Donald Trump accepts Christ

[JonC]

Let’s take this a bit further than we now stand.

Whether he actually said it or not, Luke Notaras is probably best remembered for the phrase “Better the Sultan’s turban than the Pope’s mitre.”

Bridging the centuries between Notaras and Amalric only as an illustration (exercise?), which would you choose:

When we look at the lesser of two evils, would you cast your support behind a moderate Islamic rule that considered Christians as second-class citizens and advanced Islam but afforded them religious freedoms (at a cost), or would you lend your support to an oppressive pseudo-Christian government and pick up the call “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius”?

 

[Benjamin]

My personal logic is that it is wrong to stand against God regardless as to the severity of the stand. Embracing one evil to overthrow another is still embracing evil.

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.

I understand your logic against my “talking people into” actions against their conscious, and while I do lean towards your suggestion that it would be better to address those false ideas upon which that conscience was built,
...
I also have to recognize that Scripture teaches exactly the opposite. Paul, for example, would refrain from eating meat offered to idols out of concern for the conscience of others. Note, he does not say to emphasize his words that idols are nothing and Christians may freely eat. He says to watch out for these brethren.

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.

 

[evangelist6589]

Yep. And Dobson is getting his news secondhand.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

Proof?

 

[Benjamin]

Proof?

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. "

 

[evangelist6589]

It 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. "

It may be true it may be false. Lets just hope that he did accept Christ and is one of the elect that God will grow unto holiness.

 

[Benjamin]

It may be true it may be false. Lets just hope that he did accept Christ and is one of the elect that God will grow unto holiness.

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?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Excuse me?????? I disagree because Clinton is a liar, a fraud, and a baboon.

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"?

Yet you would vote for someone like this?

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.

A neutral position is a vote for Clinton, and a vote for Clinton should be unheard of amongst Christians.

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.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I would ask you to re-examine your opinion. If Clinton follows the same strategy as Obama, then there is as much threat to the First Amendment as there is by 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.

Trump is just more obvious.

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?

Her actions regarding her personal email server, and the reasons she had it set up, are proof of this.

That's corruption, not anti-Constitutional.

Clinton is also a serious threat to the Second and other amendments.

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?

Clinton is also a staunch advocate for abortion, same sex rights and privileges, etc.

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?

So if your position hinges on the First Amendment, I ask you to please consider in whole, not just in part.

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.

 

[Benjamin]

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 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.

 

[JonC]

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.

Yes, Brother. That is precisely what I am doing here. Speaking the truth while trying not to be a stumbling block in order that we may grow in knowledge.

While I do mean that sincerely, I also mean it a bit “tongue in cheek” (I hope you don’t take offense, I just saw a bit of humor in the remark). Although we seem to be discussing contemporary moral issues more than a decision of whether to vote for Trump (I personally do not see a vote for Trump as immoral), I am enjoying our conversation, Benjamin.

In principle the “lesser of two evils” argument depends on the situation. I think this obvious. In warfare, this is engaged when a decision is made to sacrifice innocent lives in an operation designed to end conflict and bloodshed. In our culture this “lesser of two evils” is engrained in the movement to legalize drugs (and probably in the decision to keep those drugs illegal). I think this can be seen in the arguments of Ethan Nadelmann and James Wilson regarding the morality of using these substances. In a sense, this argument is also related to the "greater good" choices we may make daily. Perhaps even opportunity costs that we take for granted (and perhaps make selfishly). But none of this is what we are discussing.

The issue (IMHO) for the believer becomes the moment both evils are deemed an affront to God (as evil against God, a sin, rather than merely an “evil” against man). What I am talking about is if it is right to stand against God in order to combat what we consider a greater evil. While I do not believe our political atmosphere is at this point, my answer remains “no”. We cannot uphold one evil in order to subdue another…IF that “evil” is truly evil (if it is against God).

 

[Benjamin]

The issue (IMHO) for the believer becomes the moment oth evils are deemed an affront to God (as evil against God, a sin, rather than merely an “evil” against man). What I am talking about is if it is right to stand against God in order to combat what we consider a greater evil. While I do not believe our political atmosphere is at this point, my answer remains “no”. We cannot uphold one evil in order to subdue another…IF that “evil” is truly evil (if it is against God).

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,

While I do mean that sincerely, I also mean it a bit “tongue in cheek” (I hope you don’t take offense, I just saw a bit of humor in the remark).

...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.

 

[JonC]

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

No, brother. I don't think that you read my reply. I am not "begging the question" but questioning the principle. I am not talking about what voting against something I "value as good" but true opposition against God.

I do not see this as a cut and dry situation in this election. But so many here have suggested, erroneously, that a vote for anyone but Trump is a vote for Hillary. In truth, it is not. I am afraid that far too many people are too nearsighted when it comes to politics to recognize exactly what a registered but un-cast vote, or a vote for a third party candidate with little chance to be elected, could mean in the future. But more than that, I am afraid that one day we will have "Christians" supporting evil under the guise of a "lesser evil" and a "greater good". It is unfortunate.

 

[evangelist6589]

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.

Excuse me??? What planet are you from? I mean really????? You would vote for Clinton????

 

[evangelist6589]

Oh for the love of the rabbit perhaps I should not have started this political thread!!

 

[Baptist Believer]

Excuse me??? What planet are you from? I mean really????? You would vote for Clinton????

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.

 

[Benjamin]

Actually, in order to be voting for Mrs. Clinton, one would have to actually vote for her.

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”…

...By voting for a third party, you are voting for that third party member - not Mrs. Clinton.

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

 

[Benjamin]

No, brother. I don't think that you read my reply. I am not "begging the question" but questioning the principle. I am not talking about what voting against something I "value as good" but true opposition against God.

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.

 

[evangelist6589]

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.

Oh I've had a belly full.

 

[JonC]

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.

Again, I do not believe this to be begging the question but questioning the principle. Many Germans who supported the Nazi government did not do so in order to facilitate the murder of millions of people. They did it for the purpose of upholding what they considered good values. When we choose to cast our vote in favor of a platform, then we are supporting that platform as a whole - not just the things that we like - because our vote facilitates (or intends, at least, to facilitate) the election of one person standing for one platform (not just the parts we like).

I am not saying "toss the baby out with the bathwater". Politics is compromise, and when we vote we typically compromise. What I am saying is that we are responsible for that compromise that we affirm. We cannot, as you seem to suggest, simply claim that we are not responsible for something if we have thrown our voice behind that thing. Although compromise may mean supporting some things that I do not want to support, it is not necessarily supporting evil (as I've defined, sin against God). My comment was and is that casting our voice in opposition to God is never justified even if it is to prevent what we consider a greater evil.

And yes, this could mean that a Christian cannot vote for the two top runners in an election. When faced with the moral dilemma to distinguish between right and wrong we should always consider that throwing out the baby with the bathwater may fail to make that distinction. But we would also be wise to consider that sometimes that distinction is only made by tossing the tub.

 

[annsni]

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”…

See, I don't see Mr. Trump as being a "viable alternative". I don't see either candidate as being viable.

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

Imaginary?