Adventist Online

I find it hard to believe that not a single Adventist is decrying the reign of Steve Bannon. His prescription for the world takes a page out of the SDA eschatology playbook, and I am waiting for the outcry that He is prophetic evidence for Christian global supremacy. Bannon is Catholic, and has been advocating for a Gobal Christian war to cleanse the earth. He is an opponent to the current Pope and has been pushing the Vatican to take a more militant approach to defeating Islam and secularism.  He calls this war a 4th cleansing which is necessary to keep Christianity as the major force in the world. Why are the SDA voices so silent on this issue.


Views: 1863

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Who was saying that it was an altercation between "Martin and someone else"? Certainly not me.

Your "beliefs" have nothing to do with the FACT that a jury, including black people, reviewed all the factual evidence and decided that Zimmerman did not do anything wrong. Yes, it is true that if Zimmerman had not been there, the incident wouldn't have happened. As is true in all crimes. My car was crashed into by another driver a couple of years ago, from the side as I was driving down the road and the other guy entered the road from a parking lot. He claimed to the police that it was my fault, because "if he hadn't been there, I wouldn't have hit him." It didn't go very far with the police as an argument.

The evidence collected at the time showed that Zimmerman had injuries (including a broken nose, lacerations to the back of the head, grass up his back) consistent with the witness statement that the bigger Martin was sitting on top of him, pummeling him. Unless you think that he broke his own nose, those are pretty conclusive.

"sitting astride a smaller man"--I assumed you meant someone else.  No one knows what happened when he confronted Martin.  Martin may have been defending himself.  The jury believed him, but Zimmerman has been in trouble since that time over and over again.  This is why we hire police officers who are trained in law enforcement to do the work.

The witness had Trayvon Martin sitting astride a smaller man who was wearing a red top (Zimmerman was wearing a ret top that night), and the smaller man was calling for help, happening the same time as the altercation, during which a gunshot was heard.  Unless you are supposing that there was some other altercation taking place at the same time, in the same place, it is persuasive that it was Martin on top and Zimmerman on the bottom.  Martin was bigger than Zimmerman, at least taller. 

When I hear a galloping sound, I assume that it is horses.  And 99 out of a hundred times, it is in fact horses.  The jury thought it was persuasive.  And in our system, that is what counts.  Why is it so important to you to believe otherwise than the evidence suggests?  Were you a party to all the evidence that the jury had? 

No, I was not privy to what the jury heard; however in my experience being confronted by an angry neighborhood watch guy who might have provoked the fight is worth consideration.  Zimmerman's behavior afterward in several situations is somewhat telling of his character.

I had a neighbor who tried to convince me the KKK aren't bad and racist.  According to him (as to the stories that were passed down to him)  the KKK was originally formed as vigilantes against all evil and lazy good for nothings.....

I in no way think BLM is on the same level of the KKK. Thankfully they aren't organized enough and have too many different factions wanting to pursue different agendas. Disorganization is also their saving grace. There are some truly embarrassing and shameful characters who tried to jump onto the BLM movement and claim their actions like assaulting, rioting and in some cases killing as part of the BLM movement.  

I know some sensible people who have attended BLM rally's.  They don't overreact by getting violently offended when someone responds "All lives matter".  

I can sympathize with the rationale behind the good people I know who supported BLM.   But, it's really sad that only the dominant side draws news media coverage.  IMO it's because they are more dramatic in how they overreact to shady situations.  Like when someone who decided to go down the wrong path breaking the law and ended with a deadly confrontation with police.  

It's shocking there wasn't "peaceful" protesting, wide news coverage, or a call for dialogue by politicians when a clean cut citizen following the law gets shot by police.

Anytime someone gets shot and wounded or killed it's sad.  Especially when you think about the events in peoples lives that led them to the situation they are in. However, when I look at the evidence behind some of the individuals that sparks riots/protest and contrast it with the overwhelmingly evident innocence of others who are shot with no national fan fare it reminds me of the mob yelling "Give us Barabbas" at the trial of Jesus Christ.

Of all the shootings that got excessive news coverage and went to trial the only one I would consider a travesty was Trayvon Martin.  Shot by a guy playing cop who only got away with his irresponsible killing because he was incorrectly tried for murder instead of man slaughter.  Zimmerman was an idiot with a gun who brings shame to the idea behind legal gun carrying permits.

Wow, so you believe Obama lied when he said "you can keep your doctor."  Are you even on Obamacare?  So why should it matter to you?  Do you think that is comparable to Trump's saying that he would cover everyone under his plan, and the plan recently proposed leaves 15 million people who are presently covered out in the cold?

The Obamacare legislation affected everyone's insurance. And yes, Obama lied (even according to the liberal media, who called it the "whopper of the year"). It is not that I believe it, it is because it is a fact.

Wow, you are really cold if you think it shouldn't matter if it doesn't affect you personally. Is that what you are saying? With respect to you comparison with Trump: whatever happens with Trumpcare is in the future and is conjecture. What happened with Obamacare is fact and is demonstrable. We know that there are currently millions of people without healthcare coverage under Obamacare, which was supposed to eliminate that completely. It didn't.

And I believe that it is impossible to devise a system, compatible with liberty, in which no one is without health care. So I don't care what Trump said about Trumpcare. What I want is Obamacare repealed without a "replacement" other than the free market.

You throw around those "facts" as if they are real.  They are not.  They are alternative facts, repeated endlessly by talk radio and the WH and white nationalistic groups.

Which specific ones?

"Those who would trade a little freedom for security, will soon have neither freedom nor security."--Ben Franklin.

A quote which I have used many times. As surveillance and violations of privacy have increased exponentially under Obama.

How does that relate to "alternative facts". And when did I "throw around" that?

I don't believe it is necessary for me to inject my opinion into every debate on every topic under the sun, which is why I try to limit myself to things that affect me personally.  Obamacare was never meant to eliminate people without healthcare coverage altogether.  It was to be the first step.

You believe it is impossible to devise a system compatible with liberty that offers health care?  Why is our country the only one out of all industrialized countries in the world that has not done so? 


Site Sponsors


Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free

USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:


© 2020   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service