Posted on 01/22/2016 1:51:38 PM PST by The_Republic_Of_Maine
Sometimes a picture is worth a ten thousand word essay.
I think it will be :
Trump/or Cruz vs Biden
I think Obama has planned Hillary’s demise for a while
Step out of the defensive mode here.. I merely asked a question.
In Trump I don’t see a liberal or conservative... I see an opportunist.
While it is true Trump isn’t buying or selling concrete goods or services, he’s attempting to access the most powerful office in the world. It seems his backers are placing their hopes behind a very large leap of faith that he’s actually.. this time.. telling the truth of his convictions.
If as you say Trump wasn’t “playing people,” tell me.. how then do you square with the fact he has a lengthy history of backing policies that peg decidedly to the liberal side? Either he was calculatedly putting out the bromides that pleased the ears of his audience then, or his stances on abortion, amnesty, single-payer, Kelo, etc. were genuine. That’s the hurdle many of the doubters are having with him. Call me jaded, but I’m not that easily brought to trust someone with that kind of background.
Smart move, unless you're suggesting Trump is now somehow the Devil.
If I say two is to six as three is to nine, it doesn’t mean nine is six.
I’m not sure what all that means.
You’re not implying Trump is the Devil are you? This is not a complex question.
Of course Trump isn't the Devil. The Devil is an entity that tries to win humans over to his side by convincing them that they can never aspire to the goodness that is God.
Oh, got it. Thanks
You’re making assumptions. That’s not helping. Keep it real brah’.
Trump’s unfavorables are HIGHER than Cruz’s. Trump’s likability polls are LOWER than Cruz’s. In a general election, Cruz does better against Hillary than Trump.
Take heart. Vote for the most conservative candidate, AND the most electable. Cruz.
And also not to judge the state of another's private salvation between himself and God.
“But, I heard that Trump dipped a little girl’s ponytail in his inkwell in 3rd grade, how can we support someone like that?”
Well, I heard she was a snotty little ginger so she deserved it.
If a person actively denies having had any interest in the most basic tenet of Christianity, is it really "judging" to take them at their word?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyDbOHvfdiE
I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.
Trump's words were not a "denial of any interest" -- his words simply revealed that his understanding is imperfect and still based on the outward attempt to obtain grace by works -- which, you have to admit, is a common misunderstanding among many who claim to be Christian.
Should Trump be nominated or elected, God will still be in charge. the Bible is clear that God uses "kings"-- chief national administrators -- and anoints them for His purposes (Rom 13). From ancient times, God's requirement for national chieftains is that they administer justice equitably to the poor as well as those better off (Prov 16:12; 20:28; 29:4; 29:14).
Christians are under instruction to appoint righteous ministers in our churches; and while Christians' obedience to goverment authority is mandated in Romans, the Bible does not specify "only if the authorities are Christian." Our Constitution does not require a certification of Christian salvation to be eligible for the Presidency.
The Bible gives us many examples of "kings" whose actions were morally imperfect, but whose reigns were still useful to God's purposes for His people. King David, for instance, killed his love rival so he could take the rival's wife, Bathsheba (2 Sam 11, 12). Yet by the time David was on his deathbed, with his several wives jockeying to try to make their sons the next king, he prayed to God, thanking Him for having given him the strength to kill and humiliate his opponents and to behead his enemies (2 Sam 22:38-43) in order to establish the kingdom of Israel, and he claimed in verses 21-25 to have always been righteous and to have kept the law of the Lord; therefore he was deserving of the Lord's favor. So there is a conflict of fact there -- did he always keep the law of the Lord, since adultery had been established as a sin from the time of Moses? And this view that "works" can bring about his salvation is a pre-Christian understanding at best; but it is also a demonstration of the mind of a king who needed to depend on the Lord's favor mentally in order to do the things he was called to do by the Lord -- establish the kingdom in earthly terms, through bloody battle, as well as lay a foundation for it spiritually.
David had, however, repented as Christians would later be instructed to do in order to achieve salvation, although he needed to be called out by Nathan before he did so (2 Sam 12:13). Centuries later, after Christ's ministry and ascension, the ancient King David was praised: "God testified concerning him: 'I have found David son of Jesse, a man after my own heart; he will do everything I want him to do' " (Acts 13:22); and we still read David's book of Psalms today. Although an imperfect human who sinned and may have understood salvation imperfectly, David received the Lord's favor because God used David's individual gifts and strengths.
In the many books of the Bible describing the exile of the Jewish people into Babylon, we find the stories of Cyrus and Darius, pagan kings of Persia, who were used by God to benefit His chosen people. Cyrus restored the Jews to Jerusalem, ending their exile in Bablylonia and sending with them the treasures that had been looted from the Temple of Solomon by his predecessor Nebuchadnezzar (Ezra 1:1-11). Cyrus was prompted by God, who "stirred up his spirit" -- yet, he was a pagan. But through his actions, and those of a subsequent pagan king Darius, who kept opponents of the Jews from frustrating their efforts to rebuld the Temple (Ezra 4) -- we are Christians today.
You might also note that Ezra didn't even read his own mail -- it was read to him (Ez 4:18). But he was the anointed one through whom God worked to restore Israel.
Now, in case you are saying to yourself right now that I'm comparing Trump to Biblical kings, I'm not. But I am pointing out the mystery, once again, that God works in mysterious ways to bring about His purposes. The Bible gives us examples to consider how He works. God alone is worthy of worship.
As regards the state of Trump's salvation: speaking for myself, true surrender to the Word also came later in my life, even though I considered myself Christian since birth and behaved as I believed the Bible instructed me to in relation to the world. It was the inward surrender that was missing. Yet I was able to accomplish good for others even though my heart was still not ready for complete surrender; that was a painful process so devastating that it sapped my energy for years when it came. God saw me through His earlier purposes for me and broke me when it suited Him, and when my physical strength and will would be less needed by the famlly for which I was responsible. Can the same not be true for someone like Trump, whose skills are needed for the nation now? Already, his clear denunciations of govenment corruption and media/governmental waffling about immigration, political correctness and the dangers of jihadist infiltration have crystallized those dangers to our nation and brought about changes as no one else has been able to do just prior.
Can a president who must order and take responsibility for armies, knowing that many will be killed or maimed, many in error, live his life as a monk in constant adherence to the letter of the spiritual law? It is not even possible in a civil society in which "strangers" (non-Christians) also have the same civil rights ("Rain falls on the just and the unjust" - Matt 5:45). Because if he did follow all laws to the letter, he would have to do everything in the Name of God rather than Caesar, proclaiming Jesus, which would bring down a rain of legal opposiiton from the organized satanic forces already well installed in our laws.
That freedom of Proclamation that our Founders enjoyed does not exist today and has been under decades of legal attack by atheists, communists, cultural jihadists, other religionists and now, Chrisitan apostates. The next president must step into the situation as it is, not as we wish it to be, and work within or in contention with that corrupted system to move jurisprudence back towards protection of the civil rights of Christians, which today are the only majority religious rights under attack, while muslims, atheists and homosexualists are enjoying special privileges and protections. Unless you want him to be a dictator ruling by executive order as Obama has, the next president will have to amass a majority of voter opinion, legislators and legal authorities around the impetus to restore balanced rights. Trump is well suited, I claim best suited, to achieve a broad dialog and incremental change, even if he only views it as "deal-making" -- and perhaps because he might only speak of it that way.
Most Christians quite naturally gravitate to the one who openly proclaims the interests of Christians, such as Senator Cruz. But consider that in taking that stand as the Christian's legal champion, he is also implicitly promising that in his administration, non-Christians will be legally coerced to follow Christian standards of morality. Yet this is just what the powers and principalities will fight against most fiercely, defying any direct call for what they view as frightening opposition to their carnal desires.
In contrast, a man like Trump who may not express open surrender to Christ, but rather a mere secularized interest in playing "the religion piece" on the chessboard for the sake of a more just society -- such an agent may be more useful to God in moving this sinful nation back around gradually to receive its Awakening. Christians cannot hope to impose their morality simply by passing a lot of laws and using the power of the state to enforce them. That is the direct approach many desire and believe could be taken by Cruz; and it's both a set-up for disappointment, it courts the outbreak of bloody civil protests, as beneficiaries of the recent past's Sexual Revolution defend their now-fortified institutions of promiscuity, abortion, cohabitation, adultery, "no-fault" divorce, homosexual and transsexual normalization, artificial or third-party fertilization and gestational surrogacy. That's a lot of people with entrenched lifestyles currently protected by law to go up against. Trump just doesn't look as threatening to them. As such, he may be able to accomplish more, with less opposition.
Neither Cruz nor any American president in this coming four years will be able to set aside the calamitous mass of laws since World War II that have deinstitutionalized Christianity and erected secular atheism in its place: laws from the level of Supreme Court decisions all the way throughout hundreds of thousands of state, local and community ordinances and Federal regulations that now protect unChristian ways of life as described above. The sheer volume of anti-Christian law now on the books will require a shrewd strategist and tactician who can deliver, at best, some demonstration cases and, more importantly, a blueprint for the eventual deep restoration of equity towards Christians, defense of the history of Christianity in American culture and a long-range plan of corrective legal action. That kind of thinking is more in line with the redeveloper experience of Mr. Trump. The electorate would not expect Trump to prioritize the whole restoration of Christian society from the get-go as Cruz supporters seem to think Cruz should -- as if, given the above constraints, he could. God might choose the slower, less obvious use of Trump's experience in strategy, problem-solving and planning, disguised somewhat by Trump's non-orthodox expressions of belief. This appearance of not being a gung-ho Christian may work in God's favor to make a Trump administration more acceptable to a wider range of citizens, many of whom are not strong in Christian faith, and also give Trump cover from the fiercest direct attacks regarding Christian restoration.
The more cynical among us will believe Trump is every bit as hypocritical about Christianity as Obama, who claims the Name but defies His Word now quite openly. Yet Trump has no muslim parent, foreign childhood among muslims, nor caliphate-sympathizing aspirations up his sleeve, as Obama did. If Trump should disappoint in this area by delivering only a blueprint instead of a finished Tower of Christian Restoration, it will still move us farther ahead than we are now, starting with his vow to turn back the planned insurgency of muslim "refugees" into the U.S. --Trump was the first candidate and consistently the most adamant about walling off the invasion by illegals and turning away any potential jihadist Trojan Horse.
In closing, here are two videos that you may find the time to watch. The first is the introduction of Trump by Reverend Jerry Falwell Jr, explaining to the students of Liberty University of which Falwellhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rksd80-FCAw is president, his view that voting for an avowed Christian has not always resulted in the best outcome:
Rev Jerry Falwell Jr introduces Donald Trump
The second is Donald Trump testifying before the U.S. Congress in 1991, giving his reasons why the banking laws of the day were depressing the economy, denying jobs and affordable housing to people, including low-income housing. It is long, but it gives a clear view of a man who, 25 years ago, was already thinking both broadly and specifically not just about law as it would benefit him, but about the people it would affect and what would be most fair for the most people:
Indeed.
I live in Texas and worked and voted for Cruz to be my Senator. Proud of him.
I like Trump for his anger at Wash DC, the professional politicos and the chattering classes—and his true belief in protecting our borders (my son was a Border Patrol Agent and illegals tried to kill him one night) and stopping the muslime invasion.
I am angry too, and collegiality has its place, like in the Senate chamber, but when this great country has moved so far left that an open socialist is leading in the democrat primary, I’ve had enough.
To me taking your ball home instead of doing something to stop a socialist (for gawd’s sake) or the evil witch from being elected is the ultimate betrayal. Our nation will be lost is we don’t keep the socialist and witch out of the White House, if only because the SCOTUS will be in play this next presidential term. One can argue if Cruz nominations to the SCOTUS would make it through or be “Borked,” and one can argue if Trumps picks will be reliably “conservative” in their votes, but one thing is for certain, with the gutless republicans in the Senate president Bernie or President Hitlery WILL get their reliably socialist/lefty nominees on the court. . .and there will be more than one this next term so the court will be lost for generations and our nation may not survive with internationalists and socialist/activist judges. . .that is my fear.
Further, some days I am more for Cruz, some days more for Trump. The thing is, I’m not sure just yet and threads on the subject are nothing more than insults and petty snipes at those that don’t NOW back their sainted choice.
Threads seem to be all rude bluster and all I want is an honest, unemotional and rational discussion of the candidates and their positions, not yelling and hype, insults (”you must be a XXXXX supporter if you disagree with me”).
Attempts to manipulate or intimidate do not win any backers and reflect poorly on your sainted choice of a candidate, as well as provide aide and comfort, as well as ammunition, to Bernie and Hitlery.
It is well past the time to knock off the circular firing squad and focus on the real enemy—the democrat party.
It is time we rationally discuss the candidates without rancor and with intellectual rigor.
Just me venting. . .
It’s going to hurt you to kick against the goads.
Same here.
Show me his voting record on the issues of the day.
PWN3D!!!
I'm glad my little ginger, my Pride and Joy, is not Trump's age nor classmate. I'd have to report myself to the Secret Service.
We are to give place to wrath... to whom? "Government authority"....
Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. Rom. 12:19
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities... For rulers are NOT a terror to good works, but to evil. Rom. 13:1, 3 (emphasis mine)
For [the governing authority] is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Rom. 13:4
I don't know about you, but I want to make sure who I cast my lot for knows the Lord. You can give a pass again for the most basic tenet of Christianity (asking forgiveness), but if one can't understand the milk how are they to grasp the meat?
Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judge by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? 1 Cor. 6:2-5
Is Trump a brethren or not? You suggest we give him a pass. Then we are to judge him rightly as such.
....he who is spiritual judges all things... 1 Cor. 2:15
Yes, one can view his male and female strip clubs in the equation.
Trump has praised his sister (pro-abortion activist judge) and even suggest she would make a fine supreme court justice.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/423196/trump-praises-his-sister-pro-abortion-extremist-judge-ramesh-ponnuru
Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. Eccl. 8:11
Nope, I will pass on Trump.
-------------------------------
P.S. Thanks for the link on Fawell Jr. Believe you me, it was debated quite heavily previously on my FB friend pages. Fawell did not "fare well" (pun intended) in the discussions.
http://www.ijreview.com/2016/01/517794-russell-moore-on-donald-trump-and-ted-cruz/
--------------------------
Finally I want to touch on "The Lesser of Two Evils"...
I am not as elegant a writer as I would like to be. So I am going to borrow a few lines from a FB friend of mine... (H/T to LMH)
QUOTE: Whenever election time rolls around and the candidates are less than perfect (which is every time), there is a debate between those who refuse to support the "lesser of two evils" and those who insist that we must to prevent the greater evil. Here's my take.
The problem isn't necessarily voting for the "lesser evil," per se. In any dichotomous choice, there will always be two choices that can be presented as a greater and lesser evil, but that doesn't mean that both are evil or we can never choose either. The question is whether we are actually supporting evil or merely getting less good than some ideal.
In a choice between Jesus and the Apostle Paul for your pastor, would it be accurate to describe Jesus as the lesser of two evils just because he's the better option? Clearly not. Yet some take every choice between two options, label it a choice between evils and refuse to choose either. This is faulty reasoning.
On the other hand, in a choice between Hitler and Stalin, both are so evil that you must choose neither. It's not because you can't choose the "lesser evil" but because you cannot support evil.
We must be careful not to let an unattainable ideal become the enemy of the real good we can achieve now. Imperfection and flaws don't necessarily constitute evil that we can't support. If we refuse to support anyone unless we get everything we want, we are contributing to the greater evil by refusing to stand against it where we have a chance of stopping it.
But on the other hand, whoever we support must have some redeeming quality and not be of such horrible moral character that we would contributing to evil in supporting him, even if he is less evil than the alternative. There has to be some minimum standard in place, not merely that we will support anyone as long as the alternative is worse. Sometimes you have to take a stand even when the odds are against you because to do otherwise is to collude with evil. Wisdom is knowing where to draw the line. END QUOTE
-----------------------------------
P.S. I would like to end saying it was a pleasure commenting to you Albion Wilde. I can tell you are a gentleman though we hold different opinions on this subject at times.
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.