincoln Project deleted the screenshot, but not before sparking intense backlash. Schmidt apologized for the episode in his statement, saying, “it is my job as the senior leader to accept responsibility for the tremendous misjudgment to release” the messages.

The Lincoln Project’s funders have begun distancing themselves. Senate Majority PAC, the top Democratic outside group focused on Senate races, and Majority Forward, an affiliated nonprofit, gave $1.9 million to Lincoln Project in October, at the height of the election. Lincoln Project had been spending on ads against GOP senators, including in critical races in South Carolina and Maine. 

J.B. Poersch, the president of Senate Majority PAC, said in a statement that his organization would not work with Lincoln Project in the future amid the allegations of harassment and other wrongdoing that have emerged. 

Advertisement

“In October, 2020 Senate Majority Pac and Majority Forward supplemented a small set of Lincoln Project advertising in Senate campaign states,” Poersch said in the statement. “Current allegations regarding Lincoln Project’s operation raises alarming questions. Given the weight of these allegations, SMP will not work with Lincoln Project in the future.”

James Arkin contributed to this report.

• FILED UNDER:
 
• JOHN WEAVER, 
• DONALD TRUMP, 
• DONALD TRUMP 2020, 
• SEXUAL HARASSMENT, 
• SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, 
• GEORGE CONWAY

 MOST READ

1. Dr. Oz: ‘We cannot move on’ from the 2020 election

2. Russia targeting Western weapons shipments in Ukraine as Donbas assault begins

3. The one Republican Trump can’t touch

4. Heavy weaponry pours into Ukraine as commanders become more desperate

5. Exclusive: Madison Cawthorn photos reveal him wearing women’s lingerie in public setting

Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get top news and scoops, every morning — in your inbox. 

• About Us
• Advertising</a>
• Breaking News Alerts
• Careers</li>
• Credit Card Payments
• Digital Edition
• FAQ
• Feedback
• Headlines>
• Photos</li>
• POWERJobsa>
• Pressli>
• Print Subscriptions
• RSS>
• Site Map

• Terms of Service
• Privacy Policy

I was a 'union man' until my union accomplished what the members wanted. And then, like politcians everywhere, my union became a vehicle for most of the leadership's advancement and very little else. Even the contract became a flexible document selectively enforced.

I continue to believe Trump should never, ever sit in the Oval Office. He is a danger to America and it's principles and should be resisted- autocracy by a 'strongman' is an existantial threat to America and Americans.

Youre a poster boy for the internal contradictions that make Libz what they are.

You are a funny man. The very definition of liberalism is lack of coherent philosophy.

I subscribe to the "American conservatism political philosophy" as it was in and before Reagan's administration. I specify that point because there is substantial evidence that Reagan himself "was not Reagan in the last 30(?) years of his life. The Republican Party was overtaken by more reactionary elements at the point.

I am not a liberal in any shape or fashion and I am not a conservative as you define the concept. Your idea of 'conservatism' is very similar to white nationalism.

1. Challenged the historical existence of Saint Paul.(!) 

Provide some historical, non-religious record of Paul's/Saul's existence.

2. Assert "humans" are "animals" without offering any meaningful distinctions. ("very very unique animals" applies equally to all species, from bacterium to German Shepherds, please elaborate!) 

It is a fact that humans are animals, mammals, specifically primates. Don't even go to the 'souls' thing because there is no evidence outside of certain religions that ensoulment is unique to humans.

Humans are intelligent, thinking beings but, again- there is no evidence that that is an absolute distinction.

3. Seem to acknowledge the existence of SIN, but you imagine God's mercy extends to all humans regardless of their spiritual disposition,  which negates the meaning and purpose of the Christian Incarnation, Crucifiction, and atonement. 

That is correct- 'sin' is cultural concept. If God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent in all places and times (I don't disagree) then God is aware of all wrongdoing and forgiving of all who truly acknowledge and repent, then Jesus is unnecessary.

Jesus was a Son of God and very human, mortal man. Jesus or analogues is present in all monotheistic religions in the West. His instructions on how to live a virtuous human life are the indisputable point 

4. Reduce the factual history of Christianity to your opinion, you reduce FAITH to an abstract concept which needs no particular or proper locus.(faith in What? )

Christianity was considered an offshoot of Judaism until what? the second century of the "Common Era"?

Prove faith's validity beyond religion and you have a point. But the exact point of religious faith is that you believe and trust in something that can't be proven. 1+1=2, no faith is required because that is demonstrably so.

Further, I never said religious faith, especially was not particular and specific belief without evidence. If there is evidence substantiating the ultimate point of faith. it is no longer faith, it is an acknowledgement of history.

5. celebrate your own sexual deviance .. (sexting up other men's' wives) and suggesting banging trannies is within the realm of normalcy.

Your basis of your accusation of deviancy in adultery is baseless and culturally biased. I have no interest in "banging trannies". To be honest I don't understand how a man can be a woman or vice versa- what is the point of that confusion? You wanna wear a dress and call yourself Jean instead of John? IDGAF. But forbidding that is a prejudicial behavior. and an abridgement of human rights.

6. Support the Lincoln Project, a perverse organization dedicated to opposing Trump in particular, which imagines the Republican Party as a feckless cooperation with the Democrat Mafia, itself an offshoot of corrupt anti-democratic influences ( big money ) 

Yeppers- "the Lincoln Project, (is) a perverse organization dedicated to opposing Trump in particular". I will repeat a point I often assert: Trump is not and never was a 'Republican'. He openly admitted that he is more a Democrat than a Republican but he saw the Republican Party's chaos and lack of leadership sometime before 2015. Then he moved on that opportunity. He is still not a Republican in historic terms. An analogy that you will resent: Trump, like Hitler saw chaos and took advantage of it. Oddly, he might just be an electable candidate after Biden's presidency, but that rests on the electorate forgetting Trump's 2020 absolute and complete failure as POTUS.

Not to mention January 6 when he supported a criminal attack on the Congress's responsibility in the election. January 6 was Trump's "Watergate moment".  

Your "Dear Leader" Donald Trump is openly anti-democratic and autocratic, as you would expect in a man that never, ever had to subject himself to cooperating with equals.

Oh- and every political system is based on finances. It can't run without the power of adequate money.

If you have limited intellect and capability then you join a group that can be defined as group.

I, like most Americans are not strict dogmatic conservative, liberals, Democrats or Republicans. Do some resarch and you find that the vast plurality of Americans are more or less independents voting for the individual, not the "D" or the "R".

And you are not "all over the map". You advocate the principles of American neo-nationalism. Gotcha!

Sticks and stones. 

you label everyone, but that shot doesn't wok anymore for most people, and it never worked on me

ok? You say I'm a neo nationalist .. WTF is that?  Does that mean I don't think America should be on her knees being raped of her wealth and future by a bunch of globalist billionaires snf their lackeys? 

if so, I'll wear that label proudly.

now dodyed a question above

Jesus said "all men's sins will be forgiven except this: Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit."

To deny the existence of Paul, to attempt to relativise his message, to reduce the historical resurrection to mere myth, to assert your own feelings in the matter contrary to sound doctrine and historical fact, are all indications of such --Blasphemy--

Don't worry. We don't burn people at the stake for this anymore, as Protestants we let God judge the eternal destiny of a mans eternal soul- A judgement which you also deny, ( hell ) despite evidence of the depravity of humans, and the obvious need for Gods judgement. 

what exactly survives the death of the body? You say you don't believe in a human soul, "death is death".. I showed you a picture of a specter linguring in the graveyard by Crowleys home in Scotland.. you deny photographic " "evidence"., and you don't believe in Christian concepts like an "immortal soul."

 Even Crowley knew better!

But then you go on to say ( below) Gods infinite mercy won't send anyone to hell? Wait a minute. You can't have it both ways, either the eternal human soul exists ( to be judged) or it does not. 
Which is it?

Well which is it?

your concept of God is derived from what authoritative source exactly?

Do you believe in a "soul" that survives the death of body?

if not, what do you mean by "Gods forgiveness"? 

For that matter, if sin is a human based culture thingy 

What is there for God to "forgive" among humans?

Rather like my point about my dog, who killed my cat.

You "multiply words without understanding" because you can't help contradictiong yourself!

Go bang your sister in law

useful idiot!

"You say I'm a neo nationalist .. WTF is that? WTF is that?  Does that mean I don't think America should be on her knees being raped of her wealth and future by a bunch of globalist billionaires snf their lackeys?"

Do your own research wannabe Adolph. I ain't your teacher altho you would do well to listen to criticism. You and your ilk want to be  "... raped of her wealth and future by" Trump siezing the White House as 'forever president Trump.

Isn't it time for you to "sieg heil" your "Dear Leader" and continue your armed insurrection, creating chaos?

"To deny the existence of Paul, to attempt to relativise his message, to reduce the historical resurrection to mere myth, to assert your own feelings in the matter contrary to sound doctrine and historical fact, are all indications of such --Blasphemy--"

The Bible is not a historical text. It contains a message.

Perhaps it's more blasphemous to credit false prophets?

None, zero, nada of thse scriptures were written by your attributed authors. All were written at least a hundred years after their deaths. There is also some critical thought that the same author wrote all four and again: a hundred+ years after their death.

your concept of God is derived from what authoritative source exactly?

What "authoritative source" proves the existence of God? None. Zero. Nada. Because faith isn't faith if it's based on evidence. At that point it is a science.

Do you believe in a "soul" that survives the death of body?

The proposition I presented your narrow mind was Don't even go to the 'souls' thing because there is no evidence outside of certain religions that ensoulment is unique to humans. No denial of the soul in that.

For that matter, if sin is a human based culture thingy  What is there for God to "forgive" among humans?

Only God knows. Me, I'm gonna err on the side of caution and attempt to do right in every thought or deed. That's respect enough unless you're a pharisee.

The fact of the matter is I doubt all dogmatic religions. That's why I prefer the Society of Friends- Each of us has direct contact with God and each of us has to decide how to do right.

P.S. Your dog does not, can not commit a sin. He can have no consciously immoral intentions, a prerequisite for culpable wrongs.

Here you go:

Donald Trump's rise to the Republican candidacy was widely described as a sign of growing new nationalism in the United States. A Chicago Sun-Times editorial on the day of the inauguration of Donald Trump called him "our new nationalist president". The appointment of Steve Bannon, the executive of Breitbart News (later cofounding The Movement), as White House Chief Strategist, was described by one analyst as arousal of a "new world order, driven by patriotism and a fierce urge to look after your own, a neo-nationalism that endlessly smears Muslims and strives to turn back the clock on free trade and globalization, a world where military might counts for far more than diplomacy and compromise".

In the wake of Trump's election, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio has called for the Republican Party to embrace a "new nationalism" to oppose "economic elitism that has replaced a commitment to the dignity of work with a blind faith in financial markets and that views America simply as an economy instead of a nation."