Friday, May 23, 2014

Which One Was Telling the Truth?



No. He never said that those who oppose ObamaCare are racists.

90 comments:

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Well, he didn't actually say the word "racist," so TECHNICALLY he is correct when he said he didn't call anyone a racist.

He just said they objected to Obamacare because they didn't like the color of Obama's skin.

Joe said...

GEC: True. But I think if we were to say we don't like the color of his skin we would be inundated with screams of "Racism!"

Now-a-days we don't even have to reference skin color. Just disagreeing with him is enough to bring those screams.

We have freedom of speech as long as we don't disagree with Obama.

Hmmmm.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Joe,

You DO know that I was being sarcastic?

Dave Miller said...

No Glenn, you were being exactly honest. He said there are some people who opposed the ACA because of the skin color of our president.

I don't think it is far fetched to believe that there are at least some who oppose President Obama simply because of his "skin color."

Look, I know the racism charge has been thrown around a lot in regards to opposition to Obama.

So riddle me this....

Let's say there has been no opposition to President Obama based in racism.

If the GOP, or anyone else was to oppose President Obama because of his race, what would that look like?

No obfuscations please, just let us know what it would take for conservatives like yourselves [Joe and Glenn] to say someone opposing the agenda of President Obama is doing so on racial grounds.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Using racist language is usually what racists do. If there is no logical or rational reason to oppose a policy and yet a person is still opposing it, then it MIGHT be for racist reasons.

Yes, I was being sarcastic by pretending not using the actual word made him correct that we didn't say people were racist. You don't have to use the word to make that claim.

Joe said...

DM: "...let us know what it would take for conservatives like yourselves [Joe and Glenn] to say someone opposing the agenda of President Obama is doing so on racial grounds."

I know. It's tough for liberals to understand.

If someone says, "That filthy N.... How could anyone as black as he is make a good health care law? How could he even be a good president?"

That would be racist.

"I disagree with President Obama that ACA is the way to go. I think it should be repealed."

That is NOT racist.

When I disagreed with President Bush about the "Patriot Act," was I being racist? I did not disagree because he was black or white. I do not disagree with President Obama because he is black. I would disagree with those policies if YOU were the one who initiated them. I don't care one whit about his race.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

What I have found amusing from the very beginning of Obama's political career is that they refer to him as "African American" or "black." Yet he is neither. He is an American - period; not a hyphenated American. And he is as much white as he is black, and the real racism is from those who refuse to acknowledge his white heritage, as if it is something to be embarrassed about. IT is the LEFT who have made an issue of Obama's skin color from the very beginning - as if the color of his skin makes him something special. And as if the only reason he was put into politics was so he would be a "black" person representing those of the same color skin.

He doesn't properly represent anyone except those of the radical left who are socialists and lovers of Islam.

And those on the LEFT will claim my comment is "racist."

Dave Miller said...

Well Glenn, apparently we can't accurately call your comments racism, because you did not use the N- word. At least that is Joe defines racial animus against our president.

At the very least, your comments are racially insensitive and show no understanding or compassion for what people of color and mixed race people face everyday in this country.

I would ask if you are as strident when people claim they are of Italian-American or German-American heritage? There are clubs for these groups all over the midwest. How about the Irish-American clubs in the east? Are you as quick to deny them the ability, or as some would say, right, to claim their Irish ancestry?

You see Glenn, our culture and heritage is part of who we are. Undeniable and inescapable. Even if some claim otherwise.

Were your comments racist? Depends on your heart. Because of that, I cannot say. Insensitive? Inflammatory? No doubt.

Dave Miller said...

Joe... according to columnist Leonard Pitts of the "Miami Herald", President Obama has been "called 'uppity' by one GOP lawmaker, 'boy' by another and 'subhuman' by a GOP activist, who was depicted as a bone-through-the-nose witch doctor by opponents of his healthcare reform bill, as a pair of cartoon spook eyes against a black backdrop by an aide to a GOP lawmaker and as an ape by various opponents, who has been dogged by a 'tea party' movement whose earliest and most enthusiastic supporters included the Council of Conservative Citizens, infamous for declaring the children of interracial unions 'a slimy brown glop;' who was called a liar by an obscure GOP lawmaker during a speech before a joint session of Congress who has had to contend with a years-long campaign of people pretending there is some mystery about where he was born."

Given that the N-word was not used in any of these attacks, to say nothing about the 100's of other watermelon, spook-eyed and mammy-centric emails and blog comments, are these racist?

I don't doubt that many have legit issues with, in this case, the ACA. It is the manner with which that dissension is voiced.

Is it racist when people use terms like Obammy, Crappy Nappy and Moochelle when talking about our President and his wife?

Joe said...

DM: "President Obama has been "called 'uppity'..."

I have been called "uppity." I didn't know I was being subjected to racism. I've been called a lot of those things. I admit, I have never had a caricature of me with a bone in my nose, but Bush was.

In fact, Bush was been "called 'uppity' by many Democrat lawmakers, 'boy' by another and 'subhuman' by a Democrat activist, and was depicted as an ape by various opponents.

That is all irrelevant. Racism is racism and everything else isn't.

Joe said...

DM: Racism is not about what I say, it is about my heart and attitudes.

Dave Miller said...

So Joe, if your heart is pure and yet you call someone the n-word, it's not racism?

Regarding the use of words, certain words, when used in certain contexts, can be evidence of racism, or at least racial insensitivity.

For me, it becomes about racism when, once informed by someone that they find certain terms racially offensive.

Because I would have to ask, why would someone continue to use a term that they are aware offends another? Especially someone claiming Christ.

It would seem to me at that point, if we persist in using words that people find offensive, and arguing that they should not be offended, that our attitudes become more about us, and not about the other.

Are those terms, that Pitts highlighted, when used to describe a black man, racist, or racially insensitive?

And again, Is it racist when people use terms like Obammy, Crappy Nappy and Moochelle when talking about our President and his wife?


Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave,

So, you just assert that my comments are “racially insensitive and show no understanding or compassion for what people of color and mixed race people face everyday in this country.”

I state facts and you make an assertion of racism based on what I said. That’s the problem with liberal political-correctness - facts aren’t permitted.

Firstly, I have no problem with people expressing their heritage as their ancestral country of origin. But the only people who can have a hyphen are those who actually were born in another country and have become nationalized Americans. Obama claims he was born in the USA.

Even with heritage groups, they only use the hyphen in the context of that particular organization or club, or even event. Blacks are the only ones who seem to need it all the time, and it is ascribed to blacks by the media even if the black person has no African heritage!

I am of Scotch, Irish, English, Jewish, German, Welsh ancestry, and proudly speak of those as my heritage, but I would never call myself a hyphenated American; I am 100% American, and those who don’t want to be 100% Americans can go live elsewhere!

Where Obama is concerned, he is half-white, as noted. It is inflammatory and racist and insensitive for people to pretend he is 100% black, denigrating his white heritage. And yet you assert that I am the insensitive one!!

The problem with you and your ilk is based on the whole idea of skin color determining “race.” There is only one race and that is the human race. We all bleed the same color. While racism has long been around, it was the evolutionists who really promoted it, with claims that different “races” were on differing distances from the ape lineage we all supposedly come from. THAT is racist.

As for the “N-word,” how about quit playing baby and say “nigger”! It isn’t racist to use the word in context.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Oh, and Leonard Pitts is one of the most racist people in the public eye, and rarely does he have anything but racist rants or rants promoting the homosexual agenda. The man sees racism in everything. I certainly wouldn't cite him as any authority.

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, are you denying that the statements he cited were made?

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, the reason I don't use terms like nigger, kike, beaner, cracker, morherfucker and cocksucker.

Polite society has made a decision that these words are offensive.

Why choose to do so, especially when we are called to be people if reconciliation?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Nope, I'm saying he's like a pot calling a kettle black. He's a rank racist.

Joe said...

DM: "Regarding the use of words, certain words, when used in certain contexts, can be evidence of racism, or at least racial insensitivity."

Yes, they can. But we've gotten to the point in our society, organizations and government that mere disagreement with a person of another race is considered racism, and it just ain't so.

There are words that MIGHT be evidence of racism, but may not be, depending on the context, attitude and heart of the one using the word(s).

And I submit that in the case of these videos, and many, many others, there is NO racism on the part of the Republican, period. None. Nor is there one single shred of evidence of racism.

I, for one, am sick and tired of EVERY comment by whites about blacks (or any other combination of ethnic/national origin) being considered racist.

The two biggest racists in the country, maybe the known universe, are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They are an embarrassment to their people, their culture, their country and to the memory of their predecessor, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Yet they say blacks can't be racists; it is impossible.

Not.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Then don't use "n-word." If you want to refer to a word, print the word.

But words which include the "f-word" are super crass and crude and have no reason to be in society to begin with.

My complaint is how people always talk about "the n-word" instead of saying "nigger." First, they assume everyone knows what word they are referring to. Second, blacks don't hesitate to uses the word so why should we?

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - "Second, blacks don't hesitate to uses the word so why should we?"

I saw Chris Rock on some TV program that included a Q&A with the audience. An elderly white woman asked Chris the same question you just asked; "Black people use the n-word all the time, why can't we?"

Chris's response hit the nail on the head.

He asked her "Why do you want to?"

crickets

"But the only people who can have a hyphen are those who actually were born in another country and have become nationalized Americans."

So you're King of the Hyphen now too? First you take it upon yourself to pronounce judgement on who or who isn't a Christian. Now your are proclaiming your power over the Hyphen! What's next? Emperor of the Oxford Comma?

"Obama claims he was born in the USA." I'm sure you meant to say 'Obama WAS born in the USA.' Because he was. And if, at this point you still doubt it, then you're an idiot. Note, I didn't call you a racist, I called you an idiot.

"Even with heritage groups, they only use the hyphen in the context of that particular organization or club, or even event." That is just flat-out (is it OK with you that I used a hyphen there,Your Highness?), categorically, demonstrably untrue! Also known as a LIE.

People hyphenate their heritage all the time in all sorts of contexts!

And here is the point that you should be supporting most strongly of all...PEOPLE HAVE THE FREEDOM, THE RIGHT, AND THE CHOICE (that was an oxford comma, btw. because i know you had no idea what i was talking about.) TO SELF-IDENTIFY ANY WAY THEY PLEASE!

There are no rules. Most of my ancestors came from England. I can proudly identify myself as an Anglo-American if I choose to.

But I also have ancestors from Ireland and Germany. So if I identify strongly with one of those lineages over another I can call myself an Irish-American or German-American or even Teutonic-American if my ancestry goes back that far.

You don't make the rules, bub! Get over yourself.

Joe said...

XO: "He asked her "Why do you want to?"

WOW! What a come back! Put that whitey in her place, didn't he? Whew! The power of those words! What an imagination! How quick on the draw!

Oh, wait! That's not an answer.

"How do you raise roses?"

"Why do you want to?"

"Thanks! I always wondered how to do it."

Chris Rock IS the personification of racism. He is an African-American-Racist.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - Apparently you missed the point.

The question is, why are white people so chomping at the bit to be "allowed" to use the word nigger.

Why do you want to be able to say nigger?

Does it make you feel better?

Does it scratch some itch that saying African-American just can't reach?

Why is this even an issue for anyone?

Nigger is a horrible, offensive word that carries hundreds of years of oppression, brutality, hatred and racism with every utterance by a white person.

If African-Americans want to use that word among themselves to deprive it of it's inherent hatred and rob it of it's value, that is their right.

But given the history of our country, it is never, ever "OK" for white people to use that word.

Why is this such a difficult concept for you to understand?

If Samuel L. Jackson wants to call someone a "nigger", that is perfectly OK.

If Joe Scoggins or Glenn Chatfield want to call someone a "nigger"...not OK. Ever.

Joe said...

XO: "Why do you want to be able to say nigger?"

Say what? Who wants to be able to? I don't. I think it is crude and very impolite. Coming from some people in some situations it might even be racist.

Thinking that I might want to say it is very revealing about your motives and your heart.

Joe said...

XO: "If Samuel L. Jackson wants to call someone a "nigger", that is perfectly OK."

Actually, it is not. It is crude no matter who says it. It reflects the bottom of the social tank. It reveals the lowest of low class.

If SLJ wants to say it, he is a racist boor.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - "Who wants to be able to?"

G.E.C. seems to want to. He seems to feel that he is the victim of some Great Injustice that African-Americans can say it but he can't.

There are a whole lot of white folk who feel the same way.

Why do they want to? Why is it so important to them that they be able to call someone a nigger?

"Coming from some people in some situations it might even be racist."

Might be??? Ya think???

"If SLJ wants to say it, he is a racist boor."

I would love to be there when you tell Samuel L Jackson that he is a "racist boor".

Not because he would harm you in any way. But just to watch him laugh at you and offer to shake your hand and give you an autograph.



Duckys here said...

@Joe ---
WOW! What a come back! Put that whitey in her place, didn't he?
-------
Yup

Joe said...

XO: "I would love to be there when you tell Samuel L Jackson that he is a "racist boor". Not because he would harm you in any way. But just to watch him laugh at you and offer to shake your hand and give you an autograph."

I don't want his autograph.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

I want to us “nigger” whenever I’m quoting someone.

What I’m saying is that the only time “X-American” makes sense is if it is a citizen of another country who becomes a citizen of the USA. For anyone else, you are either an American or you are not. Just because someone has black skin, that doesn’t make him an “African-American,” especially if his progenitors came over generations ago. Why is it only THEY are referred to by the media, etc as “X-American” and no one else is? RACISM - that’s why. To make them separate from Americans.

You are a liar, as usual. I don’t take it upon myself to pronounce when on is or isn’t a Christian - I compare their beliefs and teachings to the Bible and the Bible is the arbiter. You always prove your ignorance on the subject.

You are the idiot for inferring more than I implied. My point is that Obama claims to be born in the USA so he is an American. Anyone who claims to be born in the USA (legally, that is) is an American - not an “X-American.” If you want to be President, then be an American.

MOST people of foreign heritage do not used “X-American” in any context outside of cultural organizations, etc. You will not find the media routinely referring to anyone but blacks as “X-American.” That is a fact, you fool.

The point, Mr. Stupidity, is that only Blacks are routinely referred to - and refer to themselves - as “African-American.” And THAT is racist separatism.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O. proves once again what an ass he is; a complete and utter fool.

I never intimated that I wanted to call anyone a nigger. My point is that we should not be forced by politically-correct foolishness to say "n-word" instead of nigger. If I'm quoting someone, I'm going to say "nigger" if he said "nigger." No matter how politically-incorrect you may think it is.

In fact, Mr. Stupid, you might educate yourself just a wee bit by reading Taleeb Starkes' book, "The Un-Civil War: Blacks vs Niggers." - oh, and he is a black man who I'd like to quote.

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, clearly you have little or no experience with Asian Americans. Here's a letter from a large group within the evangelical community that clearly uses the term. It is very prevalent in their community.

http://nextgenerasianchurch.com/2013/10/13/an-open-letter-to-the-evangelical-church-from-the-asian-american-community/

You mentioned that anyone born legally here is a citizen. Could you define someone born here illegally? Our understanding of the Constitution tells us that anyone born on our soil is a citizen.

Finally, as a Christian, let me say that Jesus had a little to say about people like you using the terms you use to describe others.

Ask your pastor, or any other respected Christian leader you know if the language you use here to refer to others is uplifting and a good witness.

Good grief.

Duckys here said...

@Dave Miller ---
You mentioned that anyone born legally here is a citizen. Could you define someone born here illegally?
------
Touché

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave,

Actually we are very good friends with a Chinese couple who came to the USA and became citizens. They have two children. They never call themselves “Chinese-Americans.”

The letter doesn’t say if these are first generation Asians who have become Americans. I have said first generation foreigners have a legitimate claim to “X-American,” but even with every other foreign “X-American,” they do not set themselves apart as special people as to those who want to be called “African-Americans. And, as previously stated, when your progenitors have been in the U.S.A for at least 160 years, there is no purpose for the label “African-American” except racism.

Check out what the 14th Amendment says about being a citizen if born in the USA:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Those who cross our southern border illegally and have children here, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA because they are not citizens of the USA. They should be punished for their illegal activity and yet our liberal government is rewarding them with citizenship, free medical care, free schooling, etc. ILLEGAL - as in violating the law. Their children should not be given citizenship status and never previously were. There are legal arguments pro and con going on currently. The point is, that they are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction when parents are citizens of the USA over her illegally.

And just what terms am I using to describe others which you think Jesus would disapprove of? You just made an assertion with no evidence. What language have I used?

I described Leonard Pitts as a racist - which he is. Do you think Jesus would disapprove of that?

I called X.O. a liar, but even Jesus called liars by what they are. I called X.O. stupid because that is how he is behaving. I also called him an idiot - as he called me first - again because that is how he is behaving. Jesus called Pharisees snakes, and white-washed tombs. There is nothing at all wrong with naming what a person is behaving as. And he is indeed behaving foolishly with all his inane pretense of intellect.

A. Reader said...

You can't attempt to make sense of what the scumbag-in-chief says.

His followers are cultists and he is their cult leader.

Did Jonestown make sense? Did Koresh make sense?

Neither do dimocraps. They're a cult.

American4Americans. said...

What do you reckon the odds are on the "great unwashed masses" aka the liberals actually waking up?

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - You LOVE to blather on and on about the sanctity of our Constitution and how it means exactly what it says and no more, Much like your Bible, it is not open to interpretation.

Except by you.

Read the exact words of the 14th Amendment again:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

ALL PERSONS BORN OR NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES...

It makes no mention of the parent's immigration status. You are making that up! Just like you do with most of the ideas that you hold so dear.

I know this is a novel concept, but try to think really hard about what you said.

"Those who cross our southern border illegally and have children here, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA because they are not citizens of the USA."

First of all, why are you only concerned about our southern border and not our northern border?

Oh, yeah, that;s right. It's because it was the Mexicans who beat you up when you were a kid, not Canadians.

You really should get see a counselor about that whole childhood trauma thing. It is having a profoundly disturbing effect on your world view.

But the part I really want to focus on, because you don't seem to have any idea how preposterous and ridiculous and completely illogical it is, is the last part of your statement.

"Those who cross our southern border illegally and have children here, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA because they are not citizens of the USA."

Your assertion is that because the parents are here illegally and not citizens, then they "...are not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA..."

Try to follow me here Glenn. Because this is YOUR argument and YOUR logic at work.

If they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA then that means they don't have to obey our laws and therefor they cannot be here illegally!

You really need to think these things through and maybe do a little research.

The jurisdiction of the USA applies to ANYONE in the USA unless they have diplomatic immunity.

ANYONE in the USA is within our jurisdiction because we are a sovereign nation.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Your argument is completely (and not surprisingly) invalid and poorly thought out.

I've said this before and I will keep saying it until you get some professional help. You are completely delusional.

You live in this fantasy bubble where Glenn E. Chatfield is the sole arbiter of what the Bible says and means, what the Constitution says and means, who is or isn't a Christian and what is or isn't a fact.

You have set yourself above every individual, every other faith, all of science, and the sum of all human culture. You and you alone know what THE TRUTH is and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

Glenn, you are insane. There is no gentler way to put it. I'm sure that psychological professionals can diagnose your precise condition and help you balance out your brain chemistry and get you some counselling to get at your core issues.

But you really, really need to get some help. You have completely lost your grip on reality and may (because you own guns and think everyone is chomping at the bit to invade your home) pose a danger to those around you.

NAMI Helpline National Alliance for the Mentally Ill 1-800-950-NAMI


Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

Hey pinhead. The parents are NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE USA if they are illegal immigrants, and therefore do NOT meet the Constitutional requirements. I spelled that out, pinhead.

The insane one is you. You keep making claims about what people think as if you can read minds. You have a real fixation about Christianity that you can't stand people speaking truth about it - you will only accept what is totally against what the church has taught for 2000 years.

You are paranoid, delusional, and unteachable. Really, you need a "mental health" professional to talk psycho-babble to you.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - "The parents are NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE USA if they are illegal immigrants"

Yes, Glenn, they are! If they weren't subject to the jurisdiction of the USA we would be unable to enforce our laws and deport them!

Under your "logic", any one in the United States illegally would be completely immune and untouchable because they are not within our jurisdiction!

Do you even know the words that you use mean?

"...you will only accept what is totally against what the church has taught for 2000 years."

You say that as though there has only been One Church whose teachings have been 100% consistent for 2000 years. Which is complete and total nonsense!

How many different denominations of Christianity are there? Do you even know?

Which one of those denominations is the True Church? I'm dying to know. You've made it clear it isn't the Catholics. Even though they can trace their lineage all the way back to St. Peter, one of Christ's 12 disciples and the one that Jesus said would be the rock that his church would be built upon.

But no, the very words of Jesus Christ aren't good enough for you. Catholics aren't Christians.

So who is? Methodists? Baptists? Southern Baptists? Episcopalians? Unitarians? Lutherans? Russian Orthodox? Seventh Day Adventists? Jehovah's Witnesses? Mormons? Christian Scientists? Assembly of God?

Tell us Glenn. Which denomination is the True Church?

If your answer is "none of them", then there is no True Church.

There is just Glenn Chatfield and his definition of Christianity that excludes virtually everyone in the world who identifies themselves as a Christian.

Apostates one and all! So says Glenn E. Chatfield!

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

Your ignorance astounds me. You are as unteachable as they come. You are so steeped in your liberal, humanistic, atheistic, materialistic ideology that you follow every liberal teaching like a lemming.

There has been only one Church for 2000 years. There have been many organizations formed out of that one Church, formed by people who were corrupt and added to Scripture their own rules and ideas and brought disgrace upon the Church and defamed the name of Christ. If you studied something other than atheism you’d learn that.

And, no, the Romanist church does NOT trace their lineage to Peter. Again, if you studied history you’d know that was a made-up claim to give the pope dictatorial authority over the people. Jesus never said Peter would be the “rock” the church would be built on - that again is a Romanist propaganda piece that was never taught in the first 200 years or so.

Most denominations are formed over differing beliefs about non-essentials. All denominations are Christian if they hold to the non-negotiables, no matter what they do with the non-essentials.
Some started as Christian denominations and later apostatized (Episcopals, e.g., who have left the non-negotiables behind) while others claiming to be Christian are nothing more than non-Christian cults because they never accepted the non-negotiables (Unitarians, JWs, Mormons, Christian Scientists - who are neither Christian nor scientist). Your ignorance about the Christian faith is on daily display.

You really should seek some help from a “mental health” professional so as to deal with all that anger and hatred you have towards a God you don’t even believe in, and towards those who do believe in Him.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - Matthew 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

So you're saying that the Gospel of Matthew contains a lie?

Gee, is it possible that the Gospel Matthew might contain other lies?

What about the other gospels? What about the rest of the New Testament? What about the Old Testament?

I thought the Bible was The Word of God. You saying it isn't?

You interpreting the Bible to say something it doesn't? Just like you do with the Constitution?

I'm beginning to seriously doubt your reading comprehension skills and your ability to process information in a rational manner.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

Read the passage in context, like the one right before that. The "rock" was Peter's confession, which was what the church taught until about the late 3rd or early 4th century when it started teaching Peter was the rock. The only problem with that, is that it contradicts other passages of Scripture.

Notice that Jesus did not say, "And upon YOU will will build my church..." Rather he said, "upon 'this rock' ..." i.e., the confession Peter just made: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

You learned that line, of course, from the Roman Catholic church. Only they and the Orthodox (which broke from Rome in the 11th Century) church teach such nonsense.

By the way, I'm not saying there aren't Christians in the Catholic church; there is enough truth in the RCC to be found and many Catholics have become Christians in spite of Rome. But the RCC itself is not a Christian organization, and is rife with heretical teachings.

But now you've put me in a mind to write a blog article, which will be in honor of your ignorance. I'll post a link when I'm finished, but it most likely won't happen today (I've been home for about 30 min and am about to leave again) or tomorrow (I am performing for Memorial Day services). I'm sure you will find it interesting,

Xavier Onassis said...

Ah, G.E.C., you never disappoint me.

You never fail to take a bite at the bait that I dangle in front of you even when you know there is a hook inside.

And you never fail me in your convoluted attempts to screw the words of the Bible and the Constitution into whatever you meaning you want them to have, despite all actual evidence to the contrary.

You, sir, are a specimen of dementia and self delusion worthy of scientific and semantic research for decades to come.

That is why I keep poking you with the stick of reason and logic. You are a pinata of insanity and goonbabble. It entertains me to see what nuggets will fall to the ground with each strike of the stick.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

The reason and logic is on my side. You are the one who is seriously mentally deranged.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

Here is my article. Read it for some education.

http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2014/05/what-is-christian.html

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, you understanding of the 14th Amendment stands in opposition to the understanding of the Supreme Court, ergo, while you are entitled to your opinion, you are wrong.

Regarding your question about calling Pitts a racist, I am sure jesus encountered many a person one would call an idiot. He was pretty clear as to whether it was appropriate to use that language.

How about Pinhead? Libturd? A complete and utter fool?

Did Jesus promote using labels like these for people in the NT?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave,

There have been plenty of legal opinions delivered on the meaning of the 14th Amendment in regards to the offspring of illegal aliens. I noted that above. I believe anyone with a 6th grade level reading ability could understand the original intent of the Amendment. The SCOTUS may make decisions based on PC or personal liberal agendas, but that doesn't make them correct - just legal. The problem with liberals is that you don’t seem to know the difference between moral and legal.

Pitts is a racist and needs to be identified as such to protect the reading public from accepting his usual trash where he seems to want to train other blacks to be racists. Jesus was pretty clear when he called the Pharisees “vipers.” Paul was pretty clear when he said false teachers should be “eternally condemned.” Neither Jesus nor the apostles soft-soaped false teachers.

The Bible often identifies what a fool is, and when I use the label “fool” it is because the individual fits the biblical description.

I never used the term “libturd.”

I’m a sinner. go figure.

You are more concerned that a Christian used inappropriate language than you are about Christians giving sanction to what God calls an abomination. I'd say that makes you a hypocrite.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - 14th Amendment; Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

ju·ris·dic·tion noun \ˌju̇r-əs-ˈdik-shən\
: the power or right to make judgments about the law, to arrest and punish criminals, etc.

: the power or right to govern an area

: an area within which a particular system of laws is used

"I believe anyone with a 6th grade level reading ability could understand the original intent of the Amendment."

I agree. And the orinal intent was that the 14th Amendment would apply to anyone born within the United States. PERIOD.

And the 14th Amendment also stipulated that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Which right off the bat makes every single one of Kris Kobach's Voter ID laws unconstitutional.

If you are born here, you are a citizen and have a right to vote.

There is nothing in the Constitution about a citizen's burden to prove citizenship or identity so no State can pass a law requiring such.

I really wish these right wing Constitutional "experts" would actually read and understand the Constitution.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - Oh, and by the way, I did read your blog post on Christianity.

I was especially amused by your assertion that " I practice good hermeneutical principles of exegesis."

I will post links to definitions of both of those words for other people to judge for themselves.

But individually and combined they mean that you will grasp at any straw, redefine any word, twist any phrase or try to recontextualize any incongruity or inconsistent passage of scripture to try and prove that it makes perfect sense when,in fact, it does not.

But don't take my word for it folk! Read the definitions and form your own conclusions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis

On the one hand, The Bible, as written, is the literal, infallible Word of God!

But through creative hermeneutics and exegis, it can mean absolutely ANYTHING!

What a total load of nonsense.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

By being under the jurisdiction of the U.S., the intent was that the parents of the person born here were not illegally here, that they were citizens or legally her for valid reasons. It was never intended to include the children of those here illegally. That was a newer interpretation by liberal judges within the past few decades to as to allow more Demokrat voters. But you don't pay attention to history - you just want what is determined by the radical left to be okay.

Voting is a right based on citizenship. One must have ID to exercise virtually every other right. I need an ID to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights to purchase a firearm, e.g. I need a valid ID to drive a motor vehicle, I need a valid ID to get a bank loan.

There is no harm to ANYONE by requiring them to have a valid ID, especially when everyone has access to an ID. No one is denied due process by requiring an ID. The only reason liberals like you don't like ID laws, and why liberal judges fight against them, is because that would end - TOTALLY END - voter fraud by eliminating illegals from voting, by eliminating the dead from voting, by eliminate multiple votes by the same people, etc, ALL OF WHICH go to the DEMOKRATS. Without the illegal votes, it is doubtful that the DEMOKRATS would ever win an election.

I really wish you liberals would quit saying that the Constitution is a living document which finds rights in places the authors never had them!

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

Demonstrate just one place on my blog where you can find eisegesis by me. Just one.

You can't. You are a blowhard who just makes assertions.

Duckys here said...

Pretty difficult to interpret text without introducing eisegesis, Glenn.

The whole idea that the Bible is literal truth is an exercise in eisegesis from the start.

Duckys here said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Ducky,
Your comments only show your total ignorance.

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, you be hard pressed to back up that charge regarding me, since you have no real understanding what my views are regarding homosexuality, the church or the bible.

You are correct that many legal scholars have weighed in on the 14th... except in our country, when the SCOTUS makes a decision, it is law. Period. That is how a pluralistic society must function.

So it really doesn't matter what those legal scholars think, or believe. The matter has been adjudicated and decided, as the Constitution allows.

The fact that you do not agree, doesn't make it not true, or legal. Many did not agree with SCOTUS decisions to strike down Jim Crow laws either.

It did not make them right, just, in the words of Donald Rumsfeld, dead-enders.

We will just have to disagree with how I believe Jesus calls us to express our love for others. If you believe calling people idiots and other names shows them you are a person who loves Jesus, and them, go right ahead.

However that attitude is one reason Christianity is struggling right now. As people like you condemn those whom God loves, they run in droves from the church.

And then, as our numbers dwindle, those that favor a critical approach to people bask in their spirituality and their life as part of some dysfunctional 'faithful remnant."



Dave Miller said...

Glenn, there is a harm to some in this country who do not have access to the needed documents that some states are requiring.

Primarily this is true in the south for senior citizens who have never had "official' documents but who everyone accepts as a legal American.

I am all good for ID if it can be grandfathered in. For example... Anyone under say age 60 must have ID and those above that age, get a pass.

Once that generation dies, then everyone must have ID.

It seems like a reasonable compromise, but i doubt it will happen.

While I can acknowledge that without some ID requirements, fraud can happen, conservatives refuse to acknowledge that there are in fact some who do not have ID and just cannot get it.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave,

We will just have to disagree with how I believe Jesus calls us to express our love for others. If you believe calling people idiots and other names shows them you are a person who loves Jesus, and them, go right ahead.

There are some names which are appropriate and biblical to use, as noted above. I agree that there are others which are inappropriate to use. However, I am a sinful human being who runs out of patience with people who call me names and I will sinfully return the fire.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave:

However that attitude is one reason Christianity is struggling right now. As people like you condemn those whom God loves, they run in droves from the church.

WRONG. As noted, I don't condemn people - I condemn their behaviors. The N.T. is rife with condemnation of people's behaviors.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave,

Give me evidence of people who cannot get ID.

The liberals say minorities are the ones who can't get the ID, they say it's racist to require ID. THAT is total nonsense.

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, my brother in law has defended people dropped from voting roles because of this. There are still significant pockets of elderly african americans in the south who do not have birth certificates and as such cannot prove citizenship, even though they have lived their entire lives here.

It is just a fact.

Beyond this, many states that are moving to require ID will not accept ID from another state. Where should a college student vote? As an out of state student, he cannot produce acceptable ID in some states as they require a local ID and do not accept school ID. My son faced this in Alabama and I believe Wisconsin had issues with this too.

You'll notice I did not say it was racist to require ID.

I suggested a compromise, thought through to address the ultimate concerns of both sides of this issue.

Why can't libs demand that conservatives produce evidence that people are not being denied the right to vote?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave,

There are plenty of other ways to prove citizenship without birth certificates. Affidavits from witnesses, other recode, etc. There never seemed to be a problem before.

And here's the thing; let's say hypothetically that there are some ancient black people (not "African-Americans) still who are not able to get proper documents; shall we just let the dead vote, the illegals vote, the multiple votes because an extreme minority of the people might not be able to get an ID?

Every state will allow other states' drivers' licenses, e.g.

There are ways of getting IDs, but it takes time and effort, and if a person is not willing to put in the time and effort, then they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Dave Miller said...

Well Glenn, you've perfectly proved my point. There is no compromise, or position, that will eventually get us to where you want that is good enough. It is all or nothing, right now and unfortunately, government, and our country cannot function like that.

This is a reasonable idea to take the issue off the table and get us to full ID, after a generation that may not meet todays standards of ID, passes.

And I would be i favor of a single federal standard that is equally applied as opposed to the hodge podge of laws we now have.

But let me ask you a question... why should we bother? Every charge of mass voter fraud has been refuted by elected Sec's of State in every case.

Can you offer any proof of massive voter fraud that has happened here in American recently?

Joe... the prove you're not a robot has been very easy recently... did you change a setting?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave,

You need ID for virtually everything else, so to say it is racist to want ID for voting is nothing less than throwing out the race card.

No compromise, because none is needed. There were many article within a few months of the last election noting how much fraud was in many cities and counties. If you don't follow the news, I'm not digging it up for you. In several towns they had more votes counted than there were registered voters - by a long shot.

Voter fraud has been demonstrated way to often, but panderers for the Demokrats will always deny it's a problem, because the fraudulent voting always goes to them. It's called "Chicago politics."

Dave Miller said...

Sorry Glenn, your comment about more votes than voters is just not true. Yes, there were a lot of stories about that, but if you actually delve into the numbers certified by the Sec's of State, which i did, you will see this is false.

In Wood County Ohio, people claimed more than 100,000 people voted whereas only 98,000 were registered. This was offered as proof of fraud.

However, the facts do not support this, or any other major claim of fraud. In fact, only 64,000 people voted in this county and the Republican Sec of State certified all of his states electoral votes as accurate.

SInce no Sec's of State, either Democrat or Republican has challenged any election result across our country, any charge of fraud is literally a conspiracy charge, with no evidence.

Are you saying that even many GOP Sec's of State are, or were, in the tank for Obama to the degree that they would cover up fraud?

No Glenn, the burden is on those calling our system corrupt to produce real evidence and proof of fraud.

Maybe you should do some real research instead of just believing lame theories produced by conservatives to explain why they are so adept at losing national elections.

Dave Miller said...

PS Glenn... here's the link to the Sec of State of Ohio's page with official certified election results.

I hope you are better than some who said they don't need to see the actual numbers because they know what they believe is true.

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/elections/Research/electResultsMain/2012Results.aspx

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. = "Voter fraud has been demonstrated way to often..."

That is a flat out lie completely unsupported by any evidence whatsoever!

Here is what Republicans do. They rightly point out that in the voter registration records of X county in X state an X number of deceased people or people who no longer lived in that county still appeared on the records as registered voters.

This is what they point to as the potential for voter fraud and the need for voter ID laws.

But they cannot point to a single instance, anywhere, in any election, of voter fraud actually occurring!

The reason that deceased people and people who no longer live in the voting district continue to appear in the voting register isn't due to fraud, it's due to lack of maintenance!

When someone dies, the family of the deceased isn't all that concerned about notifying the local Election Commissioner to please remove the dearly departed from the list of registered voters. The family kind of has other things on their mind. And if the tax base were sufficient to staff the personnel necessary to comb the local obituaries and make even a halfhearted attempt at keeping the registry clean, the list of registered voters would be a lot cleaner.

Same thing with people moving out of the district. When someone is moving, the last thing on their mind is to consult a gerrymandered map to determine if they will be changing voting districts so they can notify their Election Commissioner that they should no longer be listed as a registered voter in that District.

There is no voter fraud! "Illegal Aliens" are not showing up at polling stations voting for gay, socialist, Democrat candidates.

You people are DELUSIONAL!

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave,

Maybe you should do some real research instead of just believing lame theories produced by conservatives to explain why they are so adept at losing national elections.

Yeah, just what I'd expect from an Obamanite.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

So where did the original numbers come from?

I'm supposed to believe the SoS with the corrupt administration we have?!?! It has been proven over and over again the Obama and his sidekick Holder are inveterate liars, and I'm supposed to believe a SoS who is most likely in their pockets??

Call me insane, etc. But I have come to not trust any government official because of the rank corruption across the board.

The fact remains, history has shown that dead people's names have shown up as voting, people have confessed to voting multiple times, etc. There is no precautions taken to prevent voter fraud because if we did that it would be "racist."

Happy 1984.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The delusional X.O. chimes in again with his typical leftist lemming rant.

Liberals are so deluded in their slavery to the government.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - "The delusional X.O. chimes in again with his typical leftist lemming rant.

Liberals are so deluded in their slavery to the government."

Prove me wrong or go home.

You're up.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

I'm tired of proving things to which you don't accept because you marginalize it all to my "insanity." So just call me insane and pity me for believing in the God you hate so much. Have a nice life, because your afterlife will be hell.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - "I'm tired of proving things to which you don't accept..."

You've never proven anything because you've never presented any actual facts. Ever.

"So just call me insane and pity me for believing in the God you hate so much."

I don't hate "god". It would be irrational hate something that doesn't exist. Just as it would be irrational to love, fear, follow, and obey something that doesn't exist.

"Have a nice life, because your afterlife will be hell."

No it won't. Because there is no afterlife. That is a cognitive fiction we train ourselves to believe as infants to reassure us that just because I can't see or touch mommy right now from my crib, she is still around and will take care of me. We carry that with us into adulthood and project it onto loved ones who have died. It is a little white lie we tell ourselves to help us cope with stress and loss.

The gullible continue to allow themselves to believe it. Rational people know it isn't true.

I can assure you with 100% certainty that I am not at all concerned with my fate in any fairytale afterlife. I live life here and now because that is all we have. Make the most of it. Experience everything you can. Because dead is dead.

Dave Miller said...

Glenn... the numbers I shared are from a GOP Sec of State...

So let's do this... you tell me what evidence you will accept regarding actual vote totals.

You said in several towns more voted than there were registered voters. What towns were those? And can you provide a link to the certified results that support your theories?

Now again Glenn, I've never called you a name, yet you are once again doing it to me.

You said before you are a sinner and get tired of others calling you names and sometimes you respond in kind.

But I've never done so towards you, almost always addressing you by name.

Why do you continue to do that, at least to me?

Duckys here said...

Glenn, can you go over the reasons why Roman Catholics aren't Christians?

What about Quakers and Unitarians?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Ducky,

I didn't say Catholics aren't Christians. I said the Roman Catholic organization is not Christian. Read my blog articles under the label "Roman Catholicism" and you'll have my answer as to why.

Unitarians do not believe in the triune God - which is a non-negotiable doctrine. It is a heresy. And Unitarians are also addressed on my blog. They have no real standard belief - it's willy-nilly.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - "...the triune God..."

Funny.

When Yaweh revealed himself to Abram/Abraham, the father of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, he didn't mention anything about being a "triume".

He declared Himself to be the One, True, God.

Don't you think he could have taken a moment to explain "Yeah, like I said, I'm the One True God. But there are really 3 of me,even though there is just 1 of me. Look, it's complicated. Here's the deal. I'm going to make a Great Nation of you, but you are going to horribly disappoint me. I know this, because I'm God. But I'm going to let you do it anyway. And then I'm going to kill you all and start all over. And you will disappoint me again. So I will send one third of myself to Earth, as a man, so that you can torture and kill him so that I can forgive you again, for what I already knew you would do before you did it. And then there is this other Holy Ghost/Spirit third of myself that does...I don't even know. Makes people "speak in tongues", "handle snakes" for no apparent reason, pretend to heal people in huge stadiums in return for millions of dollars. Even I don't know what's up with that."

Joe said...

XO: You are either ignorant or dishonest. The Hebrew word for God in Genesis is PLURAL. Back where I come from, plural indicates more than one.

The Father is not the Son and He is not the Holy Spirit, but He is God. The Son is not the Father and He is not the Holy Spirit, but He is God. The Holy Spirit is not the Father and He is not the Son, but He is God.

All through Scripture this principle is at work. It is clear to those who have discerning abilities. Just as the Bible says, those who don't believe consider themselves to be wise, therefore are fools.

None...absolutely none of what you wrote is the actual way it went down. But you'll never, ever get it, and we don't expect you to.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

Sorry, but the Christian faith from the beginning understood Jesus to be God the Son, and the Holy Spirit to also be God. Actually, Genesis 1 has God saying, "Let us make man in our image." Plurality.

I proved the Trinity by logic:
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/09/trinity-proven-by-logic.html
But you came up with bogus excuses to dismiss it.

Something to educate yourself with:

http://wwwjanishutchinson.blogspot.com/2014/01/god-and-trinity-part-i.html

http://souldevice.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/light-from-light-a-non-heretical-analogy-for-the-trinity/

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2013/02/why-the-trinity-is-so-important-in-the-first-place.html



Whether or not you agree with the Trinity is irrelevant because you are a proclaimed atheist. However, in the TRUE Christian faith, one needs to believe in the Trinity to be considered a TRUE Christian.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Ducky,

Sorry, I've been in Chicago area for a couple days and didn't get much of a chance at this.

Anyway, back to your question about Unitarians, here's an article I did about them on my blog, as to why they are a non-Christain cult:

http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/04/unitarian-universalist-association.html

As for Quakers, from my understanding from previous Quakers, there is a possibility of some being Christian while the organization itself is quite apostate with much mysticism involved.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - "The Father is not the Son and He is not the Holy Spirit, but He is God. The Son is not the Father and He is not the Holy Spirit, but He is God. The Holy Spirit is not the Father and He is not the Son, but He is God."

Because of the way that words work, none of that makes a lick of sense to anyone with over 32 brain cells.

Believe whatever nonsense you want. Just keep it to yourself.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - "... from my understanding from previous Quakers, there is a possibility of some being Christian..."

OH, how very generous and forgiving of you to bestow the label of Christianity on some Quakers.

I'm sure they will be much relieved having passed under your minimum threshold of Christian beliefs.

They can now proudly proclaim that they are Glenn E, Chatfield Approved Christians.

What an honor. After hundreds of years of assuming they were Christians and being accepted by everyone in the world as Christians, now they know for sure that they are Christians. At least some of them.

Thank you SO MUCH!!!

You pompous, prideful, self-important, judgmental fool.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - I think I'll just start referring to you as "Cotton Mather".

You probably think that's a compliment.

It isn't.

Joe said...

XO: I am a brain surgeon. Would you like me to operate and remove the blood clot in your brain?

I have never so much as seen a real brain outside of a skull (or inside, for that matter), but I have labeled myself a brain surgeon, therefore I am a brain surgeon.

Does your logic EVER work in a straight line?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Believe whatever nonsense you want. Just keep it to yourself.

This is downright laughable. The atheists spew evolutionist nonsense, the homosexual agenda, "global warming," etc, etc, but want us to keep our beliefs to ourselves!!!

Stinking hypocrites!

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

You pompous, prideful, self-important, judgmental fool.

Says the clown who claims to know what is or is not true Christianity. Look in the mirror when you say that, X.O.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - "The atheists spew evolutionist nonsense, the homosexual agenda, "global warming," etc, etc, but want us to keep our beliefs to ourselves!!!"

Evolution is not a belief, it is a fact supported by every single shred of scientific evidence.

Global Warming (or more accurately Climate Change) is not a belief, it is a fact supported by ebery shred of scientific evidence.

What you call "the homosexual agenda" is not a belief, is a Constitutional matter of equal rights and equal protection under the law.

Whereas your beliefs, are a lot of ancient, bronze age, superstitious mumbo-jumbo that spawns hatred, ignorance and bigotry. Those of us who live in the 21st century are no longer inclined to tolerate such behavior.

The Culture War is over Glenn. We won. And now it's full steam ahead.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - "Says the clown who claims to know what is or is not true Christianity"

Dude, I don't know or care what "true Christianity" is. That is your fetishistic obsession.

As far as I'm concerned they are all nuts and I don't want them passing any laws about anything.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.
Not one iota of actual, factual evidence has been found for evolution. All you evolutionists have are assertions, speculations and assumptions.

Climate change has been happening for thousands of years as the earth goes through cycles - mankind can do nothing to affect it.

The homosexual agenda was never constitutional until liberal judges twisted the Constitution beyond recognition. again, legal doesn't make right. Quit forcing your morality on the rest of us sane people.

The culture war may be over, with the USA the loser, but we will win in the end when your ilk is removed from the earth.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

You don't want Christians passing laws, but atheists passing laws is okay. HYPOCRITE.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. = "Not one iota of actual, factual evidence has been found for evolution."

Your stupidity and willful ignorance are so astounding that I'm left ALMOST speechless.

Have you ever wondered why the medical professionals encourage you to get a flu shot every flu season?

That's because the flu virus EVOLVES to resist the existing flu vaccines?

Evolution is real and we can see it occurring.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

Have you ever wondered why the medical professionals encourage you to get a flu shot every flu season?

That's because the flu virus EVOLVES to resist the existing flu vaccines?

Evolution is real and we can see it occurring.


Oh this is rich! This is called adaptation, or micro-evolution, and has nothing to do with molecules to man. Talk about rank ignorance of the subject!!!!

Try this for an elementary level education about the impossibility of evolution;
https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/probability/does-evolution-have-a-chance/

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - I'm not wasting my time clicking on anything at "Answers in Genesis" because their are no answers in Genesis, only bronze age fairy tales. I've read their literature and the level of complete and total ignorance and stupidity is just astounding. Self-delusional idiots.

But I'm going to go ahead and assume that the link had something to do with their tired old argument that no species has ever evolved into another species.

Which is not true.

We know, through fossil evidence, biology and DNA analysis that our modern birds are direct descendants of prehistoric dinosaurs.

They evolved, over millions of years, from one species into another.

The same is true of marine mammals (such as whales, dolphins, seals, walrus', etc.) which evolved from land mammals.

The scientific evidence is overwhelming. The "Biblical evidence" is laughable.