[TheRealThing]

Lets move this discussion to its rightful location, I'll start a thread on the Rapture in the context of premillennialism (in the form of John Darby's teaching from 1827). I suppose you follow this view?

Sorry to hijack the thread with religion. It seems that every thread in the political section is littered with it these days. Perhaps thats the cause of the decline in viewership from back in the day.

Perhaps, and perhaps not.

Please feel free to start any thread you please and forgive me if I don't follow your lead. You sound like you're stricken with the same sort of reality gap which has beset today's liberal media. There is only the truth, and distortions of the truth, or as we have seen so recently, outright dodging the truth. Therefore, there are the so-called views as you point out, and then there is the knowledge of the truth. But again, how you view things is up to you. Just don't think I am in any way wanting where it comes to a defense of reality. At any rate, everything in this world is not relative, and there are not a bunch of applicable views to be substantiated or struck down through debate. That is why I cite history and Scripture, there is no arguing with the perspective of the Almighty.

I am a little incredulous however, even though you are a self declared legend, when I read the comments of somebody who has made all of 300 posts on here, but who none the less speaks as if he were a BGR heavyweight of lore. I actually do like the contribution you make to the forum, but I've just got this thing about being stacked and racked by a guy who does his occasional touch-n-go thing. But if I recall, the last time you dropped in you called the rapture a myth that time too, and made the effort to take the conversation to the religion forum, where you very graciously set up shop to answer everybody's 'questions' on the subject. Were there any takers that time? Cause I don't seem to recall a single question. Your impatience with me for citing the wisdom of God is reminiscent of the 'view' liberals have about religion. They think religion is fine as long as it is kept behind Church walls and out of the public domain. As I have said above, the charter and the charge of the Church is certainly not to sequester God's message and wisdom behind a wall of separation. We are to get the word out. So, don't expect me to limit my references to the religion forum.

None the less, such rationalizations are the stuff of compromise and one of my particular pet peeves. For example, Hillary Clinton is in my view the most pathetic candidate the Dems have every come up with. But she is the heir apparent of the Democrat Party, and I suppose, sworn to advance Barack's transformation. So, they're stuck with her. But how does one bring his/her opponent down to the same level as their own record? The political food fight. You throw enough pies and other sticky fare, and a lot of it is bound to stick. It doesn't even need to have a shred of truth to it, just get it airborne and let nature take it's course. And after all, one does not need to be an Ivy League grad to lie. So every time Hill's record is brought up, you see an immediate pivot to what a supposed imbecile The Donald is, is. Reality is then reduced to a view, views are debatable, and debate is an endless gray area where the truth rarely steps, and when it does it is always challenged. I find that situation to be sickeningly unacceptable.

In such manner issues, problems and solutions are avoided completely. If we were to ask the good folks there at Comcast, I'm sure they're ecstatic about the debate they hosted because all they care about is getting Hillary elected. One candidate avoided FBI indictment by the hair of her chin, was "extremely careless" in the handling of our national secrets, has a foundation sized closet stuffed full of pay to play questions that will likely never get resolved, but still thinks the people ought to trust her to be President. Did the moderator ask her any questions about all this during the cyber segment? Nope. Did he ask Trump about not releasing his income tax returns? Yep. Was the debate largely a food fight lacking substance? Of course.