The Irony of moral opposition to Trump

[StefanM]

Well, if we believe that life begins at conception, I would have no problem from day 1

The problem is the basis for legal recognition. Does a woman who miscarries 3 times get to claim three dependents in one tax year? Who certifies the pregnancy?

Would we need an IRS Form BA-BY?

I just think that legal personhood is going to bring an avalanche of lawsuits from the left.

 

[Zaac]

There's nothing wrong with opposing evil rulers. We see examples of them in the Bible, beheading Christians and sacrificing Babies to the gods, etc.. But now, in this modern Church generation in America, we're seeing a massive moral outrage toward candidate Donald Trump. "Anyone but him!!" The irony is truly amazing.

Trump doesn't do any of the above evils mentioned, in fact, he's the only viable candidate that is promising to literally put "life-saving" justices on the Supreme Court. He's provided a lift of candidate anyone can look at. On the other hand, Hillary is promising to put murdering justices on the bench. Yes, I believe the murder of the unborn is a holocaust that's been going on way too long on out country. It's a stench in God's nostrils.

Think about this for a moment. Biblical qualifications for a governing authority are probably best outlined in Romans 13. They are very narrow, but very important. Punish evil and minister to the innocent. It's a difficult but simple job. If Trump loses, we will have the most liberal supreme court ever in our nation's history. They have no mercy at all on the unborn, and are hostile to most Christian values. I have 5 kids that this deeply disturbs me. If it has to be, it has to be, but what's more bothersome is the fact that the modern Church, in the name of morality, may play a huge role in bringing this about.

Why? Why are they so opposed to DJT? Is it because he's advocating murder, beheadings, etc.? No. The chest beating detractors are screaming that he's too vulgar. He fights back too much. He doesn't turn the other cheek! LOL. Oh God, help this lost generation.

Other's will cry, "But he's not truly a Christian!" The truth is, we've likely never had a Christian president apart from perhaps Jimmy Carter. Yet, the Church of the 80s rejected him for Ronald Reagan. Reagan was a former liberal (a flip flopper on abortion) and a divorced man. But the church saw he was better on policy than Carter, the Southern Baptist Sunday School teacher. So they elected Reagan. Thank God!

This generation? I really hope they're that smart. If they continue to be foolish, like they're promising to do, thinking they're making a conscience vote, God help us. They're literally advocating for an increase of murder and many other evils.

Good polling came out today for Trump, so I'm hopeful. But let's put this notion to rest, once and for all. A vote for anyone else but Trump, including a non-vote, is a vote for evil. You're conscience should be seared not relieved. Blood will literally be on your hands.

This continued foolishness of looking at abortion as some sort of measuring stick of worthiness is silly.

Evangelicals en masse supported a man for President in 2012 who rejects Jesus Christ. We are now adding our support behind an adulterous, anti-character of Christ man. And the world is supposed to take us seriously about abortion when we continue to show no love for the One to whom the immorality of abortion is measured?

 

[StefanM]

This continued foolishness of looking at abortion as some sort of measuring stick of worthiness is silly.

Evangelicals en masse supported a man for President in 2012 who rejects Jesus Christ. We are now adding our support behind an adulterous, anti-character of Christ man. And the world is supposed to take us seriously about abortion when we continue to show no love for the One to whom the immorality of abortion is measured?

It's not a measuring stick of worthiness. It's a measuring stick of policy. We aren't dealing with Israelite monarchs or prophets or Levitical priests. We aren't dealing with apostles, pastors, or deacons.

We're dealing with policy.

 

[Revmitchell]

The problem is the basis for legal recognition. Does a woman who miscarries 3 times get to claim three dependents in one tax year? Who certifies the pregnancy?

I don't think it is reasonable to consider how it effects taxes first in order to determine if we should recognize an unborn child as a person. We should first determine (as if there is really any question) whether or not the unborn child is a person then we worry about how that effects taxes. After all this is a matter of life and death.

 

[Zaac]

It's not a measuring stick of worthiness. It's a measuring stick of policy. We aren't dealing with Israelite monarchs or prophets or Levitical priests. We aren't dealing with apostles, pastors, or deacons.

We're dealing with policy.

We're dealing with policy, morality and immorality. The SCOTUS just happened to have made legal what God had already given folks the right to do.

In accordance with God's word, from which so many of our laws are derived, "I have the right to do anything," you say--but not everything is beneficial. "I have the right to do anything"--but I will not be mastered by anything. 1 Cor. 6:12

That of course in no way means that God approves of abortion.

It does however point to the primary reason Christians take issue with abortion is because it's a moral issue and our laws go against God's position

 

[StefanM]

I don't think it is reasonable to consider how it effects taxes first in order to determine if we should recognize an unborn child as a person. We should first determine (as if there is really any question) whether or not the unborn child is a person then we worry about how that effects taxes. After all this is a matter of life and death.

I'm not saying that it's the priority. I'm saying it would be the attack point of the left. You don't have to establish full legal personhood to outlaw abortion.

 

[Revmitchell]

I'm not saying that it's the priority. I'm saying it would be the attack point of the left. You don't have to establish full legal personhood to outlaw abortion.

It is just the right thing to do.

 

[StefanM]

It is just the right thing to do.

I'm not sure whether it's right or wrong, as personhood isn't an ontological term; it's a legal concept.

I would argue that you could use the term "human life" to the same effect. It wouldn't have to imply a legal status of "person" but would recognize that you don't have the right to take the life.

 

[Revmitchell]

I'm not sure whether it's right or wrong, as personhood isn't an ontological term; it's a legal concept.

I am

 

[carpro]

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.


What is your evidence?

The evidence is in the Quran. If they "follow it", they will advocatete force for conversion. Period. If they don't advocate "force", then they don't follow the Quran. But they are lying to themselves. It's a violent backwards tribalistic heathen religion.

 

[StefanM]

I am

That's your right, and I understand the sentiment. I was just thinking from a legal perspective in terms of what "revenge" might be taken.

I would also fear that legal personhood could be the foundation for reversing at least part of any reversal of Roe v. Wade. The lawsuits that would swarm could be innumerable, and one might stick.

It's most important to stop abortion first, I agree. Then we can debate the best ways to ensure respect for human life without jeopardizing the progress we will have made.

But I do hope that we get to have this debate!

 

[Zaac]

That's your right, and I understand the sentiment. I was just thinking from a legal perspective in terms of what "revenge" might be taken.

I would also fear that legal personhood could be the foundation for reversing at least part of any reversal of Roe v. Wade. The lawsuits that would swarm could be innumerable, and one might stick.

It's most important to stop abortion first, I agree. Then we can debate the best ways to ensure respect for human life without jeopardizing the progress we will have made.

But I do hope that we get to have this debate!

I don't think we will. Abortion has become something of an idol in the church. Often, Christians seem to care much more about standing against abortion than we do standing for Christ. And God will not have HIS place usurped by anyone or anything.

I envision God giving us the side eye when we say something like "I support Mitt Romney because he's anti-abortion" or "I support DT because he was for abortion and now he's against it".

It seemingly doesn't matter that they reject Jesus Christ as long as they are against abortion.

Pure idolatry. And again like the golden calf, I don't imagine God being okay with it.

 

[Alcott]

I don't think we will. Abortion has become something of an idol in the church. Often, Christians seem to care much more about standing against abortion than we do standing for Christ. And God will not have HIS place usurped by anyone or anything.

Pure idolatry. And again like the golden calf, I don't imagine God being okay with it.

Will God have his place usurped by racial equality? by welfare? by "....lives matter"? by peace treaties? healthcare?......

 

[Zaac]

Will God have his place usurped by racial equality? by welfare? by "....lives matter"? by peace treaties? healthcare?......

Are evangelicals rallying around a candidate who is for racial equality while rejecting Christ?
Are evangelicals rallying around a candidate who is for welfare while rejecting Jesus Christ?
Are evangelicals rallying around a candidate who is for "...lives matter" while rejecting Christ?
Are evangelicals rallying around a candidate who is for peace treaties while rejecting Christ?
Are evangelicals rallying around a candidate who is for healthcare while rejecting Christ?

Consistently, the single most defining issue for evangelicals (not all) continues to be abortion. Most of them don't seem to care if their candidate rejects Christ. Most don't seem to care that their candidate is an adulterer. Most don't seem to care that their candidate doesn't feel that he needs God's forgiveness. Most don't seem to care that he's a bigot. Most don't seem to care that he doesn't love his neighbor as himself. Most don't seem to care that he insults women and Hispanics and Blacks and gay people and immigrants ? Most don't seem to care that their candidate appears to be of worse moral character than even Bill Clinton from the 90s. And if I recall that time correctly, most evangelicals went on and on about how moral character mattered so much that they felt that Clinton should be impeached and removed from office . He wasn't fit to hold office they said.

Any of you supporting DT need to apologize to Bill Clinton.

 

[Alcott]

As if you didn't know, the meaning was that many people who claim the label,Christian, have a particular public issue that is more important to them than anything. And it's a reasonable suspicion that that includes you, based on the things you post on here. You say little about the gospel of Jesus Christ other than in this kind of context; your clear implication that anyone who voices support for a political candidate that you oppose has a different god-- and thus is not a Christian. Your roundabout way of questioning other posters' salvation is your god here (IMO, of course).

 

[Revmitchell]

That's your right, and I understand the sentiment. I was just thinking from a legal perspective in terms of what "revenge" might be taken.

I would also fear that legal personhood could be the foundation for reversing at least part of any reversal of Roe v. Wade. The lawsuits that would swarm could be innumerable, and one might stick.

It's most important to stop abortion first, I agree. Then we can debate the best ways to ensure respect for human life without jeopardizing the progress we will have made.

But I do hope that we get to have this debate!

I am not concerned what revenge might be taken. Deal with the life of the unborn child first. The revenge is not a factor as to whether we should do it or not.

 

[StefanM]

I am not concerned what revenge might be taken. Deal with the life of the unborn child first. The revenge is not a factor as to whether we should do it or not.

I agree that the life of the unborn child is paramount. My posts have been based on the assumption that abortion was outlawed. Until that happens, it's a moot point. But my purpose was always to explore the best way to make sure that abortion doesn't come back, if it can be outlawed.

 

[Revmitchell]

I agree that the life of the unborn child is paramount. My posts have been based on the assumption that abortion was outlawed. Until that happens, it's a moot point. But my purpose was always to explore the best way to make sure that abortion doesn't come back, if it can be outlawed.

So long as there are activist judges on the bench with wild imaginations there will always be the possibility of abortion.

 

[StefanM]

Any of you supporting DT need to apologize to Bill Clinton.

I don't. I've never been in favor of his impeachment. I thought what he did was immoral behavior, but I didn't think anything rose to the level of impeachment or conviction.

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't. I've never been in favor of his impeachment. I thought what he did was immoral behavior, but I didn't think anything rose to the level of impeachment or conviction.

Why do you think he was impeached?