Featured Donald Trump accepts Christ

It seems you fail to consider within your logic that another possible conclusion exists that one could be merely embracing some of the better values rather than what you seem to be suggesting has to be “embracing evil”? Now, that said, how about taking it a little further and adding a little additional logic, concerning an avoidable error in which something good is eliminated when trying to get rid of something bad, into the balance of reason:

When confronted with the moral dilemma to distinguish between right and wrong it is wise to consider that throwing out the baby with the bathwater fails to make that distinction.

You might also want to recognize, that Paul says that in the context of not being a stumblingblock for those that are weak, or lacking the knowledge toward a truth, by making them go against their conscience, he does not say nor does the scripture imply that the one having that knowledge should not work to inform them of the truth. On the contrary when comparing scripture we see we are often told not only to speak the truth but of the goal to grow in knowledge.

 

Being secondhand information is clearly stated in the interview of Dobson:

Dobson: "There are a lot of people ministering to him personally. ... He did accept a relationship with Christ. I know the person who led him to Christ. And that’s fairly recent."

"How recent?" asked Anthony, clearly surprised and encouraged by Dobson's statement.

"I don’t know when it was, but it has not been long," replied Dobson. "

 

ITL's point of it being secondhand info was concerning my question:

"I'm wondering if anyone sees the Dr. Dobson's broadcasting of another's (Trump's) personal experiences as rather rude and possibly even gossipy?"

What do you think?

 

I agree with liar and I can understand fraud - I don't know if she is or not. I am mystified as to why you are calling her a "baboon." Is that just a random Trumpesque insult or were you going for the word "buffoon"?

Excuse me, but Mr. Trump is certainly a liar and a fraud. He's not a baboon, but he acts like a buffoon. And you're okay voting for him? At least Ms. Clinton has not taken a position against religious liberty and freedom of the press. Mr. Trump is opposed to the First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights logically follows from the First Amendment.

Normally I wouldn't cast a vote in Ms. Clinton's direction, but there is actually someone much worse than her as the opposing candidate. I am not actually supporting Ms. Clinton as much as I am trying to preserve our nation by keeping power of of the hands of Mr. Trump.

 

Ms. Clinton is more centrist than Obama, so that part of your analysis fails in my opinion. She is much more "establishment" which means that she would be inclined to conserve the Bill of Rights. In that sense, she is far more conservative than Trump.

So Trump has told us what he wants us to do and we should ignore it? Why should I reward the person who campaigns on destroying the Bill of Rights in favor of one who has a lot of reason NOT to destroy the Bill of Rights?

That's corruption, not anti-Constitutional.

I agree that she is a threat to the Second Amendment, but the Second Amendment flows out of the First Amendment. If Trump is not planning to retain the First Amendment, what makes you think he is interested is retaining the Second? His own position has flip-flopped according to political expediency. Why am I supposed to trust him?

That is essentially irrelevant in this election for both major candidates. Neither one of him have held a more conservative position. Moreover, Republican Presidents have done nothing about abortion in 36 years. Trump is not really interested in protecting life and he treats women like playthings. Why would he want to outlaw abortion?

Thank you for the kindness of your attitude in your appeal. The First Amendment issue is the biggest issue to me, but Trump is also quite incompetent in political matters and his character is so flawed I cannot trust him to act sanely on behalf of our nation. Ms. Clinton's character is not good, but she will actually listen to the counsel of wiser persons. It is clear that Trump does not.

 

I mean, for all we know Trump believes in his heart that he had already accepted a relationship with Christ and is now merely experiencing personal growing in knowledge. The "claim to fame" or "accomplishment" Dr. Dobson seems to be broadcasting could be quite judgmental and based on his personal preferences of what line Trump must cross to pass his personal test and I tend to believe out of line being it is a private matter.

 

It still seems you are begging the question that one has to "uphold evil" to uphold that which you value as good?

For instance, if Trump were to begin deporting 11+ million illegal aliens, not that I believe he would or even intends to, well, I have some neighbors, a mother and 3 young men, that come here at 2, 4, 6 years old that I feel a surrogate father to and I feel to force them back to a land and culture they do not even know would be evil. Not only do I not support this evil but would go to great extents to stop it.

OTOH, if Trump were to put Supreme Court Justices in office who ended up talking away the ability of people to cancel the right to life of the unborn I would consider that value good and I would go to great extents to support it.

What my vote does is put into place those values that I may support them. I see little or actually, not to sound unreasonable but when I think about it, "NO" values from the opposition worth my attention to support as good. So why shouldn't I work, provide the power of my vote, to uphold the only good that I see? What about the logic in my statement I stayed up late writing, haha?:

When confronted with the moral dilemma to distinguish between right and wrong it is wise to consider that throwing out the baby with the bathwater fails to make that distinction.

BTW,

...yes, I have a dry sense of satirical humor that gets put into my writings that is usually only for my own entertainment so it is good to see you caught the implication of assumption.

 

I could say exactly the same thing about you in your support for Trump.

I have explained my position based on what Trump has promised, not just general opinions about him. If you can't deal with that, I can't help you.

 

That may be true but if you have made the “choice” to abandon your party, or the only viable alternative to Hillary, then your “choice” was to give Hillary this advantage, some might consider that “choice” a “vote”…

…which holds true whether or that "choice" is disguised in a vote for an imaginary 3rd party

 

If one is only voting for the purpose to uphold the good values, how is that in opposition to God??? IMO, That is where you continue begging the question, and a problem, because of the reasoning that since there is evil in a candidate one must be upholding that evil in opposition to God rather than just in the purpose to support the good. Problem being, there has never been and will never be a perfect candidate for President so if the claim of upholding evil was true and in opposition to God, and unavoidable then by that logic of "supporting evil" would always have to be true to some extent and Christians should never vote. So much for any Christian influence in the electoral process...

You still haven't addressed the logic in my statement:

When confronted with the moral dilemma to distinguish between right and wrong it is wise to consider that throwing out the baby with the bathwater fails to make that distinction.