Supposing what you say, then, the 70 million v**es for Trump don't necessarily mean that 70 million people actually v**ed for Trump.

"...the instigators will let those they instigated pay for with months and years in prison. While they walk free to plan the next one..."

Yes.

The instigators try one thing after another. They manipulate other people. The instigators do it in such a way that they themselves are hard to hold to account.

Trump has the effect of an instigator.

Trump told Woodward and Costa, "I do bring rage out. I always have." (ref: _Rage_, by Bob Woodward, page xi)

Trump instigates.

He and his wing of the Republican Party have learned, and will instigate yet more effectively, each next time.

No, I have not "rejected Christ". Rather, _you_ have _said_ that I have "rejected Christ".

If I wanted to "reject Christ" then I could say so myself; I don't need you to say what I'm doing or not doing.

Most people, when they say "Christ" are referring to Jesus, so I'll assume you are. I've accepted some of Jesus's teaching, although for me that wasn't a big deal because my own parents taught me similar things anyway. Jesus might find that I've accepted him in the manner he wanted to be accepted, as contrasted to what "Christians" are doing.

But I don't really know that, and for me it's not a big deal.

Thanks for the interesting question. I'm mostly agnostic about God.

I'm somewhat like a humanist. But I went to a few humanist meetings, with one group of humanists I happened to know about. They were mostly atheists. It seemed like they were proud of being atheists, and they talked about how good atheists have been historically. I did not like that. Agnosticism makes more sense to me. I don't mind people being atheists, but it bugs me when they seem proud of it and talk about it a lot. I've known a lot of good people who _weren't_ atheists.

Also, I heard or read that humanists think humans are the highest life form, or the highest that we know about. But I don't like to put too much stock in that. So what if we're highest; and what if we discover some other higher life form; so what? Yeah sure we're pretty high "in the food chain", so to speak, but that still doesn't mean we're all that good anyway. And I want to respect lots of animals that aren't humans.

I am not a spokesperson for any group, especially not in a hostile forum like this one. So I am not going to identify exactly what kind of group I finally landed in. But I did find one which is close enough to how I think; and so, I can belong to a community without having to lie or be hypocritical or say things that I don't really believe or don't want to say.

So, it is possible to find such a group.

Whoever wants to find a religion, group, or organization that is a good fit, keep looking, don't expect a perfect fit, but do expect that you can be honest in it. Check online and read about as many different kinds of groups and organizations or religions as you can. And don't limit your search to just one major religion.

No, that would not be ludicrous, in an e******n in which we have to choose between Trump and Biden. Far from ludicrous, it would be a slam-dunk decision, and a lot of Biden's 77 million v**ers probably thought so too, just as I did.

If what you said and implied were true, THEN it might be ludicrous. What you said was "I see - so [we] were supposed to v**e for Biden after all the damage he has done, and still is, doing to this country??" You say (a) that Biden has done a lot of damage to this country; and you imply (b) that Trump hasn't.

- ~ = # $ @ $ # = ~ -

But even aside from all that, v**ers could reasonably v**e for Biden merely because he has lots of relevant experience for the job and he has a good character. Or, v**ers could reasonably v**e for Biden because he has demonstrated many years of working cooperatively with other people in government. Or, v**ers could reasonably hope _anyone_ other than Trump would be president, because Trump has a rotten character. Or even v**e against Trump because, after he told Woodward:

"It goes through air." That's always tougher than the touch. You don't have to touch things. Right? But the air, you just breathe the air and that's how it's passed. And so that's a very tricky one. That's a very delicate one. It's also more deadly than even your strenuous flus.",

then he told the American public:

“Now the Democrats are politicizing the c****av***s, you know that, right? C****av***s, they’re politicizing it. [...] And this is their new h**x.”

“We’ve had 11 deaths, and they’ve been largely old people who are — who were susceptible to what’s happening. Now, that would be the case, I assume, with a regular flu too. If somebody is old and in a weakened state or ill, they’re susceptible to the common flu too. You know, they were telling me just now that the common flu k**ls people and old people is sort of a target.”

“So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu. It averages between 27,000 and 70,000 per year. Nothing is shut down, life & the economy go on. At this moment there are 546 confirmed cases of C****aV***s, with 22 deaths. Think about that!”

“And we’re prepared, and we’re doing a great job with it. And it will go away. Just stay calm. It will go away.”

But infections and deaths from C***d in the U.S. were quite high, per million people, compared with those in other countries, and they continued to increase.

After a few hundred thousand deaths (if not sooner), v**ers might reasonably start thinking they've been mis-led by Trump, and for that reason decide to v**e for his opponent. I did.

Reasonable for me, "ludicrous" for you.

In America, people who think as you do are allowed to v**e.

References: _Rage_, by Bob Woodward, page xix; https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/timeline-of-trumps-c****-**-comments/

JR-57 wrote: "Verify sometimes? Good luck with that. Verify all the time."

Impossible.

Last time you shopped for groceries, did you "verify" that none of them was past its due date and that none of them had been poisoned?

When I shop for groceries, for packaged items I'm not already familiar with I tend to read about their ingredients. But of course I cannot verify that all the ingredient lists are true every time; for that I'd need a chemical lab to do an analysis.

When I rented a car, I spent 25 minutes reading all the fine print on the contract. That's a lot more than most people do (the clerk told me nobody else had ever read it -- though all sign it). But even with 25 minutes of reading, I could not verify that that particular contract was good and fair (for that I'd need an attorney on the spot), before I signed it. There wasn't time; I had places to go, which is why I was renting a car in the first place.

"Verify all the time." Yeah, sure; "Good luck with that."

I read the same article. Whether "l*****ts" "love" it or not, it expresses a serious concern by three senior military (or retired military) officials.

And, whether I'm "l*****t" or not, I can watch the video and sound compiled from what the r****rs took with their own smart phones, and can also hear and read what Trump said and says. What Trump said, says, did, & does, and what his followers say and do, is out there to see and hear, regardless of whether one is "l*****t" or "right-wing".

"Hitler['s] first attempt failed." I did read somewhere that successful c**ps often result from a sequence of c**p-like events. Now I think: There is a progression, all the way from disrespectful joking in the beginning, to worse and worse behavior, finally resulting in a successful o*******w of a government.

And of course there are millions of mis-led people involved in it.

As long as they (in particular, Trump) doesn't actually succeed in o*******wing the e******n or the government, they (or he) can always say they weren't really trying.

Trump can do a lot even if he were not to commit himself: all he has to do is (a) make lots and lots of snide remarks about his political opponents to foster increasing disrespect about them, and also say things like "you have to fight like hell" enough times, and his followers know what he wants and they do what he wants. And yet when pressed in court Trump can still say that "fight like hell" was political rhetoric that meant to write letters to the editors of local newspapers.

I think the parallel between Trump and Hitler is very apt.

There's a similar thing going on with guns. People can wave their guns around and hover over the Michigan legislature with their guns visible in the balcony, and claim they didn't mean to intimidate anybody, and claim they were just exercising their 1st and 2nd amendment rights. And yet the gun violence and death threats and murders keep increasing, encouraged by those Republicans who make it seem closer and closer to normal acceptable behavior to threaten people by pointing guns at them. And even when shootings are not deliberate, accidents are more likely to happen in such circumstances.

The k*****g of two people by Kyle Rittenhouse serves as an example. He showed up with a highly visible gun (at first not really intending to shoot anyone dead) and mingled in a crowd. Then he was afraid somebody else would get his gun. Then he shot one and then another. Somebody with sense would not have gone in their with a gun like that in the first place. But we have more and more politicians encouraging other people to do likewise. If one goes into a crowd with a gun like that, he ought to _expect_ that it increases the probability that someone's going to die. With Kyle R., two people were shot dead and a third was seriously maimed, by his gun. I didn't hear of any shots being fired except from Kyle R.'s gun. That kind of shooting with Kyle R.'s gun is what happens when you let dummies go anywhere with any kinds of guns (even into crowds of people).

I don't think your answer was very good. I listed three criteria and said that Christianity is the one that meets all three criteria. You replied as though I had said that it was unique in each criterion.

But what I had really hoped for was a logical and straightforward description of what's unique about Christianity from you without you having to resort to "Givens", and without me/us having to wade through pages of replies to find it or piece it together.

I see on page 4 that you say Jesus was unique and you indicated that his uniqueness implies that Christianity is unique. That's unsatisfying. It just shifts the uniqueness question from "Christianity" to "Jesus" (which, though related, is not the same subject) and, in that reply at least, you didn't say what makes Jesus unique either.

I've already spent hundreds of hours on Christianity, in Sunday schools, churches, and the Bible, and am not impressed with yet another person repeating the same assertions as though they were just given facts.

So now, if you think "Jesus" is the appropriate topic, I'll say what I think about Jesus and whether he's unique and how:

Jesus is one of a number of people who each either claimed to be the Messiah or were claimed (by others) to be the Messiah.

Aside from calling Jesus "the Messiah" Christians claim a few other things about Jesus, or about what "Messiah" means to them (not the same as what it meant to the Jews). Christians claim, for example: (1) that Jesus is immortal; (2) that he's uniquely God or part of God (and that no other human has that particular status that Jesus has; (3) that he did "miracles"; and (4) that "believing in" Jesus is essential to make the difference between burning in hell forever or being in Heaven forever.

(1) and (3) are not unique claims. _Autobiography of a Yogi_, for example, makes similar claims about other people.

(2) and (4) are hard to distinguish from mere attitudes in the claimers.

For _me_ Jesus and Christianity were unique in that they were all I knew of religion when I was small. I happened to have been born into that religious heritage instead of some other one.

As for me, I don't have much use for (1), (2), (3), nor (4). I believe Jesus was a great teacher, a great man, and a great historical figure; he might be worth as much if he were a fictional character that people think was real. I don't think Jesus ever said "worship me", and he probably would not want to be worshiped as a god.

Jesus being a great teacher is what really matters. It would all amount to the same thing, or better, if there were no (1), (2), (3), nor (4). I do not believe that a real Supreme Being would behave the way Christians claim God does (for example, with Hell). There are some similarities between my concept of a Supreme Being and the Christian one; I think a Supreme Being would be ultimately forgiving, and that's somewhat like Christianity's assertion that God is merciful. But this is not unique to Christianity.

Christianity was put upon me, including its concept of Hell, way back when I was very young. After decades of living, I find that Christians aren't any better than other people, and they don't behave better in the world. Christian church pastors have some good qualities, and many Christians have some good qualities, but these are not unique to Christianity.

I have some relatives who are very Christian, and I can see they benefit a lot from their church, but that's not unique to Christianity.

I am fed up with the decades of being talked at as though Christianity were the only valid religion, as though the only valid thing one could do is accept it all as "Given", not to be questioned, when after all the only thing that makes the vast majority of Christians Christians is that they just happened to have been born into that religious tradition instead of some other one.

Most Christians don't appear to have given serious attention to reading the Bible although they tell people it's the Word of God. They commit to it before reading it. That doesn't make any sense to me. For them to expect the rest of us to do likewise is just wrong. As for me I did eventually read the Bible (straight through -- it took me a long time, way longer than a year to finish it) and, while there are some interesting things about it, I don't have any reason to suppose it's unique (other than that some people simply _say_ it is -- including some people who haven't even read it). And reading it didn't change my mind about anything important.

Some Christians appear to think that the threat of hellfire and the various other things in Christianity (some of which I listed above as (1) through (4)) are necessary to make us behave well. I don't believe that at all! In a speech by Martin Luther King (Jr.), of which I chanced to hear a recording decades after he gave it, I heard him say that some people love because they expect a reward for it, while other people love because it's lovely to love. What I (RobertX8Y) think is that when we truly love it is because that's part of our nature and we have the sense to care about others; and it doesn't take a religion to do that; in fact sometimes religions (including Christianity) get in the way.

That's probably enough for now, if anyone actually read that far. I have some holiday things coming up so I may not be able to keep up with the discussions on OPP.

I had asked two (2) questions.

Why should I spend so much effort (I've already done enough) to answer _his_ question when he spends so much less energy answering mine?

For anyone who might be interested, I thought of an additional thing, which I think distinguishes mainstream Christianity from other mainstream religions. (I won't say it's totally unique in this respect, but it does seem to have a peculiar emphasis on it.). Christianity is the one which spends the most time and effort proclaiming _itself_ as the _only_ worthy religion, and spends the most time and effort saying that all others are wrong.

This is my opinion. I don't have any certification or college degree about religion.

A few millennia ago, the Israelites were like that (emphasizing that they have the _only_ worthy religion/god, and emphasizing that others are wrong), as seen in the book of Joshua. But in later millennia Christianity is the main one placing great emphasis on itself as the _only_ worthy religion and on saying all _others_ are wrong.

Some people in some other mainstream religions might think such things, but they don't seem nearly so vocal, adamant, and condescending about it, compared with how the Christians are.

I used the word "mainstream" carefully. The Taliban (for example) may be a kind of Muslim but I don't regard them as mainstream Muslim.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/20420186/order-granting-motion-to-dismiss-statement-of-contest-1.pdf

No of course I would not like to be tried, etc. That's one of the reasons I make an honest effort to follow the law (mostly) (especially the more important ones) (I do allow myself to exceed the speed limit on the freeway sometimes, so I'm not absolute about all laws.).

When or if I _do_ end up being tried in a court (which I already know might not be fair to me), I hope to be ready to lose (or win) with a clear conscience.

The problem is not just the jurors. The problem is also with the person they're trying.

You include this phrase: "who stated publicly that you are guilty and should be shot?" apparently believing that some Congresspeople have said that about Trump.

What has _Trump_ been saying during this and earlier years? (Has he said anything like that some people are guilty, or that they should be shot?) What have his supporters been saying? Sometimes we just have to get someone into court to testify under oath, and we need to find out whether their apparent intent to subvert our government is real and prosecutable. Trump's not the only entity here who needs to be respected. The rest of us all count too.

It's many Republicans in Congress (House and Senate) who have corrupted these trials or investigations about Trump. That's why the _other_ people in Congress have to keep trying to get a real trial to happen. I haven't heard Trump testify under oath in any of these trials in Congress yet, have you?

Ok, my bad. So you're a Libertarian.

"...I converse with God nearly every day.. and I am afflicted with many doubts and find many contradictions in the Bible.. It is a load for me to carry.. But my God is a merciful God and hope for my acceptance by him remains high.. "

"doubts": That makes sense to me.

"a load": Right.

"my God is a merciful God and hope for my acceptance by him remains high.. " Three cheers for that!

I reluctantly admit that there is something which I call God or a god.

I don't know very much about that entity (and maybe hardly anybody else does either).

I could even be wrong that there is one. (_Of_course_ I could be wrong; that's always a possibility; humans are sometimes insane or fooled or ignorant -- or maybe most humans are usually all three at once.)

But if there is one, then I think your description of it is good ("a merciful God") and I think he/she/it will "accept" you.

The government, under all administrations, is a whole big mixture of more reliable and less reliable things. One needs to discern among them, to decide how much to trust each part.

And, of course it can change between one administration and the next.

The government is not the only thing to be suspicious about. Business corporations are another thing to be suspicious about. And there's yet more. There are lots of things to be suspicious about. Discern. Trust judiciously, distrust judicially, verify sometimes.