The Irony of moral opposition to Trump

[JonC]

The undeniable/unsolvable result (apart from voting for a pro-life candidate): to allow a baby murderer to hold the office of POTUS.

HankD

If the choice was to oppose God in order to do your best to prevent a baby murder from being elected, do you think your motives would outweigh the sin?

That is the question that many are facing. They view Trump's candidacy as one against God. People here need to stop encouraging them to vote "against God" in order to stand against a greater evil. Discuss the issues, but voting for the lesser evil is not the Christian answer. Voting for the candidate who you believe stands on a godly platform is the answer. If this is Trump, then so be it. If it is a third party candidate, then so be it. If it is Clinton, then read your Bible. But encouraging people to take a stand that they view as against godly principles is not what should be coming out of the people of God. It is disgraceful that politics have trumped (pun not really intended) Christ in the minds of so many believers. God first, politics second...even if the Democrat party wins the election.

 

[HankD]

In his movie Hillary's America Dinesh D'Souza makes a connection between Hillary, Margret Sanger, the Democratic Party, and Sanger's eugenics of "Birth Control" via abortion. The following is very inflammatory but he makes the connection to "black genocide" with the following statistics:

Despite similar population numbers, Hispanic women currently account for about 20% of all U.S. abortions, whereas African-American women account for 35%. From 1973 to 2012, abortion reduced the black population by 30%, and that doesn't even factor in all the children that would have been born to those aborted a generation ago. To put it bluntly, abortion has thinned the black community in ways the Ku Klux Klan could have only dreamed of.

http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_and_race/

Can't happen in America? Think again.

See Hillary's rave review of Margaret Sanger above.

Moderator(s) If too inflammatory, please remove...

HankD

 

[HankD]

If the choice was to oppose God in order to do your best to prevent a baby murder from being elected, do you think your motives would outweigh the sin?

That is the question that many are facing. They view Trump's candidacy as one against God. People here need to stop encouraging them to vote "against God" in order to stand against a greater evil. Discuss the issues, but voting for the lesser evil is not the Christian answer. Voting for the candidate who you believe stands on a godly platform is the answer. If this is Trump, then so be it. If it is a third party candidate, then so be it. If it is Clinton, then read your Bible. But encouraging people to take a stand that they view as against godly principles is not what should be coming out of the people of God. It is disgraceful that politics have trumped (pun not really intended) Christ in the minds of so many believers. God first, politics second...even if the Democrat party wins the election.

Suit yourself.

HankD

 

[StefanM]

If the choice was to oppose God in order to do your best to prevent a baby murder from being elected, do you think your motives would outweigh the sin?

That is the question that many are facing. They view Trump's candidacy as one against God. People here need to stop encouraging them to vote "against God" in order to stand against a greater evil. Discuss the issues, but voting for the lesser evil is not the Christian answer. Voting for the candidate who you believe stands on a godly platform is the answer. If this is Trump, then so be it. If it is a third party candidate, then so be it. If it is Clinton, then read your Bible. But encouraging people to take a stand that they view as against godly principles is not what should be coming out of the people of God. It is disgraceful that politics have trumped (pun not really intended) Christ in the minds of so many believers. God first, politics second...even if the Democrat party wins the election.

I couldn't agree more. Although I'm leaning toward Trump (probably 75%) instead of a third party, a person's conscience is very important. Pure pragmatism is an option, but not everyone has that sort of frame of mind.

What we can't take is a purely utilitarian approach. Abortion is very important, but for the sake of argument, we can recognize it's not completely determinative.

Who would vote for a candidate that would try to end abortion but would also make Christians be rounded up and executed? Hopefully no one. You'd try again in 4 years.

Regardless, one thing to consider is that even if Roe vs. Wade could be overturned (a worthy goal), the case wouldn't stop a single abortion. It would just throw the issue back to the states, where state laws in some states could stop abortions.

More liberal states are still going to have abortions, period--just like they had before Roe. The more conservative states have already been working to chip away at abortion laws (which would be reversed with a liberal court, to be sure), so the reduction in those states wouldn't be as many as one might think.

We would still have hundreds of thousands of abortions every year.

Yes, we should still work for an overturning of Roe, but it's not the prize we really want. That would require a SCOTUS decision to make abortion illegal (HIGHLY unlikely, as this was always a state issue prior to Roe, and overturning Roe would be inconsistent) or a Constitutional amendment (even more unlikely, due to the number of blue states). And a national law banning abortion would have a good chance of being rejected as unconstitutional.

 

[JonC]

I couldn't agree more. Although I'm leaning toward Trump (probably 75%) instead of a third party, a person's conscience is very important. Pure pragmatism is an option, but not everyone has that sort of frame of mind.

What we can't take is a purely utilitarian approach. Abortion is very important, but for the sake of argument, we can recognize it's not completely determinative.

Who would vote for a candidate that would try to end abortion but would also make Christians be rounded up and executed? Hopefully no one. You'd try again in 4 years.

Regardless, one thing to consider is that even if Roe vs. Wade could be overturned (a worthy goal), the case wouldn't stop a single abortion. It would just throw the issue back to the states, where state laws in some states could stop abortions.

More liberal states are still going to have abortions, period--just like they had before Roe. The more conservative states have already been working to chip away at abortion laws (which would be reversed with a liberal court, to be sure), so the reduction in those states wouldn't be as many as one might think.

We would still have hundreds of thousands of abortions every year.

Yes, we should still work for an overturning of Roe, but it's not the prize we really want. That would require a SCOTUS decision to make abortion illegal (HIGHLY unlikely, as this was always a state issue prior to Roe, and overturning Roe would be inconsistent) or a Constitutional amendment (even more unlikely, due to the number of blue states). And a national law banning abortion would have a good chance of being rejected as unconstitutional.

I agree completely (and I am also leaning towards Trump...at least 75%). While I do not like Trump, I do not view his platform as opposed to Christianity. The Democrat Party, on the other hand, has adopted the sins of Romans 1 as their platform.

What concerns me is the level to which culture and politics has entered into American Christianity. We can debate the issues, but we should never encourage a Christian to do something that he or she believes is disobedience towards God, even if it suits our political agendas. That point was quickly dismissed in my last post by a brother I know to be devoted to God's Word. I do not think this would have occurred outside of the political forum.

 

[JonC]

Suit yourself.

HankD

No, that's not suiting myself. It is obedience to God's command. We cannot encourage Christians to vote for Trump if they believe such a vote is in opposition to God. That is plain and simple, brother. We sin when we encourage others to sin (and it would be a sin to willfully act in in a manner we believe is in opposition to God).

We can go through Trumps platform, we can debate the issues, but we should never lead another into sin.

 

[Sapper Woody]

No, that's not suiting myself. It is obedience to God's command. We cannot encourage Christians to vote for Trump if they believe such a vote is in opposition to God. That is plain and simple, brother. We sin when we encourage others to sin (and it would be a sin to willfully act in in a manner we believe is in opposition to God).

We can go through Trumps platform, we can debate the issues, but we should never lead another into sin.

What's going on, though, is not people trying to convince others to vote against their conscience. It's an attempt to change their conscience, and thus vote their conscience in what that person views as right.



Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

 

[Baptist Believer]

You are off on the deep end of the pond there Jon.

No he's not. That's historical fact. You may not think it is relevant (I think it is), but it is something to seriously consider.

I never thought there would be a day when I would consider voting for a Clinton, but I would rather have Clinton is President than Trump.

Do you mind if the majority of Muslims entering America want Sharia as a way of life in the USA?

Where are you getting your facts?

I have atheist friends who point to the fact that almost all Christians want everyone else to follow Christ as proof that Christians are looking to take over the US by force and force everyone to convert by the edge of a sword. It's a stupid argument, but it is made. I know a number of Muslims - and former Muslims - who have/had the desire for everyone to follow the Quran, but that doesn't mean that they want to use force to convert anyone.

Further, what about the bulk of Muslims that have been living here a long time --some since birth who are in favor of Sharia instead of the U.S. Constitution?

What is your evidence?

 

[JonC]

What's going on, though, is not people trying to convince others to vote against their conscience. It's an attempt to change their conscience, and thus vote their conscience in what that person views as right.



Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

no, they are being told that not voting for Trump is voting for Clinton. It has been presented as a less of two evils choice, and when it is a moral choice that just doesn't cut it.

 

[StefanM]

What's going on, though, is not people trying to convince others to vote against their conscience. It's an attempt to change their conscience, and thus vote their conscience in what that person views as right.



Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

Not when one is personally insulted and bullied into voting for Trump. I've actually gone from a NotTrumper to a likely Trump voter, but what convinced me to change my mind wasn't the litany of insults and insinuations that I was a fool. When the ISSUES were addressed, I was able to weigh them. The insults were just demeaning and patronizing. They had the opposite effect. Had the issues not been so convincing, I would have become even more resolute in my desire to vote third-party.

 

[HankD]

No, that's not suiting myself. It is obedience to God's command. We cannot encourage Christians to vote for Trump if they believe such a vote is in opposition to God. That is plain and simple, brother. We sin when we encourage others to sin (and it would be a sin to willfully act in in a manner we believe is in opposition to God).

We can go through Trumps platform, we can debate the issues, but we should never lead another into sin.

OK Fine. You don't have to answer to me. I don't have to answer to you.

But we each have to answer to God.

HankD

 

[JonC]

OK Fine. You don't have to answer to me. I don't have to answer to you.

But we each have to answer to God.

HankD

But I don’t mind answering you. This is a debate forum and we have had good discussions in the past. You and I don’t really differ politically, but we seem poles apart on this issue (and this is a religious, not a political, issue). We don’t answer to each other, but we can at least examine how we stand in terms of Scripture.

Paul tells us in Romans 14 that whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. Our disagreement is over exactly this same thing. There are people who are being called out because they refuse to link themselves with Trump as they view his candidacy ungodly. The charge is that by virtue of their decision not to support what they deem ungodly, they are voting for Clinton. This is as foolish as encouraging immorality if necessary to an important end…like providing for your family in the case of the guilds of Thyatira (and the “Jezebel” whose false teachings were leading some astray). I am saying that it wrong to encourage someone to sin…period. You seem to disagree if that sin will help prevent Hillary Clinton from gaining office. Can you defend your position with Scripture?

 

[Calminian]

...Trump is an unrepentant immoral man.....

The irony here is Trump is actually more moral than those working to defeat him (including many Christians leaders speaking up now). Trump, with all his flaws, is fighting to get life-saving judges on the bench. Those trying to defeat him are helping Hillary put murderous judges on the bench (I personally believe abortion is murder). Hillary and the media are working hard to promote 3rd party candidates to sway Christians away. It appears to be working. They're much smarter than we are.

And please note, these nevertrumpers are not putting themselves on the line. No sir. They remain safe and comfy. They're risking others, like the unborn, like future generations, all in the name of conscience. I can't think of anything more cowardly than risking the life of the innocent to preserve one's own sense self-righteousness. Pride in its worst form. Sorry that's how I see it.

 

[Calminian]

What's going on, though, is not people trying to convince others to vote against their conscience. It's an attempt to change their conscience, and thus vote their conscience in what that person views as right.

I suppose what I'm actually trying to do is explain why opposing Trump should affect your conscience more than supporting him. I want people to follow their conscience and I want their conscience to lead them to Trump. His policies are very righteous. He himself has flaws such as failed marriages, but those don't disqualify him from public office.

Reagan was divorced, and even flip-flopped on abortion. Carter was a born again Southern Baptist Sunday School teacher. But that generation of Christians saw that Reagan's policies were more righteous than Carter's. They chose righteous policy over a righteous candidate. They were smart. We are not. We will accept wicked policies so long as the guy promoting them does it with "dignity" and doesn't offend us. We're a backwards foolish generation and we're about to pay a terrible price for it.

 

[HankD]

But I don’t mind answering you. This is a debate forum and we have had good discussions in the past. You and I don’t really differ politically, but we seem poles apart on this issue (and this is a religious, not a political, issue). We don’t answer to each other, but we can at least examine how we stand in terms of Scripture.

Paul tells us in Romans 14 that whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. Our disagreement is over exactly this same thing. There are people who are being called out because they refuse to link themselves with Trump as they view his candidacy ungodly. The charge is that by virtue of their decision not to support what they deem ungodly, they are voting for Clinton. This is as foolish as encouraging immorality if necessary to an important end…like providing for your family in the case of the guilds of Thyatira (and the “Jezebel” whose false teachings were leading some astray). I am saying that it wrong to encourage someone to sin…period. You seem to disagree if that sin will help prevent Hillary Clinton from gaining office. Can you defend your position with Scripture?

I am not encouraging anyone to sin.

James 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.


HankD

 

[JonC]

I am not encouraging anyone to sin.

Then you have my apologies, Hank. I mistook your position (perhaps by blending the surrounding dialogue into your post) to be that anything but a vote for Trump would be a vote for Clinton and a vote for abortion.

As I said before, I am leaning towards Trump. But I believe that we are responsible for our voices and will be held accountable for what we support. While I will not vote Democrat, I will probably decide about Trump during the debates.

What I will not do is urge someone to vote for Trump, or anyone else, just so that they are voting against Clinton. The opposing party is worth considering, of course, but it is not worth disobeying God (for those who view the situation in that manner) to defeat.

Again, it appears I've mistook your position and for that I am sorry. I also would never encourage a Christian to vote for a candidate they could not support with good conscience, nor would I suggest people cast a vote for such a party just as opposition to another. Sin does come out of the heart, out of people's desires. But we are also commanded not to be that stumbling block, not to be the vehicle of temptation to others. Sometimes politics becomes a game, but our faith shouldn't.

 

[Revmitchell]

The irony here is Trump is actually more moral than those working to defeat him (including many Christians leaders speaking up now). Trump, with all his flaws, is fighting to get life-saving judges on the bench. Those trying to defeat him are helping Hillary put murderous judges on the bench (I personally believe abortion is murder). Hillary and the media are working hard to promote 3rd party candidates to sway Christians away. It appears to be working. They're much smarter than we are.

And please note, these nevertrumpers are not putting themselves on the line. No sir. They remain safe and comfy. They're risking others, like the unborn, like future generations, all in the name of conscience. I can't think of anything more cowardly than risking the life of the innocent to preserve one's own sense self-righteousness. Pride in its worst form. Sorry that's how I see it.

One does not become "more moral" because of what others do.

 

[HankD]

Then you have my apologies, Hank. I mistook your position (perhaps by blending the surrounding dialogue into your post) to be that anything but a vote for Trump would be a vote for Clinton and a vote for abortion.

As I said before, I am leaning towards Trump. But I believe that we are responsible for our voices and will be held accountable for what we support. While I will not vote Democrat, I will probably decide about Trump during the debates.

What I will not do is urge someone to vote for Trump, or anyone else, just so that they are voting against Clinton. The opposing party is worth considering, of course, but it is not worth disobeying God (for those who view the situation in that manner) to defeat.

Again, it appears I've mistook your position and for that I am sorry. I also would never encourage a Christian to vote for a candidate they could not support with good conscience, nor would I suggest people cast a vote for such a party just as opposition to another. Sin does come out of the heart, out of people's desires. But we are also commanded not to be that stumbling block, not to be the vehicle of temptation to others. Sometimes politics becomes a game, but our faith shouldn't.

Of course doulos, I would never encourage anyone to sin. My apologies for being unclear.
We are all "in the same boat" this time around as it appears that we must choose the lesser of 2 (at least) evils.

My primary position is and always has been pro-life. Trump? well, he has in the past been pro-choice, now he has "evolved" to pro-life.

I believe he has (in his latest evolution) adopted a qualified pro-life position (exceptions - incest, etc.).

Hillary - no comment. There is no question where she stands.

Hopefully, no matter who is elected abortion will by God's grace and for the well-being of our nation become a States Rights issue and be defeated in all states.

I believe God would be pleased if we become a pro-life nation again.
We can all pray for that result even though abortion was forced upon us as a nation.

Abortion was forced upon us by the SCOTUS in 1973 without a popular referendum.
We were NEVER EVEN ASKED to legalize the murder of babies.
It has run its course through both DEM and REP administrations - still legal.
With a majority pro-life SCOTUS justices it can be overturned.


HankD

 

[Baptist Believer]

Trump? well, he has in the past been pro-choice, now he has "evolved" to pro-life.

I believe he has (in his latest evolution) adopted a qualified pro-life position (exceptions - incest, etc.).

So is he allegedly pro-life or not? If he adds exceptions other than the life of the mother, he's not terribly pro-life.

Abortion was forced upon us by the SCOTUS in 1973 without a popular referendum.

Let's be careful how we state things. Abortion was not "forced upon us" by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that a woman has a right to privacy and that under that right to privacy she may choose to terminate a pregnancy. Women are not "forced" to have abortions under Roe v. Wade.

I oppose Roe v. Wade, so we must not give those who support it an opportunity to dismiss our arguments by misrepresenting what it actually is.

We were NEVER EVEN ASKED to legalize the murder of babies.
It has run its course through both DEM and REP administrations - still legal.

In matters of civil rights upheld (or established) by the Supreme Court, there are no votes.

With a majority pro-life SCOTUS justices it can be overturned.

I hope so. However, that won't stop abortion. I'm sure you agree, we need to build a pro-life culture to slow the destruction of the unborn. Unfortunately for many who hold to current "conservative" ideology, that means more cultural supports for women who bring their children to term, as well as for the multitudes of children who will be born in less than ideal circumstances.

 

[StefanM]

I hope so. However, that won't stop abortion. I'm sure you agree, we need to build a pro-life culture to slow the destruction of the unborn. Unfortunately for many who hold to current "conservative" ideology, that means more cultural supports for women who bring their children to term, as well as for the multitudes of children who will be born in less than ideal circumstances.

It may very well involve more "welfare" or "entitlements," but I think that's a cost worth paying to stop abortion.