Posted on 02/07/2019 11:23:08 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Please!!!
You really cannot be this dense.
He is running a Presidential campaign as a Republican with a completely hostile FAKE NEWS press, and you cannot see the reason for him paying her to be quiet?
Let’s do a thought experiment here...
What if he had defiantly decided to just let her take her accusations to the press while denying the tryst ever occured?
What do you think would have been the outcome?
1. I do not honor, nor feel obliged to honor, Napp Nazworth.
2. Michael Brown is a well-meaning but obtuse and naive quasi-theologian.
3. Evangelical is a severely abuse term: Any authentic Christian is Evangelical: a witness to the Evangelium, the Gospel, the Good News. This abuse has offended me for fifty years, ever since a so-called Evangelical told me I by definition was not an Evangelical Christian because I did not belong to one of his select list of Evangelical denominations. (The heathen media promotes this Big Lie.)
4. Donald Trump is a very worldly man. God alone knows if he is a genuine Christian. If he is, then he is among be least spiritually mature. However, he is seeking to preserve religious freedom as none of his predecessors in either party has done. Period.
5. Why do Nazworth and Brown not devote themselves to exposing and denouncing all the so-called Evangelicals who voted for the Marxist Muslim? Why do they not devote themselves to exposing and denouncing all the ones who voted for Bill Clinton, who yucked it up at Ron Brown’s funeral with that so-called Evangelical spiritual advisor, Tony Campolo? These sanctimonious preachers all have TDS, even if they claim to support Donald Trump.
6. I decided to vote for Trump the first I heard he had declared. I will vote for him again. I also plan to use my First Amendment rights to hold him accountable to his electorate.
7. I have served in ministry, and am not favorably impressed by the effete, fastidious virtue signalling of Michael Brown or Napp Nazworth.
8. Supposedly George W. Bush is a more decent, earnest Christian Evangelical than Trump, according to the cookie-cutter conservative Christians. Trump is a teetotaler. I do not vaunt his failed marriages, but what kind of history does Bush have? Drugs, and liquor, and fornication, according to what I have read. Did he ever repent - or did he just settle down when he got tired of it, and when his political aspirations required it? God knows, but neither Clinton, nor Bush, nor Obama is anyone to celebrate as some spiritual paragon. So why the obsession with Trump? (That is rhetorical.)
This!
This ^^
Just say she is lying?
Yeah, that worked so well for several other presidential candidates.
But it is nice to see you and the author both want to play by Alinsky rules.
I play by Breitbart's rules. When some baby killer whines at me about Trump I just say "So?"
I do pray that you and the author both learn to be less apologetic to the enemy and less ready to rush to take their lies about your allies as gospel.
Remember, just say "So?"
Ok, thanks for the come back.
RE: What if he had defiantly decided to just let her take her accusations to the press while denying the tryst ever occured?
What do you think would have been the outcome?
__________________
He would still win. His supporters, you and me who believe his policies are right and his opponent is dangerous will not budge and those who hate him already will not.
Nothing would change.
Paying her to say nothing makes the whole thing look suspicious.
BTW, let’s not ignore his cheating on Ivana with Marla and his Access Hollywood Tapes.
Less you say that I am trying to dig up old wounds, remember this, You asked about it, not me. You asked “What flaws” ( as if he did not have any ).
It does us no favors by ignoring the fact that he has done wrong in the past.
The most honest thing for evangelicals ( and I assume you are one, but correct me if I am wrong ) to do is acknowledge that he is a flawed human being but give reasons as to why even as we uphold Biblical morality, we can still, without hypocrisy, support him.
This is EXACTLY what this author has done.
RE: Just say she is lying?
Yeah, that worked so well for several other presidential candidates
________________
Why not? If she really lied, it would work for Trump. Would you support him any less if he said she lied? (that is, if the affair never occurred ). Of course we will.
RE: I do pray that you and the author both learn to be less apologetic to the enemy and less ready to rush to take their lies about your allies as gospel.
1) The author is not being apologetic to the enemy. His response is to a fellow evangelical, Napp Nazworth, as I read his past columns DOES NOT SUPPORT DEMOCRATS.
2) Giving a good reason as to why you support Trump EVEN if those past trysts were true is not apologizing, it is GIVING A GOOD REASON as to why doing so is not hypocritical.
It is in the interest of clear thinking.
1. I do not honor, nor feel obliged to honor, Napp Nazworth.
Then this article is not written for you. You will support Trump regardless.
2. Michael Brown is a well-meaning but obtuse and naive quasi-theologian.
That remains to be proven. I believe this article is well reasoned. Whether his theology is obtuse and naive is a topic for another thread.
3. Evangelical is a severely abuse term: Any authentic Christian is Evangelical: a witness to the Evangelium, the Gospel, the Good News. This abuse has offended me for fifty years, ever since a so-called Evangelical told me I by definition was not an Evangelical Christian because I did not belong to one of his select list of Evangelical denominations. (The heathen media promotes this Big Lie.)
I am not sure what this has to do with Michael Brown, but yes, I agree with you. We need to define the term “Evangelical”. What ever it is, you cannot exclude those who have reservations about Trump’s past moral failings.
4. Donald Trump is a very worldly man. God alone knows if he is a genuine Christian. If he is, then he is among be least spiritually mature. However, he is seeking to preserve religious freedom as none of his predecessors in either party has done. Period.
Well, I don’t see how the above conflicts with what Michael Brown wrote. You both agree in this area.
5. Why do Nazworth and Brown not devote themselves to exposing and denouncing all the so-called Evangelicals who voted for the Marxist Muslim?
Why do they not devote themselves to exposing and denouncing all the ones who voted for Bill Clinton, who yucked it up at Ron Brown’s funeral with that so-called Evangelical spiritual advisor, Tony Campolo? These sanctimonious preachers all have TDS, even if they claim to support Donald Trump.
Maybe you should go through the archives of the columns of both Nazworth and Brown or better still, listen to Michael Brown’s radio program before jumping to that conclusion. I have listened to him and I’ve seen him critique both Campolo and Jim Wallis. I have also heard him critique the Israel BDS movement. So, let’s not jump into hasty conclusions just yet simply because of this one article.
6. I decided to vote for Trump the first I heard he had declared. I will vote for him again. I also plan to use my First Amendment rights to hold him accountable to his electorate.
And so will I. But BECAUSE OF HIS POLICIES. And I am sure Michael Brown will do the same. This article simply shows WHY he will do the same.
7. I have served in ministry, and am not favorably impressed by the effete, fastidious virtue signalling of Michael Brown or Napp Nazworth.
I am not sure again as to what reasoning in this particular article you disagree with.
8. Supposedly George W. Bush is a more decent, earnest Christian Evangelical than Trump, according to the cookie-cutter conservative Christians. Trump is a teetotaler. I do not vaunt his failed marriages, but what kind of history does Bush have? Drugs, and liquor, and fornication, according to what I have read. Did he ever repent - or did he just settle down when he got tired of it, and when his political aspirations required it? God knows, but neither Clinton, nor Bush, nor Obama is anyone to celebrate as some spiritual paragon. So why the obsession with Trump? (That is rhetorical.)
I can’t answer this question for you as I cannot speak for every person ( even those who voted for Trump). But I think the obsession with Trump is because some Christians bring his past moral flaws up and on that basis call those Christians who vote for him hypocritical. Therefore, the need to respond to these people, hence, this article.
RE: Anyone who does is buying into the Alinsky tactics of the Left.
Why? If you give good reasons for your vote, those reasons NEUTRALIZE Alisnksy’s tactics. In fact It is keeping silence and not answering fake news that buy into Alinsky.
Enjoy the sanctimony. Your article is flawed because of what it ignored. Peace out.
1. If you’re a Christian, do you not know we are all flawed?
Yes, But Christians are very much against adultery. When Clinton committed adultery, it was Evangelical Christians who express their greatest concern. They did not want another President soiling the position with this immorality.
2. If you are looking for an unflawed person to vote for, and that is your criteria, perhaps you don’t understand much?
It is not too much to ask that the flaws not be as serious as adultery or sexual harassment?
3. George W was once a drunk, and let the left destroy him and his supporters, and then left the country to be ravaged by the left. Was that unflawed?
Let’s not conflate wrong headed policies ( i.e. left the country ravaged by the left ) with a person’s morality. And oh yeah, W’s excessive drinking was cause for concern too,
4. The entire piece was sanctimonious crap not dealing with these questions, which were more to the point than your sanctimonious article.
Excuse me? I don’t see the “sanctimonious crap” in the article. It was in fact, a response to the sanctimony express by other evangelicals. If the meaning of sanctimonious is “making a show of being morally superior to other people”, I don’t see that tone in this article.
5. Franklin Graham says Trump has been the most profoundly pro-life, pro-Christian President in his lifetime, here and around the world. That’s a better answer than anything in your article.
Did you read this article at all? Michael Brown in effect said the same thing as Franklin Graham. Did you even read this paragraph in the article ( copy and paste ):
“The alternative, which we are witnessing in front of our eyes, is the push to extend abortion “rights,” up to and including infanticide. Which do we prefer?
That, again, is why I can vote for Trump without compromising my moral authority. I was also voting for the lives of the unborn.”
RE: Enjoy the sanctimony. Your article is flawed because of what it ignored. Peace out.
Only if I see the sanctimony. The fact, is I don’t. I highly doubt that you even gave the article a serious look other than a cursory glance.
It began here: 1) to the extent evangelical supporters of Trump have looked to him to change the moral fabric of the nation, we have made a gross miscalculation; 2) to the extent evangelical leaders have excused the President’s bad behavior (especially in the present, with his tweets and his treatment of others), we have compromised our moral authority (a major point made by Napp); and 3) to the extent evangelicals have exchanged voting for praying and preaching, we have lost sight of our mission.
1. I doubt anyone looked to him to change the moral fabric of America. Although fighting the leftist evils is a good start.
2. Pointing out his tweets and his treatment of others is nothing, if not sanctimonious. The writer must be hiding in his closet, or is a triggered snowflake. Jesus was pretty mean with some of his sayings and criticisms too.
3. If evangelicals exchanged voting for praying and preaching? Really? Sanctimonious pronouncement, letting us know he would never do that....Good grief. What a defective apologist. Probably loved the Bush mealy-mouthed surrender to the left. That was just so classy. /s
I did skim the rest, in full. He had little to say, it was sanctimonious, and not worth a deeper reading.
Sorry pal. Dude failed miserably to say anything worthwhile.
Can't be said enough. The writer failed miserably. He has all the moral authority of David Brooks, or Jonah Goldbug.
“Why? If you give good reasons for your vote, those reasons NEUTRALIZE Alisnksy’s tactics.”
No, you SUBMIT to Alinsky tactics when you operate on their field of play.
Allinsky tactics are never used in good faith.
RE: No, you SUBMIT to Alinsky tactics when you operate on their field of play.
I find the above reasoning strange. To give good reasons to persuade and to show how the other side is wrong is submitting?
In fact, NOT responding is to give them the stage. THAT is submitting.
RE: Can’t be said enough. The writer failed miserably. He has all the moral authority of David Brooks, or Jonah Goldbug.
And there lies the problem with your reasoning. David Brooks and Jonah Goldberg are BOTH consistent NeverTrumpers. Brooks in fact calls himself a “conservative” when he favors gay marriage and abortion, something Brown eloquently writes against.
This writer is not a NeverTrumper like thse two folks you try to equate him to. You’ve probably not even read any of his many articles defending and supporting Trump other than this one ( which IS IN EFFECT a defense of Trump ).
RE: 1. I doubt anyone looked to him to change the moral fabric of America. Although fighting the leftist evils is a good start.
The folks this writer addresses want a President who is CONSISTENT morally and in his policies ( someone like Mike Pence for instance ). The fact that Evangelicals like Napp Nazzworth exists already shows that.
So, I don’t think your above statement is accurate.
This article is written PRECISELY to those evangelicals who want a President to be consistently moral in his life and to show them that this is not always realistic and in the case of Trump, not to demand such expectations.
2. Pointing out his tweets and his treatment of others is nothing, if not sanctimonious. The writer must be hiding in his closet, or is a triggered snowflake. Jesus was pretty mean with some of his sayings and criticisms too.
This is simply a difference in preference between yourself and the writer. You might enjoy him insulting people like Meryl Streep, Kim Jong-Un, Rosie O’ Donnell (calling her a pig ) and others, but some people want him to tone down the rhetoric.
3. If evangelicals exchanged voting for praying and preaching? Really? Sanctimonious pronouncement, letting us know he would never do that....Good grief. What a defective apologist. Probably loved the Bush mealy-mouthed surrender to the left. That was just so classy. /s
You MISQUOTE HIM a little. He did not say “*if* evangelicals exchanged voting for praying and preaching”
He said this: “TO THE EXTENT evangelicals have exchanged voting for praying and preaching, we have lost sight of our mission.”
He is talking to those evangelicals focus purely on politics ( and there are many ) while ignoring the Biblical admonition to pray for our leaders.
RE: I did skim the rest, in full. He had little to say, it was sanctimonious, and not worth a deeper reading.
He probably has little to say TO YOU. But he had a lot to say to Evangelicals like Napp Nazzwroth and that was the focus of his column.
RE: Sorry pal. Dude failed miserably to say anything worthwhile.
BTW, if you are going to use a word, please use it accurately.
Here is the definition of sanctimonious: “making a show of being morally superior to other people.” I don’t see this article as sanctimonious at all.
In fact, this article is addressed to those who ARE sanctimonious.
“But please, let us not pretend that some of Trump’s past sins never existed.”
Fair enough - we certainly shouldn’t pretend anything.
While we’re at it, let’s not pretend we know anything about each other’s sins beyond what we learned through the giant filter of mass media. Let’s not pretend mass media is unbiased. Let’s not pretend that mass media is a anything other than a giant gossip column. Gossip with an Leftist agenda. They work that agenda night and day. They have people believing what they want them to believe - a story - peppered with just enough truth to make it ring true. But the result is still a big lie.
I’m sorry, but when I hear references to Donald Trump’s “ungodly conduct” by the same media that refers to JFK’s conduct in the White House as “Camelot”, and WJC’s conduct in the White House as “None of our Business” - I have to laugh...but in a sad way...
Warm FReegards,
E
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.