Chris Kimball Gets Biblical Concepts Wrong - Introduction

"Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." - Matthew 15:14 (Chris Kimball/Facebook)

I debated Chris Kimball in April 2020. She made statements against President Trump and his supporters that were provably false. She was motivated purely by her anti-Trump emotions.

This was a semi-religious thread, as the thread starter consistently posted religious-themed posts.

Chris Kimball pushed the narrative that President Trump was an "anti-Christ". She proceeded to insult those of us who support him. I'm a Trump hat wearing Trump supporter. I didn't recognize myself, nor other Trump supporters, in her description of us.

I back him based on the facts that I've gathered from two main interests. The first one is on my being a news junkie since 1982. The second one is on my being a history junkie since 1979. Get knee-deep involved with current events and history-related information gathering and you'll be bound to notice patterns in the facts. Not just any patterns, but predictable patterns.

Add to this my experiences from a quarter of a century, cumulative, worth of military service and you have someone that's naturally conservative. In the military, there's a heavy emphasis on basing information on the facts. Not just on any amount of the facts, but an extensive amount of the facts. The success of the mission, even people's lives, depends on this.

This is a reason why most veterans, of the old military, lean conservative. Now, there are other people, who are conservative, who don't have military service under their belt. Many similar factors that lead service members to being conservative exist elsewhere.

Conservatives share a common trait. This includes pursuing the complete set of facts, detecting a pattern in these facts, and finding cycles that repeat themselves in both history and current events. This habit leads people to being conservative.

So, when Chris Kimball argued that we "loved" our "anti-Christ", she implied that we were the opposite of who we truly are. She implied that we blindly followed emotion and not fact and that we followed President Trump out of "cult of personality".

This further implied that what belief she held, regarding President Trump and the issues that we debated, was "factual". If only we "saw" things "her way", we'd break from that "cult of personality hypnosis.

This, of course, was Chris Kimball demonstrating narcissism, control issues, and anger issues. In order for us to abandon the conservative argument, in favor of the one that Chris Kimball et al embraced, we would have to abandon fact, reason, and logic. We would have to vote against our conscience.

We refuse to do that. However, people like Chris Kimball refuse to see things from that perspective. They'd rather we go against our conscience and vote for politicians that we disagree with. They want us to vote for politicians who would push for policies that we disagree with if it means that they get their way.

The next series of posts represent our argument. The last three posts are my counter rebuttal to her rebuttal to me... What she would've read had she not blocked me. This act showed me that she knew, deep down inside, that she had no argument. Her blocking me was her attempting to regain control in a situation she was losing control in... An indication that she subconsciously knew that she got destroyed in the debate.

As usual, I didn't edit the opposition's writing. Chris Kimball's comments are as she typed them during the debate.

Chris Kimball Gets Biblical Concepts Wrong - Part I

Chris Kimball: Jeffrey Line They love their ANTI Christ. You ain't gonna change their TUNNEL vision.

The "Anti-Christ", as defined in the letters of the Apostles that follow the Book of Acts, is someone who doesn't believe in Jesus Christ. "Belief", based on the context of a reading of the entire Bible, means "doing" in addition to "knowing". Ergo, you believe in Jesus Christ by walking the walk with regards to his gospels. By logical extension, not walking the walk with regards to the gospels is equivalent to not believing in Jesus.

Jeffrey Line bore false witness by claiming that the President declared himself "God". Your posts, regarding President Trump, also bears false witness against the President. It also bears false witness against those of us who support President Trump as it suggests "cult of personality".

It erroneously shows us as "blindly following". It ignores reality...  We support him because we agree with most of his policies. Your assumptions also imply that we're driven by emotion with regards to information. That assumption blinds the left to the fact that we'll support what's grounded by fact and reject what we could prove wrong.

These opinions against us violate the commandment against bearing false witness. Additionally, the false image that you guys push, of the president and of us by extension, represents "theft".

Those who don't know us, hearing your description of us, will have a false image of who we really are. This effectively steals who we actually are in your audience's minds. This violates the commandment against theft.

Now, our parents raised us to not say things about others, bad things, that are not true. Both you guys did that, which is a violation of the commandment regarding honoring parents.

A violation of any of the commandments is a violation of the first commandment.

You guys were driven by a combination of emotions to say what you guys said against the President. During ancient times, a deity represented each of our emotions. By acting according to these emotions, people "did the bidding" of these emotions.

A reading of the Bible shows that "worship" means "doing the bidding of". By following these emotions, by saying false things about the President, and by broadcasting false assumptions about us, you guys "did the bidding" of these emotions..." In effect "having strange gods before God". 

By going against these commandments, you guys went against Jesus's instruction to "Love God with your heart, mind, and soul", as well as loving your neighbor. You love God by abiding with the first through fourth commandments. You love your neighbor by abiding with the fifth through tenth commandments.

Hence, you went against Jesus's teachings... effectively turning yourself into the antichrist. By doing the bidding of your emotions, you guys did what you guys wanted to do, effectively declaring yourselves "gods" in God's presence.

Chris Kimball Gets Biblical Concepts Wrong - Part II

Chris Kimball: [Name redacted] you take what you want from the Bible and turn it into how you want it to work for you, 

I read the entire Bible from cover to cover more than once. What I've mentioned above is based on reading the whole Bible in context. I'm not turning it around to say what I want it to say. If you were to read the entire Bible from cover to cover, more than once, you too would see what I'm arguing.

No twisting around, just letting folk know what's actually said and meant in the Bible.

For example, the bit about Barabbas, and wanting him released instead of Jesus. Barabbas is freed and Jesus is turned over to be crucified. Those who haven't read the entire Bible up to that point, or even just the first five books of the Bible, would miss what's going on with this scene.

The Book of Leviticus prescribes the sacrifice that's needed to atone for the sins of a nation. In the Gospel of John, the high priest declares that Jesus would be sacrificed for the nation. In Leviticus, two goats are presented in sacrifice for a group or nation. One is released, with the sins of the nation transformed onto it (scapegoat). The other one is sacrificed.

Barabbas means "Son of God". His first name was Jesus. Which means we have Jesus who identified himself as "Son of God", and another Jesus whose actual last name meant "Son of God". Both symbolize the two goats mentioned in Leviticus when it comes to sacrificing for the nation. Barabbas became the scapegoat and Jesus became the sacrificial lamb.

Bottom line? Reading the whole Bible provides a different understanding of what Christianity is about... Than what one would get just attending church on Sundays.

I'm simply telling it like it is, giving it to you straight based on a simple reading of the Bible.

Chris Kimball:  so you can look like your so Holy. 

Nowhere did I claim, nor act, like I'm "holy". If anything, by accusing us of being "narrow-minded", you're implying that you're "not narrow-minded", ergo, "made holy of being narrowminded".

Again, based on a reading of the Bible... "To make holy" means to purge what's not desirable. A good example of this is cleaning up with regards to the new coronavirus. There's a meme going around talking about how to thoroughly clean and disinfect. The Bible describes this same process as "to hollow out" or "to make holy".

As used in the Bible, for example, the temple court was "hallowed out" to make room for more sacrificial alters.

Back to your case. You spoke of President Trump as "the antichrist" and spoke of us as "narrowminded". Without advancing proof of this argument, you're implying that you're "not" narrowminded... aka, you are "hallowed out" of "narrowmindedness".

Through your actions, you're the one that's portraying yourself, indirectly, as "being holy".

Chris Kimball:  I've seen enough of you fake Christians, so don't preach to me about religion.

First, your actions on this thread are inconsistent with God's laws, as mentioned in the Old Testament. They're also inconsistent with Jesus's teachings, as mentioned in the New Testament. I've explained one way that you've violated God's laws, and Jesus's teachings, above.

You're using your opinion, based on a lack of understanding of scripture, to define what a real Christian is. Whether someone is a true or fake Christian depends on the consistency of their action with scripture. Walking the walk with regards to scripture is what a real Christian does.

Chris Kimball:  You have the same mentality as Trump, twist and turn things to defend your actions... 

This statement makes it blatantly obvious that you have not read the entire Bible. This also indicates that you don't truly understand the Bible. Contrary to statements about the Bible "not supposed to be read cover to cover", a reading of the entire Bible shows that each book builds on the previous books.

Context is important. If you read bits and pieces of the Bible, without reading the books and verses that precede the selected verses, you'd miss a lot of what that verse is truly talking about.

Second, the reality is that I will not jump into a debate against someone unless two conditions are simultaneously met:

1. I have extensive first hand, or studied/researched, knowledge on the topic...

2. Those that I argue against have little to no understanding of the topic that they're arguing

In this case, references to "declaring oneself as God" and "declaring someone as an antichrist".

I'm not twisting, distorting, or creating verbal "voodoo" to defend my position. The cold hard reality is that I'm advancing a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument against your factually deficient one.

For your part, you're using emotion-based opinion to describe how President Trump and I see and argue things. Like me, President Trump will argue based on the facts.

Chris Kimball: or blatantly deny what has been said!! 

I'm not denying the facts. I'm proving your argument wrong. Not accepting your invalid argument does not constitute a "denial" of a "fact" or "reality".

I've been debating against people on the left for over 16 years. I've yet to have one of them advance a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument. Instead, they, including you, have advanced emotion-based arguments. Your arguments are generally devoid of fact but rich in falsehoods and distortions.

Chris Kimball: Give me a BREAK!!!!

I don't give breaks to people who make erroneous assumptions about me and about my arguments.

I recognize your argument for what it is; the successful result of the media's propaganda efforts. One of my MOSs in the Army is Psychological Operations or PSYOP. One of PSYOP's duties, while deployed overseas, is counter-propaganda. The information sources that also advance your argument, along with the leftist (mainstream) media's reporting, are textbook propaganda.

Chris Kimball Gets Biblical Concepts Wrong - Part III

Chris Kimball: [Name redacted] wow what a lengthy comment! Long winded to try and make a point. 

I've lost count of how many times the opposition has complained about this. The reality is that when you guys complain about the length of my posts, you guys are protesting the fact that I completely demolished your arguments. Those on my side of the argument have seen the same type of replies and raved them.

Advancing a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument lends itself to being "lengthy". Your argument was full of fallacies and falsehoods. It required a "lengthy" reply to prove it wrong.

Chris Kimball: Bully for you!!!! 

Actually, you're projecting your own traits onto me. What I am seeing in your replies to me are a combination of excessive pride, desire for control, and anger. These are traits that bullies display. Each of these was also represented by deities in the ancient world; the god of pride, the god of control, and the god of wrath. These emotions actually cause you to do things counter to Scripture.

Chris Kimball: You certainly didn't have to waste your time Categorizing my comment. 

Nope, not wasting my time. It does not take long for me to generate these replies using speech to text software. This is one of my tactics. You're so thoroughly wrong in your argument that I have to address you point by point... To show you, and others, that you do not have an argument.

I will gladly exercise my right to debunk your argument point by point. Your protesting my doing this demonstrates your argument's lack of validity.

Chris Kimball: You think you know everything about the Bible and everyone else is Ignorant. 

Nowhere in any of my posts do I make that claim. Also, nowhere on the thread did I claim to know everything about the Bible. If that were the case, I would not have needed to read it more than once. I would not have any plans to read it again in its entirety in the future.

Your arguments, on the other hand, indicate someone that does not understand the Bible the way I understand it... Especially since the last time I read the Bible in its entirety was recent.

I base things on the facts. I look for a pattern in the facts. I make projections based on these patterns of fact. I also look at other people's actions. Your commentary on this thread shows little to no understanding of either meaning or context of the entirety of the Bible.

Chris Kimball: You don't know me or what my Religious beliefs are, or how many times I've read the Bible. 

All I need, to gauge your understanding of the Bible, is what you say regarding my understanding of it... As expressed on the thread of our argument. If you've read the Bible many times, you'd be able to do one of two things.

One, you'd be able to provide a real counter-argument with what you think are supporting scripture and explanation. Two, you would be in agreement with my own argument related to scripture. 

You've done neither. Instead, you denigrated my understanding of it by insinuating my being a "fake Christian".

A reading of the entire Bible, in context, shows a contradiction against leftist/liberal/Democratic philosophies. The philosophy of the Bible actually supports the conservative arguments and opposes the Democrat arguments. Someone on the left claiming to agree with what is in the Bible is like a slug claiming to agree to be sprinkled with salt.

If you've read the entire Bible, frequently, and understood what you've read, you would be in a state of cognitive dissonance holding the opinions that you argued.

Additionally, had you read the entire Bible; you would not have accused me of twisting things to fit my interpretation. You would be in agreement, or near agreement. However, you aren't in agreement, nor does your argument show an understanding of what is in its pages.

Chris Kimball: And really it's none of your business. 

It's "none of my business" because the reality is that your actions show that you either didn't read the Bible, read it but didn't understand it, or both.

Chris Kimball:  I don't have to defend my Christianity against yours. 

I'm not telling you that you are not a Christian. What I'm telling you is that your actions and arguments contradict scripture. You insinuated President Trump as being an "antichrist". That opens you up to being informed of what constitutes an "antichrist". By extension, that's my showing you how you're projecting your traits onto others.

Chris Kimball Gets Biblical Concepts Wrong - Part IV

Chris Kimball: I've seen it time and time again. People professing to be Christians. Taking scripture out of context and using it to defend un Christian acts. Lying and cheating and using Bible Verses to try and cover their actions. 

Judging by the arguments that you advance on this thread, and your reactions to my explanation of scripture, I highly doubt that you have read the Bible in its entirety. Or, if you had read it in its entirety, I highly doubt that you understood what you were reading.

Your actions are inconsistent with what is preached in Scripture.

There is a recurring theme, thread, that repeats itself throughout the Bible. That theme/concept, when followed into the New Testament, makes it easier to understand what the parables mean, and what the actions in the Bible actually mean. This theme/concept even runs through the Deuterocanonical Books... Books listed in the Catholic Bible but not in the Protestant one.

My explanations, during our argument, are consistent with this thread that runs throughout the Bible. None of what I explained above is "out of context", but rather, in the context of the message that keeps repeating itself from the beginning of Genesis until the end of Revelations.

You, with your insinuated "reading the Bible", have failed to explain your opinion that I "took the Bible out of context". Additionally, you failed to explain how others have taken the Bible out of context.

In fact, you have failed to address any of my arguments above. Your responses here are nothing but emotional defenses, emotional reactions, and emotional "rationalizations" of your position and of other people's actions.

These are defensive acts done by someone that is attempting to regain control in a situation where they have lost control in.

You have to prove that people are "lying and cheating" and "twisting Bible verses to cover their actions" before you could make those claims. Nowhere in our argument did you prove that. Nowhere on this thread have you demonstrated that I have done what you insinuated I've done.

Chris Kimball: I don't like fighting over religion or politics for that matter, 

If you don't like fighting over religion or politics, you would not have attacked President Trump as the antichrist. You most certainly wouldn't have responded to me.

However, by blocking me instead of having the integrity, honor, and character to receive my counter-response after you responded to me, your statement is self-serving... And false. The reality is that you don't want people to destroy your arguments. Especially if their argument leaves you without one.

Chris Kimball: but when it's trying to be pushed down my throat, I will defend both!! 

Calling President Trump "the antichrist" and referring to the rest of us that support him as "narrowminded" is you pushing your politics down our throats. Additionally, accepting blatant leftist propaganda against Trump as "Gospel", and pushing that, is you forcing your politics down my throat.

My "lengthy" replies to you is an example of my defending my politics against your attempt to shove your politics down my throat.

The reality is that what you are defending is an argument that your intellect is seeing is indefensible... But what your narcissism is seeing as "right" and that must be defended.

Chris Kimball: I will speak my mind like everyone else. 

And I will present a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument against someone's "speaking their mind" if it amounts to attacking President Trump and attacking Trump supporters based on erroneous assumptions. An attack against President Trump is an attack against a proxy for many of my arguments. An attack against a proxy for many of my arguments is an attack against me. Hence, I will "fight back". 

Chris Kimball Gets Biblical Concepts Wrong - Part V

Chris Kimball: I will not be an enabler! 

Then you wouldn't have responded to me in the first place. The fact that you did contradicts what you're trying to claim about your actions.

What you're really saying is that you will not resist the urge to do what you accuse others of doing... Forcing your politics and factually deficient arguments down people's throats. You will not sit back and refuse an opportunity to demonstrate anger, control, and narcissism issues.

Chris Kimball: So, you sir, go right ahead and try to bully all you want, but you won't bully me. 

Don't mistake my subjecting your argument to a blistering fact check scrutiny as my "being a bully". It isn't. However, your actions show that you're engaging in bullying. Your first response on the thread indicated such. You validated this with the remainder of your replies during the argument.

Chris Kimball: You really should try and be objective and less tunnel vision about Trump. 

You see, this is an example of you shoving your politics down peoples' throats.

I'm being objective and am basing my arguments on the facts. I will not debate a topic against the opposition unless I have extensive first-hand, or reading/researched, experience in the topic. My outlook on President Trump and on others is based on an extensive search of the facts.

Meaning, when people like you advance completely false statements, provably wrong statements, about President Trump, or about another topic, I'm going to prove the statements wrong. My doing so does not make me someone "with" "tunnel vision". It makes me somebody that is not susceptible to propaganda/gaslighting.

The reality? You, and others like you, are the ones that have tunnel vision on topics related to President Trump.

If you have read the Bible, as you implied, then you would be familiar with one of God's laws that requires a thorough investigation of claims against someone. You failed to do that would President Trump. I will demonstrate that below.

Chris Kimball: He says things(that his followers do not hear or see) and then denys he's said them. He's been video taped for heaven sake. He CAN'T deny it!!! So really, is he a trustworthy person? 

I've gone through the applicable transcripts of President Trump's speeches, and have read the statements on twitter and elsewhere. Additionally, I have seen some of the videos that you reference. Those videos are taken out of context. They cherry-pick those statements and force those cherry-picked statements to fit their propagandist narratives. However, when matched to what President Trump actually said, you get a completely different narrative.

I highly doubt that you have a sense of fairness to go through President Trump's actual speeches to see for yourself what he actually said. You would rather go by anti-Trump media, go by what they say, and fully accept their out of context/cherry-picked video content, as gospel.

Your insinuation, that anti-Trump media propaganda is "fact", given the availability of his actual statements providing a completely different narrative, demonstrates your narrowmindedness with regards to things related to President Trump.

Chris Kimball: Is this "TEXTBOOK PROPAGANDA"?

Yes, the videos and statements that you reference contain cherry-picked President Trump statements. The propagandists that created the videos you listened to selectively quoted President Trump in order to take him out of context and spew leftist propaganda.

We saw this in one of the briefings. A reporter tried to read back one of these out of context statements to the president. President Trump forced him to read his entire statement. When the reporter read President Trump's entire statement, the narrative completely changed from what the reporter initially pushed. President Trump responded by saying, "Thank you."

Again, one of my Army military occupational specialties is Psychological Operations (PSYOP). One of the things that PSYOP does overseas is counterpropaganda. What I did during our argument, as a private citizen/retired Soldier, is an example of what I would do if I were deployed as part of a psychological operations product and development team overseas when countering enemy propaganda.

Your references, based on your arguments, are textbook propaganda. Your argument is propaganda. You've advanced repeated leftist propaganda talking points and have failed to advance a valid argument showing how you've come to the erroneous conclusions that you've argued.