Why are Christian businesses targeted .....

[GaryK]

And then on the other side, there is language used on MN such as clown show investigations being conducted by the other side,

Did I use that phrase? Where? I can't seem to find it.

Ken called it a clown show. You called it a circus. Pretty much the same thing.

the Durham report being mostly spin, etc. etc.

That's easy to find - here it is: viewtopic.php?p=201777#p201777 But I don't think I was promoting outrage there. What is it that strikes you that way? I think I was comparing what Durham said, what the inspector general's report said, and what the DIOG said about predication for this investigation. And also pointing out that the report did not challenge even a single claim made by the Mueller Report. To me, that's really about looking carefully at the facts and discussing them. I don't see that post as asking anyone to get outraged. Not even at Durham.

In fact, I'm basically suggesting that political outrage may not be based on solid facts here.

I'm not sure where the "etc., etc." leads, but if these two are representative, we might want to start with them. As far as I can tell, the first wasn't me, the second doesn't seem to be promoting political outrage.

What is it about the second that strikes you as promoting political outrage? Or is it outrage simply to debunk political talking points that seem to promote outrage?

To anyone who believes Durham's report showed nefarious behavior by the DOJ and FBI in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation of the Trump campaign, and believes the investigation didn't have proper predicate to go into a full investigation, such a dismissive description of the report is part and parcel of the one political outrage machine that is so anti-Trump that even when wrongdoing is found, it's dismissed as being mostly spin.

[Bootstrap]

What is it about the second that strikes you as promoting political outrage? Or is it outrage simply to debunk political talking points that seem to promote outrage?

To anyone who believes Durham's report showed nefarious behavior by the DOJ and FBI in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation of the Trump campaign, and believes the investigation didn't have proper predicate to go into a full investigation, such a dismissive description of the report is part and parcel of the one political outrage machine that is so anti-Trump that even when wrongdoing is found, it's dismissed as being mostly spin.

This sounds like you are saying (1) that the Durham report clearly showed nefarious wrongdoing, and (2) that it's outrageous for me to disagree with you - simply disagreeing is a political outrage.

I disagree with both halves of that. There's room for more than one opinion. And I don't think Durham's report actually did show nefarious behavior.

You are welcome to disagree. But I think the outrage is misplaced. And it makes it harder to have a conversation as two Christians with different views. In the thread, I wish you had focused on the evidence I presented, I spent some time reading that report and comparing it to the Inspector General's report and to the DIOG itself.

I did that work precisely because you brought this up and I wanted to understand the basic facts involved. I'm not convinced that you actually responded to the facts I presented as a result. Of course, you don't have to. But I don't think it's outrageous for me to look into the facts and come up with a different opinion than you have. And it's not because I marinated in what any political outrage machine was saying, it's because I read the documents and compared them. I wasn't trying to promote outrage. I was actually trying to say that I think there was no need for political outrage if you look carefully at the facts.

When the Berlin Wall fell, one of my friends said this: "I no longer have to have multiple versions of the truth or multiple selves, some for public consumption, some for my friends, and some only for me. It's safe to believe what I believe, feel what I feel, and say what I think." But I'm feeling that a lot less than I used here in America. In 1989, that was a no-brainer. Now there's just way too much outrage, way too much group-think, way too much desire to "other" people who disagree. Even among Christians - but primarily along political lines, not theological lines.

[GaryK]

What is it about the second that strikes you as promoting political outrage? Or is it outrage simply to debunk political talking points that seem to promote outrage?

To anyone who believes Durham's report showed nefarious behavior by the DOJ and FBI in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation of the Trump campaign, and believes the investigation didn't have proper predicate to go into a full investigation, such a dismissive description of the report is part and parcel of the one political outrage machine that is so anti-Trump that even when wrongdoing is found, it's dismissed as being mostly spin.

This sounds like you are saying (1) that the Durham report clearly showed nefarious wrongdoing, and (2) that it's outrageous for me to disagree with you - simply disagreeing is a political outrage.

I disagree with both halves of that. There's room for more than one opinion. And I don't think Durham's report actually did show nefarious behavior.

You are welcome to disagree. But I think the outrage is misplaced. And it makes it harder to have a conversation as two Christians with different views. In the thread, I wish you had focused on the evidence I presented, I spent some time reading that report and comparing it to the Inspector General's report and to the DIOG itself.

I did that work precisely because you brought this up and I wanted to understand the basic facts involved. I'm not convinced that you actually responded to the facts I presented as a result. Of course, you don't have to. But I don't think it's outrageous for me to look into the facts and come up with a different opinion than you have. And it's not because I marinated in what any political outrage machine was saying, it's because I read the documents and compared them. I wasn't trying to promote outrage. I was actually trying to say that I think there was no need for political outrage if you look carefully at the facts.

When the Berlin Wall fell, one of my friends said this: "I no longer have to have multiple versions of the truth or multiple selves, some for public consumption, some for my friends, and some only for me. It's safe to believe what I believe, feel what I feel, and say what I think." But I'm feeling that a lot less than I used here in America. In 1989, that was a no-brainer. Now there's just way too much outrage, way too much group-think, way too much desire to "other" people who disagree. Even among Christians - but primarily along political lines, not theological lines.

Oh, I clearly remember pointing out some things from the report that you couldn't refute and yet you kept on dismissing it as spin.

[Bootstrap]

Oh, I clearly remember pointing out some things from the report that you couldn't refute and yet you kept on dismissing it as spin.

We definitely have different memories of that conversation.

But that's not a huge tragedy. It's fairly normal for people to have different experiences of the same conversation. That's one reason conversations have more than one person in them - otherwise, we would just be talking to ourselves.

If you want to resume that conversation, doing that in the thread where it started probably makes more sense. If you want to convince me, I think it would be helpful to focus on: (1) did Durham claim any laws were violated? (2) did Durham's findings directly disagree with the Inspector General's Report? If so, how, and why? (3) does the DIOG provide additional light? Did Durham leave something important out of the DIOG when he quoted it? Does that omission say something meaningful about the predication of this investigation? The post where I used the phrase, linked to above, spells all of that out.

But that's better over there in that thread. And only if we can have that conversation in good faith, as brothers. With room to disagree. Even then, maybe it's more important to spend some time thinking about how we relate to these things in the Kingdom of God. This doesn't seem like a high priority to me.

[GaryK]

Oh, I clearly remember pointing out some things from the report that you couldn't refute and yet you kept on dismissing it as spin.

We definitely have different memories of that conversation.

But that's not a huge tragedy. It's fairly normal for people to have different experiences of the same conversation. That's one reason conversations have more than one person in them - otherwise, we would just be talking to ourselves.

If you want to resume that conversation, doing that in the thread where it started probably makes more sense. If you want to convince me, I think it would be helpful to focus on: (1) did Durham claim any laws were violated? (2) did Durham's findings directly disagree with the Inspector General's Report? If so, how, and why? (3) does the DIOG provide additional light? Did Durham leave something important out of the DIOG when he quoted it? Does that omission say something meaningful about the predication of this investigation? The post where I used the phrase, linked to above, spells all of that out.

But that's better over there in that thread. And only if we can have that conversation in good faith, as brothers. With room to disagree. Even then, maybe it's more important to spend some time thinking about how we relate to these things in the Kingdom of God. This doesn't seem like a high priority to me.

No, I definitely don't want to relitigate that conversation. Again, as I just posted in the other thread, if you want others to give you room to disagree with their opinions, then please return the favor and stop implying that your political views are more pro-Kingdom of God than others.

[MaxPC]

Again, as I just posted in the other thread, if you want others to give you room to disagree with their opinions, then please return the favor and stop implying that your political views are more pro-Kingdom of God than others.

Precisely. Well-said, GaryK.

[Bootstrap]

But that's better over there in that thread. And only if we can have that conversation in good faith, as brothers. With room to disagree. Even then, maybe it's more important to spend some time thinking about how we relate to these things in the Kingdom of God. This doesn't seem like a high priority to me.

No, I definitely don't want to relitigate that conversation. Again, as I just posted in the other thread, if you want others to give you room to disagree with their opinions, then please return the favor and stop implying that your political views are more pro-Kingdom of God than others.

I don't think my post says that. I refer to us as brothers, and say that I think it's more important to spend time thinking about how we relate to these things in the Kingdom of God. I make no claim about "my politics" versus "your politics" here.

I really do think that our identity as Christians who seek first the Kingdom of God should be central in the way we think about most things. And I think it's important to avoid letting other identities trump that.

In this thread, for instance, I think it's important to ask ourselves how Jesus and the disciples handled persecution. And I think it's important to carefully evaluate claims of how much persecution we are getting, to see if they are true or false.

If most of the energy in a thread like this is making those two things harder, it's worth asking why. Not as some kind of trial. And perhaps each of us should focus on what we ourselves are doing. But why is it so hard to (1) focus on our identity as Christians who seek first the Kingdom of God, and (2) explore facts cooperatively from different points of view?

Sometimes I suspect Christians target each other as much as we are targeted by anyone else ...

[MaxPC]

Again, as I just posted in the other thread, if you want others to give you room to disagree with their opinions, then please return the favor and stop implying that your political views are more pro-Kingdom of God than others.

Precisely. Well-said, GaryK.

[GaryK]

But that's better over there in that thread. And only if we can have that conversation in good faith, as brothers. With room to disagree. Even then, maybe it's more important to spend some time thinking about how we relate to these things in the Kingdom of God. This doesn't seem like a high priority to me.

No, I definitely don't want to relitigate that conversation. Again, as I just posted in the other thread, if you want others to give you room to disagree with their opinions, then please return the favor and stop implying that your political views are more pro-Kingdom of God than others.

I don't think my post says that. I refer to us as brothers, and say that I think it's more important to spend time thinking about how we relate to these things in the Kingdom of God. I make no claim about "my politics" versus "your politics" here.

I really do think that our identity as Christians who seek first the Kingdom of God should be central in the way we think about most things. And I think it's important to avoid letting other identities trump that.

In this thread, for instance, I think it's important to ask ourselves how Jesus and the disciples handled persecution. And I think it's important to carefully evaluate claims of how much persecution we are getting, to see if they are true or false.

If most of the energy in a thread like this is making those two things harder, it's worth asking why. Not as some kind of trial. And perhaps each of us should focus on what we ourselves are doing. But why is it so hard to (1) focus on our identity as Christians who seek first the Kingdom of God, and (2) explore facts cooperatively from different points of view?

Sometimes I suspect Christians target each other as much as we are targeted by anyone else ...

I'll let you have the last word.

[Bootstrap]

I'll let you have the last word.

I read the Durham thread to the end, and also the Hunter Biden thread you referred to, and I really don't see what you seem to see here. I don't think I am saying the things you claim.

So many threads would be substantially shorter if people were talking about the subject instead of what they think is wrong about other people. And a lot more interesting and edifying. In that thread, I really do think that I am trying to stick to fact as I understand it. I don't think I'm trying to tell you that you are bad if you disagree with my political opinion. But I didn't agree with yours. You clearly thought I should have been convinced by your argument. I rather thought I had made the better case. That's not terribly surprising, is it? That happens a LOT on forums.

The only times I use the phrase Kingdom of God that I can find in those threads, I am clearly saying that should be our primary identity and that means not holding tightly to political identities and using the same standards for both sides.

Here's a good example:

Tit-for-tat means "retaliation in kind". If they impeached Trump, they should impeach Biden, even if Biden did nothing that deserves impeachment. They did it to us, so we will do it to them. So what matters is "us" and "them'. If the same thing happens to "us", that's quite different than if it happens to "them". And to me, that implies that there is some kind of political identity here. "Us" and "them" are not labels for the Kingdom of God, for instance.

When I say "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," I mean this:

If you say what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, you mean what is acceptable for one person in a particular situation should be acceptable for another person in a similar situation.

It's not acceptable for Democrats to steal elections, so it's also not acceptable for Republicans to steal elections. Neither party gets to decide who won, that's up to election boards and courts. January 6th was not acceptable, and it would not be acceptable for Democrats to do the same if Trump gets elected. Similarly, if John Eastman did what he is accused of, he should be disbarred. If Trump did what he is accused of, there should be consequences. If Biden did the things the right-wing media is claiming, he should be impeached - but with evidence. We have disbarment hearings and trials and impeachment hearings to determine these things.

I think it really should be just that simple.

If you want to reconsider giving me the last word, feel free to respond to any of this. But I think I am basically saying that:

1. Caesar should treat both parties the same way.
2. Christians should not have political enmities. We should not want "them" to be destroyed.

We should want fair processes for both "us" and "them", but "us" should mean us, Christians who follow Jesus, not some political faction. We love "them", they are our neighbors, Jesus died for them, they are our mission field.