BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
==============
frtwz, Do you fade so quickly from the race, the game just began? We
are still figuring out the rules of the game.
=====================

Tink, I don't wish to be like rick and KMAN. You and I were having a
discussion. It had interesting possibilities. You showed me the error
of my thoughts. The end.

As you'll recall, I wished to demonstrate to you that right-wing
political policies, which I generally view as mean-spirited, could
not
have a basis in the Christian faith so many of you profess to follow.
I
was aiming at cognitive dissonance -- in you.

Instead, I was the one who had to shift my cognition of the Christian
faith. I was under some mistaken impression that JC was all about
love,
charity, peace, and forgiveness. I had, in my mind, some sort of
benevolent hippy-dude. Hence my proposition to you that JC would be
much more inclined to support liberal policies.

It is clear, however, after you've cited the appropriate scripture,
that I had JC figured all wrong. I don't know where I got my
impressions of JC from, given my very atheist upbringing. I can only
surmise that it was from some sort of syrupy, Disney-like media
presentations. From what you've presented about JC, in making your
case
that JC would support captital punishment, he is obviously anything
but
loving, charitable, peaceful, and forgiving. You show him to sanction
murder: state-sanctioned murder. Where is the love? Where is the
foregiveness?

So, clearly Tink, there's a case of cognitive dissonance. I've had to
change my view of JC.

Of course, you're free to continue the "JC goes to Washington"
exercise
with fellow right-wngers. It's sure to help you find even greater
congruence between mean-spirited policies and the teachings of your
faith.

Thanks for the enlightenment, Tink.

Cheers,
frtzw906

I hate having a person laboring under the burden of a false assumption.
I suspected that your assumptions were false, based on the apparent
fact, that you presented little support for making those assumptions.
You can see clearly now that your assumption was incorrect, and your
conclusions based on those assumptions are at best currently
unsupported, and at worst, totally false. You are probably in the
position that until you can present supportable assumptions, that you
can not make any correct and supportable conclusions about the above
discussion. Your observations though are welcome and definitely worth
consideration. TnT