Donald Trump accepts Christ

[blessedwife318]

Apparently Dobson is now walking back the story. And it was Word of Faith preacher Paula White is led who "led" him to Christ. Of course someone like Trump would love the prosperity gospel since it makes him out to have God's favor on his life with his money.
http://theresurgent.com/james-dobson-walks-back-the-story-of-trumps-conversion/


Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[InTheLight]

My pastor has a saying that reflects how a lot of people think about Jesus. I imagine Donald Trump would have the same idea

"If I can just get Jesus on board with what I'm doing here, there will be nothing stopping me."

 

[Smyth]

Yes, I do too. However, that still doesn't make him a good Presidential candidate.

Saying Trump doesn't make a good presidential candidate is like saying the guy who ran against Hitler didn't make a good presidential candidate. We're at a tipping point in history. The Supreme Court has 4 left-wing Activists, and Hillary will try to make it 5 for absolute control.

 

[Darrell C]

Six Hour Warning

Some time after 12am Pacific, this thread will be closed.

If you could just give me a little bit of time to respond to the recent posts that would be appreciated. The issues being discussed here are, in my view, of great importance. This is the same kind of reasoning which allowed for many Christians to feel justified for voting for Obama.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Pure foolishness and clearly viewed through a political veil. SHAME ON YOU!

Nothing political about it, Zaac. Its just a fact that Hillary Clinton will continue in the same course Obama has taken the country, and that is a clear and present danger we can combat.

After all the stuff that Donald Trump has said and done,to purport that the only evil to be combated is that coming from Hillary Clinton, is one of the reasons why perhaps Christians need to be quiet.

Okay...what has he said, what has he done?

So far I have been told he is a failure as a business man, and that he wants to kill women and children.

Lets compare his record with Obama's:

Has he hurt the US Economy, as Obama has? Has he literally supported the deaths of women and children as the President has?

Christians do not need to be quiet, they need to speak up about the evil of Obama's administration. He is the poster boy for abortion, homosexuality, government strongarming, government takeover of the private sector, Islamic sympathy. Just to name a few.

And all the while...claiming to be a Christian.

And you believe that, don't you?

Better a secular President that we know is not a Christian than the solf in sheep's clothing in there now, and the wolf that is seeking to fill his role when he's gone.

Again more foolishness. The same God who would be on His throne during a Trump administration would be on His throne during a Clinton administration.

Just tell me how you can possibly see Trump as worse than Hillary Clinton?

Give me the reasons.

And can't nobody stem the tide of sin but HIM.

Who do you think He uses in combating evil, Zaac?

Are you not aware that He works through the Church?

What do you think would happen in this Country if all pro-life efforts came to a halt? What would happen if the Church refused to voice their opinion in regards to sin?

You are right, only He can stem the tide, but, you are leaving out His work through His Church.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Highlights, because our posts have become one-post-per-page....

Highlights, cherry-picking, who's counting...

A third-party vote indicates a disinterest in the issues? Au contraire, mein freund. A third-party vote is cast based on that individual's interest in particular issues, that they perhaps disagree with the primary candidates on. So once again, I'm relegated to saying: it is *only* the non-vote that is wasted.

Again, your reasoning avoids the facts: do you really think that a third party vote will get a thrid party elected?

I've asked you this before, yet no answer.

I will put this question by itself so a complaint of length cannot be employed.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Sources for verification, please. It's also painfully obvious that you don't have any numbers about how many voters were influenced by this propaganda.

Unlike you, whose numbers were wrong.

Go figure.

But we can disregard Trump's prior record, right? Irony, thy name is Darrell....

No, Don, we don't dismiss anything.

But what is it that you see in Trump that is anywhere near Clinton?

You are the one dismissing elements that are critical.

And your propaganda will further the Obama Nation of Desolation.




Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

As my eighth-grade English teacher used to say: "Uh, wrong." The reason it's wrong? Because even if they'd originally intended to vote, and they decide not to (one of the four options given), then the final tally is still based on the number of people who voted.

And that is why, again...your math is wrong.

Because at this point in time the factors remain unknown. Your propaganda will change the factors. And when I say your propaganda, I am referring to all propaganda that will impact the vote.

Consider an orchard, the owner is counting on having ten trucks of oranges to take to market. One of his workers, upset with him, decides to sabotage the orchard, and covertly sets about to destroy his fruit.

Do the efforts of the worker impact the final tally?

So think back to what your Math teacher taught you, not your English teacher.

Not people who didn't vote, not people who intended to vote, not people who looked wistful and said, "I've heard of a vote." You can't quantify or count an "intention."

I can for at least 12% of Sanders' voters.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Third, you are dismissing the impact of propaganda and how that impacts the election, as though it is a non-issue. It isn't, Don

Um, no, I'm not. How that last voter votes is based on a multitude of factors, as I've previously indicated. Whether the propaganda has influenced them; whether additional facts have come forward; whether their eyesight is dim and they mark the wrong box -- all of those are indicated by which choice that person makes, which is one of the four options I identified. ALL of your supposed "overlooked factors" are addressed by the options that last voter has; BUT, the only quantifiable measure is which of the four options the voter chooses. And then the math comes into play, and quantifies the results.

Again, you are dismissing the reason why they cast their vote the way they do.

All that matters, you say here, is when they actually step into the box and cast that vote.

At this point, whether you don't realize it, or simply don't want to admit it, you're just talking past me.

On the contrary, I have addressed your rationalizations.

You are not going to change the fact that propaganda impacts the vote. You are not going to change the fact that deciding to stay home is going to change the vote. You are not going to change the fact that a third-party vote serves only to ease the conscience of the third party voter.

You can ignore the facts, you can dismiss the facts, but you are not going to change the facts.

The "facts" you employ have already been seen...to change.


Continued...

 

[Rolfe]

If you could just give me a little bit of time to respond to the recent posts that would be appreciated.

*laugh*

 

[Darrell C]

Fourth, you are assuming that not all Democrats are going to vote Democrat. Now I ask you, if a Democrat is being convinced that "Obama's policies are just weak but Trump's are radical," do you really dismiss this a preceding factor in the math and the solution?

Yes, I'm assuming that not all democrats are going to vote democrat. I provided you the reason for that in a later paragraph. It is illogical to assume that all democrats are going to vote democrat. Take, for example, Oklahoma: there are over 2,000,000 registered voters in that state. Generally, the state is pretty evenly divided: 43.6% republican, 43.5% democrat. Yet, in the last presidential election, Romney took 66.77% of the vote. How do you explain that without stating that democrats voted for him rather than Obama? And don't even try to say "all the democrats stayed home," because I know democrats in that state, and I can tell you, that wasn't the reason.

So your basis is the media and statistics. Great.

And you know some Democrats in Oklahoma, so you can say that it is impossible that they stayed home. This cannot be a factor.

Based on knowing a few Democrats? Great reasoning process you have there Don. I know a few Republicans in Maine, want me to let you know how the the other millions of Republicans in Maine are going to vote?

Not at all. It merely reinforces that you didn't have a clue that Sanders supporters had stated support for Trump as opposed to Clinton. All you had to do here was say, "gee, I didn't know that."

Because I don't rely on media and statistics, both of which manipulate factors and issues for their own purposes?

That's not what I would call a contrast between ignorance and knowledge of facts, I would call it a contrast between not buying into propaganda and taking it hook, line, and sinker.

Good luck with that, Don.

Continued...

 

[Rolfe]

Continued...

Darrell, I do not mean this as an insult, but there is a point when people will not read comments because they are excessive. Brevity, man, brevity...

Cheers.

 

[Don]

So your basis is the media and statistics. Great.

Those statistics are actual voting percentages. Sorry, but you don't get to dismiss facts.

And you know some Democrats in Oklahoma, so you can say that it is impossible that they stayed home. This cannot be a factor.
Based on knowing a few Democrats? Great reasoning process you have there Don. I know a few Republicans in Maine, want me to let you know how the the other millions of Republicans in Maine are going to vote?

That's your refutation of facts? And you expect people to take you seriously?

Because I don't rely on media and statistics, both of which manipulate factors and issues for their own purposes?
That's not what I would call a contrast between ignorance and knowledge of facts, I would call it a contrast between not buying into propaganda and taking it hook, line, and sinker.
Good luck with that, Don.
Continued...

I present you actual voting percentages, and you dismiss them -- because they don't support your narrative.

You're willfully ignorant, Darrell.

There's no need to continue. You're not worth this much effort.

 

[Baptist Believer]

That's because some of us realize what a disaster she would be as a president.

She won’t be great, but she will be better than Trump.

She will continue the advances Obama has made for various liberal agendas and the saddest part of this is...there are "Christians" who are going to vote for her.

And why?

Because there are Christians who are not so blinded by their hatred for Ms. Clinton that they can see that Mr. Trump is a menace to the Constitution and Christendom. He claims he wants to “help” Christians - explicitly violating the separation of church and state - which historically has been a disaster for the church. He wants to use the power of government to restrict activities of persons who adhere to an Islamic faith/tradition, which directly contradicts the intent of our Founders who specifically called out Muslims in their advocacy of religious liberty.

Why would anyone think it's okay to advance Islam, homosexuality, and abortion?

Ad hominem, false accusation and red herring.

As far as being frightened, that is true. It frightens me on a number of levels, the most serious being that many of these "Christians" are not Christians, they have been deceived by the world and are in full support of Satan's Agenda.

Ad hominem and false accusation.

It's your way of life as well.

His way of life is not mine. I am a Christian, a constitutionalist, and do not have a long history of being sued for fraud. I also have not spun up multiple businesses, filed for bankruptcy and left others holding the bills. I did have a business go bad, but we shut it down and paid our bills on time so that we were the only ones who lost money.

[Added to provide context for what comes below: “I oppose Islam but I do not oppose religious liberty. I do not advocate using the sword to restrict Islam, nor treat people differently on the basis of their religious heritage.”]

My, how fabulously magnanimous of you.

No, that is the Christian position and a Baptist position. I am astounded that you claim to be both Christian and Baptist and them oppose that position.

Was it religious heritage that drove two planes into the Twin Towers?

Nope. It was hatred and the desire for power, bolstered by a radical version of Islam. Religious liberty does not give sanction to criminal activity.

Is it religious liberty heritage that stood many Christians on a beach and cut their heads off?

Your sentence doesn’t make sense. Terrorists have killed many people, Muslims and Christians. Religious liberty does not give sanction to criminal activity.

Is it religious heritage that has seen the deaths of, according to the last stats I looked at in May, has killed 350 Christians because they were...Christians?

Obviously not. ISIS has killed many more Muslims than Christians, because they want people who will be compliant to their agenda. ISIS is not mainstream Islam at all.

Again, you don't know how silly you sound. That is not ad hominen (and we will get to that shortly), that is just a simple fact.

You are expressing an opinion, not fact, that has been formed out of ignorance and propaganda. The fact that what I say may sound foolish to you has no bearing on whether or not it is true. You need to consider that you may be profoundly wrong.

Let me tell you why: our Religious Heritage as Americans has always stood on the premise that forced religion is wrong.

Yes.

Islam's religious heritage has always, from day one, stood on the premise of convert or die. World domination has always been the goal of Islam, and it still is.

That is a caricature, but Muhammad lived in a time when religion was used in that way (and it has through most ages of human history), and he merely appropriated that into his views.

The Roman Catholic Church and a number of Christian groups also used the power of the state to persecute those who did not fit their molds. This is a very old problem.

Radical Islam is an issue, but Islam itself is not a grave threat to our existence.

What you are saying is that you are willing to let people die, because you fear to impinge on their religious liberties.

That is insane.

Uh, no. You really don’t get it or else you are willingly trying to lay a false charge.

What you are advocating is religious persecution against people who are Muslim - whether or not they have any intention of harming anyone else - simply because you are afraid that they might be/become radicalized.

That’s actually a pretty good formula for creating radical Muslims - persecution radicalizes people.

You and Mr. Trump are wrongheadedly tossing aside the wisdom of the Constitution to make the problem worse - with the side effect of undermining religious freedom for everyone else.

YOUR NEXT POST - I pointed out how skilled you were in the use of the ad hominem and you responded:

Its not ad hominem, it is simply a statement of fact. You don't really want to argue psycho-babble with me, my friend…

It’s not “psycho-babble” it is a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are common irrational arguments used in discourse that are not valid, or off topic, that are used to try to manipulate others. It is imperative for Christians to avoid logical fallacies when presenting rational arguments (just like Jesus did) because the use of them reveals that what you say is either invalid, dishonest, or both invalid and dishonest in the way it is presented.

Debaters tend to use logical fallacies all of the time because it is a cheap and easy way to manipulate the audience with technique instead of presenting knowledge and truth.

I am stunned that you think it is “psycho-babble.” Since you are unfamiliar with it, I suggested reading up on it if you aspire to represent Christ before others. Here’s a poster of some of the major ones. Here is a more comprehensive list.

...because you are not even of the level of the average atheist in debate...

You intended that as an insult, but I am quite pleased that you noticed. You don’t really know how good of a debater I am since I am NOT debating you. I don’t debate people anymore because debates are about “winning” arguments and ego, not discovering truth. I believe in persuasion, but not manipulation. I believe in helping people think, not telling them what to think. I believe the teaching of Jesus is true, so I just need to present that as helpfully and clearly as possible. Defeating someone in a debate does not make them a convert - it hardens them. “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” My job is not to harden people, but to work in concert with the Spirit for the kingdom.

...so employing their defense tactics will, I assure you...not go very well for you.

Noting your logical fallacies is not an “atheist” tactic anymore than having breakfast every morning is an “atheist” ritual. Over thousands of years, thinkers have recognized a number of logical fallacies and have pointed them out to each other. It is part of the philosophical search for truth. Of course, reason can also be employed in rebellion against God, but not without violating those logical fallacies.

Learning about logical fallacies is one of the most valuable training you can have as a thought leader. Please check into it.

Also, I don’t appreciate your threat, “I assure you...not go very well for you.” Anyone who has a trained mind can see right through you novel-like missives. They are full of hot air and accusations. While people may get tired of responding, you have not won anything except a battle of endurance.

You are a fan of Obama's policy, and...you are a supporter of his policies.

Massive ad hominem. Two lies for the price of one!

That includes Abortion, Homosexuality, and the rise of Islam.

Massive ad hominem. Three lies in a row!

Apparently you spend your time finding negative things to say about Trump, digging through propaganda…

Ad hominem. I really don’t. The things I know about Trump I have found on HIS website and from his speeches - in context. He is spouting propaganda, but I’m getting it from the source.

…so you can help support Obama's policies…

Ad hominem. You really want to paint me as an Obama supporter! Do you somehow thing that will make what you say more true? I do not support Obama or his policies, and I never have.

...which will no doubt be carried on through hillary Clinton.

The Clintons have been more centrist than Obama, but I’m not looking forward to another Clinton Presidency.

The saddest thing is that you are not even aware that you are doing so.

That saddest thing is that you may actually believe the lies you are telling.

Continued...

I have to go to work now and won’t have time to respond to any more of your foolishness for awhile. If you decide to respond, take note of what I have said. Stop the ad hominems and the false accusations and maybe we can have a good discussion.

 

[Baptist Believer]

If you could just give me a little bit of time to respond to the recent posts that would be appreciated.

If he wants to shut down this thread, I'm fine with it. My ego is not tied to having the last word or patiently responding to false accusations.

Darrell, your responds are essentially accusations combined with logical fallacies. Occasionally you make a point worth discussing. I posted a couple of links to lists of logical fallacies for your to review. For the sake of Christ, I urge you to end the personal attacks and logical fallacies in your posts. I think you have some good things to contribute, but they get lost in all of the junk.

 

[Darrell C]

Consider, Darrell: I had the option of giving you only the first part (the 20%); I could have simply left off the 8% number, and let it go at that. But I gave you both pieces. Draw your own conclusion.

How magnanimous of you: "I had the option of manipulating the facts."

That's what you're saying, Don.

Now...why would you think that 8% is a realistic factor? What's it going to be after all the mud-slinging?

Appreciate the clarification.

Now if I could just get you to realize the rest is clarification as well...

What is not logical is not doing everything you can to crush the Scorpion before he gets the chance to sting. We knew Obama would be bad for this country, yet here he is in his second term.
But you are going to overlook the fact that Trump is a wildcard, whereas, like Obama...Hillary Clinton is already known for what she is, and that she is going to strike is just a matter of time.
You have no logical basis for, first, presuming that Trump is going to hurt rather than help, and secondly...to overlook that fact that Clinton will further Liberal Agendas, and worse...
...seek to establish a "legacy" of her own which she thinks compares to the "Great Legacy" Obama leaves behind.
We have the perfect model for insanity in this.

Let's see: You previously said that we only have to look at a candidate's record to know how they'll behave; but "Trump is a wildcard," so that doesn't apply to him. That's the same argument the fox used....

It's a false argument, Don. I have been clear that I do not see Trump as a viable candidate because he is a Christian, noble, or potentially even a good President.

What I have said is that our chances are much better with him as President than with Hillary Clinton.

The Fox in the henhouse, or the Fox in the field, lol.

The difference I do see is that Hillary and Obama have both been exposed to the Gospel, and have rejected it. We don't know that about Trump. Anyone that pronounces 1 Corinthians as One Conrinthians has likely never spent too much time around people discussing Scripture.

Secondly, again...you are presuming Trump will be harmful, yet what do you base this on?

Video clips? Enemies of Trump in the business world?

Propaganda?

Yet you know Hillary is evil from a spiritual perspective. You know, or at least should know, that she has made her decision, and tries to give the impression that she is Christian.

And if you don't know that third party votes will likely be wasted in the effort to keep Clinton out of office, then I feel very sorry for you.

Those who usually vote democrat are going to vote democrat, Don, despite your "facts." For them its a matter of principle just as it is for those of us that dread her becoming President. There's something in it for them.

One of the factors we haven't discussed is that she is the first viable candidate as the first female President. She is going to gain votes simply by being a woman.

The bottom line is that we can be fairly certain that Clinton and Trump will be the only two who can likely garner enough votes to win, so we either cast that vote for Trump or we will see Clinton take the win. There is no other viable candidate for people who usually vote democrat. There is no third party that will garner votes away from Clinton that I know of. If you know of someone, let me know.


Continued...

 

[Baptist Believer]

Saying Trump doesn't make a good presidential candidate is like saying the guy who ran against Hitler didn't make a good presidential candidate. We're at a tipping point in history. The Supreme Court has 4 left-wing Activists, and Hillary will try to make it 5 for absolute control.

If you are going to pull out the Hitler analogy, Trump fits the pattern quite nicely. As I pointed out to Darrell, he's worried about who will be on the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. I'm worried that we won't have a Constitution in a few years.

 

[Darrell C]

Where your argument fails to persuade me, Darrell, is that you're asking me to choose between two scorpions....

On the contrary, I am asking you to step on the scorpion in your reach.

You don't seem to understand that.

(sigh) My apologies....

Its okay, Don, that why we're here.

No, Don, my declaration of your vote as wasted on a third party candidate is simply fact.

No, Darrell; your declaration is pure speculation. You hope Trump will be different, and you hope he will support the Christian agenda, and you hope he'll do something about abortion...but your only assurance is that he'll be held accountable by his political party members. The only way that he'll be held accountable is by not being re-elected. In the meantime, four years....

I asked you before...what third party has won an election, and not been considered to have contributed to the loss of another party?

Where's your "facts" on that, Don?



Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Prove to me that Trump will be anything other than a President that claims to be a Christian that is deceiving Christians into believing it is okay to be a Christian and support Abortion, homsexuality, and tolerance. Just yesterday, he walked back his stance about not allowing muslims to immigrate into this country; now it's "muslims coming from countries with known terrorist ties." And I need more than just rhetoric and speeches; show me his actions that support your stance.

What does Trump "claiming to be a Christian" have to do with anything, Don? We know he is not.

We know where we stand with Trump, and I think he knows where he stands with Christians.

And how is that even remotely relevant to the fact that Obama and Clinton will let terrorists through the front door under a guise of tolerance?

Trump has been clear in his Foreign Policy...yet you nor some here promoting Clinton seem to understand the difference in his position to that of Obama and Clinton, and what that means for this country, and for Christians.

He doesn't have to be a Christian to have a positive influence on Foreign Policy. If he maintains a traditional American stance, which he ha already said he would do, then that is a step in the right direction for Christianity as a whole.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Irony, thy name is Darrell.

It's not irony, Don...you are speculating.

Again.

Allow me to "spin" the paragraph again, to clarify my position, using the tenets of accuracy, brevity, and clarity:
Clinton and Trump are equal threats to the First Amendment.

That's not clarification, Don...that's walking back your stance.

But okay, if you refuse to acknowledge that you see Clinton only as a potential threat if she follows Obama's course...fine.

But the public record shows your statement is now different than it was when orignally stated, just as your "facts" changed within a few posts. I am guessing you googled your resource/s and had to walk back those facts as well.

And that is what your Math is built upon, and it is wrong, and it is going to help put Hillary Clinton in Office.


Continued...